Posted by: Barry Bickmore | March 18, 2016

Trump is YOUR Fault, and You Suck

Like many others, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the Presidency, I didn’t take it too seriously.  But now that he has an increasingly good chance of becoming the Republican nominee, we are asking, “Who are these idiots supporting Trump?” and most importantly, “Who is to blame?”  Pundits from across the political spectrum have been busily pointing fingers, and in my judgment, they’re almost all right.  A lot of different groups are culpable for the fact that there is now a non-negligible chance that next year we will have an unstable, narcissistic, demagogic, xenophobic, orange, philandering, creepy, loathsome, bigoted, proto-Fascist for a President.  You, dear Reader, might just be one of them.  And so in this post, I will explain why you suck, and are therefore probably to blame for Trump.

Okay, maybe you don’t personally suck, but there are an awful lot of people who do.  Here they are.

1. Trump Supporters

No, Trump supporters, you are not off the hook.  At first we thought you were just undereducated hillbillies who had been dazzled by a Reality TV star even more famous than Honey Boo Boo, but it turns out you aren’t all like that.  The most credible research to date indicates that you are largely composed of people with “Authoritarian” personalities. Authoritarianism is

a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

Even some people who aren’t normally strongly authoritarian can have latent authoritarian tendencies manifest in times of physical danger or great social change, and today certainly fits the bill.  Islamic terrorists pop up in Paris or San Diego, killing random people.  The legal definition of marriage just changed by Supreme Court fiat.  More young people than ever are foregoing marriage, indicating a lack of respect for a social institution that has been a stabilizing force for thousands of years in cultures across the world.  I get it.

But let’s think about this for a minute.  Maybe I can give you a pass for believing the Donald when he makes outlandish promises without giving many details, but what about when he has given details, and those details are either absurd or abhorrent?  Like when he said he would solve our immigration problems by building a giant wall along our southern border, paid for by Mexico?  Or when he said he was going to round up and deport 11 million illegal immigrants by… get this… tripling the number of immigrations and customs officers?  (Right now we deport significantly less than half a million people per year.)  These proposals are absurd to the point of idiocy.  What about when Trump said he would “broaden” the law to authorize the torture of terrorists?  Or when he said he would “temporarily” ban all 1.5 billion Muslims from entering the country, because some Muslims are terrorists?  These proposals are both morally abhorrent and would flagrantly violate the Constitution.  (Check out the First and Eighth Amendments.  Really.  Thomas Jefferson said the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment was put in there because “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions,” and if the Eighth Amendment doesn’t refer to torture when it bans “cruel and unusual punishment,” the phrase can’t really have any meaning.)   So no, I’m not giving you a pass for suspending all rational thought and moral principle just because you’re scared of terrorists and uncomfortable with recent social changes.  So am I.  So are a lot of people.  When times get tough, it’s time to grow a spine, you pansies.

You suck.

2. The Republican Establishment

Look, guys, I’m on your side in this particular fight.  That is, I think nominating Donald Trump would be a complete disaster for the Party.  But a lot of us saw a crack-up like this coming, even if we couldn’t imagine the form it would take.

Faced with a dwindling core demographic, the Party insiders and donors had a choice.  Either they could promote some softening of the Party platform to broaden the appeal, or they could stoke up “the base” and get out the vote.  They chose the latter, with the Tea Party becoming the inevitable result.  But going that route is always a tricky business.  In a two-party political system like ours, you can count on “the base” (i.e., the most extreme wing of the Party) not to vote for the other guys, but if they don’t see enough difference between the two parties, some of them won’t be motivated to vote at all, or they will scuttle your chances by running a third-party spoiler like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot.  This is always dangerous, because in my experience, “the base” in either party includes a disproportionate number of people who aren’t exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.  The trick the “Establishment” in either party has to pull off is to throw enough bones to the base to keep them coming out to vote, without making them feel particularly empowered.  Once you release the Kraken, it’s not so easy to put it back.

Over the last decade or three, the Republican platform slid from Conservative (i.e., taking a measured approach to government intervention and social change) toward a quasi-religious Libertarianism.  This type is so hyper-ideological that it rejects all compromise and creates all sorts of litmus tests for political candidates.  “Read my lips:  no new taxes” said George Bush Sr. in the 1988 presidential campaign.  Oh, he tried to keep his promise, but he didn’t have the support in Congress, so he had to compromise.  This was too much to take for some, and Pat Buchanan used this bludgeon to weaken Bush in the 1992 primaries.  Bush may have been stupid to handcuff himself like that, but by the 2012 race, most Republican congressional candidates didn’t have much choice when Grover Norquist strong-armed them into signing his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge“.  The fear of Tea Party backlash among the Republican presidential candidates was so strong that all eight of them promised they would not support a hypothetical deal that would address deficit spending with a 10-to-1 combination of spending cuts and tax increases.  In my opinion, that was one of the saddest moments in GOP history.  In what universe could the Republicans hope to get a more favorable deal and still address deficit spending?   By pandering to the Tea Party, the Republican establishment forced its candidates to go hard right into Fantasyland, or face a Tea Party challenger in the primaries.

The thing is, most Republicans aren’t that far to the political right.  Is it any wonder, after years of candidates who promise to do politically impossible things like address deficit spending without any tax increases, that many Republicans would be attracted by a candidate who mainly makes grandiose promises without giving any details?

You suck.

3. The Tea Party

Just because the Party establishment caused this mess by pandering to hyper-ideological nuts, it doesn’t excuse you for being those hyper-ideological nuts.

A case in point is how the GOP has handled the threat of human-caused climate change since the Tea Party all but took over.  Before that time, it was common for Republican lawmakers (like Newt Gingrich and John McCain) to acknowledge that we needed to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Why?  Because almost all the scientists who specialize in climate said so.  They still do.  And yet, for the past several years, it has been taboo for Republican candidates to express any desire to take action on this.

The reason  for this shift is that certain deep-pocketed individuals and corporations who depend on fossil fuel revenues started pouring an enormous amount of money into “think tanks” and “astroturf” political organizations who argued either that mainstream climate scientists were much more divided on the issue than the public had been led to believe, or it was all a big hoax meant to give the Left a chance to “take away our freedom.”  They found a willing audience in the Tea Party hordes.

I know, I know.  You are going to tell me that it REALLY IS all a hoax, and there REALLY IS no consensus, etc., etc.  There’s a simple way to pop that balloon, however.  Over the last several years, I can probably count on one hand the number of ACTUAL climate scientists the Republicans have asked to testify in Congressional hearings about climate change, whereas there has been a constant parade of different climate scientists testifying for the Democrats.  In fact, in some of those hearings, the only “expert witness” on climate science the Republicans called was Lord Christopher Monckton, who is not a scientist, claims to have cured AIDS and many other diseases, goes about falsely claiming to be a member of the UK Parliament, regularly threatens to sue or jail those who disagree with him, and much, much more.  The man is a loon.  A complete crackpot.  And yet, at one of the aforementioned Congressional hearings,  Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) referred to Monckton as “one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side.”  During the hearing Barton also said, “Adapting is a common way for people to adapt to their environment.”  I’m just throwing that out there.

So no, Tea Partiers, you don’t get a pass.  You and the fossil fuel interests who pay to stoke the flames of your idiocy are guilty of driving the GOP into a state of anti-intellectualism more blatant than has been seen in many decades.  Is it any wonder that a blowhard like Trump can so easily swoop in and co-opt a bunch of Republicans who aren’t as ideologically pure as you, but whom you have successfully convinced to ignore the experts?  Now Trump is telling them climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.  Why not?  Who’s to say what’s right or wrong, what with space-age materials and such?

You suck.

4. Sneering Liberals

“False equivalence!  Hippie punching!” you screech.  Shut up.

