Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
He always seemed a little bit nutty to me. I appreciated the fact that he thought Islam was a big threat, and it didn’t bother me at all that he wanted better relations with Russia. But he seemed to be lacking in managerial competency. Kind of like a Newt Gingrich but not as smart. Yes, that’s another thing about Flynn, smart enough to get promoted and appear to know what he’s doing (perhaps an IQ of 120) but lacking in higher level intelligence of the kind that Steve Bannon has.
* * *
Trump is not one to back away from a fight with the media. I don’t think that Trump has suddenly become soft.
Trump likes to reward people who are loyal to him, and especially those who were loyal to him back when everyone said he had no chance of winning anything and that anyone who associated with Trump was an evil racist. Flynn was one of those loyalists whom Trump rewarded.
But Trump has also shown that he can get rid of people too, like he got rid of Chris Christie. I think that Trump saw this as an opportunity to get rid of Flynn because he didn’t turn out as well (for reasons I explained above) as Trump hoped.
Also Trump seems to have a genuine dislike for people who used their government careers as a springboard into getting rich from lobbying, and Flynn was involved in that.
Who knew it was illegal for a citizen “without the authority of the United States” to talk to foreign governments? Haven’t Jimmy Carter and a whole bunch of other famous people, especially liberal Democrats, been doing exactly that for decades? (Actually, upon doing research, it turns out that people have been doing that since at least 1798 when George Logan talked to France, which pissed of Congress so much that they passed the Logan Act in 1799, named after the guy who pissed them off.)
According to the Wikipedia article on the Logan Act,
1. Only one indictment under the Act in 1803, and that guy was never even prosecuted beyond an indictment.
2. District Court in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) said the act was probably unconstitutional but did not rule on the question.
3. Constitutionality of the Logan Act has been publicly questioned by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
* * *
A commenter writes: “democratic senator tulsi gabbard went to syria in january, where she met with assad. she then went on talk shows, admitted this, and no one is saying she violated the logan act.”
Exactly! But I would say it with uppercase letters where norms of style dictate.
The MSM is still talking about why the white working class voted for Trump.
Let’s review what the liberal elites think. The liberal elites believe that having a good career is a reward for doing the right things. The right things include getting good grades in high school and then going to college where you become smart enough to work in a good career.
Liberal elites don’t believe in HBD. If a white person, especially a white male, fails to go to college and “make something of themselves,” it’s because they were too lazy and too stupid (stupid in a moral sense and not an IQ sense) to do the right things, despite their white privilege. On the other hand, if a black or Hispanic fails to go to college, that’s because of pervasive racism, and therefore they deserve the help and sympathy of the government as compensation.
Given that the liberal elites who control the Democratic Party believe this, how can they convince the blue-collar whites they are on their side when they give off the vibe that they really despise those people for being lazy and stupid? Sometimes liberal politicians even let slip that they really think the blue-collar whites are a bunch of deplorables clinging bitterly to their religion, their guns, and their racism.
Are there any Democrats left like the old Bill Clinton from the 1990s who could give off the vibe that he sincerely felt the pain of blue-collar whites?
* * *
Has Tim Wise been reading my blog?
maybe white rust belt folk should develop nu skills, go 2 school & stop relying on entitled mentality that "muh daddys job" will b there 4 u
— Tim Wise (@timjacobwise) February 11, 2017
Randomly pissed off at Frank Bruni for calling Trump’s “Make America great again” slogan “darkly coded” and “dopily elementary.” (It’s random because Trump haters have been saying similar about Trump and his slogan for the last year.)
In Bill Clinton’s first inaugural address he repeated again and again his promise to “renew America.” I don’t see how “renew America” is in any way fundamentally different than “make America great again.” Or different than Warren Harding’s famous “return to normalcy” slogan.
Candidates promising to return America to something that was better before the guy or party they are running against took over comes from the standard political playbook that has been used for the last two hundred years.
* * *
Commenter “Mark Caplan” writes: “In 2006 liberal contributing editor for The Atlantic Peter Beinart authored The Good Fight: Why Liberals and Only Liberals Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.”
[A]t an event in Washington, D.C., the mayor expanded on what he believes is the road map back to power for his party — putting moderate candidates such as veterans, football players, sheriffs and business people up in Republican districts, picking battles with Republicans, exploiting wedges within the GOP and fighting attempts to redistrict Congress on partisan grounds.
But this time he didn’t hold back on his frustration with some of his fellow Democrats.
“Winning’s everything,” he said. “If you don’t win, you can’t make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party to accept that principle. Sometimes, you’ve just got to win, OK? Our party likes to be right, even if they lose.”
Can the Democrats really run veterans, football players and sheriffs (in other words, the type of people who appeal to blue-collar whites) when the SJW-types who are in charge hate those types of people?
Carry the flag. Open with the Pledge of Allegiance. Close by singing the Star Spangled Banner… Trump’s presidency is itself one long flag-burning, an attack on the principles and institutions of the American republic. That republic’s symbols are your symbols. You should cherish them and brandish them.
It’s not likely to happen because the SJW types hate nationalistic patriotic stuff. SJW types hate the slogan “Make America great again” because they don’t think that America was ever great. Rudy Giuliani was right when he said that Obama, the SJW-in-chief, doesn’t love America.
I’ve been saying for a long time that the Republican Party is the stupid party, they put principles (dumb principles at that) and squabbling over trivia ahead of winning, they allowed liberals to take over the mainstream media.
But the Trump-led Republican Party is becoming smarter. Trump went after the blue-collar white voters who were up for grabs. Trump attacks the mainstream media instead of cucking to them, the previous strategy employed by Republicans which failed and failed.
Based on this New York Times article, he seems like someone who will respect the nation’s need for secure borders and controlling immigration. But also, he’s a Harvard Law School graduate; not some legal lightweight like Harriet Miers (who W’s own Republican Party refused to support).
If #NeverTrumpers had their way, Hillary Clinton would be President now, and she’d be appointing an extreme liberal who sees racism everywhere.
I read the Harvard article debunking the study that alleges that non-citizens voted based on an analysis of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, and sadly I agree 100% with the debunking.
However, this doesn’t prove one way or another about whether non-citizens have illegally voted in elections, it just demonstrates that you can’t find proof of that in an official study. Most people who commit crimes are smart enough not to admit it on a survey (although given how many idiots post evidence of their crimes on social media, we can’t say that all people are that smart), and furthermore, most illegal immigrants don’t take surveys. If they are “undocumented” than the survey-takers don’t know they exist, and even if their existence is known, most illegal immigrants are wary of participating in anything that looks official because they believe that by keeping away from such things they minimize their chances of being caught and deported. Even though under the Obama administration, hardly anyone in that type of situation was deported, most illegals don’t believe it could really be true that no one will deport them.
The only way to really know if non-citizens have voted is for the type of government investigation called for by Donald Trump. And the reason why liberals are so outraged by the idea of such an investigation is because, deep down, they fear that the investigation will find out that illegal immigrants and others who aren’t allowed to vote really did vote, just as Donald Trump alleges, and the legal crackdown in response will mean fewer votes for Democrats in future elections, as well as a gloating Donald Trump who will claim victory even if the actual number of illegal votes is an order of magnitude less than 3 million.
For naysayer commenters who insisted that Trump would be all talk no action, according to the NY Times, Trump has already taken a lot of actions to begin enforcing the immigration laws and building the wall. Much to the outrage of liberals and the mainstream media.
* * *
Is Trump really doing anything, or just making some PR? Well, it’s clear that the liberals believe he is really doing stuff, otherwise they wouldn’t be outraged. If liberals believed his executive orders were just for show but with no tooth, then they’d be smugly lecturing Trump supporters that Trump is reneging on his campaign promises (instead of praising Trump for being more moderate now that he’s in office).
I’ve previously blogged about the evidence that higher IQ leads to lower income when educational credentials are held constant.
@BBQ_W_Football on Twitter directed me to this blog post that alleges some pretty dire outcomes indeed for people whose IQ exceeds 133.
I would add based on my own research that even up to one SD below an IQ of 133 (118-133), without educational credentials the IQ doesn’t help at all.