Mr. Trump’s unmediated fire hose of verbiage, an unstoppable sequence of passing digressions, gambits and whims, more attuned to the rhythms of his voice than to any obligation to logic or, often, to any actual point or meaning at all and hardly worth taking notice of.It is baffling to me how the Jews at the NY Times have so much trouble understanding Donald Trump. He is the most transparent politician. Do they all have low IM? Are they just pretending to be stupid?Does Mr. Trump mean what he says? And what exactly does he mean when he says what he says? His numerous upcoming trials may hinge on these questions. ...
It is precisely this behavior, unconcerned with guardrails or rules, unmindful of cause and effect, all according to his momentary whim — an overwhelming, almost anarchic instinct to try to invert reality — that prosecutors and much of the political establishment seem to most want to hold him accountable for. The chaos he creates is his crime; there is, however, no statute against upsetting the dependable order.
Here is an upvoted comment:
Since Trump continues to remain the best hope of the white Christian nationalists of flipping the US into white Christian nation he retains support no matter what he does and when he can play the victim of the "deep state" as he can with these indictments that just increases his support as it confirms the Republican base's suspicions about what they call the deep state. It is pretty much impossible to deal with the underlying problem which is white Christian superiority. It is as deeply rooted as about anything can be and goes back at least 2000 years to the beginnings of Christianity. It has spawned antisemitism throughout its long history and over last several hundred years racism. Last century the Catholic church made some significant progress in addressing this problem, but it appears to be completely unaddressed in the evangelical community. This problem pretty much guarantees serious conflict in the United States for many years ahead but maybe with enough effort it will eventually be overcome.Here we go. Jews hate Trump because he represents the White Christians they have hated for 2000 years. Thay is what I learn from the NY Times, anyway.
9 comments:
Ah, the New York Times,
Whenever I need a refresher course in logical Strawmen fallacies, sanctimonious race baiting, political stupidity, general bigotry, or just good bird cage liner,
this is my go-to newspaper of choice.
If you wish to be wise, read the New York Times, and then very carefully don't do what they suggest.
Works every time.
Trump is popular with evangelical voters generally and Christian nationalists in particular. Not just with those folks but they do like him. I think that Wolff's point about the political establishment and Trump is accurate although unsurprising to anyone who follows American politics.
@MikeAdamnson,
WHITE Christian nationalists? Oh dear, Oh no! You mean like pretty much the same Christian nationalists that have suddenly 'been there'... for longer than your country has even existed? Who wrote the Declaration of Independence, told the monarchy your country still venerates that they weren't their property anymore, who wrote The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution? Who saved Europe from entirely speaking Deutsche? Oh, THOSE white Christian nationalists. Who knew. Damn those evil white people! How dare they take pride in their culture and nation...like every other nation and country of every color and creed throughout ALL human history that has ever been recorded...and including your own. The nerve of them!
I am hoping you will tell me any day now about how the Chinese are just too...Chinese or something. It should be entertaining.
The very political party openly trying to indict Trump was the party of Slavery, then Jim Crow, then Segregation, and originally voted against the civil rights act, So I'm amused you think you even know 'unsurprisingly' who 'those folks' are. It might be a good idea to find some better sources with some actual historical context with which to follow 'American' politics with, namely someone who doesn't hate it or think socialism is just misunderstood.
As to the whole 'white' this or that... as I said earlier, race baiting is what the New York Times does best next to bird cage liner. Racially dividing folks for political gain is what the left does and has always done... on both sides of the issue if you know your history. If you actually wish to go there and compare cultural 'whiteness', I'm pretty certain the States have your relatively pasty monochromatic asses beat up in the great white north. My own family is entirely interracial, as we have Japanese, Chinese, Korean, English, German, Swiss, Scottish, Hungarian, Finnish, and some American Indian thrown in there some where.
If the Founders were Christian nationalists then why does the Establishment clause exist? Also, it would be helpful if you could contain your response to what it is you're responding to. This would surely cut down the size of your lengthy comments without losing much of substance.
@MikeAdamson,
The founders didn't want the State (or government) establishing an official religion because that is basically letting the state regulate and control religion/worship, like the Church of England...to which the founders said NO. It wasn't the case that the founders didn't want religion or mention of God, or in particular Christianity. They very much understood there should be more than one flavor of belief and said so. Our very legal system itself is based on Common law which is based on some very primal Judeo-Christian principals, such as natural rights emanating from God, not the state.
Not everything to be understood is a sound bite for your convenience, trying to make it so leads to idiocy like Cliff Notes, illiteracy, ...and unfortunately Tik Tok.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
George Washington's Farewell Address
So then they weren't Christian nationalists.
@MikeAdamson,
What religious principle do you think George Washington was referring to? It sure as hell wasn't Buddhist, Islamic, or Atheistic in tradition or philosophy. You need to understand historical context before you can discuss this intelligently, as glib pop-cultural attitudes and snarky du jour leftism isn't going to cut it.
What do you think a Christian Nationalist is, exactly? Besides something you think you don't like within the limited scope of your apparently very poor understanding of American history? It's a negatively connotated recent term coined by democrats that means that the person believes America and it's values are inherently entwined with Christian values. Welllllll, historically, culturally, and philosophically, they are, as those were the values of the people who designed its laws and institutions. No one until a short time ago ever questioned this as it was historically self evident and pretty obvious. Please become better read and find out for yourself. Caliphate lead nations stressed obedience, they never advocate liberty, and neither did any other of the Emperors or Monarchs of the time, including the mentally addled blue pissing king your countrymen decided to cling to.
Historically and culturally, your entire nation of Canada was the end result of a divorce, a smaller fraction that came out of mine, and it was founded by those who felt the same way about most things as the other American colonists. At the time they were pretty much entirely Christian and racially white, but they wanted to remain obedient subjects of the crown. They chose security and obedience over liberty...If Trudeau is any kind of indicator, they apparently still do.
I think that a Christian nationalist believes that America is God's chosen nation and that its governance must reflect and rely upon a specific interpretation of Christianity which, for lack of a better term at present, can be described as "evangelical." As for Washington, I am not familiar with his religious beliefs.
@MikeAdamson,
Context is always king, and it is rarely brief. You should understand the context of this whole 'Christian Nationalist' term. The whole 'OMG, looky-looky the WHITE Christian Nationalists are coming after us and they're EVERYWHERE!' is a meme used primarily by race hustlers who are usually black or high ranking members of the democrat party, and who live almost entirely in big cities. It is largely used as a diversionary tactic solely by the Democrat party members escaping scrutiny and responsibility for their utter incompetence, mismanagement, and corruption in running their own cities. Look up Maxine Waters in California if you want a good example.
FBI crime statistics are pretty clear and straightforward, they show where a vast majority of the violent crime, drugs, murder, rape, and assault occurs. It isn't where the evangelicals live in rural areas (Evangelicals don't like big cities much, and I don't blame them), it's in highly urban Baltimore, New York, Boston, Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, etc. These are all one party controlled cities by the democrat party. It's a really hard sell to say evangelicals are in any measurable way a threat whatsoever to anyone in these cities, and they certainly aren't commuting in to commit violent crimes against racial minorities.
America has more than enough very serious problems without creating new boogeymen to go chasing after. I have met many Evangelicals, and I have to say, while they aren't my cup of tea religion-wise, and their idea of how old the earth is makes me laugh, they certainly aren't prone to violence (except in Hollywood's bigoted imagination), almost entirely reject recreational drugs, and have next to no crime problems. They advocate individual responsibility and hard work, and don't steal, assault, rape, and murder each other by the dozens each weekend like certain folks on the east end of Chicago do.
Presently in America, the Democrat party has been leaning continuously further to the left in pursuit of identity politics and milking historical racial grievances, so much so that the entire political spectrum has become distorted. Many who were once left of center or independent are now being labeled 'Right Wing Extremists', and quite frankly, many who were what is called 'traditional liberal democrats' (like most of my teachers and college professors) who were strong advocates of free speech are now considered right wing extremists by their own political party, as the democrat party now fully endorses full blown speech censorship by the government. By the new definitions proposed by democrats, presidents like John F Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and even Obama would be considered 'right wing' conservatives.
Post a Comment