Congratulations on your discovery that forcing people to violate their consciences is its own form of bigotry. https://t.co/cpgOrrvXUq
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 23, 2016
As long as Somali refugees and other Third World migrants are seeded into small cities in the Midwest, the lefty-loos of San Francisco are all for it. But don’t go sticking those dirty brown foreigners* in their neighborhoods.
City meetings have become heated, divisive and prone to rhetoric where we openly discuss exactly which kinds of people we want to keep out of our city.
This is an ethically incoherent position. If we in San Francisco so strongly believe that national immigration is a human right, then it seems strange to block migration into our own neighborhoods.
Consider the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ decision to challenge the environmental review of a proposed housing project at 1515 Van Ness Ave. Despite the project’s plan to rent 25 percent of its units at a below-market rate, many members of the neighborhood preservation group, Calle 24, expressed anger that the project might bring tech workers into the Latino Cultural District.
Or that members of the Forest Hill homeowners association opposed a project that would build affordable housing for seniors and the formerly homeless on a site now occupied by a church. One of the grievances aired was that it might bring mentally unstable or drug-addicted people into the neighborhood.
“Tech Workers” appears to be a liberal dog-whistle for “dirty brown foreigners.” (The distaste the San Francisco left has for immigrants is so profound, it extends even to those in the country legally and contributing to the economy.)
Even more pointedly, more than a third of Silicon Valley tech workers are immigrants themselves. For many people in China, India and Eastern Europe, working in technology is one of the few ways out of their countries and into ours.
* Note, my use of “dirty brown foreigners” is intended as irony and sarcasm. I shouldn’t have to point that out, but many leftists are humorless and stupid.
Let’s review how the American Democrat Left regards political disagreement:
- If someone votes the wrong way, it’s OK to destroy their business.
- If someone holds the wrong view on gay marriage, it’s okay to use the power of the state to destroy their business.
- If someone holds the wrong view on gay marriage, it’s okay to destroy their career.
- If a professor mocks a social justice wanker, they will try and destroy his career.*
It’s like Obama whining yesterday that the reason Hillary lost is because people were able to watch FoxNews in bars and restaurants. (Which shows how little time he spends in bars and restaurants outside the bubble.) Owning 99% of the media isn’t enough, apparently; the left must have all of it or it can’t succeed. Is the Democrat Left’s political philosophy so fragile that not even one voice of dissent can be permitted to question it?
So, how does the left react when the other side plays a similar game and creates a website that simply calls out radical far left professors for bias, promoting leftist politics in the classroom, and discriminating against conservative students? How do professors who profess that their goal is for their students to “become conceptually unhinged, to leave my classes discontented and maladjusted” respond when their agenda is exposed to the world?
How do cockroaches react when you turn on the bathroom light.** The New York Times, Slate, and other elements of the Democrat-Media Complex are attacking the site, and the academic left is having full-on the vapors.
Robert Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, also expressed his feelings on being included on the list for teaching students that “we won’t end men’s violence against women if we do not address the toxic notions about masculinity in patriarchy … rooted in control, conquest, aggression.”
“It would be easier to dismiss this rather silly project if the United States had not just elected a president who shouts over attempts at rational discourse and reactionary majorities in both houses of Congress,” writes Jensen. “I’m a tenured full professor (and white, male, and a U.S. citizen by birth) and am not worried. But, even though the group behind the watchlist has no formal power over me or my university, the attempt at bullying professors — no matter how weakly supported — may well inhibit professors without my security and privilege.”
“Robert Jensen” was a name I thought I had heard before. He’s a journalism professor capable of writing a 3,800 word polemic that is almost unreadable and tells you nothing except that he hates the world. In addition to his fashionable hatred of the The Patriarchy and “toxic masculinity,” He is a self-avowed radical socialist who says that Thanksgiving is a celebration of White Supremacy.
Why is he so afraid of having his radical left views outed? Perhaps he is afraid that someone, somewhere, somehow might destroy his career and livelihood for holding the wrong political beliefs.
“When you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people’s minds about our elections, that undermines our democracy,” President Obama said. “You’re doing the work of our adversaries for them.”
The Democratic nominee could still snatch the US Presidency away from Donald Trump after being told to demand a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by election lawyers and computer scientists in the latest twist to the Presidential race.
