Lion of the Blogosphere

YouGov poll good for Trump

YouGov South Carolina poll has Trump at 42%, Cruz 20%, Rubio 15%. Polling took place before the debate.

This particular poll tends to give Trump higher numbers than other polls. Because Trump beat the polls in New Hampshire, this poll is probably more accurate. (As a caucus state, Iowa was a special case and should be disregarded.)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 14, 2016 at 10:08 pm

Posted in Politics

71 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Very curious as to how the post debate polls show Trump. Bill Kristol called Trump DOA again. But then he’s done that so many times…

    Mike Street Station

    February 14, 2016 at 10:10 pm

    • Bill Kristol called Trump DOA again.

      Is that creep ever NOT wrong?

      Rifleman

      February 15, 2016 at 1:38 am

      • Kristol is crazier now because Trump hit GWB and his neocons, thus preempting Rubio and his (same) neocons.

        vdorta

        February 15, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    • Hysterical stories. Thanks.

      Vincent

      February 14, 2016 at 11:37 pm

      • I don’t think they’re funny. How about that Villalobos guy, he’s got something worth hearing, don’t you think? He could shut the Dems down if the Republicans were only smart enough to use him.

        Mort

        February 15, 2016 at 12:09 pm

  2. I doubt anyone who still worships W. is going for Trump anyway. I don’t think this hurts him.

    Hepp

    February 14, 2016 at 10:57 pm

    • Worshipping Bush isn’t the issue. I doubt the comment about 9/11 and Bush not keeping us safe will bother people much. The problem is the WMD comment. He was too close to the liberal “there were [not many] WMD’s, so the war was a crime” line of argument, which is a line of argument that rightly disgusts conservatives. I don’t know whether it’ll hurt Trump – in any event, I doubt it’ll hurt him enough to make SC close – but it could hurt him without Bush-worship being involved.

      Perturabo

      February 14, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    • These W lovers won’t vote for Trump in primaries, but will certainly support him over Bernillary in the National Election.

      Camlost

      February 15, 2016 at 12:07 am

      • I know a lot of conservatives IRL and online. I can’t think of a single one who supports the current party line that all the non-Trumps sprout, as well as the GOPe and GOP MSM:

        1. The Iraq War was a success and well worth the cost
        2. The Surge Worked and pansy democrats who say otherwise are lying
        3. Bush kept us safe

        Now they don’t hate W, more they don’t really like to talk about the whole thing.

        Lot

        February 15, 2016 at 3:21 am

      • I don’t think anyone says “the Iraq War was a success and well worth the cost.” I think they even got Jeb to concede it was basically a failure.

        Was the left entirely right about the entire George W. Bush foreign policy? Was it SO right, in fact, that we should use Michael Moore Bush-lied-people-died style rhetoric to describe it?

        Again, I think stuff like this proves Trump to be little more than a factional candidate. He can win pluralities of the vote, but his opinions are too anti-orthodox within the GOP to win over a majority of Republicans. The whole point of running in a primary is to make yourself agreeable to the majority of your party’s voters so you come into the general election with a strong, unified, loyal base.

        The Trump strategy seems to be “badly divide the Republican base and then just wing it in the general election. Maybe we can win some black voters? Who knows!”

        Shep

        February 15, 2016 at 10:34 am

      • There are still plenty of conservatives who think that the surge worked and Obama threw away the gains. That’s an extremely common view, so common it’s the conventional wisdom, and arguing against it would be a hard sell politically now because it’s a functionally pro-Obama position while the man is still president and actively ticking people off. Lots still think that Bush kept us safe too, although with him out of office seven years and people souring on him over time I think they’re much more open to hearing criticism of his actions prior to 9/11 than they would have been when he was the GOP’s standard bearer.

        Richard

        February 15, 2016 at 10:53 am

      • If Trump is a factional candidate then so is everyone else, based on their shaky histories on immigration and H1Bs. The whole reason an unorthodox candidate like Trump ascended to the top of the heap is because the establishment-favored candidates staked out positions on immigration that were not supported by a majority of Republican voters.

        Richard

        February 15, 2016 at 10:57 am

      • “The whole reason an unorthodox candidate like Trump ascended to the top of the heap is because the establishment-favored candidates staked out positions on immigration that were not supported by a majority of Republican voters.”

