Trump may "disavow" hate group support, but they know a kindred spirit when they hear one

Today there were three retirement-age white people, two males and a female, whose external appearance suggested that they were from the “patrician” upper-strata of society, out for a bicycle ride. They had just turned off a side street onto the Interurban Trail in Kent, Washington, a “city” where the powers-that-be tend to be politically “red.” Just how “red” was soon to be discovered. About one hundred yards in front of them was walking a short man who apparently appeared to them to be a “Mexican.” Suddenly the “red flags” went up. They stopped in confusion, momentarily uncertain if they should proceed. 

While one of them stayed behind, the other two continued on past the “Mexican.” One of them then turned around and rode back to where the other had stayed behind; the third member of the riding party lingered a few minutes behind the “Mexican” before riding back to rejoin the other two, and then all three turned back to the side street they had emerged from. The “Mexican” continued walking on the trail past the side street; not very long afterwards, the three bicycle riders re-emerged from the side-street, and continued up the trail in the opposite direction, as they had intended to do before the “red flag” went up in their stereotyping minds.

It is obvious that what had just transpired was the effect that racism, stereotyping and paranoia have on the minds of certain people. Their first thought was that the car they apparently left parked somewhere on the side street might be stolen by this “Mexican,” since in their minds crime and “Mexicans” have the same meaning; so they had to first check to make certain that their car was still “secure,” and then insure that the “Mexican” was a “safe” distance away, thus assuaging their paranoia. I doubt they would have been so obvious in their racially-inspired behavior if it was a black person walking down the trail; it is much more “acceptable” to apply negative traits and have them believed when it comes to Hispanics then it is to blacks in this society. Now, some people might cry foul, applying Dinesh D’Souza’s concept of “rational discrimination”—one that provides an excuse for racism; but there is a fine line between racism and actions based on race, and too easily crossed.

These are the kind of people that Donald Trump has allowed to express their inner blackness without any self-consciousness. He shouts hate to the heavens and there is no price to be paid for it, so he shouts it even louder and people who hate are in ecstasy over their new-found freedom to hate. I recently worked a temp job at a white “mom-and-pop” business of which I was the only “temp” worker was not on the prison work release program. Both of the proprietors were Trump enthusiasts; however, when “mom” started talking effusively about Trump, and it became clear that the underlying theme was race and “ethnicity,” I told her what I thought about Trump and his ability to bring out the worst traits in his supporters, and she became less enthusiastic about letting her thoughts be known. Needless to say, it was my decided opinion that they viewed whites with criminal records and long prison sentences more “trustworthy” than an “ethnic” person with no criminal record—and their pay was cheaper too, of course.

That is one price that Trump has not had to pay. Blacks are either beat-up or escorted out of his campaign rallies, “illegal” immigrants—or rather, anyone “mistaken” for one—is beat-up in his name, and no one is disturbed for more than a few moments. Do his supporters really believe that “all” “Mexican” males are “rapists” and/or drug dealers/murderers/thieves? They might say they don’t believe that they “all” are, but it is “true” in the “generality.” That is like saying most white people are vicious Nazis who secretly yearn for the extermination of all minorities, so that they can have the country all to themselves again. 

Don’t “laugh” about the absurdity of it; early adherents of Darwin predicted that the eventual “extinction” of nonwhites was an “inevitable” byproduct of white supremacy. Today, white supremacists and neo-Nazis in this country yearn for complete segregation of the races, in the belief that blacks and Hispanics will eventually kill each other off in their cut-off from “civil” society urban zones. 

Meanwhile, these same white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are openly pledging their support for  Trump because of his racist rhetoric. When former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke endorsed him, Trump wasn’t immediately disturbed by this revelation; he probably didn’t even know who Duke was. Trump has since stated he “disavows” KKK support, but those are just words with no meaning. Sure he will “disavow” them, but who doesn’t? It is all part of the game. Hate groups know one of their own when they hear him, and he won’t stop them from voting for him.

.

Shielding Clinton's numerous defects with accusations of gender "bullying" only devolves her defenders down to her level of pathology

Can there be anything more frustrating than trying to engage in a substantive debate with a person whose principle line of “argument” is sarcasm, deception and talking loud? And can there be anything more hypocritical in this day and age to shield a presidential wannabe from her character and ethical weaknesses by accusing her opponent of gender “insensitive” gestures and tone? Poor pitiful Hillary Clinton, there on stage in Flint, Michigan, expectorating lie after lie, deception after deception, non-answer after non-answer—doing so in a “commanding” tone, according to her completely biased media supporters—with the debate moderator losing complete control of the proceedings to Clinton, pathetically “assuring” Bernie Sanders that he would have a chance to “respond” to Clinton’s mudslide of pathology. 

A day after the debate, Janell Ross of the Washington Post called Sanders “excuse me” moments when Clinton interrupted his answers, or wagging his finger when trying to make a point, “sexist” and “chauvinistic.” Doesn’t he “know” that media reporters are noting this “insensitive” behavior, and the “assumption” is that the general public is also “put-off” by this “bullying” of a woman?

No, Clinton is her own problem, and she discredits herself very well all by herself. In 1980, Bill Clinton lost his first re-election bid for governor of Arkansas, partly because polling showed a deep voter antipathy toward his wife. This couldn’t have been helped by a 1979 local TV interview, meant as a “get to know Hillary” exchange. She was wearing huge eye glasses and hideous-looking knee-high boots (apparently because she was forced to wear a skirt for the appearance), and calling herself Hillary Rodham. She came off as aloof and arrogant, completely the opposite of her husband. She either had no clue how to connect with people—or more likely, felt put-upon as someone of “patrician” stature being forced to stoop to the level of the “plebians.” 

Her lack of the “common touch” with ordinary people has not improved since then; a New Hampshire news crew at a rare Clinton joint appearance at an Iowa campaign rally showed Bill still with the “touch,” easily engaging reporters, commenting on apple pie and how to grow championship-size pumpkins—while Hillary continued to shun reporters and their unscripted questions, was too patrician to comment on the pie and simply walked away disinterestedly from the pumpkins. What is there to like about this person? Why should we live in fear of what we say about her merely because she is a woman, when we can see and hear with our own two eyes and ears who she is?

Thus the problem with Ross’ assessment is that first it comes from a person who is yet another unabashed Clinton enthusiast, so her credibility is already in question. Secondly, Clinton has tried to play both sides of the fence, attempting to display “male” characteristics when things are going good, then reverting to poor defenseless female when things are going bad. Thirdly, Clinton’s gender is not a defense for her numerous character and ethical defects, which non-Hillary fanatics grew as frustrated to as Sanders did in the course of these debates. How is one supposed to respond to it without being accused of “bullying” a female? 

Thousands of comments on Ross’ piece showed that outside a smattering of diehard self-deceiving Clintonphiles, there was near universal disagreement with her assessment, an example of how out-of-touch the self-deceiving media is, of gender politics gone out-of-control, and an utter failure to find fault with Clinton on any point. When I pressed the Clinton fanatics to explain why a person with such a long history of corruption, perjury and scandal ought even be considered for the presidency, the responses (predictably) didn’t go much beyond name-calling, accusations of woman-hating and claims that her crimes are all a “GOP conspiracy,” despite the fact that pro-Clinton newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post were heavily involved in exposing these activities. In order to “cleanse” Clinton of her many flaws of character and principle, her supporters must follow her “example” and become pathological liars as well.

Manning retires; how long will it take for that gold paint job to wash off?

It’s finally over. Peyton Manning has decided to retire. Let all the gushing hosannas of unrelievedly soporific exclamation points come oozing out of the woodwork. Let his mob of disciples grovel before him on their hands and knees, calling him the greatest there ever was and ever will be. He is the “classiest” player in history too; those accusations of HGH use and disgusting sexual impropriety are just “nonsense.”  Let them call him a “genius” because he constantly changes plays at the line of scrimmage, often confusing his teammates. Is Tom Brady “dumb” because he reads plays off that “cheat sheet” that runs half-way up his arm? Brady’s winning percentage in the regular season is .70 higher than Manning’s—and we don’t need to point out the differential in playoffs now do we? So much for “genius.”  It certainly revealed itself in his 77.4 passer rating in four Super Bowls that was 20 points lower than his regular season number, and that he threw just 3 touchdown passes in those four games (and intercepted five times). Unflappable in the face of his own genius—or just dazed and confused?

So we can finally move on to the future without having to be bombarded with constant exultations of this “gold standard” in quarterbacking, based solely on the quantity of his statistics. Or at least for now.  If Brady plays two more seasons, he will break the tie between Manning and Brett Favre for most regular season victories (he already holds the record for playoff wins). At the present time, Manning holds the career lead in TD passes and passing yards (Favre still holds the records for pass attempts, completions and interceptions), but Drew Brees could pass him in career yardage if he plays three more full seasons; if not, Matt Ryan—who has 32,757 yards passing in his first eight seasons, and he is still just 30—could also threaten that record if he remains healthy and consistent. Then the “gold standard” will be just as muddled as before, as when people forgot about Johnny Unitas, Bart Starr and Fran Tarkenton.

Didn't Democrats in Kansas and Nebraska hear that Sanders' run was "kaput"?

It seems that a majority of Democrats in Kansas and Nebraska were not paying attention to the “mainstream” media or Hillary Clinton for that matter since Tuesday. Didn’t they know that Bernie Sanders is done, finished, kaput? To borrow from Monty Python’s “Dead Parrot” sketch, didn’t they know that all statements to the effect that this candidate is still a going concern are from now on inoperative?

 

But on “super” Saturday, it was the media that proved itself to be ill-informed, or lacking in the "influence" it assumes it has. Bernie Sanders won swing states Kansas and Nebraska, while Hillary Clinton merely won the black vote again in red state Louisiana, which was predictable given that they represent the totality of Democrats in the state. Louisiana, you see, is the state that nearly elected  KKK grand wizard and LSU campus Nazi David Duke as governor in 1990, with plenty of help from white female voters who provided the majority of his support in raw numbers, if not quite by percentage by gender (since they voted in higher numbers than male voters in that election).  Just as predictably, most black voters seem to equate Sanders with a guy like  Duke, although I doubt Duke would have been found demonstrating against discriminatory housing in Chicago and being arrested for his trouble, like Sanders; he would more likely be supporting Barry Goldwater and his far-right agenda, like Clinton did. Hey, whatever works for her.

Is there anyone in the mainstream media that is taking any stock in the fact that Bernie Sanders has been winning blue and swing states, while Hillary Clinton is winning red states unwinnable in November?  This talk that only Hillary can win against the Republican field is baloney. That's the last card that she and media can play. And why is she considered a more "winning" candidate anyways? You think the right is just going to sit on their hands with the Clintons' history of corruption, perjury and scandal? Hillary is probable in it more deeply than her husband, because his is "learned," and her's seems to be congenital. You want another Nixon in the White House? That is what you will get if you vote for that megalomaniac. 

More to the point, doesn't anyone have any principles anymore? If Clinton thought she could win by spouting the racist and jingoistic populism of Trump, you actually think she wouldn’t do that? Isn't that exactly what she did in 2008? Just because she doesn’t have any principles (save that which serves herself) doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have any. Her history demonstrates her total lack of scruples, even as recently as Benghazi and the email server business where she concealed and subsequently deleted who knows what kind of new scandals.  I mean, what else was she doing as Secretary of State? Not much, except going on a worldwide vacation tour on the taxpayer dime. 

Just remember one thing: Over at the realpolitics website, it shows that various polling has Sanders doing better against the Republican field than Clinton. Sanders doesn't seem more attractive than Trump and Cruz? Who's kidding who? Must be Clinton and her media fan-atics.

Sanders supporters should only be “depressed” after “super” Tuesday results if they allow themselves be.

“Democrats turn to Hillary Clinton after flirting with Bernie Sanders” declares the New York Times, based mainly on the comments by Virginia Democrats, the type of right-of-center voters who would rather take the plunge into the murky, rancid pool of the Clintons rather than the clear blue one of Sanders.  In my opinion, voters too craven to follow what they know is right and instead go with “practicality” are just as hypocritical and deceitful as Hillary Clinton is.

The media, of course, is utterly complicit in the propaganda machine that aims to convince Sanders supporters, or those on the fence, that a Sanders presidency is a pipe dream. The media is so desperate that “history” be made and a female be president—even one who is as unqualified as Clinton in every way imaginable—that the true meaning of Super Tuesday was completely distorted. 

In reality, it should have come as no surprise that Clinton won “big” in Deep South states where the large majority of Democratic voters are black, and most of the rest conservative whites. The Democrats have no chance in hell in winning in these states in November, and merely stating Clinton’s minority support in these states is utterly meaningless save for one unjust fact: Coming so early in the primary season, they heavily skew toward the preference of conservative Democrats and black voters (those in states where they have little power either state-wise or nationally, and thus feel drawn to the most patronizing rhetoric by the Great White Mother), against a preference for the candidate that most true ideological progressives in "blue" states would support. 

Thus what Clinton’s media supporters are trying to conceal from Super Tuesday’s results is the disproportionate—and false—effect it has on what should be the true takeaway from the voting: Sanders won or nearly won in states that Democrats normally do win in November. Sanders won by unexpectedly large margins in Minnesota and Colorado, and probably surprised many by winning Oklahoma. Despite what the media claims, Sanders was the real winner on the Democratic side. There is thus still time to make inroads in reliably blue states--before the country realizes what a mistake supporting Hillary is once right-wing PACs start rolling out ads on the Clintons' history of corruption, perjury and scandal which everyone seems to have forgotten. 

But it is going to take some courage on the part of true Democrats who actually believe in the ideals they claim to possess, rather than make “history” by supporting a candidate who has no principles save her own proven megalomania.  They must have the courage and rectitude  to say to themselves, screw the Clinton media-machine, it is our decision to make. We are answerable to our own conscious, not to that of the other side and its lack of conscious.