At least six Democratic electors have signed an agreement to try to block Donald Trump from securing the presidency with 270 Electoral College votes.
All of a sudden, contesting the results of an election doesn’t “undermine our democracy” or “do the work of our adversaries.”
Gee, I wonder what changed?
Speaking of things that have changed since the election, the MFM is making much of Trump kinda-sorta backtracking on prosecuting the Felonious Grandma, and global warming, and deportations. Meh, I think as conservatives, we are accustomed to being disappointed in Republican presidents and horrified by Democrat ones.
At least the Felonious Grandma won’t be packing the Supreme Court with Sotomayors and Bader Ginsburgs.
BTW: I’m just going to leave this comment here. Wonder if it’s still valid.
Whoever wins, let’s get behind them to make America great!
Comment by Kevin Donegan — November 7, 2016 @ 9:56 pm – November 7, 2016
BTW: The spin from Clintonville is that she lost because the media was too Pro-Trump and Anti-Hillary. And some people say the Democrats are out-of-touch and detached from reality.
Peter Beinart is a guy I think I heard of. He might have been at The New Republic before it was bought by that gay dude who got rich because he invented the Facebook poke. Anyway, Peter Beinart is the kind of guy who urinates in a recumbent position to let the feminists know he’s down with the struggle, and he says that the only reason Hillary is being criticized is because she’s a woman and men are threatened by her. He provides several examples of the kind of “misogyny” that has led to the deep, embedded, pearl-shaped indentations on the insides of his fingers.
Black pin reading Don’t be a pussy. vote for Trump in 2016. Black-and-red pin reading trump 2016: finally someone with balls. White T-shirt reading trump that bitch. White T‑shirt reading hillary sucks but not like monica. Red pin reading life’s a bitch: don’t vote for one. White pin depicting a boy urinating on the word Hillary. Black T-shirt depicting Trump as a biker and Clinton falling off the motorcycle’s back alongside the words if you can read this, the bitch fell off. Black T-shirt depicting Trump as a boxer having just knocked Clinton to the floor of the ring, where she lies faceup in a clingy tank top. White pin advertising kfc hillary special. 2 fat thighs. 2 small breasts … left wing.
Appalling, isn’t it? For the first time in American History, a politician running for president is being crudely mocked and ridiculed. This has to be only because she’s a woman.
I mean, the left was so polite and genteel toward Sarah Palin and Margaret Thatcher, and we know they aren’t misogynists.
“You’re in a town that’s about going to college and raising a family. People are polished and hard-working. He’s not one of us,” said Andy Schwichtenberg, a 28-year-old stockbroker. “I did try, Schwichtenberg added with a sigh. “I went to a rally.”But he was not swayed and he was turned off by the crowd, which he noted was packed with men and women “who came there on Harleys.”
BTW: I have serious doubts that this setzpinkler is an actual Republican or has ever attended a Trump rally.
She claims that men have a duty to flirt with women in order to maintain women’s self-esteem and goes on to suggest — of course — that the Government should compel men to flirt with women. “British men need some encouragement, maybe even government intervention,” – because government makes everything better. Well done, progressives, your brainwashing has been a success.
Some sort of winter chill has frosted over British men’s gonads, and it’s leaving us all out in the cold.
“Some sort of winter chill…” could mean, perhaps, that feminists have so politicized male-female interaction that just looking at a woman or talking to one the wrong way can get you charged with “sexual harassment” (remember our crazy friend from the other day?) or even “sexual assault.” Literally anything can be “sexual harassment” if a woman decides that’s what it is.
Even when a man says something as simple as “Have a nice day,” we are able to read between the lines and know his motive, and 9 times out of 10, it’s not about well wishes. It’s the tone, the setting, the look on his face that tells a woman that there’s a sexual power play at work, and she’s losing.
When someone (usually a man) defends certain behaviors as “innocent” it shows a lack of understanding of the deeply ingrained, totally imbalanced gender dynamics that exist on a city street, and between men and women on a more general social level since time began.
Gay dudes, it is a real blessing to be able to opt out of the gender wars.
Let’s face it, the real difference between flirting and sexual harassment is entirely whether the woman is attracted to the guy. How the hell is the guy supposed to know? If the billionaire character in Fifty Shades of Grey had been unemployed and living in a trailer park, it would have been rape porn.
