13

Democrats Vs White Nationalists On Election Day

Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago to Politics
29 comments | Share | Flag

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."
SOURCE URL: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/democrats-versus-white-nationalists-on-election-day/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 5 months ago
    And then there are the 46% who dislike both statist candidates and who would rather be left alone by government meddlers to be productive and to support their loved ones.
    The solution is not a peaceful one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 7 years, 5 months ago
    Krugman would probably love to use NAZI which is what he really means by white nationalist, but knows the blowback would be intense. So instead he uses the properly focus grouped phrase "white nationalist", knowing that for many the intent will come through anyway.

    Ironic given that the national socialist party was as politically left as they come.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 5 months ago
    Hi khalling,
    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".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 5 months ago
      We (99.99% of all the people) can get along, but only if we are left alone to forge the relationships and friendships needed. Free markets, not government intervention, make this possible.
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Blanco 7 years, 5 months ago
        Good insights! I wish the South had won. Slavery would have soon come to any end anyway, and the C.S.A. would today be a much better and freer place to live. How's that for a "racist" comment???
        Oh well, I am after all a "deplorable".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
          Re: “Slavery would have soon come to any end anyway, and the C.S.A. would today be a much better and freer place to live.” How do you know that? I grew up in the deep South in the 1950’s and the dominant white culture was still racist to the core. After Reconstruction, white Southerners reduced the black population to conditions as near to slavery as possible, by both legal and extra-legal means (i.e., intimidation and violence). If they could have brought back actual slavery they would have. The idea that slavery would have soon come to an end is fantasy. There was no political will to do so, and there was a deeply ingrained culture that regarded the newly emancipated slaves as inferior beings who must “know their place.”
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by hattrup 7 years, 5 months ago
            Slavery came to and end (without war) in all other civilized countries throughout the world in that timeframe. I do not think it would have been much different in the CSA. The process (force/violence/extreme bloodshed and property destruction) undertaken in the USA left a huge amount increased hate, resentment, and destruction.
            Likely not the optimal path to freedom looking at what happened throughout the rest of the world in a similar situation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
              Re: “Slavery came to and end (without war) in all other civilized countries throughout the world in that timeframe.” No it didn’t. Slavery in Haiti was abolished via a successful slave rebellion, and slavery in Brazil was not abolished until a quarter century after the end of the Civil War.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Blanco 7 years, 5 months ago
            We can debate endlessly when slavery would have ended in the C.S.A. However, I would still rather live in the C.S.A. today than in a U.S.A. ruled by Hussein/Hillary.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
    Illustrative anecdote: In one of the many businesses I was involved in, for a number of reasons, we took no checks. Only cash and credit cards. Invariably, we were accused of racism by a black or Asian, or Hispanic customer. It turned so common that the accusation became a reality in the minds of many people with whom we dealt. We could turn purple showing folks that whites were included in the practice, but to no avail. The accusations piled up like two by fours in a lumber yard. It became the old NAZI propaganda idea of saying a lie often enough and loud enough, it becomes a "truth."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 5 months ago
    The major difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives measure the value of policies by their intent, while conservatives measure the value of policies by their results. It's easy for a progressive, even in the face of the dismal failure of his programs, to declare how magnificently well intended they are, and that they only need more "investment" tax dollars bludgeoned from the working class for them to work.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 7 years, 5 months ago
    Donway once again gloriously nails it.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lneil 7 years, 5 months ago
    What I want is politicians who will uphold our Constitutional Representative Republic form of government regardless of skin tone or origin.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 5 months ago
    Typical assertion where the headline draws several unsupported negatives with it. Typical method to take power when it isn't warranted. Trump uses this device as well. Hillary is a master.

    I would flip this on the PC, BLM, LGBTs who assert via fascism that anyone even uncomfortable with their positions are inappropriate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
    The president is supposed to be the commander in chief of the military who keeps us safe as a country. Trump will do that; Hillary will not. Thats the real issue in this election.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 5 months ago
    It has just occurred to old dino that a race card can come in different brands just like a VISA provided by this or that bank.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
    These are the mental gymnastics the intellectual less-gov't Republicans go through to ignore the redneck arm of the party.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Blanco 7 years, 5 months ago
      Yes, I'm fed up with the Republican establishment and their failure to support the nominee of the majority of Republicans. These guys are truly Rinos. I've been registered as a Republican for decades, but I'm changing my registration to Libertarian now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
        "Republican establishment and their failure to support the nominee of the majority of Republicans"
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
      "intellectual-less, gov't republicans" "redneck arm of the party"
      hmm. I think you just insulted 2/3 of the gulchers
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
        What are you talking about? I get the "rednecks" wanting a more PC term, but I don't get why intellectual less-gov't Republicans would be insulted to being called that..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
          this idea that republicans harbor "intellectual-less" or "redneck" votes over the democratic party seems disngenuous to me. Republicans, for example, do not attract whole cultures/demographics like the democrats do. For example, if Blacks vote at a 97%!! rate for democratic candidates-how exactly is that intellectual or informed? "red necks" I see establishment on both sides of the aisle referring to the midwest in this way-many midwest states have higher rates of college graduates and % graduating high school. Urban areas have lower percentages of both. it is a stereotype and caricature the left and est republicans who have careers in DC like to perpetuate and I see you have fallen for it
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
            "if Blacks vote at a 97%!! rate for democratic candidates-how exactly is that intellectual or informed?"
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
            " that republicans harbor "intellectual-less""
            I said intellectual less-gov't Republicans. Maybe there's supposed to be a comma between the adjectives "intellectual" and "less-gov't".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo