ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, December 18, 2015

We're not radicals or extremists

We're "policy entrepreneurs". That's a useful little phrase, that is.
This dynamic is inherently more challenging for those of us on the Right, who have good reason to believe that politicians’ incentives to placate various factional constituencies are so often at odds with the long-term effort to rein in the federal footprint. While political parties can exist as factions rather than ideological entities, conservatism cannot succeed as a factional constituency to a political party.

Several years ago, Ross Douthat identified the Obama-era GOP’s worst tendency as “[n]ot an ideological extremism, exactly, but rather a vision of government that you might call ‘small government for thee, but not for me,’ in which conservatism is just constituent services for the most reliable Republican groups and voters.” This is the worst of Republicanism, and it is incompatible with conservatives’ long-term project.

The GOP could exist as a political party by handing out patronage to its constituent groups—a prescription drug benefit for seniors, corporate agriculture pork masquerading as a farm bill, Export-Import Bank loans to Boeing. Conservatism, however, has no chance of advancing an agenda in this type of factionalized party.

A conservative reform effort, therefore, requires the Republican Party to forego factional politics and the patronage role of elected officials in favor of winning the argument on a conservative articulation of public policy. We must have the confidence that our reform ideas will best serve the nation and, realistically, if the government we have today has been built over 100 years by progressives with a vastly different conception of good policy, it will require attacking the status quo in a manner that makes niche constituencies nervous.
Never mind the pitchforks and torches. They're just policy implementation enhancers.

Anyhow, this is precisely what I was saying about a year ago. You must cherish your extremists, not turn your backs on them, much less shoot at them. They provide the impetus for advancement; even if they go too far, at least they are going in the right direction.

Labels: ,

66 Comments:

Anonymous 334 December 18, 2015 5:27 PM  

Agreed. This is an entirely necessary part of the process, which is why I'm not the least bit bothered if Trump way overshoots the rhetorical mark (he hasn't come close yet in my estimation). As long as he can keep a significant voting bloc with him, the crazier he sounds to the left and the media, the better off we all are in the long run.

He's moving the goalposts every week. I've never seen this before.

Anonymous Til (#385) December 18, 2015 5:48 PM  

They continue to look at polls and pray, but it probably isn't going to do them a lick of good.

Momentum is most important, and in elections, that comes from enthusiasm and loyalty.

Trump doesn't even have to spend any money and fans are making videos like this for him for absolutely nothing:

Make America Great Again

Hillary could spend 50 million on focus groups and polling and superduper media pros, and not have a video anything close to that, because she's a caricature of a person.

Blogger Dave December 18, 2015 5:56 PM  

in which conservatism is just constituent services for the most reliable Republican groups and voters.

This sums it up perfectly. The republican establishment views the conservative bloc in the party as just another constituency group they can throw some bones to here and there. The party is in danger of losing this "most reliable Republican group and voters" and they don't appear too worried.

Anonymous WillBest December 18, 2015 6:04 PM  

Its the risk adverse nature of people. They don't want to lose their benefits they can quantify now in exchange for a percent reduction in their taxes next year when there is no assurance that the rate just won't go back up in the future this time without the benefit.

The only way to truly gore everybody's ox at once is for the system to crash.

Blogger Phillip George December 18, 2015 6:05 PM  

If you GMO pork will Muslims call it Halal? Lipstick on a pig to enter it in a pageant for fundamental animal transpecies rights advocacy? The abuse of language in this rivals a NY Times article calling Freedom Fighters one week later War Lords. Governments in exile working with coalitions of the willing for regime change in the interests of democracy. LOL.

Necromancers. Harry Potter's death eaters were really diversity aware. Ah, Work makes free. Behold the gates of freedom. This is the most important election ever, or since the last one, or until the next one.

This is what relativism did to them. Turned them all into idiots.

Blogger RobertT December 18, 2015 6:18 PM  

Dave. Then let's teach them lesson. We have to quit rolling over. Rush is right. Let's disband the Republican party. Every single member of Congress or Senate other then Sessions needs to be defeated this election cycle. Then when the dust clears, we'll start over.

Til. Kudos. I'm with you. The people will follow. No one will follow Ryan. Kick his a## out.

Blogger Sherrie December 18, 2015 6:37 PM  

Every single member of Congress or Senate other then Sessions needs to be defeated this election cycle.
Yes. We need to vote in the primaries. And we need to stop sending any money or support to the Republican establishment.

Traitors.

Blogger Phillip George December 18, 2015 6:41 PM  

you read any MSM article anywhere and radicals/ extremists/ militants and 'controversial figures' are just those awful people we-the-intelligent disagree with. White woman married with two non vacced children homeschooling and sings in a church choir is now all of the above. So RIP GOP. #JeSuis[....insert next false flag.....]

