RSS
Dear Readers: The article below has come to me. I am unable to ascertain if it is a published statement or one of those items sent around the Internet. Nevertheless, I do believe that it captures the attitude of those Americans who in the vast majority of the states gave their vote to Donald Trump.
The optimism expessed in the article might be unrealistic. In order to prevail over the Oligarchy, President Trump will need a government as strong as he appears to be. He cannot find the strength he needs for his government among the usual Washington, Wall Street, and corporate sources. If he selects from these people, he will be impotent.
The question is: who is his transition team? Are they focused on making nice with the Oligachs? If so, there will be no change.
The Democratic Party failed America for the eight years of the Clinton Regime, which committed war crimes and overthrew a sovereign government on the basis of lies. The George W. Bush Regime originated the Middle East wars entirely on the basis of lies. These wars have resulted in the deaths, maiming, and dislocation of millions of peoples who have sought refuge from America’s aggression in Europe. The corrupt Obama Regime has continued and expanded Bush’s illegal wars and stupidly brought the US into conflict with Russia and China, either one of which can destroy the United States of America.
Now we have the psychopath George Soros funding hired protesters, who are bussed from protest to protest, in an effort to delegitimize the Trump presidency. This is an act of treason, but oligarchs such as Soros are above the law. They are never held accounable. Trump should arrest Soros and put him on trial.
Trump says that he wants to bring the oligarchs under the law. If he fails, America fails with him.
This wasn’t an election. It was a revolution.
By Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center
It was midnight in America. The day of the election millions Americans got up and stood in front of the Machine, the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them as white trash racists.
They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been given to foreigners in foreign countries so that the incomes of oligarchs could rise. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being raped by the undocumented illegals flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.
They held up their hands and the great iron wheel stopped.
Blue America crumbled. The Blue States fell one by one. Ohio. Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Iowa. The white working class that had been overlooked and trampled on for so long got to its feet. It rose up against its oppressors. The rest of the nation, between the West coast and the North East coast–the fly-over zone– rose up with it.
They fought back against their jobs being shipped overseas while their towns filled with migrants that got everything while they got nothing. They fought back against a system in which they could go to jail for a trifle while the elites could violate the law and still stroll through a presidential election.
They fought back against being told that they had to watch what they say.
They fought back against being held in contempt because they wanted to work for a living, take care of their families, and protect the sanctity of marriage.
And they won.
This wasn’t a vote. It was an uprising.
Like the ordinary men chipping away at the Berlin Wall, they tore down an unnatural thing that had towered over them. And as they watched it fall, they marveled at how weak and fragile it had always been. And how much stronger they were than they had ever known.
Who were these people? They were the neglected in the fly-over country that is the heart of America. They didn’t have univeristy degrees, and they had never set foot in a Starbucks to pay $5 for a cup of coffee. They were the white working class. They didn’t talk right or think right. They had the wrong ideas, the wrong clothes and the ridiculous idea that they still mattered.
They were told they were wrong about everything. Illegal immigration. Black Lives Matter, but not jobs for the oppressed middle class. Manufacturing is unnecessary for an economy in which financial profits are all important. Transgendered bathrooms. Same gender marriages. Americans were supposed to bow down and surrender to a handful of perverts.
Told that the future belongs to the metrosexual dot com transgendered globalist, and not to the guy who once had a good job before the globalist corporations with Washington’s blessings sent it to China or Mexico, real Americans revolted.
White trash American couldn’t change anything, declared the pundits. But instead of adapting to the inevitable future of America’s demise, they got in their pickup trucks and drove out to vote.
And they changed everything.
Barack Hussein Obama boasted that he had changed America. And he did for the worse. A billion regulations, millions of immigrants, a hundred thousand lies and it was no longer our America.
White Trash America voted and sent Obama to Hell. They walked through him and through the Democratic Party like the wet paper bag that they are. Voters abandoned the party that had sold out the American people. More black Americans voted for Trump than voted for Romney.
The election repudiated the Obamas, the Clintons, the celebrities, and the media. Americans turned the One Percent’s world upside down.
CNN is weeping. MSNBC is wailing. ABC calls it a tantrum. NBC damns it. It wasn’t supposed to happen. The same machine that crushed the American people for six straight terms, the mass of neoconned government, globalist corporations and oligarch-financed non-profits that ran the country, was set to win. Or so they thought.
Instead the people stood in front of the Machine. They blocked it with their votes even though the media told them Hillary was the certain winner. They mailed in their absentee ballots even while Hillary Clinton was planning her fireworks victory celebration. They looked at the empty factories and barren farms. They drove through the early cold. They waited in line. They came home to their children to tell them that they had done their best for their future. They bet on America. And they won.
They sre tired of the absence of affordable health care and recognize the fraud of Obamacare. They are tired of unemployment and of being lied to. They are tired of watching their sons come back in coffins so that the military/security complex could continue to loot America with their wars. They are tired of being called names and watching the theft of their country.
They understood that Trump was right. The election was their last hope, their last chance to save themselves and their country. And they did.
This election was not about who gets to use the female toilet. It wasn’t about whether it is racist to enforce the immigration laws. It wasn’t about how men, however uncouthly, express their sexual interest in women.
It was about suffering Americans, whose names no one except a server and the NSA will ever know, fighting back against their oppression. It was about the homeless woman guarding Trump’s star. It was about the betrayed Democrats searching for someone to represent them in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was about the union men who refused to sell out their futures and vote for a Democrat who is an agent of the One Percent.
The media will never interview those men and women. We will never see their faces. But they are us and we are them. They came to the aid of a nation in peril. They did what real Americans have always done. They did the impossible.
Er, Señor Roberts, are you quite all right? One would hate to lose your superfine analysis of US government economic statistics.
May one point out that Señor Greenfield is a Neo-Con?
Just thought you’d like to know.
http://www.unz.com/proberts/this-wasnt-a-vote-it-was-an-uprising/#comment-1648457
This is probably right, but the interesting point is that Trump focused the zeitgeist in a constructive way.
He’s not an anarchist, and wants to deal with the “Establishment”, so it’s to their advantage to engage with him and do the deals. If he sells out his base (or the Establishment removes him), the zeitgeist could be focused in a much more destructive way.
The best move for the Establishment would surely be to accept a partial loss of power and give up their future gains (outsourcing, Dem. voter immigration, QE insider gifts and Israel serving wars) while holding onto their present enormous wealth.
The 1% hold such a large percentage (90%+) of global wealth that they cannot be denied their wishes. Frankly, once they achieved 60% -- back in '82 -- the process was inevitable.
They have to be killed, Miro, for mankind to become civilized. Those with money and power must be shown that power must be used wisely, and for the benefit of the majority, not the few. Certainly, not all of them must be killed, but the worst of the bunch must go to the gallows on some fine sunny day in some fine and future June.
For now, they are not dead, not jailed, not hanged in the public square. They still have money; they still have all the power, and nothing has changed.
While Greenfield may buy too much into the anti-immigrant rhetoric, he is definitely not a neocon, since he mentions the useless wars, etc. The neocons are the ones supporting the harpy. It is already apparent that change for the better is in the air in Syria as a result of the harpy’s political demise. The salient fact is that war with Russia is no longer on the agenda, and this dwarfs all other considerations. The demonstrations, as craigslist documents posted on theduran.com reveal, are being financed and carried out by Soros-controlled organisations at the core of them. These are useful idiots defending the parasitic dangerous oligarchy which was vanquished. The disgrace was all of the people of good will who looked the other way despite the evidence of corruption, war crimes and war mongering which the Clintons represented. There were also plenty of reports of voting machines wanting to switch from Trump to Clinton but none going the other way. Soros apparently had an interest in many of the voting machines. It is quite likely that the popular vote lead enjoyed by the harpy was itself the result of fraud which did not quite succeed because, though there was widespread cheating in certain areas, including Pennsylvania, the Trump tide was too large in too many areas for her to succeed. It is also cynical in the extreme for the lamestream press and their acolytes to complain about the legitimacy of the election when they scored Trump for not being sure things would be fair despite the machinations of Robert Creamer, Foval and others revealed by the O’Keefe videos during the election campaign.
There are a number of practical benefits to Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin making nicey-nicey with one another, inter alia, avoiding WW-III, finally jointly taking out ISIL snd Terrorism instead of wasting time trying to justify supporting “moderate” rebels who invariably end up being the next wave of terrorists, saving a few bucks by getting the EU freeloaders to pay for their own defence or, better, bringing Russia into NATO because we both face an even larger series of threats, or better still, pulling back from NATO altogether.
But the most practical benefit of this relationship might just be the knowledge exchange on how to deal with intractable oligarchs; Mr. Putin has hung on to the reins of power despite the existential threats of powerful Russian and EU oligarchs, and perhaps can give Mr. Trump a pointer or two on how to deal with ours.
There was no “uprising.” Trump garnered 1m votes less than Romney. He won only because Hillary garnered 6m votes less than Obama did in 2012 (and 10m less than Obama in 2010).
The personnel for the new administration will be drawn from the ranks of the same old hacks of previous administrations. PCR himself indicated the virtual inevitability of this in a post around a year back.
May one point out that Señor Greenfield is a Neo-Con?
Just thought you'd like to know.
Not so fast, Señor Speedy Gonzalez. 40 minutes after you posted, there came this riff from exiled off main street: ” . . . Greenfield . . . is definitely not a neocon, since he mentions the useless wars, etc. The neocons are the ones supporting the harpy. It is already apparent that change for the better is in the air in Syria as a result of the harpy’s political demise. The salient fact is that war with Russia is no longer on the agenda, and this dwarfs all other considerations.” Got his points about “useless wars,” a favorite neocon activity, and that things beginning to go better in Syria (now that the harpy has croaked – thanks to no pneumonia) and that her war (mongering) with Russia is no longer on the agenda? By definition, Greenfield is not a neocon, Works for me. How about you, Señor Speedy?
May one point out that Señor Greenfield is a Neo-Con?
Just thought you'd like to know.
I don’t know who this guy Greenfield is. But a neocon who can write this is certainly a traitor to the neocon cause:
I wouldn’t say it was an uprising, Dr Roberts. An uprising would have resulted in Bill Clinton being pitchforked to death and Hillary Clinton burnt at the stake.
However, I do believe that Donald Trump would have won overwhelmingly but for 2 things. The wrecking campaigns of Gary Dopehead and Kosher Egg McMuffin accounted for nearly 3.5% of the vote, nearly all of which came from Republicans. Secondly, the illegal vote rigging as practised by the Democrats for decades – they even got the Mafia to rig the 1960 election – resulted in many illegal votes for Clinton. With proper voting enforcement, I’m sure millions of votes for Clinton would have been discounted.
I wonder what the actual vote count would have been if Democrat cheating could have been eliminated.
It is my opinion, which I can’t prove, that Soros is in actuality acting as a front for some part of the US government. That way it doesn’t have it’s fingerprints on anything and Soros is the flak catcher. He’s been in finance for many years and so is probably subject to blackmail and coercion. If they can’t find some violation of law that he’s committed in the past thirty years then they could certainly frame him up or find skeletons in his closet. He makes the perfect front man, an eccentric billionaire egotist with money to blow on his pet projects around the world; being obviously very rich makes people not question where the money is really coming from. Spreading chaos, instability, conflict and divisiveness is part of the worldwide ‘color revolutions’, overseas as well as domestically, being promulgated wherever deemed useful. Using fronts is par for the course.
Seems to be the other way around, actually. He gives his money to support campaigns of candidates, to organizations like BLM, etc. He claims to do it for charitable/noble reasons but makes lots of money fiddling around with the markets, including causing destabilization of currency. He made billions off of squeezing the British pound.
Count me as unimpressed with Mr. Greenfield’s faux-Churchillian rhetoric. Fred Reed’s latest installment nailed it far better, including rhetoric-wise.
I suspect Ortega y Gasset is watching Trump’s stunt and smirking.
Let’s correct the widely misused term oligarchy and use the correct term for the US power structure a plutocracy.
Plutocracy: a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.
Oligarchy: a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
The US is in effect a plutocracy because the wealthy propertied class, in which there are many billionaires, have bought off the professional political class, of which there are many.
More importantly this means the US government is corrupted or corrupt.
Donald Trump is a plutocrat, he is a peripheral member of the US plutocracy.
George Soros is a plutocrat who makes it his business to fund “color revolutions” [peasant revolts] in order to overthrow pro Russian regimes like Trump’s professed pro Putin inclinations.
How can a peasants revolt [down trodden white man's "upraising"] which supports a plutocrat over throw a plutocratic US regime?
IMO, Trump saw some useful writing on a wall, and leveraged what it bespoke. Leveraged it clumsily, I might add, as any true expression of intent to "un-corrupt" the corruption would have won by a much larger margin.
There is no reason to trust Trump -- no reason at all. Wait and watch before you decide.
He's not an anarchist, and wants to deal with the "Establishment", so it's to their advantage to engage with him and do the deals. If he sells out his base (or the Establishment removes him), the zeitgeist could be focused in a much more destructive way.
The best move for the Establishment would surely be to accept a partial loss of power and give up their future gains (outsourcing, Dem. voter immigration, QE insider gifts and Israel serving wars) while holding onto their present enormous wealth.
Perhaps you do not understand economic power. The “Establishment” is what the 1% want it to be, no more, no less. If they wanted to manifest and present the working class as the “Establishment”, they would.
The 1% hold such a large percentage (90%+) of global wealth that they cannot be denied their wishes. Frankly, once they achieved 60% — back in ’82 — the process was inevitable.
They have to be killed, Miro, for mankind to become civilized. Those with money and power must be shown that power must be used wisely, and for the benefit of the majority, not the few. Certainly, not all of them must be killed, but the worst of the bunch must go to the gallows on some fine sunny day in some fine and future June.
For now, they are not dead, not jailed, not hanged in the public square. They still have money; they still have all the power, and nothing has changed.
Popular vote is meaningless. It’s like saying you won the battle for control of the game clock, or out-rebounded your opponent, when you lost the game by the metric that matters: points scored.
It’s basically trying to change the way victory is defined, after the game has been played and lost.
Victory conditions are always set before the game begins.
If you can’t see the elements of uprising in Trump’s victory over cankles, you may be obtuse.
Gee, ya think?
IMO, Trump saw some useful writing on a wall, and leveraged what it bespoke. Leveraged it clumsily, I might add, as any true expression of intent to “un-corrupt” the corruption would have won by a much larger margin.
There is no reason to trust Trump — no reason at all. Wait and watch before you decide.
Trump does manifest courage. Everyone is against him. He and his campaign have been compared to Reagan and the 1980 campaign frequently. That's the previous president he does resemble ideologically, and even in some personal traits (slim on charm though); but his situation reminds one more of Kennedy in 1960. Popular with many, but truly hated by others. He has few political friends in high places (or anywhere in the power structure), has a facility for making enemies, and actually thinks he is the President in more than title. He might also end up putting a relative in a key position, because who else can you trust.
May one point out that Señor Greenfield is a Neo-Con?
Just thought you'd like to know.
LOL. May one point out that what he wrote is NOT “neocon” cant? May one point out that YOU, by innuendo, make a transparent attempt to discredit what Greenfield wrote? Therefore, it would appear that YOU are the “neocon”?
However, I do believe that Donald Trump would have won overwhelmingly but for 2 things. The wrecking campaigns of Gary Dopehead and Kosher Egg McMuffin accounted for nearly 3.5% of the vote, nearly all of which came from Republicans. Secondly, the illegal vote rigging as practised by the Democrats for decades - they even got the Mafia to rig the 1960 election - resulted in many illegal votes for Clinton. With proper voting enforcement, I'm sure millions of votes for Clinton would have been discounted.
Yes!
I wonder what the actual vote count would have been if Democrat cheating could have been eliminated.
Richard Nixon must have thought the same in 1960 when the Kennedys rigged the vote. But he gritted his teeth and accepted it stoically.
It’s interesting to speculate what would have happened if Nixon had been President in 1960. Probably much better for white Americans.
Nah.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kakistocracy
Michael Moore predicted this. Pretty impressive actually.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/michael-moore-trumps-election-will-be-biggest-fuck-you-ever-recorded-human-history
It looks like its 3 to 1 in favour of Mr. Greenfeild not being a neocon. Given this difference of opinion, I decided to do a little research, because like most people, I’ve never heard of Daniel Greenfield before… and it turns out Mr. Greenfeild is in the employ of David Horowitz.
As most are well aware, David Horowitz is the founder and current president of the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center and editor of the Center’s publication, FrontPage Magazine. Mr. Greenfield is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine.
A little backgrounder on David Horowitz:
And here is what Horowitz had to say on the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq:
So it appears that PCR decided to cite a letter written by someone who most Americans never heard of. According to his very terse wiki entry, Daniel Greenfield is “a journalist and conservative blogger who is critical of Islam. He was born in Israel and today lives in New York City.”
Now, to get a better understanding of what may have motivated Mr. Greenfeild to write that letter, all you have to do is read the following article he recently posted on frontage at.com, ISRAELI CONSERVATIVES CELEBRATE TRUMP WIN.
Here are a few interesting excerpts:
So why would PCR reference a letter written by someone who most have never heard of, without providing us a hint as to his background and political views? A little backgrounder on Paul Craig Roberts. Soon after 9/11, I was drawn to PCR because of his apparent willingness to speak truth to power in his articles. After reading many of them on a regular basis, however, I began to detect a clear pattern. In many of them, while Mr. Roberts was willing to hit hard and identify the people and the policies responsible for America’s domestic woes, he was reluctant doing so when it came to foreign policy. Even in this article he prefers to use the term “oligarchs” rather than use the term neocons/Israel firsters when it comes to identifying those responsible for the disastrous effects of US foreign policy.
So, in the final analysis, I think E.A. Costa, aka Mr. Speedy Gonzales, got it right.
Looks like PCR got snookered.
That makes sense. I have tried to fathom that reptile’s motives and means, especially with regard to what is happening in this country, and they elude me. Blaming it on his ethnicity doesn’t explain it.
IMO, Trump saw some useful writing on a wall, and leveraged what it bespoke. Leveraged it clumsily, I might add, as any true expression of intent to "un-corrupt" the corruption would have won by a much larger margin.
There is no reason to trust Trump -- no reason at all. Wait and watch before you decide.
Yes, he’s very, very rich and knows where the bodies are buried metaphorically speaking; but he’s also risking his life. Did he expect that?
Trump does manifest courage. Everyone is against him. He and his campaign have been compared to Reagan and the 1980 campaign frequently. That’s the previous president he does resemble ideologically, and even in some personal traits (slim on charm though); but his situation reminds one more of Kennedy in 1960. Popular with many, but truly hated by others. He has few political friends in high places (or anywhere in the power structure), has a facility for making enemies, and actually thinks he is the President in more than title. He might also end up putting a relative in a key position, because who else can you trust.
Both Reagan and Kennedy had their respective political machines 100% behind them.
Aside from the MSM and the Democratic party machine, Trump was 100% opposed by the Republican Establishment. And they were quite open about it. Has there been any other election where the Speaker of the House of the given party openly worked against the candidate who _won_ nomination? I am not aware of any.
Trump election was as populist as it gets (in the American electoral system).
A historic event.
Good background research.
Looks like PCR got snookered.
You right-wing wackos are you own worst enemies. Shit, can you BE any more hard-headed doctrinaire? So stupid.
I managed to dig up some more goodies re this newly minted American patriot:Looks like he's not the only one.
Musil? Very funny.
Trump does manifest courage. Everyone is against him. He and his campaign have been compared to Reagan and the 1980 campaign frequently. That's the previous president he does resemble ideologically, and even in some personal traits (slim on charm though); but his situation reminds one more of Kennedy in 1960. Popular with many, but truly hated by others. He has few political friends in high places (or anywhere in the power structure), has a facility for making enemies, and actually thinks he is the President in more than title. He might also end up putting a relative in a key position, because who else can you trust.
Comparisons with Reagan or Kennedy are not valid.
Both Reagan and Kennedy had their respective political machines 100% behind them.
Aside from the MSM and the Democratic party machine, Trump was 100% opposed by the Republican Establishment. And they were quite open about it. Has there been any other election where the Speaker of the House of the given party openly worked against the candidate who _won_ nomination? I am not aware of any.
Trump election was as populist as it gets (in the American electoral system).
A historic event.
Both Reagan and Kennedy had their respective political machines 100% behind them.
Aside from the MSM and the Democratic party machine, Trump was 100% opposed by the Republican Establishment. And they were quite open about it. Has there been any other election where the Speaker of the House of the given party openly worked against the candidate who _won_ nomination? I am not aware of any.
Trump election was as populist as it gets (in the American electoral system).
A historic event.
The Trump election was historic and unique, no argument there; that’s why it was surprising how often people referred to the campaign as being like Reagan’s. Reagan got ok press, and was not vilified like Trump. I was focusing more on the presidency than the campaign, but maybe things will improve. Most people who think they hate him, never listened to him more than a sound bit.
Yes, the political machine was behind JFK as it was not behind Trump. Certainly JFK got better press and was considered to have won a debate he probably really lost; but at the end of the day, imo, the situations are similar. That political machine does not promise friends and loyalty once the person is in power. Any assistance that political machine provided during the campaign was history within 6 months.
Jesus Mother-Humping Christ!! Bullshit by the truckload does not smell sweeter than bullshit by the shovelful. Will you fucking contain yourself?
What Greenfield wrote was not neocon phlegm. That’s all. No more, no less. Based on what Costa SAID, Greenfield did not write as a neocon. He may BE one, sure. He may NOT be one. Knock it off with the bullshit, huh?
Eschew surplusage.
Looks like PCR got snookered.
You are an idiot. If Attila the Hun had written the Greenfield piece, it still would have been good copy.
You right-wing wackos are you own worst enemies. Shit, can you BE any more hard-headed doctrinaire? So stupid.
Trump does manifest courage. Everyone is against him. He and his campaign have been compared to Reagan and the 1980 campaign frequently. That's the previous president he does resemble ideologically, and even in some personal traits (slim on charm though); but his situation reminds one more of Kennedy in 1960. Popular with many, but truly hated by others. He has few political friends in high places (or anywhere in the power structure), has a facility for making enemies, and actually thinks he is the President in more than title. He might also end up putting a relative in a key position, because who else can you trust.
Unlikely. He has friends in Jewish places. Can’t get much safer than that.
A 50-50 split in the popular vote is hardly an uprising.
Trump won not because of white identity politics, but because of ideology. He won because of a seismic shift in the blue-collar vote i.e. Reagan Democrats. This same group that voted twice for Obama.
Look at Wisconsin. Here, Trump was just as despised as Hillary Clinton,was far less popular than the president he railed against, and underperformed in that state’s biggest counties and in his own party’s suburban Milwaukee base. Moreover, half of “non-college whites” had an unfavorable opinion of him, according to exit poll data provided by Edison Research. Yet, of those blue-collar voters who did not likeTrump, almost a third (29%) voted for him.
Ideology trumps identity.
You right-wing wackos are you own worst enemies. Shit, can you BE any more hard-headed doctrinaire? So stupid.
{You are an idiot. }
No, you are.
{You right-wing wackos…}
You anti-American, anti-Christian, left-wing neo-Nazi, Fascist scum are the real wackos.
Over to you, neo-Nazi, Fascist, left-wing wacko scum.
Trump does manifest courage. Everyone is against him. He and his campaign have been compared to Reagan and the 1980 campaign frequently. That's the previous president he does resemble ideologically, and even in some personal traits (slim on charm though); but his situation reminds one more of Kennedy in 1960. Popular with many, but truly hated by others. He has few political friends in high places (or anywhere in the power structure), has a facility for making enemies, and actually thinks he is the President in more than title. He might also end up putting a relative in a key position, because who else can you trust.
After RFK was confirmed as AG in 1961, an anti-nepotism law was passed.
Looks like PCR got snookered.
Thanks, Avery.
I managed to dig up some more goodies re this newly minted American patriot:
Looks like he’s not the only one.
Wow.
I managed to dig up some more goodies re this newly minted American patriot:Looks like he's not the only one.
{‘We would have to be willing to kill millions, directly or indirectly,… that would accuse us of genocide.}
Wow.
“It is my opinion, which I can’t prove, that Soros is in actuality acting as a front for some part of the US government.”
Seems to be the other way around, actually. He gives his money to support campaigns of candidates, to organizations like BLM, etc. He claims to do it for charitable/noble reasons but makes lots of money fiddling around with the markets, including causing destabilization of currency. He made billions off of squeezing the British pound.
Trump won not because of white identity politics, but because of ideology. He won because of a seismic shift in the blue-collar vote i.e. Reagan Democrats. This same group that voted twice for Obama.
Look at Wisconsin. Here, Trump was just as despised as Hillary Clinton,was far less popular than the president he railed against, and underperformed in that state’s biggest counties and in his own party’s suburban Milwaukee base. Moreover, half of “non-college whites” had an unfavorable opinion of him, according to exit poll data provided by Edison Research. Yet, of those blue-collar voters who did not likeTrump, almost a third (29%) voted for him.
Ideology trumps identity.
Not entirely. Ideology springs from identity, for the most part. Trump won because the lies could no longer convince. There’s only so many times people will be believe “Oh, that pore messican!” every time their pockets are picked.
And so goes the Alt Right narrative, much like the MSM one. Trump won because a key demographic, non-college degreed whites, voted for his message. This same group voted for Obama because of his message.
Trump better deliver the goods, because even those within that group who voted for him held negative attitudes toward a New York elitist. If they get hoodwinked, it's back to the Democrats, so long as their candidate seeks to address their issues. Again, its ideology.
Call. I’ve got “thumbsucker” and “cheat”.
“Not entirely. Ideology springs from identity, for the most part. Trump won because the lies could no longer convince.”
And so goes the Alt Right narrative, much like the MSM one. Trump won because a key demographic, non-college degreed whites, voted for his message. This same group voted for Obama because of his message.
Trump better deliver the goods, because even those within that group who voted for him held negative attitudes toward a New York elitist. If they get hoodwinked, it’s back to the Democrats, so long as their candidate seeks to address their issues. Again, its ideology.
Feel free -- not my option to do anything but take note -- but the usage is incorrect.
And so goes the Alt Right narrative, much like the MSM one. Trump won because a key demographic, non-college degreed whites, voted for his message. This same group voted for Obama because of his message.
Trump better deliver the goods, because even those within that group who voted for him held negative attitudes toward a New York elitist. If they get hoodwinked, it's back to the Democrats, so long as their candidate seeks to address their issues. Again, its ideology.
You are using “ideology” in replacement of the correct term, “propaganda”.
Feel free — not my option to do anything but take note — but the usage is incorrect.