        Except that Trump is not winning majority support. The majority of Republican primary voters are voting for candidates with establishment opinions on immigration.

        Shep

        February 15, 2016 at 11:26 am

      • The majority of Republicans are voting for Trump or Cruz, whom the establishment hates, and most of the establishment candidates have been forced to back away from their previous views, like Rubio. Trump will be regularly carrying state majorities as more candidates drop out.

        Richard

        February 15, 2016 at 12:30 pm

      • “Was the left entirely right about the entire George W. Bush foreign policy? Was it SO right, in fact, that we should use Michael Moore Bush-lied-people-died style rhetoric to describe it?”

        No, the left was wrong and that’s a stupid line to use. Any objections to Iraq should be framed from a completely pro-American standpoint (“Saddam sucked but deposing him wasn’t worth the cost”) and anti-Arab/Muslim (“Muslims are medieval savages who can’t handle democracy”.)

        “Bush lied people died” is Michael Moore horseshit, and Trump shouldn’t be saying that.

        gothamette

        February 15, 2016 at 1:28 pm

      • “There are still plenty of conservatives who think that the surge worked and Obama threw away the gains. That’s an extremely common view, so common it’s the conventional wisdom, and arguing against it would be a hard sell politically now because it’s a functionally pro-Obama position while the man is still president and actively ticking people off.”

        I think that’s actually the case. The surge did work, and Obama threw away the gains. But that’s a different argument on whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place. You can think we shouldn’t have been there in the first place AND that the surge worked and Obama threw away those hard won gains.

        Mike Street Station

        February 15, 2016 at 2:00 pm

      • It’s a fact that Iraq was more stable when there were a large number of American troops supplying law and order (and putting themselves in the line of fire). But there’s no evidence that Iraq was ever going to be a stable democracy after our troops left. And the political will go keep our troops there permanently just wasn’t there. Thus, W failed with respect the Iraq endgame.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 15, 2016 at 2:08 pm

      • It’s a fact that Iraq was more stable when there were a large number of American troops supplying law and order (and putting themselves in the line of fire).

        Well, of course it was. Iraq is only a country of 20 million people, and we had up to 160,000 US troops on the ground.

        Camlost

        February 15, 2016 at 4:11 pm

      • I think that’s actually the case. The surge did work, and Obama threw away the gains. But that’s a different argument on whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place.

        This may or may not be true. But what Trump’s probably doing is positioning himself for the general election. Distancing himself from Bush and standard Republicans will suit him well in the election.

        But there’s no evidence that Iraq was ever going to be a stable democracy after our troops left.

        It would have worked if we had installed a pro-American military dictator and then left. In general I’m for preventing Muslims from gaining WMDs (Saddam didn’t seem to have them), but we shouldn’t promote Muslim democracy when the electorate will probably vote for a Muslim terrorist party or a weak government that will be later overthrown by Muslim terrorists.

        Gadhaffi’s, Mubaraks, and Saudi royalties are the best we can expect from the Muslim world.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 15, 2016 at 4:27 pm

      • “Distancing himself from Bush and standard Republicans will suit him well in the election.”

        It’s actually genius because he can attack Hillary FROM THE LEFT on this issue.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 15, 2016 at 4:29 pm

      • It’s actually genius because he can attack Hillary FROM THE LEFT on this issue.

        Precisely. Speaking of Hillary, the same poll has her leading Sanders 59% to 40% in South Carolina. It appears her firewall of black voters is holding.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 15, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    • Someone just posted this 2015 poll. 79% of self-described Republicans think George W. Bush was a good president. Only 3% “strongly disapprove” which is the camp Trump appears to fall into.

      https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bgk6rq5bwn/tabs_HP_Third_GWB_Term_20150921.pdf

      Shep

      February 15, 2016 at 11:48 am

  3. This race would already be over if the stupid Christians hadn’t stolen IA from us.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 14, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    • But “stupid Christians” were a given in Iowa so Trump should have put in more ground game to get other Iowans to get to the polls and vote for him.

      Beginners mistake maybe.

      Many people thought it was going to be a Cruz/Carson battle. At least Trump got 2nd.

      Rifleman

      February 15, 2016 at 1:36 am

    • “Stupid Christians” are also known as “Republican voters.” If Trump has no strategy for winning such a large and important faction of “his” party perhaps he should try another one.

      Shep

      February 15, 2016 at 10:29 am

    • Stupid Christians are not “Republican voters”. Even in IA they make up maybe a third of the primary electorate.

      Trump is not a factional candidate, he wins amongst conservative, moderate and liberal Republicans. He is only factional insofar as the GOP is divided into warring tribes. The establishment, the stupid Christians and the TruCons don’t like him but those groups are all retarded. Most Republican voters like Trump and Trump is going to carry the day. The other groups can all go to Hell.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 15, 2016 at 10:47 am

  4. Trump is right that Iraq was an enormous mistake but he’s incapable of framing it rationally. SC is a state full of ex-military, and let’s face it, the war wasn’t just Bush foisting it on a gullible public. A lot of people were in favor of the war, WMD or no WMD. Apparently no one remembers the talk about how Poppy “didn’t finish the job” and how we should have “gone all the way to Baghdad.” Now it’s all Bush’s fault. AIN’T SO. The war had intense opposition, but most of the public supported it.

    I supposed he’ll win anyway. This country is in a fight for its very life, and he’s the only candidate who is addressing this. I give him credit for that. But he’s horrible.

    gothamette

    February 15, 2016 at 9:25 am

    • Hillary was a vocal participant in that group of “a lot of people in favor of the war” in 2003. Trump is planting a seed so that he can get mileage out of this in the general election against her.

      Camlost

      February 15, 2016 at 11:22 am

    • Apparently no one remembers the talk about how Poppy “didn’t finish the job” and how we should have “gone all the way to Baghdad.”

      My spouse was one of them, then later opposed the war. I guess going back in to do what “should” have been done the first time around isn’t quite the same thing as starting a whole new war. But I recall the background noise was there all through the 90s. Spouse said we should have had Saddam assassinated. Easy peasy. I just wish people realized how hard it is to surgically “take out” a dictator, all the millions we spent trying to get Castro and no doubt spent trying to get Saddam too.

      There is going to be a lot of Revision on the right about the Iraq war in years to come. It’s probably already started, what with Trump’s impolitic outbursts.

      Mrs Stitch

      February 15, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    • The South will forgive Trump because he sounds like the most militaristic and nationalistic of all candidates. Jacksonian militarism plays better among Southern voters than Iowa evangelicals. For example, the South had no or almost no America First societies in the run up to WWII.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      February 15, 2016 at 4:31 pm

      • In other words, this election is about identity, not policies.

        gothamette

        February 15, 2016 at 10:11 pm

      • In other words, this election is about identity, not policies.

        Not in South Carolina’s case. Jacksonianism is policy with a robust history behind it.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 16, 2016 at 12:05 am

    • Trump brings up the Iraq War because Jeb, at least in the beginning, wanted to continue his brother’s policies in the Middle East…which, at this point, is another invasion, since Obama removed the benefits of the surge.

      To promote another invasion of the Middle East is stupid.

      Undercutting Bush like this also undercuts the foreign policy of the other candidates, which are different flavors of the same thing.

      map

      February 16, 2016 at 12:37 am

  5. My state’s primary is next month, and I already voted absentee. I was surprised at how many names were on the ballot. Trump was alphabetically last, and I voted for him. Go Donald!

    Black Death

    February 15, 2016 at 10:06 am

  6. Actually, isn’t it kinda important for Trump to keep pointing out that he went on record to oppose the War in Iraq?

    Because he can later contract himself against Hillary, who supported it.

    Seems like a minor point now but rest assured that Trump will hammer it to death once it’s him versus Hillary and the election gets closer. This issue could resonate with a not insignificant body of wavering white voters who are either moderate or fiscally conservative but socially liberal or libertarian.

    Camlost

    February 15, 2016 at 11:01 am

  7. I just received an official-looking, two-page, questionnaire from the RNC soliciting my opinion on many economic, social, and political issues. For example:

    “Which party will reduce federal spending?” Answer: “Hahaha, neither!”