Here, this is so radical it actually did make world news and will be branded rascist homophobic and militant discrimination by the diversity crowd>

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/18/painted-nativity-scene-at-tennessee-mcdonalds-goes-viral/

If he GOP can't publicly endorse that message they're history.

Blogger Neanderserk December 18, 2015 6:44 PM  

Extreme? Outside the stream. Which stream? The mainstream.

Of what does the mainstream consist? Opinions. Which are like assholes: everybody has one.

Ergo, the mainstream is society's open sewer main. Its smell pervades the air; its pathogens the water.

Yes. I am outside that.

Blogger John Morris December 18, 2015 6:59 PM  

Been pondering something along these lines. Lets see how many holes get shot in it when I run it up the flagpole.

Lets examine how two concepts interact, The Overton Window and the concept of "No Enemies to the Left."

Even the Right obeys the No Enemies to the Left rule. Pick any example person. Anyone to their left is considered acceptable, even if they think they are a bit 'nuts' while anyone to their right is beyond the pale, outside the bounds of civilized norms, etc. Pat Buchanan might thing Bernie Sanders is a commie but he would be willing to talk to him and probably could even, if the circumstance required, get 'bipartisan' with him. Strictly in the normal sense, where people on the Right 'compromise' by agreeing with the person on their Left. Bernie will accept this sort of bipartisanship while making it clear he thinks Pat is pond scum. But Pat almost certainly considers anyone to his right a Nazi or whatever kneejerk term of approbrium he prefers.

Now lets add in the Window. It means anyone on the Right side of the window stands alone, which of course drives it left and he either 'grows' or becomes outside the Window and a pariah. Under no circumstance can someone on the right edge be a leader since nobody will follow. Meanwhile on the leftmost edge is the sweet spot, where Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the gang tend to congregate. So long as they remain willing to accept the support of the wretched benighted sots not enlightened to be on the left edge they can rule since EVERYONE accepts them as legitimate.

Or shorter, everybody might occupy positions along a political spectrum mostly within the current Overton Window, all face left, all look toward the Sunny Uplands of History and argue as to how fast to get there, those to their left being farther along but all know they will get there eventually so can't really hate on em too much.

Even with Trump moving the Window right for a change, it won't be enough. It can't last. Not by itself.

We need No Enemies to the Right, to face Right and to demand leaders who do so. Leaders who will cooperate with those farther to their right and revile any to their left. So that our optimal leader is the one banging on the right margin of the Window pushing our narrative.

But that poses problems. If you ask most to look Right they see Hitler. Tell them he was a National Socialist and if you manage to get them to believe you they then see nothing. We need to be able to describe our "Sunny Uplands". The second problem is if it happens there must be a civil war, any illusion that such an outcome can be avoided will vanish, both sides will almost instantly see this. Peace is currently predicated upon all knowing that the Right is committed to losing so the Left is content to go slowly enough we can come to terms with our defeat.

Blogger Azimus December 18, 2015 7:11 PM  

I don't know. When you go to an ice cream shop, they sell you ice cream. They can get you more ice cream. They can't get you less ice cream, and won't, it's not in their interest.

So why do we go to the government to shrink and limit the government? That's like going to an ice cream shop and demanding they sell less ice cream to the other patrons.

So why would Americans hoist a political party into power and then ask them to reduce that power? It's not within their capability to do so.

Blogger Azimus December 18, 2015 7:14 PM  

Til (#385) December 18, 2015 5:48 PM
Hillary could spend 50 million on focus groups and polling and superduper media pros, and not have a video anything close to that, because she's a caricature of a person.


If Trump is nominated - which I still don't think will happen, Hillary will win. Two words: female vote. If you want to win this thing, start convincing every woman you know that Trump is NOT what they think he is. Because they made up their mind as soon as he started saying mean, icky things.

Blogger Sherrie December 18, 2015 7:23 PM  

If Trump is nominated - which I still don't think will happen, Hillary will win. Two words: female vote.

From what I understand, young women aren't so fond of Hillary. They think she's old news. Recently, I was at a family gathering consisting of all females, and the only Hillary fans were boomers. And I was like, "What the hell? Do you realize that Hillary can't even DRIVE? She hasn't driven herself anywhere in YEARS. She doesn't do her own shopping. She has no idea what average America looks like. How in the heck do you think she's remotely in touch with average women? She gets hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. She's awful when it comes to sticking up for victims of sexual abuse, etc. etc. etc."

To my infinite delight, a gen-y joined in the mocking. It totally made my night.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 18, 2015 7:23 PM  

@12 Azimus:

If Trump is nominated - which I still don't think will happen, Hillary will win. Two words: female vote.

Two more words: mean girl.

Or so I've been told, and I have no trouble believing Hillary is one, and that other women don't tend to like such women.

There are also a whole lot of women who just loathe her on more specific terms.

Anonymous 334 December 18, 2015 7:24 PM  

@12.

I don't think so. Hillary will get the dykes, hyperfeminists, gamma males and a big chunk of the imports. But we've already seen that a significant segment of the offshore vote digs an alpha male, and I predict a large number of white women, confronted with the immigration issue for what is really the first time in their lives in many cases, will opt for the safety of the alpha rather than backing Team Womyn.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 18, 2015 7:25 PM  

@12

I think you underestimate the powers of the Dark Triad...

Anonymous Malwyn's apprentice December 18, 2015 7:42 PM  

@12

Wanna explain why women are automatically expected to vote for a female candidate? Hillary doesn't have my vote --- I haven't even considered the Dems for decades.

Some of us even look at the issues and the larger geo-political picture. I'm not opposed to the idea of a female candidate, but Lady Thatcher & Golda Meir are not currently available.

Anonymous crushlimbraw December 18, 2015 7:58 PM  

And I second the motion - "In Defense of Demagogues" by Murray N. Rothbard
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/murray-n-rothbard/rothbard-loved-trump/

Blogger Dire Badger December 18, 2015 8:28 PM  

@John Morris-

On the plus side, all the warriors, all the tacticians, and all of those capable of fighting and winning a war of that sort are all on the right. We also have all the guns.
They have warm bodies to build walls out of.

Blogger Neanderserk December 18, 2015 8:30 PM  

@10 The sunny uplands are colonial American KJV Hong Kongapore with stonings, Japanese immigration and a Swiss military.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 18, 2015 8:38 PM  

@2 Til (#385)

Trump doesn't even have to spend any money and fans are making videos like this for him for absolutely nothing:

---

It would be hilarious if the Obama girl made a Trump video.

Anonymous Pete December 18, 2015 8:48 PM  

@19 - The sweet spot for the leftist gun grab was in the late 60's-early 70's. The Balkanizing effects of the 1965 Immigration Act had not yet been felt, and White America had been dealing with large scale Black urban riots. It was then that polling reached in zenith for a handgun grab. Perhaps the left wanted to boil the frog more slowly, since the highly restrictive 1968 gun laws were still fresh in the minds of many.

Here we are forty years of "progress" later, and I think it's quite clear in most people's minds what handing in their guns would mean. Whites might not be rounded up and put into camps as Bill Ayers desired, but we would eventually be stripped of all property and rights, and replaced even more quickly than we currently are.

Blogger Danby December 18, 2015 8:54 PM  

@12 Azimus
If Trump is nominated - which I still don't think will happen, Hillary will win. Two words: female vote.

Think game. Hillary reminds every woman of her husband's ex-girlfriend/ex-wife. The one he says "I'm so glad I dumped her" about. Or maybe her shrewish, bitchy boss.
Trump, on the other hand, is not only rich, he's bad. Bad boys thrill them no end. And his wife is hot. That shit matters.

Hillary's core strength is not women, it is Marxists, journalists (but I repeat myself), and people who depend on the government for their livelihood. No man with normal testosterone levels would even consider voting for her. Hell, I doubt even her husband will vote for her.

Blogger Melampus the Seer December 18, 2015 8:57 PM  

A conservative reform effort, therefore, requires the Republican Party to forego factional politics and the patronage role of elected officials in favor of winning the argument on a conservative articulation of public policy.

Ah, yes. The idea that politics is about winning an argument. It ain't.

We've already won the argument on Syrian immigration: 64% of Americans polled want to either deny entry to all refugees or only allow Christian refugees. They're still going to let all of them in.

Politics is about power. The power to imprison, dispossess, physically intimidate and coerce. These are tools that are used against conservatives. Just look at the IRS targeting go conservative groups.

If Republicans were serious about politics, they would gain the Presidency and prosecute every single IRS employee involved in targeting conservative groups. They would put them all of them, including Louise Lerner in a SuperMax facility with thrice daily strip searches and vaginal/anal probes for the rest of their life. This would be video taped and shown in mandatory training sessions at the IRS.

It's not about winning arguments. It's about winning.

War is politics by other means; politics is war by other means.


Blogger Neanderserk December 18, 2015 9:04 PM  

The tone in the comments section these days is admirable.

Blogger James Dixon December 18, 2015 9:08 PM  

> If Trump is nominated - which I still don't think will happen, Hillary will win. Two words: female vote.

And if Trump chooses Fiorina as his VP?

I will admit there are a significant number of women who are so turned on by Bill that they will gladly vote for Hillary just to see him on TV on a regular basis. They're not a majority though.

Blogger Dire Badger December 18, 2015 9:29 PM  

Something interesting happened with the most recent republican debate.

The candidates other than Trump finally realized that pubs are tired of career polticians. They discovered that Trumps open, unapologetic, honest, shoot-from-the-hip no-PC style was incredibly appealing to voters jaded by decades of 'business as usual' conservatives.

In an attempt to finally catch a break, they started to mimic that style... not really understanding it, but copying others to get votes is one thing they are really good at. Everyone from Carly to Christie started shooting from the hip, telling it like it is, and swinging for the bleachers...And we made an interesting discovery...

They are all idiots.

'telling it like it is' has revealed that they are shills planning on handing the presidency over to Hillary, incompetents who really don't want to be in the race, psychopaths that want to get America to start world war 3, or leftists that are only pubs because they know that they'd never see a primary debate with the democrat communist party lineup. Not a single genuine republican or conservative in the lot.

I don't think there is any way the GOP is going to be able to block trump now that it's core is shown to be utterly hollow. And to be honest, I think Hitlary knows that trying to stuff the ballot boxes may actually get her jailed.

The next four years should be interesting.

Blogger haus frau December 18, 2015 9:37 PM  

If Trump is nominated - which I still don't think will happen, Hillary will win. Two words: female vote.

Hillary isn't Oprah and I'm surprised you read here and still think that women actually like women leaders. They don't unless there's something in it for them, thus the welfare/feminist/mangina vote is Hillbeast's base.
Hillary is shrill and old. She looks like she has a gingerbread house somewhere with a cage full of white homeschooler children and Syrian Christian orphans in the basement. Going on instinct here, the shrillness of the termagant is a huge turn off to women just as much as men. In fact, barring political considerations, I would say this is the biggest image problem female leaders have in reaching out to the public. Generally speaking, when a man politician raises his voice he comes off as impassioned and powerful. When a woman politician does it, she is shrill and nagging. Unless you're Boehner of course, then you just sound like a teary eye fag with a chaffing butt plug, no offense meant to you BGS.

Blogger Student in Blue December 18, 2015 9:42 PM  

If you want to win this thing, start convincing every woman you know that Trump is NOT what they think he is. Because they made up their mind as soon as he started saying mean, icky things.

This would do the exact opposite of what you suggest it would.

Blogger Nick S December 18, 2015 9:55 PM  

And if Trump chooses Fiorina as his VP?

He would never choose Fiorina. He will ask Cruz. It's a practical matter. He'll get the Cruz supporters and a go between. Someone that can help him navigate the politics of Washington with excellent legal chops.

Blogger Daniel December 18, 2015 9:59 PM  

Sheesh...Trump leads all candidates in female support...33%

Fiorina trails in female support...at 3%.

Trump will get at least as much support from women as Hitler did. No worries there.

Blogger Herb Nowell December 18, 2015 10:00 PM  

Interesting that he quotes Douthat. In today's column Douthat wrote:

This combination of views isn’t incoherent; it just puts Trump closer to Europe’s nationalist right than it does to most of the post-1960s American conservative tradition. Like France’s National Front or euroskeptic parties elsewhere on the Continent, he’s a candidate of government programs for the old and native-born, high walls against outsiders and a romanticized idea of national greatness. And it turns out that this Old World combination, at this particular moment, has a great deal of New World appeal.

And immediately thought of all the posts on the topic of nationalism here. His goals might be suspect (or not...don't read him enough to make a prediction) but it appears Douthat hasn't completely buried his head in the sand.

(source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/opinion/campaign-stops/the-gop-at-a-crossroads.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fross-douthat&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0)

Blogger Sheila4g December 18, 2015 10:09 PM  

" . . . a vision of government that you might call ‘small government for thee, but not for me,’ in which conservatism is just constituent services for the most reliable Republican groups and voters."

This is what totally pissed me off regarding the Tea Party people (aside from their reflexive genuflection to any non-White who claimed a scintilla of rational thought). They'd all chant about no new taxes, and no more welfare, and in the next breath they'd bleat "Hands off MY Social Security." I don't ever expect to see a penny of Social Security, and in a normal country I wouldn't even want to claim an entitlement. In America 2.0, in the interest of getting what I can from the carcass that remains, I would certainly like to see something of what I paid since I was 16. We just got a Christmas letter from former Foreign Service friends who retired to Hawaii. He's already drawing 2 pensions and working in the private sector now, and his Thai wife is chortling about drawing her first Social Security check now that she's 62. Their "American dream" is alive and well. Meantime, in the real world . . .

Anonymous WillBest December 18, 2015 10:13 PM  

All the single women on social media can't stop talking about trump. That is arousal. They are going to lie to the pollsters, the way women lie about what turns them on or their number. But when its just them and that touchscreen/ink pen and they see his name, they are going to get wet making that mark. I hope they all remember to put on a sanitary pad that day or there is going to be an awful lot of flustered women rushing to their cars with the "I voted sticker"

Anonymous ovah December 18, 2015 10:15 PM  

Eric Blair Policy Enhacer Coordination Entrepreneurs...

Anonymous noReelEntreprenooors December 18, 2015 10:18 PM  

But You didnt Build That.

Blogger Groot December 18, 2015 10:39 PM  

@28. haus frau
"Unless you're Boehner of course, then you just sound like a teary eye fag with a chaffing butt plug, no offense meant to you [treasured member of our community]."

It's even funnier when you consider that she is genuinely concerned for BGS's feelings. Women! It's kind of cute.

@34. WillBest:
"the way women lie about what turns them on or their number. ...they are going to get wet making that mark. I hope they all remember to put on a sanitary pad that day or..."

My condolences, pal. Having a dry spell?

Blogger Doc Rampage December 18, 2015 11:21 PM  

You are only pulling in the right direction in a few areas. In other areas you are pulling in the wrong direction. You want to eliminate immigration and send the illegals back--which is a good thing for the country, but you want to do this by inflaming racism, and racism is one of the reasons that the Left is so destructive.

You want protectionist trade policies, which is harmful to the economy in the long run.

You glorify leaders for being "alpha males", aggressive and rude instead of for being honorable, rational, and charitable.

And you don't practice what you preach. There are plenty of Republicans that are "pulling in the right direction" from your point of view, in the sense that they oppose the Left on many of the same issues that you do, but they don't do things the way you want them to and so you are not only not tolerant, you are outright hostile, distracting them from focusing on the enemy by attacking them yourself.

Anonymous Soga December 19, 2015 12:05 AM  

@38 Doc Rampage, could you be any more of a cuckservative?

... but you want to do this by inflaming racism, and racism is one of the reasons that the Left is so destructive.

Wrong on both counts. Read Vox's cuckservative book, specifically, chapter 3.

You glorify leaders for being "alpha males", aggressive and rude instead of for being honorable, rational, and charitable.

Right. Well, tell me when you finally get a decent woman.

they don't do things the way you want them to and so you are not only not tolerant, you are outright hostile, distracting them from focusing on the enemy by attacking them yourself.

Vox doesn't write blog posts the way you want him to, and so you are not only not tolerant, you are outright hostile, distracting him from focusing on the enemy by attacking him yourself.

See how dumb you sound now?

Anonymous Soga December 19, 2015 12:07 AM  

People like Doc Rampage are the reason 64% of Americans want to deny entry to refugees and the reason Trump is doing so well in the polls.

Blogger Dire Badger December 19, 2015 12:32 AM  

@doc rampage-
"You want protectionist trade policies, which is harmful to the economy in the long run."

Baloney. It is harmful to trading interests, and only trading interests alone. Protectionism trade equality, however, is the only possible way a national economy can survive.

Unless you LIKE having a nation of middle managers doing nothing but patting themselves on the back as they fall ever deeper into debt to unethical international business concerns.

Your economic assessment would be right at home in the 1600's, however. You know, before cargo ships, airplanes, and trucks.

Anonymous Nxx December 19, 2015 2:28 AM  

You must cherish your extremists

Israel Shamir on what happens if you don't:

Consider Israel. The full spectre of opinions in our country stretches from Jihad extremists who would like to expel all Jews to Marzel extremists who would like to expel and kill all Gentiles. In this spectre, my own position is but the middle ground: no expulsions, no killings, but peaceful life together for all the communities. In normal discourse, my position would win, and united free Palestine would come into being. But the discourse is slanted: at first, extreme Arab opinions are blocked. Then, moderate Arabs find themselves 'extremists' and are effectively blocked. Eventually the softest non-Jews - Ahmad Tibi and Azmi Bashara - take the place of extremists and are excluded from discourse.

The exclusion of one extreme causes the drift of the middle ground when the other extreme is not in place to plug it. Thus, instead of being in the dead middle, the supporters of equality for Jews and Palestinians find themselves at an extreme end. As extremists they are excluded from discourse. Though 30% of Israelis and Palestinians support the idea of one state with equal rights for all, according to a pre-Intifada survey by Haaretz, their opinion gets zero representation in discourse.

Discussion of Anti-Semitism

Anonymous Ahmad ibn Fadhlan December 19, 2015 2:47 AM  

Douthat, and now... Jonah Goldberg in his newsletter!?!

"But if there’s one thing that arouses sympathy in me when it comes to support for Trump, it is the idea (exploited by him) that America is a nation and deserves to act like a nation.

John O’Sullivan has a great piece in the 60th Anniversary issue of NR in which he takes exception to the near-universal talking point that “America is not just a country, it’s an idea.” The problem with that formulation -- which has an ancient and venerable pedigree -- is that it tends to obscure the fact that we are, in fact, a country too. We have a culture. We have a history. John prefers it this way: “America is not just an idea; it is a nation.” And so do I.

It’s not that I don’t love the idea of America. I do, passionately. But without some respect for the nation, for the tribal attachments that translate the idea into cultural norms, the idea will die. No nation of ideas can sustain its ideas without sustaining some sense of being a nation. My problem with Trump is that he goes too far the other way. He gives no indication he cares ones whit about the idea of America, beyond its past record of “winning.” His comments this morning celebrating Vladimir Putin as a “leader” even though he kills journalists and political opponents, were exactly what you’d expect from someone who only cares about strength, power, popularity, and “winning.”

Anyway, my point is that the people running the government, the bureaucracy, higher education, much of the media, etc. seem to have turned their backs on the very idea of America as a nation. The ideology of transnational progressives occasionally lines up with American self-interest, but that alignment is more accidental and -- in their minds -- regrettable than anything else."

They are like women. Ignore what they say. ZFG. Set the frame. And lo, Allah shines his favor and they come to you.

We should make them all wear burqas as penance. You can't tell the difference between their bleatings anyway.

Blogger Cinco December 19, 2015 2:48 AM  

Hillary is the best thing that could happen to Trump. She is so weak on national security and when she begins to become even more bellicose in order hide her innate weakness', Trump is just going to ask if people can "trust" her...

Blogger Doc Rampage December 19, 2015 3:56 AM  

@39: "Doc Rampage, could you be any more of a cuckservative?"

Oh dear me. I've been othered and disqualified. Woe is me.

"Right. Well, tell me when you finally get a decent woman."

Oh noes! Now he's attacking my insecurities! I must flee before he suggests that I seek romantic congress with animals.

"Vox doesn't write blog posts the way you want him to, and so you are not only not tolerant, you are outright hostile, distracting him from focusing on the enemy by attacking him yourself."

You are a fool so I post this response for others to read and not you. Criticizing someone isn't "outright hostile". Outright hostile is calling people childish names like "cuckservative" or trying to hurt their feelings by calling them fat or calling their wife ugly. My post was not hostile. This response to it was.

Frankly, I have enough respect for Vox to believe that he is capable of rational debate. But some of the ilk react like SJWs to any opposition to their preferred narrative.

Blogger Doc Rampage December 19, 2015 4:07 AM  

@41: "Baloney. It is harmful to trading interests, and only trading interests alone."

I haven't read Vox's argument against free trade yet and I should do so before I get too deep into this, but I'll note that it's hard to see how it is not in my interest as an American consumer to have Chinese peasants working for a dollar an hour to make my mobile phone instead of paying Americans 15 dollars an hour to do it, thereby taking them away from their job repairing cars. I get a phone that costs half as much *and* I don't have to waste all Saturday morning under the hood of my car.

Blogger VD December 19, 2015 4:12 AM  

You are only pulling in the right direction in a few areas.

Those few areas are the only ones that matter right now.

But some of the ilk react like SJWs to any opposition to their preferred narrative.

Come on. I see this accusation a lot and literally no one here does. I've yet to see anyone suggest that anyone be banned for their opinion, much less disemployed. Nor has anyone claimed to have been abused or harmed by exposure to a contrary opinion. Ergo, no one has reacted like SJWs.

Blogger Dire Badger December 19, 2015 4:56 AM  

@doc rampage- That's easy. Look at the Employment figures in America. I mean the REAL Unemployment figures, not the ones doctored up to look like our employment problem has been improving. Right now it's hovering between 28-38%.
Guess what, there are plenty of American peasants to make your phone cheaper. Not as cheap as the Chinese, but your copyprinting business suddenly has far more people who can afford to use it, putting more than enough cash in your wallet to afford that slightly more expensive phone. And you don't have to spend your Saturday under your car... and, because there are more people that can afford car repairs, the repair shop can reduce prices and remain competitive... Will have to, in fact. Saving you both your Saturday and a lot of money on your repair bill.

The thing is, the 'free market' works remarkably well, all those promises free marketers make about supply and demand and market forces driving down prices and driving up quality are absolutely and utterly true... IF you are in a place where prices are relatively stable across all zones.

The problem is, when you introduce a global x-factor with an unequal cost of labor and living, it is in the best interest of certain individuals to take advantage of that instability... It is not exactly a zero sum game, but when you add in the human tendency to enslave each other and REALLY huge numbers of people, it becomes impossible to equalize areas.

The Irony is that the liberals, socialists, and free marketers are absolutely right. a global government and globally open economy would eventually bring the whole world up to a stable, decent level. The only problem is, to do that, you would have to eliminate all individuality, all freedom of choice, all pride, all family, and everything that makes humans human instead of ant. and the most antlike and perfect of all would have to be the leaders... the slightest humanity and corruption would wash it all away.

While humans exist, with all their honor, faith, courage, greed, cowardice, and pride, certain structures have to be in place to allow a nation to thrive. One of the most important structure is one that keeps people from taking undue advantage of economic disparities. NO ONE can be trusted with global hegemony, whether that is a hegemony of trade, a hegemony of military might, or a hegemony of faith. It is too much power for one person or even one group of individuals. and 'free trade' assumes that all individuals, governments, and corporations involved are utterly perfect and incapable of undue exploitation.


THAT is why conservatives despise liberals... Not because of their goal of perfection, but because they fight tooth and nail for the illusion of perfection, and in the process destroy the 'good enough'.

Blogger SciVo December 19, 2015 9:22 AM  

John Morris @10: We need to be able to describe our "Sunny Uplands".

It is difficult to picture an absence. Here there is an absence of a regulation and a bureaucrat to enforce it! Isn't that absence beautiful?

The second problem is if it happens there must be a civil war, any illusion that such an outcome can be avoided will vanish, both sides will almost instantly see this.

I find it darkly amusing that almost everyone intuitively knows that unlike the right, the left will not allow peaceful defeat. We can all picture the chimpouts. Yet they won't admit that they're to blame for the coming war, since they fancy themselves pacifists, while their side has the biggest body count of all time.

Blogger SciVo December 19, 2015 9:53 AM  

haus frau @28: Generally speaking, when a man politician raises his voice he comes off as impassioned and powerful. When a woman politician does it, she is shrill and nagging. Unless you're Boehner of course, then you just sound like a teary eye fag with a chaffing butt plug

You're right about the average, but how to raise your voice correctly is a learnable skill. You need to push from the bottom of your abdomen like a singer, and open your throat for maximum resonance. This allows you to get a deep, quality tone that carries far, while still looking calm. I call it the "command voice."

The average man can easily outdo the average woman in this skill, but that's not what matters. You can get better yourself, and command more attention from children and underlings when you need it.

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 10:16 AM  

@38

Tits or GTFO

Blogger Nate December 19, 2015 10:25 AM  

"it's hard to see how it is not in my interest as an American consumer to have Chinese peasants working for a dollar an hour to make my mobile phone instead of paying Americans 15 dollars an hour to do it, thereby taking them away from their job repairing cars."

Repairing cars doesn't generate wealth child. Repairing cars produces nothing.

It is a valuable service that maintains some level of wealth.. but it doesn't generate more.

Production generates wealth.

So yeah... that's really hard to see. So hard in fact it took all of .00327 seconds to spot the obvious flaw.

Anonymous Soga December 19, 2015 11:02 AM  

@45 Doc Rampage

You are a fool so I post this response for others to read and not you. Criticizing someone isn't "outright hostile". Outright hostile is calling people childish names like "cuckservative" or trying to hurt their feelings by calling them fat or calling their wife ugly. My post was not hostile. This response to it was.

Triggering Intensifies

See, this is why we call people like you cuckservatives. Not only did you manage to thoroughly embarrass yourself here by mouthing cuckservative platitudes, it's also pretty obvious the word cuts you deeply, just as it does other cuckservatives.

You really don't know what you're talking about here. In your very first post here, you revealed yourself as a cuckservative when you accused Vox of inflaming racism and then claimed that racism was why the Left is so destructive. It's like you never read Vox's recent book, which explicitly states that calling the Left the "real racists" - or rhetoric along that line - is one of the biggest tells of a cuckservative.

And judging by your scare quotes around the term alpha male and then trotting out the "honorable, rational, and charitable" bit, it's really sounding like you don't understand frame control. You've fully subscribed to the Left's control of your frame. You still think the accusation of racism has power, least of all here, at Vox Popoli! That's another thing Vox covers in his book: the cuckservative tendency to legitimize the Left's moral framework and unspoken assumptions.

Next, you'll be telling us what a paragon of virtue you are for having adopted a child from sub-Saharan Africa.

Blogger James Dixon December 19, 2015 12:09 PM  

> You want protectionist trade policies, which is harmful to the economy in the long run.

The country is, by its own inadequate measures, $18 Trillion in debt. It doesn't have a "long run" to worry about.

Blogger Doc Rampage December 19, 2015 12:53 PM  

@47: "Come on. I see this accusation a lot and literally no one here does. I've yet to see anyone suggest that anyone be banned for their opinion, much less disemployed. Nor has anyone claimed to have been abused or harmed by exposure to a contrary opinion. Ergo, no one has reacted like SJWs."

OK, I'll give you that one. I was referring to the knee-jerk hostility against any disagreement, but you are right; that's not the worst characteristic of SJWs.

Blogger John Morris December 19, 2015 1:00 PM  

SciVo @49 said, "It is difficult to picture an absence."

Exactly right. Hard to get people to enlist for a long slog to win an absence, it isn't enough to just be defined by what you are AGAINST. Trump comes pretty close with his "Make America Great Again" slogan, that is something you can get people to be FOR. But long term it still doesn't really describe what he is fighting for. Now while we lose on every front, just standing for winning something, anything, anywhere, sounds like a great idea.

"I find it darkly amusing that almost everyone intuitively knows that unlike the right, the left will not allow peaceful defeat."

That is because we also know that we already ARE defeated. Our lot is to lose to them, to give them an opponent to relentlessly defeat, to be the Washington Generals to their Globetrotters. Should we reject that role their answer will be to skip all that and move to crushing us like bugs, that they can create a new ritual "Goldstein" later. We must be prepared for that reaction.

Blogger Danby December 19, 2015 1:17 PM  

@ Doc Rampage
I was referring to the knee-jerk hostility against any disagreement

It's not the disagreement that generates hostility, it's your habit of combining sneering contempt with discredited ideas and a large dollop of stupidity.

Blogger Doc Rampage December 19, 2015 1:42 PM  

@53: "Not only did you manage to thoroughly embarrass yourself here by mouthing cuckservative platitudes"

So let's get this straight: you think it's embarrassing to express an opinion in a blog comment that is not shared by the blog host and his most vocal commenters? How very ... delicate of you.

"t's also pretty obvious the word cuts you deeply, just as it does other cuckservatives"

You poor deluded fool. You think I didn't know that some weenie was going to call me a cuckservative when I posted that comment? You must think I'm courageous then to have faced up to such deep, deep emotional cuts. Thanks, that's really flattering, but the truth is, I just don't care what some random prat calls me.

Blogger Doc Rampage December 19, 2015 1:49 PM  

@57: "It's not the disagreement that generates hostility, it's your habit of combining sneering contempt with discredited ideas and a large dollop of stupidity."

For the record, the contempt is reserved for people like you and Soga who can't tell the difference between contempt and simple disagreement. And it's not a sneering contempt, more of a wrinkled brow and raised eyebrow contempt, like "who let those kids in the pool? They're probably peeing in there."

Blogger Danby December 19, 2015 1:52 PM  

@Doc Rampage,
The affected superiority schtick is a really obvious midwit gamma tell.

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot December 19, 2015 7:05 PM  

The reason George Clooney put off being married for so long is he knew as long as he projected "rich alpha" he could do horrible stinking movies and still have tons of gold diggers making their boyfriends pay for them to see the shows.

I know Trump will have the GOLD DIGGING HO VOTE, the only question is if that is the majority of American Women.

Blogger SciVo December 19, 2015 9:01 PM  

John Morris @56: Now while we lose on every front, just standing for winning something, anything, anywhere, sounds like a great idea.

I'm thinking hard and we need to make the absence of a regulation and bureaucrat to enforce it into something concrete and winning. What does it look like? What does it sound like? What does it smell like?

Freedom is you on your property, playing with your kids with your wife watching, showing them nature. Getting into the dirt and the bugs. Maybe showing them how to plant seeds.

Yes. Make it about generativity vs. sterility.

Blogger SciVo December 19, 2015 9:05 PM  

Not that I have a wife or kids, but I can imagine it and how to sell the vision; and the absence of sterility is presence of generativity.

Blogger Gerry Tork December 20, 2015 10:18 AM  

I first heard "social entrepreneur" ten years ago. I infiltrated a list of social workers (surprise) discussing health propaganda. Mostly stuff like quit smoking and eat your greens, but that's where I first encountered the SJW in it's natural habitat. As I was gathering intel I thankfully never had to interact. But they do see themselves as mini Bernays or Goebbelses.

Blogger Gerry Tork December 20, 2015 10:33 AM  

@23 Hillary's core strength is not women, it is Marxists, journalists (but I repeat myself), and people who depend on the government for their livelihood.

Sounds like leaving Faceberg was a wise decision. Most of my "friends" were hacks and silly servants and even listening to Benghazi Barbie on the debate upped my BP.

Blogger Gerry Tork December 20, 2015 10:43 AM  

@44 "3 am phone calls? When I was building the Trump Dacha Deluxe, and you know, Moscow, great city by the way, is 8 hours ahead of New York, I got them all the time!"

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts