Buchanan on Trump

[Thailandnotes]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35289355https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...icle_nextstory


"What's good for General Motors is not good for America"

[dcarrigg]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35289355https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...icle_nextstory


"What's good for General Motors is not good for America"

A lot of what he wrote seems to fit the times. With the glaring exception of these lines:

With Obama not running, there is no reason Trump, a builder and job creator, could not win more of the African American vote than McCain who lost it 24-1. There is no reason Trump cannot win more Hispanics, who respond to strong leaders and job creators. Romney lost over 70 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Trump lost the bulk of Hispanics. Possibly forever. Definitely for this cycle. He also drew the ire of New York's Cardinal Dolan, several US Catholic Bishops, and lots of priests and congregations.

It'll be interesting to see how he tacks in the general if he wins the primary, which looks likely at the moment. But I think Buchanan has a very poor read on the bulk of minority America if he thinks that the phrase "job creators" or the admiration of monied billionaires or strong leaders who threaten them are going to cause some great outpouring of support.

My guess is Trump's only path to winning a general is to hold the typical Republican coalition as well as he can and massively crank lower and middle class white protestant voter turnout. Any strategy that involves winning over minority support seems very unlikely to work to me.

[Mega]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Jim Rickards Sez

"Hillary is toast, she will be getting nicked for her crimes"
"Joe Biden will be asked to step in".............& he win

[Verrocchio]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Interesting that you mentioned Buchanan in conjunction with Trump. A recent in-depth New Yorker article reported on the support Trump has attracted from white supremacists. The article contained interviews with leaders in that movement, and when the leaders were asked about formative influences on their move to hard-right activism, at least two responded that they were inspired to do so after reading Buchanan's book, Death of the West.

[shiny!]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Trump lost the bulk of Hispanics. Possibly forever. Definitely for this cycle. He also drew the ire of New York's Cardinal Dolan, several US Catholic Bishops, and lots of priests and congregations.

You might be right (you usually are IMO) but I disagree with the assumption that Trump is anti-immigration. He's anti illegal immigration.

About ten years ago, the MSM stopped using the phrase "illegal alien" to describe what are, in fact, illegal aliens. The politically correct terms are now "migrant" or "undocumented immigrant." The propaganda service of the Repubocrats known as the MSM would like us to think that all hispanics support illegal immigration and vote as a bloc, but that's not true. The MSM rarely gives voice to hispanics and blacks who oppose illegal immigration. You have to go to Youtube to see that.

Trump brought attention back to the socio-economic problems citizens face when the government fails to control illegal immigration. I believe he will get the distinction across because whatever else he is, he's a master at manipulating the media to get his messages out. With regards to illegal immigration, he's saying what a lot of citizens (including hispanics) have been thinking but been afraid to say for fear of being demonized. If he continues to talk about how illegal immigration hurts minorities, the MSM is going to have their hands full trying to perpetuate the meme that only racists oppose illegal immigration.

These are some of the "children" whom we are required to protect under the Unaccompanied Alien Children Act. When you have people like this flooding your neighborhood, do you like being told you're a racist for wanting to keep them out?



So I think are a lot of hispanics and blacks who agree with Trump about illegal immigration. I don't know what percentage will vote for him or if it'll be enough for him to win, but it'll likely be a higher percentage than the propaganda machine wants us to believe.

I do think Lady MacBeth is going down and Biden will be drafted (anything for the dems to eliminate Sanders). The most hilarious event will be watching Trump and Biden debate. Heaven help us all!

[dcarrigg]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

You might be right (you usually are IMO) but I disagree with the assumption that Trump is anti-immigration. He's anti illegal immigration.

Not what I was trying to imply at all. Trump is simply not careful--and whether it's by design or by accident you can be the judge--in making the distinction you are trying to make. He often drops sentences where "Mexicans" are the noun the verb is something negative. And he always says "Mexicans," rarely does he say "illegal immigrants"--in fact, he doesn't even put it on Guatemalans or El Salvadorans or Nicaraguans or whomever very often. It's like a specific thing against Mexicans. He kicked out Jorge Ramos by yelling "Go back to Univision!" for chrissakes. I'm not sure what the equivalent would be...he's like the Hispanic Walter Cronkite. The guy has 8 Emmys. Trump just treated him like he was nobody.


I guess, what I mean about Trump not being careful...when you hear him or read him, is it really clear that he's talking only about illegal immigrants? Or is he talking about everyone from Mexico? I mean, replace Mexico with Italy or Ireland or whatever, and you'll see how this stuff echoes for at least some among the US Catholic immigrant populations...



This next one is just messed up. Like you said, Shiny!, it is possible to be a legal immigrant who dislikes illegal immigration. But Trump goes after Bush because of his wife's ethnicity. Again, it's specifically Mexican, not specifically illegal. I mean, Bush married a legal immigrant. Trump married a legal Slovenian immigrant and brought her to New York. Does that mean Trump has to support all the illegal Russian immigrants living in Brooklyn down at Brighton Beach?



And Jorge Ramos getting the boot just didn't come across clean...the whole tone of the moment was screwed up.




I'm not trying to trash Trump. I'm trying to paint him with any label. I'm just trying to explain why there's no way in hell Hispanics don't come out against him, and why there has been an anti-Trump wave pulsing through the Catholic Church in America that I don't think Trump necessarily has even realized yet...

[santafe2]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

I'm not trying to trash Trump. I'm [not] trying to paint him with any label.

Trump has worked hard to label himself. He's a racist, a misogynist and a first class nativist.







The only appropriate response to anything said by Trump is Deadspin's famous 2013 tweet to him. What made their response twice as funny is that Trump was trying to sidle up and be their Twitter buddy.

[shiny!]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Well you might be right. He is definitely guilty of sloppy thinking and sloppy speech.

I watched the press conference with Ramos. I don't watch Univision so I didn't know who Ramos was. What I saw was someone repeatedly interrupting. Trump repeatedly asked him to stop interrupting, then he insulted the reporter and had him escorted out. He let the reporter come back in, acknowledged him and they had a polite back and forth discussion. If the reporter doing the interrupting had been an emmy award winner from another network, I think The Donald would have said, "Go back to CBS" or "Go back to FOX" and done the exact same thing. From what little I've seen of him, this seems to be his M.O. to members of the press who don't play along with him.

Trump is arrogant, aggressive, overconfident, heedless, impulsive, his mind careens from one disjointed thought to the next and he never shuts up... In short he has a hypomanic temperament like Bill Clinton, without Clinton's subtle wordplay and psychopathology.

[Woodsman]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Trump has worked hard to label himself. He's a racist, a misogynist and a first class nativist...

I'm not so sure Trump's bigoted braggadocio is different in anything but degree than what one hears among white folks when they're feeling safe and comfy among their people.

Before DT ever stepped into the ring, we've heard talk like this at the office, at the gym, the tavern, the barber shop, you name it. Trump's easy, breezy white supremacy is hardly remarkable.

This white supremacist frame organizing and rationalizing the ideas, emotions, and inclination to discriminate is so common among American whites that it's practically the air we breathe. Other than the fact that it's being uttered by a presidential candidate (in lieu of code words like "law and order" or "welfare queen"), there's nothing particularly astonishing about it.

Folks who evidence this sort of thinking are generally as far removed from the Aryan Nation/KKK sort as Trump is from the person who cleans his toilets. While they lack the consciousness of the racist, their attitudes, actions and utterances are fundamental to the advancement of the white supremacist project.

And this is what makes this POV so insidious, because while remaining generally invisible to white people who hold it, it is instrumental in distorting the allocation of resources that nurtures the ubiquitous, persistent and ever-growing disparities in economic, health, and social indicators between black and white.



If I had a dollar for every time a group of nice, hard working, family-oriented middle class white guys let loose with this stuff I might start to rival Trump's net worth.

Take another gander at the kind, Jesus-loving folks in my sig. Not a racist among them.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

I was thinking something along those lines Woody. But slightly askew. It occurred to me that Trump's manner of speech is not uncommon either in the blue collar watering hole or in the happy hour suit and tie gin joint. The only difference is the latter are well trained to turn it off from 9 to 5 and turn it back on again afterwards as the martini glass hits their hand.

This is, of course, the same year where have "Outsiders" like Ted Cruz who graduated top in his class at Princeton, moved over to Harvard where he edited the law review, then up to the US Supreme Court where he clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, then married a Goldman Sachs executive, then was a Domestic Policy Advisor for President George W. Bush, then he's appointed Texas Solicitor General, then miraculously he gets a big fat loan from Goldman Sachs to run for senate when there's an open seat and he wins.

I can't think of a more "insider" story than that. Can any of you?

Just think about that word "outsider." It's not restricted to Republicans. This year there's Sanders, who is an "outsider," even though he has been in the US Congress or Senate for 25 years and was a mayor for 8 years or something before that.

If I'm not too senile, and I'm remembering right, the tern "outsider" used to be used mostly for some rogue businessman who ran, or else maybe for some governor from some smaller state out west or something. But Washington "Outsider" never applied to someone with decades in Washington between the House and Senate.

It seems to me that this is not what "outsider" means anymore.

"Outsider" now simply means "does not sound like a professional politician."