I understand that Trump supporters themselves must take the lion’s share of the blame, and that conservatives have been giving you a lot of material for sneering, especially lately.  But I’m so sick of listening to you boil down complex social issues to pop-culture clichés, which are then unthinkingly accepted by slack-jawed teenagers.  You take the fact that the Right has become insular and anti-intellectual about some issues, and then just assume that this constitutes evidence against every aspect of Conservative thought.  Certainly it’s true that conservatives are more likely to be anti-intellectual, because the word “conservative” implies a certain resistance to new ideas.  However, liberals can be astonishingly obtuse about certain issues, as well.

Don’t take my word for it.  Read up on the work of Jon Haidt, a liberal psychology professor at NYU, who has for many years studied how liberals and conservatives differ in their reasoning about moral issues.  He has found that conservatives tend to be more adept at moral reasoning, both in the sense that their reasoning is more complex, and in the sense that they are more adept at understanding the reasoning of those with whom they disagree (liberals).  In other words, you really just don’t get it.

The fact is that there are legitimate reasons, having nothing to do with racism or sexism, to want to at least place some limitations on things like affirmative action policies or abortion.  And yet, every time someone pops their head up to argue from that kind of perspective, a horde of self-righteous Lefty zealots comes running to publicly shame them.  Oh, I’m sure people sometimes deserve to be publicly shamed, but the bar seems to be set pretty low.  I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people labeled racists, not because of what they said, but because of the hidden subtext that only other racists (and their liberal watchdogs) could hear.  I’m sure “dog-whistle politics” is a real thing, but the dog-whistle hunters can get awfully carried away.

You might be complaining that all those dog whistles you hear are REAL,  so where does Barry get off criticizing you for merely pointing them out?  He’s probably a racist!  But here’s the thing you don’t seem to understand.  If the end goal is a society free of individuals who harbor racist (or sexist, or whatever-ist) attitudes, endless nitpicking after basic non-discrimination laws have been put in place is usually counterproductive.  That is, even if you are right that some person harbors secret racist attitudes, they don’t want to be forced into admitting it, especially if they feel like they haven’t unfairly discriminated against anyone.  They will come to feel like they are the target of some kind of witch hunt, and may come to ignore more obviously legitimate criticisms.  Everybody hates a nag.

Honestly, do you think all those Trump supporters are overt racists and misogynists?  Clearly they are not, but then why does their support seem to be unaffected when Trump wants to ban all Muslim immigrants, has to think hard about whether to disavow the KKK, or viciously attacks women, disabled reporters, and so on?  I believe it’s because people like you have become so annoying that many others have become deaf to all complaints about racism, sexism, etc.

These people are even ready to ignore it when Trump brazenly ENCOURAGES violence against protesters at his rallies.  Why?  Because they are sick of you protesting so much.  I mean, some (not all) of the protesters in question have gone to Trump rallies specifically to cause disruptions.  Of course I see hints of Fascism in the violence Trump eggs on, but one thing I haven’t seen is Trump supporters trying to break up someone else’s meetings.  Hitler’s Brownshirts did just that.  So if we combine the violence of some Trump supporters with the determined opposition to free speech of the liberal protesters, we really do have a nice Fascist revival going on.  Thanks, guys.

Still not convinced that you are partly to blame?  Let me give you a concrete example that doesn’t have to do with Trump.  In 2009, Lord Christopher Monckton participated in a meeting held by Americans for Prosperity, in conjunction with the big climate change conference in Copenhagen.  During the meeting, some young activists crashed the meeting and tried to disrupt it by chanting.  Afterward, Monckton confronted some of them, and called them “Nazis” and “Hitler Youth”.  But, surprise!, one of the protesters was… (gasp!) … Jewish!  Liberal bloggers and news outlets seized on this incident.  At last, they had something so blatant that it would surely destroy Monckton’s credibility even with his supporters!  What kind of monster would call Jewish protesters “Hitler Youth”?  I am e-friends with many of these people because of my blog, and I tried to tell them this incident wouldn’t sway anyone.  Nobody can accuse me of being soft on Monckton, but even I thought His Worship was right about this one.  These idiots were behaving similarly to the Hitler Youth (minus the violence), and it was inexcusable.

“But they were trying to save the world from the likes of that evil climate change denier,” you object.  Of course they were.  Zealots of any stripe always are.  That doesn’t mean it’s ok for you to do anything you want in response to what someone else says.  And the fact is that you are never going to save the world from climate change without a whole lot of cooperation… which you will never get if even moderates like me are leery of the kind of tactics you use to get your way.

So yes, Trumpism is partly your fault, and you suck.

UPDATE:  Some of my liberal friends are upset that I broad brush liberalism here, whereas I tease out quite a bit of nuance among Republicans.  My reasoning is that if you are just a regular liberal, rather than the “sneering” variety, I don’t feel like I have any cause to blame you for Trumpism.

5.  Moderate Republicans

I’m a moderate Republican myself, so it might seem strange that I’m reserving some of the blame for my own group, but the fact is that many of us deserve it.  Moderates are all about compromise and getting along.  The world needs people like that, but that doesn’t give us an excuse for letting people get away with bringing sheer fantasy to the bargaining table.  Consider this excerpt from a 2011 story by Coral Davenport.

Sen. John Barrasso is no stranger to science. The Wyoming Republican is an orthopedic surgeon who earned his medical degree from Georgetown University. His rigorous intellect won him Washingtonian magazine’s designation last year as the “brainiest senator,” based on an anonymous survey of Capitol Hill staffers.

Which is why Barrasso’s reaction when a reporter recently asked his views on climate change was so telling. On his way to the weekly Senate GOP luncheon in the Capitol building, Barrasso paused in an empty hallway to chat. When a reporter said, “Senator, can I ask you a question about climate change?” he fell silent and his eyes narrowed. “I’m busy,” he snapped, before turning sharply and striding away.

Two days later, the reporter tried again. Approached in the Capitol, Barrasso smiled and appeared poised to answer questions, inviting the reporter into an elevator with him. As the door slid shut, the reporter asked, “Do you believe that climate change is causing the Earth to warm?” A long silence ensued. The senator eventually let out a slow laugh and said, “This isn’t the time to have that conversation.” As soon as the elevator opened, he clapped his phone to his ear and walked briskly toward the Capitol subway.

Dodging difficult issues because some of your voters don’t want to hear the truth is called being spineless, not moderate.

The discontent among non-Tea Party Republicans has been brewing for some time, and if more moderates had shown any real courage and conviction, we could have been leading the revolution.  But we haven’t, so instead it’s being led by a ridiculous fop, who can fool some people into thinking he’s a tough guy who will save the country from the legislative gridlock we have been experiencing.

We suck.

UPDATE:  Some of my friends point out that I left out the Media.  In fact, the omission was intentional, because I completely understand the media reaction.  What are they supposed to do when a major-party presidential frontrunner says and does outrageous and awful things?  Normally, that kind of attention would be the death-knell of the campaign, but this time it seemed to only increase Trump’s popularity.  The media didn’t anticipate this (why would they?), and were caught flat-footed.  I suppose I could go on about the death of real journalism, leading to a populace who thinks in soundbites, but that would make this piece much longer.

 

 

 

 


Responses

  1. I’m disappointed you stopped at 2. I was hoping for far more groups being to blame.

    However, I’m fully with you on part two. The way the Repubs have drifted into la-la land, they can hardly blame themselves if they get people taking them seriously and voting for a la-la candidate.

    I’m curious, so I’ll ask: assuming Trump is unstoppable, do you think he’s so obviously a disaster to non-core-Repub voters that whoever the Dems put up is guaranteed a walkover?

    • Sorry, I didn’t mean to publish then. Now the whole thing is up.

  2. “The legal definition of marriage just changed by Supreme Court fiat.”

    Well, given the definition of marriage was changed by the Anglican/RCC in the last couple hundred years, about when the USA went independent, it’s really bugger all problem re-redefining it today.