Happy Chick Equality Day, or Whatever.
“When the people of New Orleans and Gulf Coast extended their hand for help, help was not there. When people looked up from the rooftops, for too long they saw an empty sky. When the winds blew and the flood waters came, we learned for all of our wealth and our power, something wasn’t right with America. We can talk about what happened for a few days in 2005, and we should. We can talk about levies that couldn’t hold, about a FEMA that seem not just incompetent but paralyzed and powerless, about a president who only saw the people from a window on an airplane instead of down here on the ground, trying to provide comfort and aid.”
Obama 2008: “The bargain that any president strikes with is, you give me this office and in turn my, fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone.” (Yes, Hilariously, King Putt promised he would give up vacation and leisure activities if elected president.)
Obama 2016: Interrupts his Martha’s Vineyard vacation for a Democrat fundraiser, but not to travel to Louisiana after massive flooding. The Obama Administration, however, has stepped up and ordered relief workers not to engage in racial or other discrimination because that’s of course, the first thing you worry about when thousands of people have lost their homes, jobs, and livelihoods.
“In a 16-page guidance issued Tuesday, the Obama administration, led by the Justice Department, warned Louisiana recipients of federal disaster assistance against engaging in ‘unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including limited English proficiency)’”
Obama’s Apologists: The president isn’t going to Louisiana because he “detests theatrical politics.” (Really, they want us to believe the president who staged a photo–op with a bunch of faux-doctors in white lab coats to sell ObamaCare hates theatrical politics.)
Really, though, Obama supporters don’t give a damn about Obama’s response to the disaster, and they never really cared about Bush’s expect to the extent they could use the latter as a political cudgel against him. Leftists care about power, and nothing else.
Where’s Hillary? Can’t do Louisiana, too busy shaking down big donors for money.
Where’s Trump? Oh, he went down to New Orleans with his running mate to check things out and hand out relief supplies. And the Democrat Media Complex has the nerve to caution him against “seeming craven, using crises for political gain.”
One cannot even.
Bernie Sanders, Socialist Hero and Champion of the Proletariat, just bought himself a $600,000 vacation home. (His third).
The Burlington resident last week plopped down nearly $600,000 on a camp in North Hero.
Sanders’ new waterfront crib has four bedrooms and 500 feet of Lake Champlain beachfront on the east side of the island — facing Vermont, not New York. The Bern will keep his home in Burlington and use the new camp seasonally.
Gee, do you think he will be using this or his other home to shelter homeless transgendered illegal immigrant Muslims? Yeah, neither do I.
Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about. From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.
Trump was definitely not my first choice: I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz. As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.
My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election. While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting. While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality. So what to do? One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way. Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.
Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes. During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power. I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.
But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues? One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year. My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.
Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma. Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance. Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.
In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles. I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.
But let’s examine the situation. We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative. We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power. Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.” That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates. She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”
During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin. When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president. And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”
So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like? This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:
The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.
Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.
Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.
And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.
You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.
Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.
Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?
I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not. As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.
And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons. As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.” Barnes notes:
Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.
And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal. The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.
The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.
For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.” Hillary Clinton must not become president. If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.
So then, why Donald Trump? Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.
I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.
Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative. How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?
For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system. Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same: Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.
Let’s be honest: The problems of American blacks today are caused largely by white intellectuals and politicians, and I mean the left-wing ones.
In the 1930s, such people created Planned Parenthood specifically to abort black babies (google Margaret Sanger). In the 1960s, such people created the Welfare State (Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”) which annihilated the traditional black family and led generations of American inner-city blacks away from productive pursuits, into dead-ends of left-wing “community activism” and much worse.
And today, such people pander to (or sometimes form the white membership of) the group #BlackLivesMatter, which perversely tries to lead blacks into a dead-end of complaining, hateful racism against whites. If ever, after we entered the 20th century, there was some kind of plot by American whites to destroy blacks and keep them down: American left-liberalism would be it. (If.)
Racism is both an illusion and a real problem (as illusions sometimes can be). Racism in America is being fomented even as we speak, by privileged, white American left-liberals. Not racism in the sense that America discriminates terribly against blacks, but the opposite: racism in the sense that America wants to give blacks an unreal sense of entitlement. Racism in the sense that America throws crutches and deadweights to blacks (not helping hands) and foments mistaken beliefs, both about blacks and among blacks.
Whose fault is it? If, for your entire life, the rich white lady who gets away with every crime (*cough* Hillary among others) tells you that America OWES you a living and owes you intense accommodation of your whims and that she will use government (force) to make sure you get it, wouldn’t you begin to believe her? I would.
In effect and for generations, narcissistic American lefties have been trying to gaslight American blacks.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse used by narcissists in order to instill in their victims an extreme sense of anxiety and confusion to the point where they no longer trust their own memory, perception or judgment…
The intention is to, in a systematic way, target the victim’s mental equilibrium, self confidence, and self esteem so that they are no longer able to function in an independent way. Gaslighting involves the abuser to frequently and systematically withhold factual information from the victim, and replace it with false information.
And yet some people blame blacks, the recipients of systematic gaslighting by American leftists. And blame blacks on the basis of their race. In short: Yes, Virginia, some people are nasty racists.
As tragic, current events have put “race” into the news and caused GayPatriot to increase its coverage, I have encountered perhaps 1 or 2 of these people in our comments. If “conservative” in America means that you value human dignity, independence and freedom – if – then I can’t consider these people conservatives; I personally, and sadly, am forced to think of them as accomplices to the vicious and evil schemes of the Left.
…Negroes seem incapable of governing or producing anything of value.
Black people are a violent, criminal, underclass.
If all blacks disappeared, America’s cities would become much safer and more livable.
I could spell out what’s wrong with the above quotes. (For example: What about white meth addicts and dealers, as a violent and criminal underclass? What about certain white Democrat leaders, like the Clintons or Jon Corzine (D), as a violent and criminal overclass? What about brilliant black Americans like Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown and Allen West? How about if we take people as individuals and categorize them by their behavior and ideas and character content, not by something dumb like their genes and melanin content?)
I could spell it out, but another part of me says: Why bother? Hate is hate. It’s part of racism. That being so, it’s enough to say that anyone who wants to bring it here to GayPatriot ought to take it elsewhere.
I want less criminal violence in America: less from poor people – who may be white or black or any race; AND, less criminal violence from certain rich people and top leaders in the Political-Financial Complex – who, again, may be white or black or any so-called “race”.
Greg Gutfeld on why the left has gone nanners over Britain’s peaceful, democratic realignment and doesn’t give a damn about really horrible things that are happening in other countries.
I don’t know whether it’s hilarious or sad that Lindsay Lohan, James Corden and others are expressing outrage over Brexit, as Venezuela descends into an abysmal amalgam of Soylent Green and Lord of the Flies. Bold-faced names are expressing elitist outrage over a vote, while people down south are assaulting each other over toilet paper. Venezuela represents real-time suffering, not the hypothetical hysterias put forth over Brexit. The actual policies of a government – one lauded by Sean Penn and Oliver Stone – are creating a living hell, against the wishes of the suffering people. And yet, the stars in our celebrity skies prefer to wring their soft, precious mitts over Brexit.
Here’s why: Venezuela’s demise is caused by an ideology romanticized by the same people fretting over Brexit: socialism.
Because a starlet once lived in London, this compels her to express an oh-so-brave stance against Brexit (even though a week ago she might have thought Brexit was a laxative). Yet, has she said anything about Venezuela, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or the Taliban? I must have missed it.
My point: it’s no longer a comparison between one starving child and many, it’s a choice between exercising one’s moral superiority in a risk-free environment (let’s go on Twitter and call pro-Brexit people racist or dumb) – and calling out real horror (islamists chucking gays off bridges and buildings).
Every grownup knows what a temper tantrum looks like. The kid didn’t get his way. It’s time to make the grownups pay – by causing obstacles, by screeching about anything and everything, by hitting, and so forth. The kid might still not win on the immediate issue X. But who knows, the grownups might just try to mollify him on another issue Y. It’s part revenge, part blackmail. We can expect a lot of tantrums now over Brexit.
Brexit doesn’t change much, “in the now”. First, it hasn’t even happened. (It will be weeks or months before Britain invokes Article 50.) Second, if and when it happens, it need not affect the existing terms of European trade, finance or hardly anything other than British border control. All that it will take to keep the existing trade going is a few new pieces of paper with a few new signatures.
No, Brexit is more of a matter for the future. Assuming it happens, it will mean that the UK’s -future course- is to avoid a full-on political merger with the rest of Europe; avoid the destruction of its borders and sovereignty; etc.
And, to the various socialist cronies of Europe, that’s unforgivable. And for years, vast problems (unrelated to Brexit) have been piling up for them. And for years, they’ve tried to not admit the full extent of their problems. Problems which they have caused and/or failed to deal with.
Guess what? Now that they didn’t get their way on Brexit, they’re going to blame everything on Brexit. Even though Brexit is mostly unrelated.
It’s as if termites have eaten away at your home for years. Your home is ready to crash. You have failed to deal with it. Now your partner insists that you stay home on Saturday night and don’t go to that casino. Guess what? Your plan is to light a little fire to help your termite-eaten home crash faster; and when the cops arrive, you’ll blame your partner for everything. Now that’s a tantrum.
It’s already begun. Earlier we had the credit downgrades on the UK. It’s pure payback, of course. Nothing fundamental has changed about the UK’s finances. The ratings companies became political, some years ago. Governments can and will torture the ratings companies; therefore, they do the bidding of governments. The downgrades then add to market turmoil. In other words: Kid throws tantrum.
Another example is, crashing Italian banks that demand massive new bailouts. European banks’ finances have been rotten for years. Their stocks were inevitably going to crash at some point, when the world admitted the reality. But guess what? Brexit! So give us new bailouts!
It’s the new Climate Change, or maybe the new Salted Caramel. Everything this year is going to be Brexit. Decaying art? Brexit! Venezuelan collapse? Brexit! Fukushima radiation levels? Brexit! Solar flares? Brexit! U.S. recession? Personal negativity? Brexit!
Why not? The world – or at least, the media-socialist-crony world – hates UK Independence (and border control) that much. Everyone will agree to join the fun and not be honest about the longstanding, real causes of a great many problems.
UPDATE – it continues: The European Central Bank’s leader, Mario Draghi, predicts low economic growth and currency devaluations from Brexit. Let’s be clear.
- Europe was already going to be stuck in years of low growth.
- Currency devaluation is what Draghi has already been wanting and attempting, for years.
But guess what? The new scapegoat, Brexit!
It seems so.
As Britain voted to leave the European Union last week, the leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage said, “The election was won in my view in the Midlands and the North and it was the old Labour vote that came to us…” This morning, Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid puts some numbers on it:
In terms of socio-economic groups, 57% of ABs (upper/middle class – professional/managers etc) voted remain, 49% of C1s (lower middle class – supervisory/clerical or junior management/administrative), 36% of C2s (skilled working class) and 36% of DEs (Ds – semi & unskilled manual workers; Es – casual/lowest grade worker or state pensioner).
By implication, the ones who didn’t vote for Remain, voted for Leave. In other words, over 60% of rank-and-file British workers voted for the Leave campaign. (Note: ZH provides no link to the original. If you have a link to the original, please post it in the comments.)
We could take this interesting tidbit, if it’s true, in any number of directions.
- Among workers, is this a rise of protectionism? Or is it a rise of appropriate national pride and common sense?
- Is the recent day or two of market turmoil really just the ruling classes throwing a temper tantrum?
- What should be made of all these leftists saying that Brexit passed because of old people, conservatives and racists? Are left-wingers name-calling their own base? The Party apparatchiks are mad at their base? Is the spat temporary, or something deeper?
UPDATE: Can there be any doubt that the EU hates democratic accountability? (Being accountable to the People it presumes to govern) One of its various Presidents, Martin Schultz, has now said:
“The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate”.
I saw that coming.
Apple is refusing to participate in the Republican National Convention, allegedly because they object to Donald Trump’s “bigotry.”
Apple will continue to do business in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Uganda, and other countries where people can be murdered for being gay and women can be punished for being raped.
The owner of a pair of restaurants in Maine has announced that she will refuse to serve gun owners because of her personal moral objections to “weapons of war.” What if she refused to serve gay gun owners? Or black gun owners? Then would she be breaking the law? Or, it only OK if she refuses white normal gun owners? What if a transgendered gun owner wants to use her toilet?