I mean, when the news talks about "establishment candidates" and Ted Cruz, Goldman's Golden Boy who has played in all 3 branches in DC, isn't among them, well, either they're lying outright for our benefit, they're stupid, or they're defining "establishment" differently.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure that "outsider" now simply means "does not sound like a professional politician."

And "authentic" simply means "talks in the same manner at work as with the bar buddies as with the children as on TV as with the parents..."

[vt]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Trump is an idiot that doesn't deserve the nomination.

The only good candidates are Kasich in the GOP and Webb for the Democrats. They both are accomplished and decent individuals; each could run the government capably.

The real problem is illegal immigration, not Latinos. We are all immigrants; some just got here earlier. We need more immigration because it renews our communities and our economy. But current policy is discriminating against the 90% plus of immigrants that don't come from Mexico or Central America. We have broke our promise to those who have been waiting in line for the right to become a citizen.

We must make those who came illegally from south of the border wait there turn; perhaps give them a small bonus o extra places because they are neighbors, but no amnesty. We need to increase immigration from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe plus protect the border.

We must root out the vicious gangs that threaten other law abiding immigrants. We must also shut the border to terrorists. We also must protect American workers from greedy, rich companies that want to use cheap immigrant labor to undercut wages.

[makimanos]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Yes,Trump is arrogant and aggressive but he will make it because is everywhere thanks to the media people.
They love to hate him and this time the sheeple are awake.

[Woodsman]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Trump is an idiot that doesn't deserve the nomination.

He's no idiot, vt. He's a brilliant study of the GOP playbook since Dick Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and Lee Atwater's "n^gger, n^gger, n^gger"¹ politics. He mastered their game, doubled-down on it, and is now handily beating them at it. There's every sort of smart and Trump has plenty of it.

And I don't get how he wouldn't "deserve" the nomination. He's proving himself to be far better at running the con than all the past GOP nominees of the last 40 years combined. If they deserved the nomination, then surely Trump deserves it even more. And you know who else who deserves him? The GOP, that's who.

He is the chain they forged. They made it link by link, and yard by yard. They girded it on of their own free will, and of their own free will they wear it. Is its pattern strange to them? Or would they know it, weight and length of the strong coil they bear themselves? It was full as heavy and as long as this, seven years ago when a black man, minstrel to the money power though he is, came to town. And they have labored on it since. It is a ponderous chain, captive, bound, and double-ironed. And they are doomed to carry it with no rest, no peace.²

---

¹In facing death, Atwater came to terms with his piece of responsibility:

My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The ’80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn’t I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn’t I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don’t know who will lead us through the ’90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

²With apologies to C.D.

[Bundi]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

Well you might be right. He is definitely guilty of sloppy thinking and sloppy speech.

I watched the press conference with Ramos. I don't watch Univision so I didn't know who Ramos was. What I saw was someone repeatedly interrupting. Trump repeatedly asked him to stop interrupting, then he insulted the reporter and had him escorted out. He let the reporter come back in, acknowledged him and they had a polite back and forth discussion. If the reporter doing the interrupting had been an emmy award winner from another network, I think The Donald would have said, "Go back to CBS" or "Go back to FOX" and done the exact same thing. From what little I've seen of him, this seems to be his M.O. to members of the press who don't play along with him.

Trump is arrogant, aggressive, overconfident, heedless, impulsive, his mind careens from one disjointed thought to the next and he never shuts up... In short he has a hypomanic temperament like Bill Clinton, without Clinton's subtle wordplay and psychopathology.

All valid points Shiny. I have taken to referring to him as Pineapple because it is less about the person and more about the message and how it plays in this environment. Vote for Pineapple. Pineapple understands me and Pineapple is pissed off too.

Heavy strains of populism on the left and of nationalism on the right. In my memory, there has always been some of that in the mix but not so prominently displayed by leading figures on each side.

I agree with the assertions that Trump would in a general election experience well-earned vulnerabilities with nonwhite voters.

What I find less clear is how his profile would fare vs. either Clinton or Sanders, if we are experiencing more acute economic turmoil at the time of the election.

The “outsider” label (hilarious as it is) may suit him well in that scenario, especially vs. Clinton but maybe less so vs. Sanders.

Also, in a situation where fiscal stimulus is required, we may want to think about the timing and willingness of a Republican Congress to get on board with that before votes are cast.

Iowa on the 1^st and NH on the 9^th.

[GRG55]

Re: Buchanan on Trump

We GRG55 bunker residents from north of the border don't normally pay much attention to USA politics. But we appreciate the "15 minutes of fame" we are currently being accorded in the GOP nomination campaign:









“We don't want you, either.”