    That’s right, folks, the church used to be merely one option for marriage, but the church, demanding more power over people, demanded that they get the sole right to marry. Only the obscure and almost never used loophole of a captain of a ship being able to marry you remains.

    And that was in the 18th century.

    VERY recently.

    Mind you, the demands aren’t really sensible.

    1) “It’s to make children!”, but we don’t annul post-menopausal marriage. Or sterile couples. Or any other situation where it’s not going to end up with children.
    2) “It’s always been one man, one woman, the bible says so” really never happened. Multiple wives for some, no wives for most was what happened.
    3) “It will make a mockery of marriage!” It won’t affect you at all, unless you’re gay or lesbian, in which case you can now do the same act of love of your partner as any other group manged to do (absent the ban of interracial marriage until recently)

    But the fact of the matter is that the church demanded of government that they change the law so they were the only ones allowed to issue legal marriages. Changing the deal again, especially when the churches aren’t all that central to life elsewhere any more, is merely SOP.

  3. ” will have an unstable, narcissistic, demagogic, xenophobic, orange, philandering, creepy, loathsome, bigoted, proto-Fascist for a President.” Other than the orange part, how is this any different than what we have now?

    And your analysis that the the establishment was going with the Tea party is down right demented, unless I’m missing your meaning there. The Tea party was spawned from the fecklessness of the establishment, not a branch of it. I’m not even a trump supporter but maybe you’ve been cloistered in your University community too long. Hillarious is so corrupt the Donald will probably win this because unlike the establishment pukes, Trump plays to win, just like the Dems. And since Trump was a Dem for at least 50 years, he knows all the Clintionian, Rahm Emanuellian brass knuckle ruthless ploys and dirty tricks, Karma is a b1tch and the strippers name is karma.

    • What, precisely, is the issue you wish to raise, because your quote doesn’t either illuminate nor prove your point.

      “The Tea party was spawned from the fecklessness of the establishment”

      The Tea Party was spawned from greed, idiocy, self-healing delusion and an overwhelming and undeserved insistence of the moron’s intelligence. What the republicans did was latch onto that group, let them in, and get infected by it.

      “because unlike the establishment pukes, Trump plays to win”

      Even if it’s beating people up, promising then jerking the promise away, making ANY claim that is needed at that moment to “win”, and ignoring anything of consequences in the claim.

      Given that The Duck says WHATEVER he thinks will “win” this debate and the nomination, how the fuck do you know what he WILL *do* if he were to win it?

      After all, if to “win” a negotiation with ISIS requires promising them their own state, he’ll dam well do it. After all, ALL HE NEEDS TO DO IS WIN, and you’ll accept whatever he does if he does win.

      The man is a clown and doesn’t know or care.

      To a large extent, he’s the commercialist version of Michael Jackson. Both have NO FRIGGING CLUE what they are doing, but surround themselves with people who don’t say “No” to them, fires anyone who dares gainsay them, and then when innured in this bubble (far more extreme than even “the establishment bubble”), have no clue what they are doing, but “know” it’s right, because so many people agree with them.

      It’s no damn different from the washington bubble.

      Politicians surrounded by people, all of whom make the same “establishment” line, so they think that’s all there is.

      About the best you can hope for is that nobody takes advantage of the wimp (and he really REALLY is a massive wimp) if he wins.

      Putin will ride him like a horny pony would.

      And The Duck will be too damn scared to say anything but “Ohhh, that’s sooo good”.

  4. The best thing for the republicans, if they can’t stop trump, is Hilary winning the primary. The main reason why the others can’t do it in the Repub side (despite splitting the votes massively) is they are all “establishment”. And people are sick fed up of that.

    The worst for the party, but maybe best for the health of the party and the country as a whole, being a wake-up call for killing establisment thinking and shaking up the political chattering classes, is Bernie winning it. In the short term, your party would lose massively and lose huge amounts of power. That, however, may make them change their ways and then the party would, if they get it right, do better in the mid terms.

    Trump would fudge things up so badly and be so terribly incompetent (indeed a trump win probably has Putin salivating in anticipation) that this may be better for the long term health of the USA than a minor Hilary win (and Hilary probably won’t win by much, but win).

    Trump would be utter pants in opposition. But probably no worse than the current pack of no-no-nannies in opposition.

    PS the media also deserve a lot of criticism. They ought to hold trump, and indeed all the candidates, to the fire on their statements, but they’re just all shit scared of being told they’re “liberal” or “leftist” and not getting access in the future, so they throw the softest softball questions, leaving only Bernie, who wouldn’t persecute people merely for attacking him politically, even if it were entirely unjustified attacks, to be berated and belittled.

  5. Marriage has hardly been a one-man, one-woman institution for all time, but of course, as a Mormon, you know that. Attributing the long-term decline of marriage among the young to recent court rulings seems odd. Thinking that people who deplore that decline should choose to rally around a serial adulterer and lecher seems odder still.

    I too have little time for the rigid leftist intolerance that manifests itself on modern campuses. I don’t really understand where that intolerance comes from, but I wouldn’t blame it on the rise of the extreme right any more than I would explain the rise of the Trumpists on the absurdities of the campus radicals.

    Apart from that, thanks for this thoughtful piece.

    • Hi Andy,

      I don’t attribute the long-term decline of marriage among the young to recent court rulings. I just don’t think the court rulings are going to help the matter. What is legal or illegal does affect how people perceive various actions (e.g., drinking alcohol vs. pot smoking).

      • It did appear you were, though, Barry.

        Maybe add “or the perception” to the datapoint to show it isn’t the fact of the marriage law change that’s problematic, but the perception it gives people.

    • I may have some insight into why intolerance can be blamed on the right.

      It starts with the (mostly right wing, though I only hedge because they might not all be right or far right wing) shock jock radio.

      The “argument” is boiled down to “Who can browbeat the other first”. Nuance is dead, compromise nonexistent (or on the wrong things), black and white, good and evil (and the shock jock is ALWAYS the good).

      And because of the (mainly) right wing component, this style of argument caught on in the right wing first. And blossomed rapidly.

      I mean, can you imagine a time in the past where the entire party would run on the ticked “We will stop the president passing anything if we lose”?

      And so a generation of kids were brought up with this sort of thing “normalised”, and where seeing someone else’s point of view is *automatically* losing, and where facts take a back seat to fervent belief.

      NOTE: that fervent belief is one reason why it’s mainly rightwingers too. Higher religiosity.

      And not all of them are right wing. It’s usually skewed left, but your left is pretty far right to the rest of the world, but natch for the moment. So you have the youngest seeing and believing that merely strong belief and shouting intolerance is how you make an argument, and that anything else is “losing”. So they use it with their pet peeves and beliefs.

      Unlike in days past, where the left tried and bent over backwards to see another POV, hence the tendency to be progressive and inclusive, and this caused them to move their viewpoints and accept new information (which dislike of new information is a generally right wing and conservative trait, and a tendency of the elderly generation), the new normal sees them refuse to listen or accept anything if they believe strongly enough it’s wrong.

      It’s not so much the right wing caused it, they normalised it and abused it massively.

      It USED to be that the conservative view was slower, reflective, usually regressive for those reasons, but there were benefits to the thought processes. No longer.

      And in a discussion with someone like that, why should someone opposed to them fight with them at the same time as helping them make their argument?

      It could easily be said that there was no option for the left to find themselves ignoring rightwingers views as having any scintilla of validity.

      I hope and believe that when the rightwing find that their use of this “strategy” only works if nobody else uses it against them they’ll start activating against it, making it not normal again.

      But the rightwing have screwed the pooch on this for lots of people on the left for the next generation at least.

      • Wow writes: “I may have some insight into why intolerance can be blamed on the right.”

        It’s just what you do. It does not require much analysis. It isn’t just intolerance. You can blame anything on the right just as I can blame anything on the left. Mere words strung together by a linguistic robot; a Turing test on automatic repeat.