    “Would you support comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the country if reform required its beneficiaries to pay unpaid taxes and building a wall along the US southwestern border?” Answer: “Hell no. You won’t fool me a second time!”

    And a bunch of other typical and silly questions on abortion, military funding and intervention in foreign countries, social security and medicare trickery, obamacare, etc.

    These guys are clueless!

    E. Rekshun

    February 15, 2016 at 11:17 am

    • It looks like they’re tacitly accepting that a wall will have to be built.

      Richard

      February 15, 2016 at 11:41 am

  8. NY Post – Podhoretz says Trump was “out of control” in SC:

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/13/trump-was-out-of-control-in-south-carolina-debate/

    Camlost

    February 15, 2016 at 11:33 am

    • The Podhoretz and Kristol families are the founding families of the so called “neo-conservative” movement.

      That was a group of formerly left wing NY Jews who were traumatized by black crime against the prole Jews left behind in NYC and the failure of liberals to stand up for Israel and the increasing identification by blacks and leftists with the Palestinian cause.

      Of course they hate Trump. He’s an American nationalist, America Firster who is opposed to all of the neo con/Israeli obsessive foreign policies.

      All the neocons (McCain/Bolton/Graham/Fox News hate Trump and are trying to tie him with Michael Moore.

      Trump is “out of THEIR control”. And they’re scared to death.

      Rifleman

      February 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm

      • If I hear too often from Trump supporters that his appeal lies in his defiance of the Jewish cabal which is pulling our strings, then I may end up voting against him. My vote doesn’t mean much anyway, so why throw in with Jew-haters? Annoyance-level is just as good a reason as any to change one’s vote.

        Perturabo

        February 15, 2016 at 3:10 pm

      • @Perturabo,
        The WNs were all down and sulky after Iowa. They are such cowards and that p-word that Trump repeated. They encounter one little obstacle and they crap their panties. I won’t vote against Trump because of them, but I did get a laugh out of their cowardice and rotten temper.

        gothamette

        February 15, 2016 at 7:00 pm

      • Pert: Annoyance is a great reason to vote against an open borders loon like Ron Paul but not a man like Trump.

        Remember, only stupid Jew haters support Trump. Smart Jew haters despise Trump just like they despise Farage and Marine Le Pen.

        Otis the Sweaty

        February 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm

      • If I hear too often from Trump supporters that his appeal lies in his defiance of the Jewish cabal which is pulling our strings, then I may end up voting against him.

        Enough already. Stop with the paranoia. You are still making excuses for Bush and the Iraq war… A TOTAL FAILURE AND DISASTER.

        It’s not “Jew hating” to point out the Podhoretz/Kristol families as the origin of the neo-conservative movement. It’s historical fact.

        Last time I checked McCain/Graham/Bolton were not Jewish.

        If you want to pretend the neocons aren’t obsessed with an Israeli-centric foreign policy go ahead and lie to yourself.

        The Israeli-centric freaks also includes Christian paranoids who think we are living in the END OF DAYS and the have all kinds of superstitious low IQ fantasies about Israel that are being exploited to support a terrible foreign policy.

        Intelligent Americans need to be aware of it and to oppose it.

        Trump clearly is opposed to it and opposed to the strategy of knocking off every Arab dictator that kept some kind of order over the savages over there.

        Hence Podhoretz and Kristol and others will always hate him for it.

        Rifleman

        February 15, 2016 at 8:18 pm

      • It’s not paranoia to notice the fact that the paleo-right hates Jews.

        It is Jew-hating to go out of your way to blame Jewish people for foreign policy you disagree with when the same foreign policy is widely supported by gentiles.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 15, 2016 at 8:25 pm

      • It’s not paranoia to notice the fact that the paleo-right hates Jews.

        Well then it isn’t jew hating or antisemitism to point out that many jews are obsessed with Israel and construct policy to advance perceived Jewish and Israeli interests. Many of those people are called “neo-conservatives”. And that’s THEIR term.

        And there are plenty of jews on the left who clearly distinguish themselves from White America and have consistently expressed and promoted an anti White agenda. That is an uncomfortable fact. They really do hate White America no less than the paleo-right supposedly hates jews.

        Many of these Jews hate Trump because they see him as a leader of “the goyim” and they despise him and his supporters because he and they have an agenda that many of these jews find unacceptable. All the while they promote Jewish ethnocentric values in relation to Israel OR Hollywood.

        Obviously there are Jews who don’t agree with these Jews from Mickey Kaus and Matt Drudge to Trump’s inner circle and many others but they are not representative of a large segment of Jewish intellectuals and activists and voters on the left or the Israeli-centric neo-con right.

        If you don’t think a large section of jews in America HATE White America, especially conservatives, you are in denial.

        Rifleman

        February 15, 2016 at 8:45 pm

      • “Well then it isn’t jew hating or antisemitism to point out that many jews are obsessed with Israel and construct policy to advance perceived Jewish and Israeli interests.”

        Yes, actually, it is. The Jew-haters believe that all American foreign policy is part of the Global Jewish Conspiracy to kill goyish soldiers for the sole benefit of Isreal. Reality is that many soldiers died fighting to benefit South Korea and South Vietnam but American has never been directly involved in any of Israel’s wars. Gentile Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq for their own reasons which had nothing to do with Israel (although they may have used “protecting Israel” as one of their many justifications).

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 15, 2016 at 8:50 pm

      • Lion: Thats the thing though, Rifle has not blamed “the Jews” for anything. You really can’t discuss the neocons without discussing their Jewishness. Kristol and Podheretz are basically irrelevent, but their Jewishness is a huge part of their politics and it is in nobodies interest to just ignore it anymore than it makes sense to analyze Barack Obama’s politics independent of his blackness.

        You guys absolutely are being paranoid. And I say this as somebody who has himself been (falsely, in my case) been accused of paranoia by Rifleman.

        Otis the Sweaty

        February 15, 2016 at 8:47 pm

      • Obama’s foreign policy actually has nothing to do with his blackness, it’s about his belief that “neo-colonialism” is the world’s greatest evil, which he inherited from his leftist WHITE GENTILE mother and from growing up in a third world country.

        Kristol and Podheretz are a lot less influential than Jew-haters think they are.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 15, 2016 at 8:52 pm

      • Kristol and Podheretz are basically irrelevent,

        But isn’t this why these conversations become stupid: The neocons are just opinion columnists but every other comment from paleocons is about them and their obsessive petty political feuds.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 16, 2016 at 12:10 am

      • Obama’s foreign policy actually has nothing to do with his blackness,

        Obama supports Muslim terrorism because he identifies with it, even though I suspect he’s really an atheist.

        But most of the antisemites think he’s an agent of Mossad no matter how much he helps ISIS take control of the Syrai, aids the Muslim Brotherhood in overthrowing a pro-American dictator, or encourages Iran to develop a nuke.

        They have no ability to understand any event without seeing ‘neocon’ columnists pulling the strings, even when the strings are being pulled by genocidal Islamic organizations as is the case with Obama’s foreign policy. This is why debating paleocons is a waste of time.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 16, 2016 at 12:14 am

      • Rifleman, I don’t need to go back and forth with you about Jew-hatred. The notion that I am the paranoid one here is laughable.

        As for the Iraq war: Israel had little to do with our motivations for going in – not in reality and not in the rhetoric used to justify the war. As for “defending it” – I’m perfectly comfortable doing so against attitudes which are nothing but a fashion statement. It was not a “disaster” until traitorous Obama withdrew because he valued his ideology more than American interests.

        Otis, I’m still a Trump supporter, probably. I’m just annoyed.

        Perturabo

        February 16, 2016 at 8:09 am

      • Undiscovered Jew, you’re a great commenter but you’re being a bit hypocritical. You accuse Obama (correctly in my opinion) of having a perceived Muslim friendly foreign policy because he’s of Muslim heritage (even though he’s an atheist with no Middle Eastern ancestry & has droned many Muslims) but you strongly object to anyone accusing Jewish neocons of pushing a perceived Israel friendly foreign policy because they have Jewish heritage.

        Do you not see the double standard, or do you think Jews are the only humans in the World who can completely rise above ethnic motives?

        pumpkinperson

        February 16, 2016 at 10:14 am

      • Ethnically motivated Jews live in Boro Park and dress in black and white and have beards.

        Secular Jews are the least ethnically motivated “nationality” that there is. They identify a lot more with a liberal (with a small “l”) elite than they do with other Jews.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 16, 2016 at 11:42 am

      • I agree that because of high IQ, many many Jews are able to get beyond primitive tribal impulses, and fight for justice for all, and these Jews do not get the credit they deserve.

        But there are also secular Jews, who because perhaps they lost family in the Holocaust, are understandably very concerned about Israel, since it’s in a very dangerous part of the World. For example Martin Peretz, who long served as editor of the New Republic said that he was in love with Israel and that there was a party line on Israel at his journal.

        The incredibly talented late great Joan Rivers was incredibly funny, but would go absolutely ballistic when Israel was criticized. Howard Stern would too.

        https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=-_OqRP8I_3I

        pumpkinperson

        February 16, 2016 at 12:14 pm

      • I believe that about Joan Rivers given her age, but she did not fit neatly into the politically correct liberal bucket, and she was not a journalist or political pundit or a politician.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 16, 2016 at 12:19 pm

      • Kristol and Podheretz are a lot less influential than Jew-haters think they are.

        I’m not arguing one way or the other, but if indeed we do have any unduly pro-Israel foreign policy the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the tiny number of largely unpopular Beltway neocons who make the rounds on TV, or garner Defense Dept. appointments from gentile GOP presidents. It would have to be attributed to the infinitely more numerous flyover Evangelical Conservatives who have made steadfast love for Israel an immovable cornerstone of their theo-politics for 30+ years. And consequently they exert infinitely greater influence in elections, the Pentagon and the rank-and-file military.

        If i ask my Bob Jones University graduate neighbors if they know who the hell Kristol and Podheretz are I already know the answer. They could easily watch someone like Krauthammer on FOX praising “the surge” and it would never even enter their mind that he’s Jewish, nor would they care since he’s reaffirming what their preacher has been saying for decades.

        The neocons have never wielded great power, nor were they ever able to change any hearts and minds with their rhetoric. They were just single-issue figureheads put in highly visible positions to provide clever verbiage, research and a few talking points to an idea the GOP constituency already supported.

        Camlost

        February 16, 2016 at 12:38 pm

      • Undiscovered Jew, you’re a great commenter but you’re being a bit hypocritical. You accuse Obama (correctly in my opinion) of having a perceived Muslim friendly foreign policy because he’s of Muslim heritage (even though he’s an atheist with no Middle Eastern ancestry & has droned many Muslims) but you strongly object to anyone accusing Jewish neocons of pushing a perceived Israel friendly foreign policy because they have Jewish heritage.

        Do you not see the double standard, or do you think Jews are the only humans in the World who can completely rise above ethnic motives?

        Oh I agree there is an Israel Lobby and the neocons support Israel to a large degree because they’re often Jewish.

        What I deny is that there is anything inherently wrong with lobbying for Israel. Out of all our major allies we’ve gotten the best ROI for the alliance: Israel’s army is strong enough not to need direct intervention by US troops. In return for indirect American diplomatic and economic support they invest tens of billions more into America’s economy than we spend on them in aid.

        I also object that Jews concerned about Israel are unusually more ethnocentric than other ethnic white Americans would be if their ancestral homelands were under threat from Muslims. Italians and Greeks would also lobby America to secure Italy and Greece if they had been living under decades of wars and threats of annihilation from Muslims.

        Also, Obama does have Muslim ancestry.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 16, 2016 at 5:53 pm

      • I’m not arguing one way or the other, but if indeed we do have any unduly pro-Israel foreign policy the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the tiny number of largely unpopular Beltway neocons who make the rounds on TV,

        There’s no reason we shouldn’t be pro-Israel. The relationship is mutually beneficial and costs America little.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 16, 2016 at 5:54 pm

      • Rifleman, I don’t need to go back and forth with you about Jew-hatred. The notion that I am the paranoid one here is laughable.

        If he doesn’t like Kristol and Podhoretz then he should just stop following them. They’re only opinion columnists.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 16, 2016 at 5:55 pm

      • “If you don’t think a large section of jews in America HATE White America, especially conservatives, you are in denial.”

        LOL, “in denial” is one of those psychobabble phrases that people say when they have no facts. I’m in denial if I deny the existence of gravitational waves.

        A person who would say this is not of sound mind, and it’s never profitable to get into a tussle with someone who is nuts.

        To support what I say, any fair minded person should just read a few alt-right websites and they will notice a pattern: obsession with Jews. Disgusting caricatures, obsession with the blood quantum of part-Jews, etc. Persons who are not Jewish but who have Jewish ancestry are routinely smeared. (I even once read an alt-right website that blamed Columbine on Jews because Dylan Klebold, raised a pacifist Lutheran, had Jewish ancestry on his mother’s side — her father’s father).

        Now, is this not a textbook case of….paranoia?

        I am not saying that the Kristol/Podhoretz form of neoconnery (or “neocohens” as the alt-right now calls them) isn’t totally bound up with their Jewishness. Just saying that (a) they control nothing and (b) the overwhelming majority of Jews disagree w/their politics and (c) wrong as they are, I think they do so out of a sense of American patriotism (and tribal loyalty).

        BTW, it’s J-e-w with a capital J, because Jew is a proper noun. Nazis demeaned Jews by using the lc form. Since your ‘HATE’ indicates Rifleman is familiar with uppercase, my sense is that he’s doing this to be a vicious troll.

        Rifelman is just a full-out flaming Nazi scumbag.

        gothamette

        February 16, 2016 at 6:28 pm

      • What is wrong with supporting Israel when we get much more out of the relationship than we invest in it, especially weighed against other allies we’ve done more for like South Korea?

        Pumpkin? Bueller?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 16, 2016 at 10:58 pm

      • What is wrong with supporting Israel when we get much more out of the relationship than we invest in it, especially weighed against other allies we’ve done more for like South Korea?

        There is nothing wrong with supporting Israel if it’s done openly & honestly. The only pro-Israel folks I would criticize are those neocons who use their high verbal IQs or large wallets to brainwash Presidents, propagandize the public, & buy congress into supporting those specific pro-Israel policies that harm America, under the guise of only being concerned with U.S. Interests.

        Fortunately there are many, many Jews of outstanding intelligence & integrity (Bernie Sanders who I passionately support) who stand up to the neocons & everyone else who is using their money and IQ to exploit regular Americans

        pumpkinperson

        February 17, 2016 at 10:07 am

      • There is nothing wrong with supporting Israel if it’s done openly & honestly. The only pro-Israel folks I would criticize are those neocons who use their high verbal IQs or large wallets to brainwash Presidents, propagandize the public, & buy congress into supporting those specific pro-Israel policies that harm America, under the guise of only being concerned with U.S. Interests.

        What pro-Israel policies harm America? The second Iraq war was a disaster but it wasn’t fought principally to defend Israel. There were many stakeholders who wanted Saddam ousted for various reasons. As far as pro-Israel neocons were concerned, a plus in favor of the war was that a side effect of the war would be to bring stability to the Middle East. The fault with the neocons wasn’t that they saw an intersection between Israeli and American interests but that they wrongly calculated democracy and Islam were compitable. If we had simply left an Iraqi Mubarak in charge of the place after Baghdad fell to the Marines, we be enjoying the stability of a compliant puppet dictator.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 17, 2016 at 10:48 pm

  9. Nobody in the national media can pronounce Nevada correctly. Why is that? I’ve lived there, so I know that Nevadans detest it when their state is pronounced Ne-VAH-da, like it’s a province of Spain.

    Miffed

    February 15, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    • Yes very hoity-toity, and very wrong. You’d think they’d pick up on that after a few trips there. But you know they can’t trust the natives to know how to pronounce their own state.

      I kept telling my boss prior to a sales trip that the client city’s name was San RaFELL not San Rah-fay-el, but no he wouldn’t listen. During the presentation the client sharply corrected him. Heh.

      Mrs Stitch

      February 15, 2016 at 2:10 pm

      • The city of San Joaquin in California is pronounced as San Wahkim, and not San Joequin by dilettantes of the Spanish language.

        JS

        February 15, 2016 at 2:39 pm

      • So it really is Nev-aaah-duh? (aaah as in at?)

        gothamette

        February 15, 2016 at 6:44 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: