Democrats Vs White Nationalists On Election Day
provocative Donway at his best: "Krugman is the white knight, the idealized champion, moving America as rapidly as possible toward socialism. A Nobel laureate in economics, Ivy League professor, and columnist for the New York Times, Krugman proclaimed his socialism in his book, Conscience of A Liberal, a deliberate parallel with Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. Krugman explains that “liberal” in America equates with “social democrat” in Europe. I will argue that the more precise term is “fascist democrat”—one who aspires to elect a government that is the fascist variant of socialism.
If Krugman puts white nationalism first among motives for supporting Trump, he accuses what is called the “American heartland” of bigotry. Much of the South, Midwest, Northwest, parts of New England, and some Mid-Atlantic states now are for Trump. Almost half of America, on Krugman’s map, is heavily white nationalist, yearning for a racially pure United States that, in fact, never existed, that they never experienced, but that Paul Krugman divines in their hearts."
If Krugman puts white nationalism first among motives for supporting Trump, he accuses what is called the “American heartland” of bigotry. Much of the South, Midwest, Northwest, parts of New England, and some Mid-Atlantic states now are for Trump. Almost half of America, on Krugman’s map, is heavily white nationalist, yearning for a racially pure United States that, in fact, never existed, that they never experienced, but that Paul Krugman divines in their hearts."
The solution is not a peaceful one.
Ironic given that the national socialist party was as politically left as they come.
Mr. W. Donway is spot on , a voice of reason. Thanks for sharing his views. I am shocked by the anti-white or more specifically old white guy angst I guess they feel they have the white women vote so they are not going to vilify them.
The dog whistle ,the division of the populace. The last 8 years have seen in my view a regression of race relations to the worst of my life time. The statistics related to violence committed by blacks against whites or Hispanics is no surprise to law enforcement. In a parking ramp or street corner Klugman might find out that whipping up more hate against whites by blacks could backfire.
In the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along".
Lincoln's war was not necessary and happened because of government meddling. The next "civil" war will happen for the same reason and corrupt people like Krugman and Clinton will be the root cause... again.
This time, Lincoln's precious "union", now a near complete federal dictatorship, will not survive.
Oh well, I am after all a "deplorable".
Likely not the optimal path to freedom looking at what happened throughout the rest of the world in a similar situation.
Re: “I do not think it would have been much different in the CSA.” Then you are ignoring several differences between the U.S. and the other countries (mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean) that practiced widespread plantation slavery. The division between the races was more pronounced in the U.S. – according to Wikipedia, “In Colonial Brazil, slavery was more a social than a racial condition.” And the Catholic culture in Latin America gave slaves somewhat more recognition as human beings than the Protestant culture in the American South.
The states that made up the Confederacy boasted the perfect environment for continuing slavery far beyond the timeframe in which other countries were abolishing it: An attitude by the overwhelming majority of whites of their racial superiority, total political control by pro-slavery state legislatures and governors, and a huge and immensely profitable plantation economy that depended upon massive amounts of slave labor for its existence.
Under these circumstances, the absolute best that could be expected under a Confederate government would be gradual abolition of slavery in two to three generations, and continued political, economic and physical suppression of African-Americans for decades afterwards.
You will find today fervent proponents of Marxism that declare the unending failures of Marxist states are due to the evil sabotage of greedy capitalists that undermined them. By the same reasoning, a conservative who declares a progressive program a failure based on unimpressive results is declared a traitorous saboteur.
The new tactic is to declare all non-progressives to be "racist," which has become a much broader term of use than its proper definition. When a Trump supporter points to the successes of an earlier time, with less immigration, more conservative economic environment, and stronger family connections and support, it's easy for a progressive to equate that to a time when whites were a significant majority, and declare the Trumpeters are standing for racist white supremacy/nationalism.
He gets all the race and gender baiting.Hillary uses the Alinsky rules, which now seem to have taken over the democrats as their method of choice.. He sees that the whites want US national loyalty, while the Democrats claim to be the savior of blacks,instead of letting them be their own saviors. They are at war within their cultures. Hillary spoke out when Trump said how unsafe black nenighborhoods had become, as if her were exaggerating. Check out Dayton, OH, where theyere are black on black shootings EVERY night, and they are not ghetto, but family neighborhoods. The issue are not whites, but drugs and Democrat lies.
I would flip this on the PC, BLM, LGBTs who assert via fascism that anyone even uncomfortable with their positions are inappropriate.
Let's say, some may prefer a BLM or you could pull a Krugman.
There's a Jimmy Carter card for anyone white who'd dare criticize Chairman O. Oops, I just got some Jimmy peanuty stink on me.
I don't say that out of schadenfreude but rather hope that this will lead to people debating the cost, intrusiveness, and constitutionality of the gov't.
Democrats are the same way.in undermining Sanders, although I'm not really complaining because I did not want him to be president. Democrats would be in a similar situation to the Republicans if Sanders were the nominee.
I hope somehow a less-gov't party forms out of all this mess.
hmm. I think you just insulted 2/3 of the gulchers
I do not know, but here's my guess. Republicans are a loose coalition of smart people in favor of less gov't and rednecks. Democrats are a loose coalition of handout-seekers and people averse to rednecks. This is in very broad terms, not saying every member of each party must be in one of the two groups.
The rednecks are more likely to be racists toward people with black skin, pushing those people more into the "averse to redneck" camp. There's more poverty among African Americans. Not everyone who's poor wants a handout, but some of them do, and those people are attracted to the handout-seeking arm.
Some of the averse-to-redneck people might joint Republicans despite the redneck arm if the less-gov't side were effective at shrinking gov't. They aren't effective. At the same time Democrats send out fund-raising messages showcasing the most redneck Republicans around. Both sides know breaking people into identity groups works, so they do it. It why we're even talking about groups right now: urban/rural, Midwesterns vs Coasties, racial groups.
I said intellectual less-gov't Republicans. Maybe there's supposed to be a comma between the adjectives "intellectual" and "less-gov't".