        • Sorry, nope.

          Words mean whatever the speaker means them to mean is your mantra, remember.

          So you can’t say bupkis.

          Not that you ever say anything meaningful anyway, it’s just you normally use a shedload of words you have no clue of their meaning to say that naff all.

  6. Face it Barry, Trump is the outcome of fifty years of Republicans sliming everybunny to the left of Orin Hatch, not anything liberals or progressives did.

    And Obama was born in Kenya and, well how about this
    http://www.familysurvivalcourse.com/special/rsb/index.php?tid=ms04102013fsc

    Oh yes granpa, of course, send money to the long con scammers
    ——————

    Think fast !!!
    An angry hungry mob of urban warfare gangsters…is pounding on your door…
    There are 8 basic responses to this situation.
    7 out of 8 of them get you and your family killed.
    Only ONE ensures you and your family live happily ever after…
    Do you know what that response is?

    If you can’t answer that question… you have a responsibility to yourself to read carefully every word of this letter… and shut down every other application on your computer but this one…
    To avoid a moment’s distraction.
    Because the free information I share… Is literally life and death information. With no exaggeration…

    I’m Jason Richards…
    Now recognized as one of the world’s foremost and well respected survivalists.
    You’re reading a letter I wished I never had to make.
    I hate to be the bearer of bad news. I’m an optimist by nature. I really wish I could come on here… and tell you everything’s fine in this country. I wish I could tell you to go back to sleep and enjoy another episode of Family guy.
    But recent discoveries have told me… And will soon tell you:
    That that kind of naiveté…
    Isn’t just misguided…
    It’s dangerous.

    Think of it like this:
    When your friend is sleeping on a track… and there’s a train barreling down on him at 80 miles an hour. I feel I must do EVERYTHING in my power to wake you up. Which is exactly what I’m going to do today.
    And even if you think you’ve already “awoken”, prepare to learn that this rabbit hole goes a lot further than you think it does.
    Now…

    The information I’m about to share is EXTREMELY time sensitive.
    And information that UNFORTUNATELY you cannot find anywhere else, even on our beloved patriot sites.
    There are many many people who desperately need this information and are trying to access this page right now… But bandwidth is limited…
    Which means we will need to clear this site of people… who don’t belong.
    So let me speak directly to those people now….

    If you are a naysayer, a doubter, Gov. shills, agent, Obama-head, ditto head or any other 2013 version of the useful idiot, I’m going to ask you to leave now.
    If you think that this country is on firm footing… and can’t be convinced otherwise, I’m going to ask you to step off the page to allow others who need this life changing info to get it.
    If you think the notion of a currency collapse, or economic disaster is no more than a conspiracy theory, if you think you’re ALREADY prepared for any major disaster that may come,
    Leave now… And enjoy your summer at camp FEMA.

    If you fall into any of those categories.
    I’m going to recommend you enjoy your quasi-hypnotized; mind controlled fluoridated, pharmaceutically-induced-state of artificial bliss.
    Good luck out there… You will need it.
    And for those of you who think you are prepared for the coming crisis.
    Unfortunately… Through no fault of your own,
    you may be in the worst position of all.

    Because the worst person you want to be around in a crisis is the one who thinks he’s prepared but actually isn’t.
    This may be harsh to hear. The truth is not for the squeamish… it never was. But if you’ve got a brain in your head… and a heart in your chest… you know something’s wrong in this country.
    That it’s been this way for a while. And that the other shoe is about to drop. And not in years from now either…
    But in a matter of months. If not weeks.

    So I can spend all day hoping or praying for things to be different. But none of that will save anyone from the fact that every day, with inch closer and closer to the day, the U.S. Government will become mathematically unable to repay its debts…
    Economists have warned us about this for years.
    And it’s finally here:
    The point of no return for our financial system…
    At which point there will be NO CHOICE… but for nation states like China to abandon the dollar under the pressure of investors…
    The US can do NOTHING to prevent this… And it’s not a matter of if it will happen. It’s a matter of when…
    And when it does, you will see things start happening fast. Things 99% of the population won’t understand…
    Quite simply, when U.S. treasury bonds are abandoned by foreign investors:
    Oil prices go up 3000% in a single day as the dollar collapses…

    Yes… 3000 percent in a single day. That is the same day that every current producer of staple foods for this country… no longer turns a profit. Their trucks stop.
    Whatever food is left in the grocery stores is ransacked by a panicked mob… The rest is rationed by the U.S. Gov.
    YES…
    You will walk into your local grocery only to find empty shelves. NO Rice Krispies.NO milk.
    In fact… NO bread. NO rice. NO drinkable water. Empty shelves.

    • Eli,

      Given that I didn’t actually say any of that, should I assume you’ve found a “dog whistle” in my rhetoric? 😉

    • Eli Rabett writes: “sliming everybunny to the left of Orin Hatch”

      The professor will please remember two r’s in Orrin.
      http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/

  7. On the liberals:

    I agree that liberal hecklers (like all hecklers) suck, but hecklers have been with us always in all political variations and I don’t think it’s fair to blame Trump on them. Silent hecklers with their tshirts and different clothing and maybe different complexion don’t suck at all.

    I agree that the “liberal” (really hard left) shut-it-down efforts really really suck, worse than hecklers, but that only really started in Chicago, less than two weeks ago. Trump got where he is now long before that, so the sucky, shut-it-downers aren’t responsible.

    Sneering liberals don’t suck that much – okay maybe a little – but they’re not to blame for Trump. For Republicans to say “I don’t like your attitude and therefore I’m going to do something disastrously stupid and immoral – elect Trump – in response” is not going to fly. The Republicans have agency, this is their problem.

    This, btw, is an excellent point from above that people on the left should contemplate: “Of course I see hints of Fascism in the violence Trump eggs on, but one thing I haven’t seen is Trump supporters trying to break up someone else’s meetings.”

    • Brian writes “The Republicans have agency, this is their problem.”

      It could soon be yours, too. Republicans have slightly more agency than Democrats because Republicans don’t have “super delegates” that can vote any way they want and never mind the constituents.

      • And you know this because progressives who ARE left, rather than neocons that are just left of the rethuglicans, have complained about superdelegates.

  8. Barry Bickmore writes: “And so in this post, I will explain why you suck”

    What a surprise. Maybe I’ll read the whole epistle to see if there’s any new reason why I suck that differs from the previous reasons why I suck.

    My actual opinion is that the entire field of candidates suck but it seems Cruz sucks a bit less than the others.

    • what a surprise: you don’t know anything, but don’t let it stop you prowling and shouting about it.

      When you’ve learned the language, feel free to join the adults in their conversation.

  9. “The most credible research to date indicates that you are largely composed of people with “Authoritarian” personalities.”

    Just a few minutes with Google reveals that the author of this so-called research, Matthew MacWilliams, has a rather interesting background.

    “While a PhD student studying American Politics and Constitutional and Public Law, Matthew is also a full-time communications and strategic political consultant. Matthew was named a “Media Wizard” by Campaigns & Elections Magazine more than two decades ago. Since then his firm MacWilliams Sanders Communications (MSC) has won campaigns in more than 35 states and received over 110 national advertising and communications awards while working for candidates, initiatives, causes, foundations, advocacy organizations and progressive businesses across the United States.”

    “He founded MSC nearly twenty years ago and has built it into one of the leading strategic media firms for candidates, initiatives, unions, causes, foundations, and progressive organizations in the United States.

    Under Matthew’s leadership, MSC has won campaigns in more than 35 states, and has received over 110 national advertising and communications awards. Prior to founding the firm, Matthew authored and then updated the original series of campaign “how to” manuals for the DNC, served as Deputy Campaign Manager for Walter Mondale for President, and published the Polling Report. Campaigns & Elections Magazine dubbed him a “Media Wizard” for his work on winning campaigns during the 1994 elections – that, as you might remember, were not so kind to some Democrats who did not have the good fortune of working with Matthew. Since then, he has continued to innovate and lead the firm in developing and applying new, cutting-edge media solutions to help our clients win.”

    https://polsci.umass.edu/people/matthew-c-macwilliams

    http://macropartners.com/about-1/

    And this is the person that Bickmore relies upon to explain the internal workings of the Republicans? A deputy presidential campaign manager for Walter Mondale? What, was Hillary Clinton not available?

