Let's just get this off first: Erin Schrode (Hillary supporter) doesn't know jack shit about Nazi Germany. If you know someone who goes down the 'Trump is Hitler' route safely dismiss them and move on. Sure, you can try and engage and get them to back the assertion but you won't get far.
For one simple reason. There's no comparison on any level to be made.
You'll get a lot of vague and specious correlations but not much else.
And lots of exasperated 'I can't believe you don't agree with me' grimaces.
Like I said. Don't bother. At this point, such people are not looking to discuss (because they're know nothings) their arguments; let alone history. I'm honestly starting to wonder if they even read history anymore. I mean, they've pretty much dismissed the past as nothing but old dead white racists so what's the point, right? History starts with them and them alone.
But there she is. Pretending like she does. Looking like an idiot. On full display is a profound ignorance that's quite troubling.
She's talking out of her ass sprouting the usual vacuous platitudes the progressive left are infamous for.
I'm almost completely certain she never read a book on WWII or any literature related to the war. No one who has would make a claim that Trump is Hitler and we 'need to learn lessons' from it.
Anyway, notice the tactic. Make an absurd claim and don't allow for criticism of the claim so as to deflect needing to defend it. It's one ad hominen after a false claim. The left have a distorted view on what constitutes healthy and civil discussion.
I think we're getting a pretty good indication of how things are gonna go under Trump where the media is concerned.
Whatever he does, the left will bash and complain about even if it's something they supported under Obama. Don't be surprised if they suddenly hate drone killings, deficits, bail outs and war again.
I mean, like, where have Green Day been, man?!
Trump hasn't even taken power and the criticism is already off the charts. Notice the hysterical reaction to his staff appointments. It's almost as if they don't grasp the concept of the winner gets to make their own government. It's almost as if they expected him to appoint people they agree with. Of course, that's what the left demands. Complete submission. But they won't get that with Trump. Thankfully.
Obama filled his appointments with questionable people with some dubious backgrounds; some even ended up being incompetent.
He got his kick at the can and now it's Trump's Presidency.
All the stuff he did will become Trump's except the left will not tolerate any 'I inherited a mess' excuse.
Another example I've observed of how the media is going to cover Trump is a report I saw about him being named Time's Person of the Year. Never got worked up over that myself but it was very interesting to hear the person interviewed on CTV News say it's not an award or something for positive recognition (along those lines anyway).
When Obama was named TPofY not a single person came out to try and belittle it. It was reported as though it was a great honor to get.
The media literally insults you to your face and people still watch this garbage? I happened to see it because it was a commercial to watch them at 11pm. I don't watch news that takes me for an idiot.
It's gonna be a loooong four years where the mainstream press is concerned regarding Trump.
And Trump is just going to troll the heck out of them.
"...Castro with evasive pieces on his passing. Even Amanpour got into the act, interviewing international figures about the “unclear” legacy of Castro. She can find nuance in Castro but not in Trump.
Journalists who wouldn’t have survived a day in Castro’s Cuba treat Trump as an enemy of press freedom (for such grave offenses as not informing his press pool that he was going out to dinner). They gasp at Trump’s health care plans, while praising Castro’s hospitals. They freak out over Trump’s “Muslim ban,” while minimizing Castro’s suppression of religious freedom. They couldn’t have voted in Castro’s Cuba but demand a recount in America (Jill Stein called Castro a “symbol of the struggle for justice”).
After Trump won, the New Yorker’s David Remnick nearly fainted from fear. It was a “sickening event,” a “tragedy for the American republic,” and a victory for “authoritarianism” at home and abroad, he wrote. But Castro never elicited such breathless denunciations from his magazine. Castro was merely a “controversial” figure. His totalitarianism generated less outrage from it than Trump’s tweets.
Now the media, never too worried about the jingoism of Castro, is harrumphing over Trump’s flag-burning comments. It can forgive nationalism in foreign leaders but not its own.
Meanwhile, the press continues to push the storyline that Trump’s coming administration is causing the great and good of the world to tremble, a claim to which the American people rightly shrug, especially since many of these international luminaries appalled by Trump’s inauguration will soon turn up at Castro’s funeral."
Know thy enemy. From the comments and quote of the day:
"From the New York Times, April 30, 1945:
Berlin (NYT)- The controversial reign of the German Leader came to an end today, as reports are received that Adolf Hitler took his own life. His term in office was marked with significant transformation for the German people, though critics suggest that his treatment of certain minorities would mar his legacy. The depressed chief executive will be remembered for his fierce commitment to the German people and their bloodlines, and his life was also marked by his affection for dogs, particularly his own Shepherd Blondi, who preceded him in death. Advocates for vegetarianism and non-smokers will also continue to point to the charismatic politician for the example that he set for those who choose these lifestyles."
This, of course, is of no surprise for literate minds. The left (including celebrities) were enamoured with both Mussolini and Hitler.
Not sure why they're so given to demagogues; so vulnerable to emotional and statistically manipulation.
Austria voted for the Greens while Italy rejected Renzi's constitutional reforms.
The last thing Austria needed during this time in the wider context of the European Union was a left-wing Green party to steer it. My hunch is things won't go well. It rarely does when the left is in power. As for Italy, some are wondering if this outcome (which led to Renzi's resignation) could possibly lead to an 'Italexit' down the road.
Either way, it was a good day for the left-wing today in both countries.
France meanwhile is tilting to the right under Le Pen.
Today the country votes on Prime Minister Renzi's constitutional reforms. If Italy votes no it may pave the road to its eventual exit - Italexit - from the EU and trigger a banking crisis along with Renzi's resignation. If yes, it will call for, among other things, cuts in spending and a calming signal to the markets.
If a 'No' vote comes in it has the potential to have a bigger impact than Brexit. Italy is a core and founding member of the EU and one of the world's largest economies.
Italy, a country that has been a reliable and staunch supporter of a unified Europe since its inception, holds the future of the EU in its hands.
A major problem facing Canada is this government having invested in a world view that is likely going to increasingly run contrary to what is going to happen in the United States under Trump and possibly the UK under May. Canada is a part of this 'transatlantic Anglo connection' and it may find itself on the wrong side on a couple of issues. Moreover, it's worth keeping an eye out on countries like Germany, France and Italy in their upcoming election and whether there will be a 'Trump effect' on their election outcomes.
A couple of philosophical things to keep in mind. Under Trump it's clear his administration is going to handle taxation differently from Obama and may cut them across the board (all classes and corporate). There may even be a simplification of the tax code which has become burdensome on taxpayers. This will spur growth in the U.S. economy. Contrast this to Canada's decision to increase taxes and spend in a contracting economy.
In addition, Trump has appointed a climate skeptic to the EPA. Again, this is contrary to Canada's over-dedication to international climate change accords that are not beneficial to our economy which will negatively impact our growth. Canada is a resource rich and with resources still playing a crucial role in our semi-diversified economy. Trudeau aims to impose a national carbon tax will have further repercussions while Trump will probably increase oil production. The Americans quietly increased them under Obama and are poised to increase this still. In other words, the one area where Canada has a competitive advantage of sorts, it will cede to the United States. The pipelines have never been more important now.
Never mind Trump may make changes to Obamacare and possibly repeal it outright while prepared to negotiate with companies to keep business in the USA.
What does this mean for Canada? It means the Liberals are going to need to pivot, adapt and change whatever plans they had in place for this country
Or else it may put us behind the eight ball.
Do I have confidence in the Liberals?
Not based on what I've seen thus far. They're more focused on vapid narratives than governing based on realities.
"As that essay was going to press, Heterodox Academy member Amy Wax sent us the text of an astonishing letter written in 1969, at the dawn of racial preferences, from Macklin Fleming, Justice of the California Court of Appeal. Judge Fleming had written a personal letter to Louis Pollak, the dean of Yale Law School. Fleming was concerned about the plan Dean Pollak had recently announced under which Yale would essentially implement a racial quota – 10% of each entering class would be composed of black students. To achieve this goal, Yale had just admitted 43 black students, only five of whom had qualified under their normal standards. (The exchange of letters was later made public with the consent of both parties; you can read the full text of both letters here.)
Judge Fleming explained why he believed this new policy was a dangerous experiment that was likely to causeharmful stereotypes, rather than reduce them. His argument is essentially the one that Jussim and I made 47 years later. Here is what he wrote:
The immediate damage to the standards of Yale Law School needs no elaboration. But beyond this, it seems to me the admission policy adopted by the Law School faculty will serve to perpetuate the very ideas and prejudices it is designed to combat. If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students. Such a pairing in the same school of the brightest white students in the country with black students of mediocre academic qualifications is social experiment with loaded dice and a stacked deck. The faculty can talk around the clock about disadvantaged background, and it can excuse inferior performance because of poverty, environment, inadequate cultural tradition, lack of educational opportunity, etc. The fact remains that black and white students will be exposed to each other under circumstances in which demonstrated intellectual superiority rests with the whites.
But Judge Fleming went much further. He made specific predictions about what the new policy would do to black students over the years, and how they would react. Here is his prophecy:
No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards."
Where were we? Right, the derp.
Soooo, will Obama blame Republicans and Fox for this?
For eight years all we heard was how Obama 'inherited a mess'. Well, let's accept for a minute the premise and ask:
What exactly did he do to improve it?
The two areas said to have been bad was the economy and foreign policy. Neither has improved nor have they been put on a proper track.
Of course, he just couldn't get things done as he wanted because the GOP engaged in obstructionism. I mean, it had little to do with him from the start basically saying he'd never work with the GOP. Why bother?
President not my fault was more of a lecturer than statesman or leader. He's not a man of action and as a result, people who are in the trenches didn't connect to him. By contrast, Trump is an alpha-male man of action. We'll see how this plays into the American psyche soon enough. I don't mean this as an insult (poking fun is just fun to us laymen). Some people are just not meant to be natural leaders. My impression, as his Presidency sunsets, is he spent too much time doing things Americans didn't want or need and pushing a view they didn't really connect to. It's not because they were racist or dumb. After all, they did give him a shot. But progressivism has its limits is all and he did what he had to do to bring it to Washington.
"If not for the tragic plane crash earlier this week, the first leg of the Copa Sudamericana final was supposed to kick off tonight. Atletico Nacional and Chapecoense were supposed to be contesting one of South America's biggest prizes, but CONMEBOL understandably suspended the matches in the wake of the tragedy."
Of course, the bigger picture of this tragic story is extraordinary gesture by Colombia's Atletico Nacional asking CONMEBOL bestow the title to Chapecoense.
But. Copa Sudamericana isn't South America's biggest prize.
The Democrats "assumed" they knew what a part of the American population wanted without bothering to understand the other parts. Believing the latter to be fools not worthy of their leadership. In this, they committed fatal faux pas filled with presumptions and projections.
Trump on the other hand, free of traditional political machinations that cloud the pulse of a people, simply gauged where he thought the American people were headed and - zing! - hit the tones and notes that reverberated down the spine of the country.
This wasn't about racism or Fox or whatever short-sighted, misleading and unproductive excuse pimped and pummelled into the minds of the Democrats and its base.
This was a simple case of one party too arrogant and one man who played that to his advantage.
The key now for Trump is will he engage in a 'to and fro' with the American people and govern accordingly or will he be tone deaf so as to believe he knows 'what's best' like his predecessor did?
When I was in school FDR was painted as a hero. The man who pulled America out of a recession and gave a really cool speech committing America to World War II.
That he interned and imposed strict curfews on Japanese, Italian and German Americans (like Liberal leader Mackenzie King did up here) was just one of those unfortunate byproducts of fighting a war.
As I continued on my journey into history, I soon learned the accepted main narrative of FDR wasn't so perfect. A second look at his economic policies persuasively suggest he prolonged The Great Depression (Obama is said to have pulled America out of its second Great Depression and even there we see this is just not so as America struggled under his Presidency) not to mention him confiscating private gold holdings where he ordered Americans to sell it at $20.67 per ounce only for him to turn around and sell it at $34.
I think they call this 'loan sparking' tactics on the street.
In any event, how a supreme elitist like FDR became the 'people's President' is nuts to me.
He eroded their wealth and trampled on their civil liberties.
Let's put FDR in proper perspective where his progressivism is concerned.
Not surprisingly, the CBC, CTV and other main networks have done a piss-poor job of reporting on the death of Cuba. I'm not sure why they insist on trying to paint a 'balanced' view on his death since it comes off as forced and trivial. They can't possibly expect principled and well-read minds to accept their drivel can they? Absent from their reports - or at least glossed over with slick editing - is the simple fact Castro was a murderous thug. You'll never see pictures of him shooting farmers in the head because they're too busy fabricating his story.
You know. Each time I see traditional newscasts I wonder how anyone could possibly watch it. The internet has completely made a farce of what they report. They still think they can edit their way into their version of the truth. And when you take their 'truth' and match or verify it against what's really happening you see first hand just how irresponsible, out of touch and much of a joke they've become.
The bottom line is none of these people would ever live a single day under Castro's regime. Sure, they love Cuba's beaches but that wasn't Cuba. That was make-believe; a figment of their stale imagination.
Personally, after I left Cuba, I was disappointed in myself for my money went to a tyrant who mistreated human beings. I was complicit in his crimes against humanity for one week.
Most gruesome parasites (no, not socialists and communists):
Notice the part where pharmaceuticals are giving free vaccines/medicine/pills until these parasites are eradicated.
Meanwhile, we have to listen to people like Bernie 'Grandpa Gulag' Sanders and his merry band of paranoid anti-capitalist sowers of discord bash big pharma for their greed.
Not sure what he's trying to prove or gain by doing that, but we don't hear enough of stories about how 'evil' corporations (as if innovation and research and development isn't already enough) behind the scenes ultimately do right by humanity.
The more you demonize them, the more you threaten their ability to do their jobs.
Good write up at Liberty titled College Don't Make You Smart. Ain't that the truth. "...The Times was not alone in its unmerited self-esteem; the ability to criticize oneself was in remarkably short supply almost everywhere this year. Republicans seemed incapable of reflecting on the huge majority that Trump might have had if he’d hesitated to make an absolute fool of himself on countless occasions. Democrats could not really imagine that anyone not a bigot or a dumbass tool of bigots could possibly have voted for Trump. In this delicate moral situation, I find the Republicans less guilty than the Democrats, who not only refused to consider their own failures but violently projected them onto others. Of course I’m referring to the wave of hysteria, ordinarily self-induced, that is still sloshing back and forth in modern-liberal America — hysteria about the actions of Trump, who so far has taken no action, not yet being office. It is striking that demands for tolerance and diversity should be voiced by mobs in the streets, by employers persecuting employees who voted the wrong way, and even by merchants rejecting the business of customers who became part of the wrong ideological formation. I don’t like to give Freud any credit, but his idea of projection does seem appropriate. I don’t know how else to explain the passionate intensity of people who violently denounce all who disagree with them, because of the latter’s vicious intolerance...." "...The exemplary fact is this: in 2012 Obama carried one of the counties in which Youngstown, Ohio, is located by about 28%; in 2016 Clinton carried it by about 3%. In 2012 Obama carried the other county by about 22%; in 2016 Trump carried it by about 6%. Look up the history of Youngstown, which has less than half the population it had in 1970, and you’ll see why. Alleged “hate” has nothing to do with Youngstown and its vote. Lack of real jobs, regulation of every puny detail of life, insults to local culture delivered by high-paid snots in Washington, the perception that Hillary Clinton is a low-level crook who wouldn’t be welcome at a family dinner — those things are sufficient to explain the change. Invoking the sudden “racism” of former Obama voters is just going to turn the 25 or 28% difference into something like unanimity." I pull this spectacular quote from the article and post it because it's just too...well read it: "Virginia Heffernan, Ph.D., Harvard:
We don't have to wait until she dies to act. Hillary Clinton's name belongs on ships, and airports, and tattoos. She deserves straight-up hagiographies and a sold-out Broadway show called RODHAM. Yes, this cultural canonization is going to come after the chronic, constant, nonstop "On the other hand" sexist hedging around her legacy. But such is the courage of Hillary Clinton and her supporters; we reverse patriarchal orders. Maybe she is more than a president. Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself. The presidency is too small for her. She belongs to a much more elite class of Americans, the more-than-presidents. Neil Armstrong, Martin Luther King Jr., Alexander Fucking Hamilton.
Hillary Clinton did everything right in this campaign. . . ."