    Vox describing this long-time political operative as simply a “PHD student” is like describing Jeffery Dahmer as an avant-garde cuisine enthusiast.

    Bickmore’s standard for credibility is simply confirmation bias.

    Perhaps the problem with the Republicans is that the party establishment is loaded with dipwads like Bickmore who pay more attention to Democratic propaganda than they do to the rank and file?

    • They used a standard survey that had already been field tested. That’s how people do that kind of research.

      • From MacWilliams-Sanders website,

        “We work with our clients to develop innovative strategies that engage people, produce media that moves people, and place advertising that connects with people. The result: effective communications that help our clients win.”

        So I’m sure MacWilliams “research” is free from any bias.

        What if the Western Fuels Association used a “standard survey” to claim that climate change true-believers have hysterical personalities. Would you take it at face value?

        Face it you got conned. You’d expect that from people like the Bernie Bros. But you?

        • What you point out is a reason to look into how they did the work, not a reason to dismiss it out of hand. And **I’m** the one who suffers from confirmation bias?

          • You didn’t seem to have a problem with dismissing Richard Muller’s criticisms of Michael Mann out of hand though. You called Muller a “jerk” and accused him of “shooting his mouth off before he had the facts” all the while blissfully unaware that Muller had been a referee on the rather extensive National Academy of Sciences review of the science of surface temperature reconstructions.

            So professional political flacks who say what you want to hear get the benefit of the doubt. But Berkeley physicists who say what you don’t want to hear get slammed.

            But I’m so glad to hear that you *don’t* have a confirmation bias.

            • I didn’t dismiss his criticisms out of hand because he is a jerk who shoots off his mouth. I dismissed them because subsequent work showed him to be wrong.

            • Indeed, just because someone is a dick doesn’t mean that they must be right.

              No matter how much some would like to use that “argument”, given the complete lack of any reality to support their claims….

            • Word of Wisdom writes “just because someone is a dick doesn’t mean that they must be right.”

              It is likely that Dick is right 1/3 of the time when we presume that one of Tom, Dick or Harry is right all of the time.

            • Ah, I see you haven’t taken your adult education course in English Comprehension.

              Too poor?

            • Wow commented “I see you haven’t taken your adult education course in English Comprehension.”

              I would consider a course in Wow comprehension.

            • Ah, I take it that this is because you would prefer to not take a nonexistent course than take one you so clearly require.

          • Have you contacted the National Academy of Sciences and documented what subsequent work has revealed to be wrong with their report?

            http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

            • What do you think is wrong with them?

            • Hey Stupid,

              Where did I say that there was anything wrong with the National Academy of Sciences’ report?

              You worthless, sniveling piece of crap. If you’re too stupid to follow a simple conversation then STFU.

            • If you don’t think anything is wrong with them, why do you want Barry to tell them it’s wrong, then, retard?

            • Are you really this goddamn stupid? You really can’t follow this simple conversation?

              WHAT BICKMORE SAID IS CONTRADICTED BY THE NAS REPORT YOU ABORTION.

              There now do you understand?

            • Nowhere in the NAS report is barry’s claim contradicted.

              NOWHERE.

            • Here’s Barry’s claim: “I dismissed them because subsequent work showed him to be wrong.”

              NOWHERE in the NAS report is that contradicted.

              NO
              WHERE

            • Pages 105, 127 and 128.

              You’re still the most worthless, stupid, little piece of crap on the Internet because you’ve never read this report.

            • None of those pages disprove’s barry’s claim. in fact, they support it.

              DO try not being a lying moron, loco. It doesn’t work.

        • “What if the Western Fuels Association used a “standard survey” to claim that climate change true-believers have hysterical personalities. Would you take it at face value?”

          Well, if the result was that climate change believers **are more likely** to have hysterical personalities, that wouldn’t be that surprising to me. (The way you stated the finding would be obviously wrong.) In any case, the source would be a good reason to check the methods.

          • ” In any case, the source would be a good reason to check the methods”

            And yet somehow Bickmore couldn’t find a reason to question the methods of a long-time Democratic party operative and media consultant.

            • So far, your only argument is that you don’t like who did the surveys. What do you think they did wrong?

            • Barry Bickmore writes “So far, your only argument is that you don’t like who did the surveys. What do you think they did wrong?”

              Your observation is a reflection of a common method of human judgment; if you don’t know, and cannot easily find out whether a message is true, consider the messenger. The People of the Left discount surveys conducted by Heartland or anything “Koch”. People of the Right discount surveys conducted or published by the left.

              Either way it is hardly necessary to inquire after method because you know, or suspect strongly, that if you pick up the phone and hear “This is a survey being conducted by Heartland…” click. Similarly, if I get a call from the piece of green she will be talking to my dog.

              Consequently any survey conducted by an organization known for political advocacy is going to be nearly worthless in my opinion; right up there with Dr. Lewandowsky’s surveys.

            • I believe the author also linked to other research about authoritarian personalities that is consistent with his results. And in fact, the results shouldn’t be surprising to anybody. People with authoritarian personalities gravitate toward “strong-man” politicians who say they will “take charge” and fix our problems. Duh. Same thing with Lewandowsky’s papers. People who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in others. Duh.

              In any case, I’ve published social science (science education) research before, and what they did seemed quite reasonable to me. So perhaps you and Locus will forgive me for not dismissing it out of hand.

            • Barry Bickmore, in response to Locus, writes “So perhaps you and Locus will forgive me for not dismissing it out of hand.”

              It is not clear who is “you” in a response to Locus that names him by name and a second person “you”. Maybe it’s me!

              “I believe the author also linked to other research about authoritarian personalities that is consistent with his results.”

              That’s certainly a start. It ought at least to be correlated.
              [http]://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

              “And in fact, the results shouldn’t be surprising to anybody.”

              Why? The purpose of a study is to reveal something less than obvious. For a person to be surprised he will have to have preconceptions that turn out to be wrong in an interesting way.

              “People with authoritarian personalities gravitate toward ‘strong-man’ politicians who say they will ‘take charge’ and fix our problems.”

              Maybe, but it is just as easy to define authoritarian personality as that person that does as you say, in which case the assertion is merely a tautology without usefulness. In the past couple of years I have seen quite a lot of what is now called “left wing authoritarianism” which shows up most conspicuously on college campuses.

              [http]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X11000493

              “Same thing with Lewandowsky’s papers. People who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in others.”

              Maybe, but I have seen nothing to prove or even demonstrate this as any kind of useful predictor. If you were to qualify it in more detail I might be inclined to agree. Persons that believe in a conspiracy where absolutely no evidence exists for it are thus manufacturing their belief (or accepting it from someone else). Whether that person is thus inclined to believe other conspiracies is not seemingly demonstrated; the existence of one conspiracy belief may well be rival with others. That is to say, I would be more inclined to believe that a person can only believe in one conspiracy at a time because it will focus his attention on that one scenario.

              Lewandowsky completely failed to show that moon landing deniers are also global warming deniers. It may sometimes be so but his sample size is WAY too small, and self selected, and apparently “punked” by spurious responses. If I remember right, out of a claimed 1,000 or so responses obtained from a warmist site (basically zero skeptic input on a survey of skeptics — “duh”) 11 of them denied the moon landing and 3 of them also denied global warming. If I remember right the survey also did not allow “I don’t know” as a response; it requires an opinion when I suspect many or most people simply don’t have an opinion on the JFK assassination.

              I’m astonished that the man gets paid for that sort of thing. It’s below the level of amateur scholarship in my opinion.

              Accepting the existence of a conspiracy when it likely exists is “normal” and may well also be wise.

              “In any case, I’ve published social science (science education) research before”

              I believe “social” and “science” don’t belong in the same sentence. However, I accept that aggregations of animals and persons can be described and predictions of relatively low quality can be made on those groups.

            • BB writes “People with authoritarian personalities gravitate toward strong-man politicians who say they will take charge and fix our problems.”

              You have described Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan; basically every politician that ever existed and also their followers.

              That is why I assert “left wing authoritarian”.

              Over the years I have developed a theory that sheep and shepherds are predominantly a left-wing phenomenon straddling the right wing phenomenon of individualism.

              Left wing authoritarians trying to understand the right wing have basically no hope of succeeding. Can you see ultraviolet light? No, you cannot. You can know of its existence but you cannot see it because you are not equipped to see it.

              So it is with the gulf between a libertarian and someone on the sheep/shepherd left. Neither can understand the other; it is interesting to me how many people nevertheless try to understand across this gulf.

              Robert Altemeyer has tried to understand and describe the right, but of course his contempt is infused into his work, his surveys are conspicuously faulty and succeed only to discover what he already believes is the case.

              To illustrate: Suppose a color blind person was studying why people sometimes stop at an intersection and sometimes they don’t. He doesn’t see that a “red” light induces stopping behavior in most people and may develop an alternative theory (the TOP light is the STOP light) that, while adequately descriptive, misses the obvious thing.

              Altemeyer writes of authoritarians: “first and foremost, followers have mainly copied the beliefs of the authorities in their lives.”

              In what significant way are the followers of SkS, Huffington Post, DailyKOS, or Barak Obama any different in this regard? Socialism requires allegiance to authority!

              Authoritarianism is inherently left-wing, not right wing!

              To be sure, a strong willed right wing leader (Ronald Reagan perhaps) will attract followers, but they have chosen to follow; there is no army of secret police to compel obedience and followership.

              But is that any different from the people willingly following John F. Kennedy, an authoritarian Democrat that almost single-handedly put the space program in motion?

              Consider next this study:

              http://the-good-news.storage.googleapis.com/assets/pdf/psychology-political-diversity.pdf

              Example 2: Ideology and unethical behavior. The author cites Robert Altemeyer on pages 15 to 19.

              Quoting:

              Son Hing, Bobocel, Zanna, and McBride (2007) found that: 1) people high in social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely to make unethical decisions

              Yet consider the decisions they defined as unethical…

              Liberal values of feminism and environmentalism were embedded directly into the operationalization of ethics, even to the extent that participants were expected to endorse those values in vignettes that lacked the information one would need to make a considered judgment.

              Unquote.

              Same source: “Third, it is important to recognize that conservatism is not monolithic — indeed, self-identified conservatives may be more diverse in their political beliefs than are liberals (Feldman & Johnston, 2014; Klein &
              Stern, 2005; Stenner, 2009)”

              Indeed; this is a “duh” moment. The left wing is defined by its authorities: Karl Marx most frequently cited but hardly the first or last. More recently Saul Alinsky — and to whom was he writing, and about whom was he writing? The left wing. Entirely. His writing is to the leaders of the left how to organize the left; because there is no organizing the right and certainly not libertarians.

              People of the Right might *follow* a leader they perceive as expert, but that followership can be revoked at a moments notice and is also limited in scope.

              That’s why you’ve got two Democrat candidates and 16 Republicans. The organizing is done behind the scenes for Democrats; you basically get a “pretend” vote, the “super delegates” will have considerable influence and Republicans don’t even have super delegates.

              Social Democracy cannot be beaten in compact cultures (Scandinavia for instance) but failed in the Soviet Union and will likely fail in the United States. Too much diversity; not that college campuses actually want very much of that.

            • Nope, Mike, he didn’t.

              Remember, the words Barry used means what he means them to mean, at least in your world of the temporary contingent reality, therefore you cannot read into those words anything that you claim for them.

            • Wow “the words Barry used means what he means them to mean”

              But only to him.

              “therefore you cannot read into those words anything that you claim for them.”

              Sure I can; you do the same thing quite regularly. In fact, I can do no other thing and neither can you; words do not exist except as inventions of your mind.

            • No, I do not do that.

              Sorry, please entertain your fictions in your own head where they will not encounter those pesky counterindicative facts.

            • Wrong, the words *Barry* uses mean what we understand them to mean. It’s called “communication”, and we use a common language and common meaning for words is part of that definition of language. By using known definitions for words rather than insisting on a personal rendition of them as you do to avoid admitting any of the multitudinous errors you’ve made in logic, argument, coherency and accuracy, Barry makes claims that can be assessed for truth and he will stand by them or modify them based on the understanding of the words used against him.

              Changing their mind is something you refuse to do, because you’re not here to argue, you’re here to troll.

        • Well given that there’s no such survey, why ask?

    • Locus writes: “Perhaps the problem with the Republicans is that the party establishment is loaded with dipwads like Bickmore who pay more attention to Democratic propaganda than they do to the rank and file?”

      Republicans are everything Democrats are not, and vice versa but they are not opposites. Democrat is the “thing” in the Venn diagram, Republican is not that thing and also not any other thing. The thing is “security”. SJW’s, socialists, communists, Bernie Sanders — all believe in, and promise (with no way to pay), human rights to things that other humans must be compelled to provide.

      Republicans have no compulsive security. Insurance is wise but voluntary. Security comes from family, from church, from your own savings. If you have none of those things, then what? Well then you’d better be a Democrat demanding stuff from other people.

      Microsoft is trying to make Windows more like a Mac. It is unlikely to ever happen. In doing so, they alienated the people that chose Windows for the very reason that it isn’t a Mac. Linux, Fedora anyway, suddenly became like Windows 8 with no desktop or start button. What? But I have choices in Linux.

      Republicans are trying to be like Democrats in some ways; but that’s not how it works. Once you start down that road it is full-on socialism, which is a necessary precursor to communism, which is the ultimate goal. REmember Star Trek, the whale episode? “We don’t use money in the future”.

      What *do* they use? Conscripted labor?

      • “communism, which is the ultimate goal”

        Ok guys. The gig is up. I really thought we were going to get there with Project Climate Change, but Michael is onto us.

        • matt writes: “Michael is onto us.”

          Indeed. I’ve got my keyboard and mouse on you!

  10. “Islamic terrorists pop up in Paris or San Diego, killing random people.”

    Trump was the Republican front-runner by Aug ’15. Paris was *later*, in November and San Bernardino ( not San Diego ) was in December.

    Maybe the problem with the Republicans are moron establishment types who can’t seem to read a map or a calendar?

    • Because no terrorist attacks happened before Paris and San Diego. Yep.

      • I noted that you tried to explain Trump’s ascendancy by pointing to two events that occurred *after* Trump became the the front-runner.

        And your answer is to point out that you *could* have used examples that at least made temporal sense.

        Obvious question. So why didn’t you? With so many attacks to choose from how did you manage to pick two that didn’t make any sense?

        Not to nitpick but if you’re going to claim that A caused B, is it really too much to ask that you confirm whether or not A actually happened before B?

        • I was listing a few examples of turmoil in the world that might lead some people to support a guy like Trump. Also, some people did start supporting Trump after those events, so your nitpick is stupid.

          • The problem with pointing to terrorist events after Trump became the front-runner is that it undermines your “pansy” argument. If people chose to support Trump before terrorist attacks occurred then their motivation looks less like fear and more like an ability to predict the consequences of an open immigration policy.

            There’s a world of difference between “OMG, I’m so scared” and “I told you so”.

          • “Nope. Still pansies”

            Another brilliant Bickmore argument.

            A Wall Street Journal story from a few weeks ago provided a sensible analysis of the rise of Trump. And the reporters actually managed to pull it off without name-calling. Imagine that!

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trump-wonand-how-the-gop-let-him-1462390833

            • Paywalled, unfortunately. Pansy.

          • Well it’s been a month and no answer from Bickmore.

            When Barry thought that the Wall Street Journal article was irretrievable behind a paywall he was running his mouth good style, calling me a “pansy” and bemoaning the “unfortunate” paywall. But after I showed how Bickmore could read the article **if he really wanted to**, suddenly he disappeared. Funny how that works. I answered all of Bickmore’s questions and he answered none of mine.

            Interestingly Mark Steyn recently brought up a column of his from July 2015.

            http://www.steynonline.com/7044/last-stand-of-the-old-white-males

            Significantly, Steyn’s column was a prediction. Also significantly Steyn’s column actually made sense as opposed to the extended narcissism of Bickmore’s everybody-sucks-but-me rant.

            Back in July everyone thought that Trump would implode. ( full disclosure: I thought so too ). However, Steyn was smart enough to zero in on Trump’s advantage.

            “Yet Trump, like other philosophically erratic politicians from Denmark to Greece, has tapped into a very basic strain of cultural conservatism: the question of how far First World peoples are willing to go in order to extinguish their futures on the altar of “diversity”.”

            In short, Trump succeeded by doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of Bickmore’s advice. Imagine that.

            Face it Bickmore. You’re just as much of a fraud in the field of political science and you are in climate science.

            • BArry has answered, loco nutbar.

              Weeks ago.

              Yet, despite the answers being right there above your claim they weren’t made, you haven’t seen them.

              Which is no surprise.

              Truth is something you really don’t care for.

            • Hey Stupid,

              Where’s Bickmore’s explanation as to why a Democratic party propaganda machine had the “most credible” explanation for Trump’s ascendancy? What other explanations did he consider but reject in favor of MacWilliams-Sanders?

              You worthless, sniveling little piece of crap. If you can’t think up anything resembling an argument then STFU.

            • Hey, moron, where did you ask Barry to explain what you haven’t shown he said?

            • Right here you worthless piece of crap.

              “Now perhaps Bickmore can tell us why he found this research not just credible but the “most credible”.”

              Locus — May 16, 2016 9:15 PM

              Got that?

            • Nope, that’s not where Barry said that ” a Democratic party propaganda machine had the “most credible” explanation for Trump’s ascendancy””.

              Please stop pretending a new goal post every place you get caught out in another fatuous lie.

            • Oh here we go! Wow gets caught being a dipwad so now he starts faking quotes.

              I only quoted Bickmore as saying “most credible”. The rest of your “quote”

              IS A COMPLETE GODDAMN LIE!

              What a sniveling, lying little piece of crap you are.

            • Ah, I see, the quote you never made is what you wrote and because I didn’t know what didn’t exist, it’s somehow because I’m a liar….

              right…

              Sorry, nutbar, your insanity is ripping its corset on the internet again. You’re just showing everyone you’re a tit.

  11. Donald Trump is an butthead, I truly do not like this at all, Of becoming president of the United States!! I hate him even more, It was a mistake, To let him, Win the nomination of republican nominee, of president, it will be a disaster and a nightmare, for future generations to come this far, I don’t like this at all.

  12. “So far, your only argument is that you don’t like who did the surveys. What do you think they did wrong?”

    Look at MacWilliams’ methodology.

    “Political pollsters have missed this key component of Trump’s support because they simply don’t include questions about authoritarianism in their polls. In addition to the typical battery of demographic, horse race, thermometer-scale and policy questions, my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.”

    Child-rearing? Really?

    How do you combine the answers of the childless with those from actual parents? Wouldn’t parent’s answers be more a reflection of their own experience rather than a indication of political ideology? Would parent’s responses change over the years as their children grow from infant to teenager-who-wants-a-nose-ring? How do you even answer the third question? If you ask me being considerate is the basis of good behavior.

    Why weren’t the “policy questions” sufficient to determine authoritarianism?

    We all know what happened here. The liberals, with their belief in government intervention, started to look a little too goose-step prone in their answers to the policy questions so the “objective” researchers had to find something else. And they would’ve kept looking until they got the answer they wanted. If a poll showed that Republicans preferred pancakes to waffles somehow that would have been a sign of strong authoritarianism.

    But when even this Rube Goldberg research doesn’t give the desired answer a new level of indirection gets added.

    “The practical implication of this connection is that Americans who are not strong authoritarians behave more like them when they feel threatened.”

    So even if you pass the child-rearing test, and don’t bat an eye when Wally and the Beav drop out of school and drive the VW microbus to Haight Ashbury to spend their days burning down joints the size of tampons, you can still be accused of “behaving” like an authoritarian.

    Got that? If you don’t vote Democrat, you’re an authoritarian.

    Now perhaps Bickmore can tell us why he found this research not just credible but the “most credible”.

    • Locus quotes “whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious.”

      If you chose the first of each, you are an Authoritarian which is “bad”. If you chose the second choice in each group, you are a Libertarian, and that’s also bad.

      These groupings make no sense; they are not rival. I want my child to be ALL EIGHT. I want him: Respectful, independent, obedient, self-reliant, well behaved, considerate, well-mannered, curious — just as I am.

      You can also just ask me if I am Authoritarian. Indeed I am. Very likely so are you. Almost everyone is authoritarian. The difference, if any, is how it is exercised and whether you acknowledge any other authority besides your own. The left-wing elite *are* the authority and generally do not accept the existence of any other (no God, no supreme being of any kind. To whom did Karl Marx bend a knee? Nobody).

      Because I am libertarian, I recognize that you are the authority for you, and I am the authority for me. I choose to follow other authorities to the extent that doing so is “good” or at least necessary and appropriate.

  13. “Paywalled, unfortunately. Pansy”

    My mistake. I didn’t realize that it was paywalled because I had inadvertently accessed the article via the “Google Loophole”

    http://digiday.com/publishers/wall-street-journal-paywall-google/

    You can still probably read the entire article by,

    Clearing your browser cache ( or it might paywall again )
    Google the phrases “How Trump Won” and “wall street journal”
    The entire article will most likely be the first hit returned.

    • So not only a thief of intellectual property, you’re trying to get others to do it.

      What a criminal you are.

      • Hey Stupid. Where do you think these paywall loopholes come from anyway? Do you think the people who program paywalls are incompetent? Do you think that clicking on the result of a Google search is some kind of obscure hacker kung fu?

        Let me give you a hint.

        THE LOOPHOLES ARE PUT IN PLACE BY THE MEDIA COMPANIES THEMSELVES DIPWAD!

        http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/17/the-social-loophole/

        Companies are constantly tweaking their paywalls for just such a situation. You’re searching for commentary on the Republican nominating race and so the WSJ offers up an article for free in the hopes that if you like it, you might subscribe. In my case it’s a moot point as I already **pay** for the “Morning Read” from the WSJ as part of my Audible subscription. In Bickmore’s case reading the article would do him a world of good as it will make clear how much his own commentary is rubbish.

        You couldn’t think up even a halfway decent argument so you went for the cheap shot and still managed to %$#@! that up too.

        Congratulations, you’re still the most worthless piece of crap on the Internet.

        • They come from the same place as the “loopholes” that burglars and bank robbers use to commit their crimes.

          But of course the only property that is sacrosanct are those you agree with politically, everyone else shouldn’t have property.

          • Why are you so goddamn stupid?

            First you accuse me of being a “thief” of the WSJ’s intellectual property. But now you’re claiming that because I agree with the WSJ politically (maybe) I hold their property “sacrosanct”.

            Well which is it?

            Just one more in a seemingly endless list of comments you %$#@! up.

            Congratulations, you’re still the most worthless piece of crap on the Internet.

            • Why do you make such asinine assertions, loco?

              Yes, you ARE a thief of their IP. That’s what copyright infringement is, and that’s what you are doing AND EXHORTING OTHERS TO DO.

              It’s not “stupidity” to point this fact out to you.

              “But now … I hold their property “sacrosanct”.”

              Ah, nope, I didn’t. Sorry. Why are you so frigging stupid, Loco? Can’t read?

              “Well which is it? ”

              The one I said: you’re a thief of their IP. Not the second which you made up.

              “Just one more in a seemingly endless list of comments you %$#@! up.”

              Irony: Loco fucking up a comment and then whining about me doing it.

              Idiocy: Loco’s entire existence.

              Certainly a very accurate, if limited content, dictionary you are.

            • Why are you so goddamn stupid? No, I didn’t “make up” the “second part”. Just scroll up and you’ll see

              YOUR OWN GODDAMN WORDS IN FRONT OF YOUR STUPID FACE YOU ABORTION.

              “But of course the only property that is sacrosanct are those you agree with politically, everyone else shouldn’t have property.”

              Wow – AKA The-Stupid-Abortion-That-Lived June 20th, 2016, 10:28 am

              You don’t remember that?????

              Your homework questions are really starting to pile up.

              1. Why was Bickmore’s “analysis” better than that provided by the WSJ?

              2. How does a “free sample” constitute theft? Every two weeks the local newspaper litters my lawn with a complimentary copy. Would I be stealing if I read it instead of using for fish wrapper?

              3. Are you really so goddamn stupid that you can’t remember what you said?

              4. Are really you so goddamn stupid that you don’t realize that you can scroll upwards to read what you wrote since you’re too goddamn stupid to remember?

              You are truly the most worthless piece of crap on the planet.

            • No, you did make up the second part.

              Nowhere did I claim you hold their property sacrosanct.

              Go look again you knuckle dragging imbecile.

        • As usual Wow gets caught being so goddamn stupid that he can’t even remember the nonsense that he wrote himself.

          So now he has to create some alternative reality so he can continue his fantasy that he’s not a worthless piece of crap in the real world.

          This is just like the time that Wow tried to claim that the legal terms “plaintiff” and “defendant” are continually switched between parties in a lawsuit depending on which side is filing a motion. ( The actual terms are “moving party” and “non-moving party” you moron! )

          Typical warmist behavior. When reality won’t cooperate, make something up!

          You’re still the most worthless little turd on the Internet.

          • And again, lacking anything else, loco goes nutbar on the internet.

            Please stop projecting your incapabilities on everyone around you. It’s fooling nobody.

  14. He is a raving racist and a boo for democracy is not the way of all of us in the U.S.A. Don’t want him to become president for the United States of America. We the people will hate for against your racist comments about the first amendment. Which is wrong and illegal, and stupid, and all of us in U.S.A. Don’t need this. Period. Done.

    • Joshua writes: “We the people will hate for against your racist comments about the first amendment.”

      I recommend just “you the person” doing whatever is meant by the words you wrote. You do not speak for me particularly as you go about announcing your hate.

      • You’re not a person?

        AI, then? Pretty shitty version.

        Josh DOES speak for the people, since he’s one of them and is part of them, whereas YOU insist you’re not an “us”.

        • Wow writes “Josh DOES speak for the people, since he’s one of them and is part of them”

          Yes, the “Borg Collective”. It is what I have been writing about for years.

          “whereas YOU insist you’re not an us”.

          That seems obvious. Your insults directed toward me reinforce that I am not in the hive of which you are merely a nameless drone.

          • No, borg is a fictional construct by the TV space fiction series “Star Trek” whereas people are actually real, despite your hallucination that you are alone (as opposed to “a loon”, which term may have caused you some disturbing confusion).

            Humanity.

            You should try being part of it some time.

            • Wow writes “Humanity.You should try being part of it some time”

              If you are its example I think I’ll pass.

              P.S.: Where have you been for this past week? I (almost) missed your scintillating commentary.

            • OK, so you’re a misanthrope and you’re freeloading off everyone else without any conscience or humanity.

              We’re better off without you.

              Please expedite this ASAP.

            • Wow writes: “We’re better off without you.”

              How many of you are in there? 😉

            • One. What else?

              But nearly 7 billion humans exist. That makes near 7 billion of them.

            • Wow commented “One. What else?”

              Insufficient context.

              “But nearly 7 billion humans exist. That makes near 7 billion of them.”

              I suppose so. Insufficient context.

            • Wow “One. What else?”

              Legion.

            • Well you were wrong, then, weren’t you.

            • Wow “Well you were wrong, then, weren’t you.”

              I am groot.

            • No, you are insane.

          • “Wow commented “One. What else?”

            Insufficient context.”

            Then posted an answer proving that there was sufficient context.

            Insanity.

  15. “In other words, you really just don’t get it.” There’s not much of substance to get beyond tribal emotional intuition. Haven’t you heard that phrase “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? Conservative reason might be complex but it’s focused on hate, fear, and disgust. At the end of the day their ” moral reasoning” are rationalizations and justifications for their mediocre evolutionarily adapted culture that they’ve been indoctrinated into. The patriarchy isn’t Godly, it’s a manmade institution that is created to deal with post-agrarian economic starvation times when our ancestors started farming. God never mentioned abortion, only a self centered sanctimonious misogynist would spend their time trying to force women to be breeders. They try and pretend like they care about suffering, but it’s not a coincidence they do and say exactly what the bound idiot hand of evolution wants them to do, spread “sacred” sperm no matter how many kids are malnourished in the rest of the world. The catholic church had killed millions with their worse that worthless birth control sanctimoniousness. This shoddy kind of moral reasoning might be complex but its results are simply evil when you look at the numbers.

    “not because of what they said, but because of the hidden subtext that only other racists (and their liberal watchdogs) could hear.” Ignorance and a lack of epistemic and ontological skill at seeing bigotry are hardly excuses for a sane adult. If you say something with racist “subtext’ (because white people are so good at detecting racism LOL all racism is “subtext” to people that need to be blind to the systems they profit off), you’ve said something racist. People that unthinkingly spread stereotypes that enable racism are in fact enable racism. I don’t care about dithering and moaning over intent.

    “endless nitpicking after basic non-discrimination laws have been put in place is usually counterproductive.” That is laughably naive. It must be nice to be so sheltered and privileged that you think discrimination laws are relevant to ones daily life.

    • Jeb wrote “”Conservative reason might be complex but it’s focused on hate, fear, and disgust.”

      It is focused on human reproduction; survival of the species. I might eventually read the rest of your comment but if it is as erroneous as up to this part, maybe I won’t read it.

      • Survival of the species has bugger all to do with reproduction, since life replicates sexually many many times higher than replacement and the majority of human lives manage on average less than four generations before the end of the genealogy.

        NOTHING requires procreation among the entire fertile members for the species to survive.

        • Wow says “Survival of the species has bugger all to do with reproduction”

          Thank you for not reproducing!

          I think that’s what you meant. I do not understand “bugger all” but survival of any species requires reproduction. Strange you seem not to know this.

          • M2, No, thank *you* for not reproducing! Such idiocy would be a genetic problem for humanity if it weren’t for the fact that those of us who are genetically normal carry your worthless carcass.

            Just see what YOU thought was your “thinking” for evidence.

            • Wow writes “Just see what YOU thought was your thinking for evidence.”

              ???

            • !!!

              (why the content free posts, M2? run out of idiot juice?)

          • Ah, so you think there’s only one being in humanity, M2?

            • Wow wrote “Ah, so you think there’s only one being in humanity, M2?”

              ????

            • Ah, so you don’t know what the word “All” means, then, not even incorrectly.

              I DID tell you to go to remedial classes.

              Do so.

            • “Entire” not “All”.

              I guess for a genuine imbecile (as in medically speaking), Entire is a much more difficult word to read than All is.

            • These were not the droids you were looking for. Move along!

            • I was not looking for droids. Are you mentally incapable?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: