Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Donald Samson

In the first debate, Trump refused to swear off an independent run if he didn't win the Republican nomination. With a prerequisite of good faith, he subsequently pledged to support the eventual nominee. The GOP establishment, now finally beginning to panic about the prospect of Trump actually getting the nod (these people are really, really bad at noticing things), is working feverishly to unite the entire field against him.

Trump responded to that egregious breach of good faith by calmly leaning up against a pillar of the Republican temple:
Donald Trump's presidential campaign warned the Republican Party on Tuesday about donors pooling funds for attack ads, saying Republicans must treat him fairly if they want to keep him from launching an independent bid.

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen told CNN that if Republican donors backing different presidential candidates come together for an anti-Trump advertising campaign, it would be a "bad, bad decision."
The analogy isn't perfect. Samson's mojo was stolen by a duplicitous tramp, his eyes were gouged out, and he committed suicide in a final bout of vengeful rage. If Trump brings the walls of the Republican party crashing down in 2016, he'll walk off into the sunset even more influential, famous, and admired than he was before he stepped into that corrupted temple.

With total immodesty, recall what was asserted here a few months ago because it bears repeating:

The Republican party needs to be reformed or reduced to rubble. Trump is making damned sure one of those two outcomes occur.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Saturday, November 21, 2015

It's the immigration, stupid

Polling on immigration often appears to be all over the place. Wording is crucial. When the choices are "deport everyone" and "secure the border and then offer a path to citizenship", the Cathedral can manufacture headlines to try and create an illusion of amnesty as a political winner. When the questions are more objectively designed, it becomes clear that restrictionism is the populist position.

Over the summer, Reuters approached the issue in the most straightforward manner I've ever come across. In terms of fleshing out public sentiment, the approach is bar none. Respondents were asked about what should be done with illegal immigrants in the US. Only two committal answers--"deport most or all of them" and "allow most or all of them to stay"--along with a third "unsure" cop-out option, were offered as responses.

Reuters' interactive polling application allows for cross tabular data to be presented in graphical form, too.

First, the country as a whole:

Most people still prefer US to be a nation of laws

This is strikingly similar to the results from a recent poll on the Obama/Ryan plan to wave in 10,000 Syrian refugees.

The racial differences are stark. Whites:

Most whites would like to have a country


The only known issue for which black opinion is not monolithic


¡Solidaridad etnica!

Asian results are inaccessible due to insufficient sample size.

Drilling down a little further reveals why Trump's bold candidacy announcement and his incorrigible refusal to yield an inch in the intervening months--choosing instead not only to stand his ground but to advance forward--has been a political masterstroke. Fortunately, it also substantially increased the odds that Western civilization will survive the 21st century.

White Republicans (pardon the redundant adjective):

Flavor text source here.

To show this isn't a cherry-picked artifice, data for the entire month are included. September 10th was selected above because it was end date of the 5-day polling period with the highest number of respondents over the period Reuters administered the survey question.

Of migrants and moralities

Rorchach test of moral valuation
Slave morality -- It was an evil thing Europeans did to American Indians, so they deserve to have something similar done to them.

Master morality -- This was bad for the people who allowed it to happen to them. We will not allow it to happen to us.

Nietzsche's duality is applicable not just in the case of an individual internet meme, but on mass migration from relatively dysfunctional, violent, chaotic places to relatively functional, non-violent, controlled places more generally. Jayman may hate to quote her, but the point is so blatantly obvious that he isn't going to contest its validity:

Other than for the purposes of moral posturing and virtue signalling, there are no compelling reasons* to do it.

Humorously, as of late social justice warriors have been emphasizing the divine sanction of their mission. To many of these people, history started when they were in grade school. The religious and historical ignorance of the arguments they put forward are a consequence of this ignorance. An example of the former:

As told in Luke, the story is that Joseph and Mary were returning to Joseph's ancestral home to register for a mandatory Roman census. It's not a tale of fleeing persecution at all. To the contrary, it's a story of being legally compelled to return home.

Which, you know, is what a lot of people want the refugees to do (and what one presidential candidate has pledged to make them do).

And of the latter:

The sermon on the mount putatively occurred 600 years before Islam came into existence. Yikes.

* From a nationalist or a citizenist perspective--if the objective is the demographic displacement of white America, the reasons for support are obvious.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Death by Kasich

A recent Associated Press headline reads "Democratic insiders rate Rubio, Kasich as tough to beat, not Trump or Carson". The AP asked Democratic superdelegates who they thought potentially presented Hillary Clinton her toughest electoral challenge. Rubio came out on top with 37%. Kasich was second at 26%, and ¡Jabe! was third with 20%. Trump got just 9%.

Kasich was managing director of Lehman Brothers when it collapsed. He is a caricature of everything that is wrong with the contemporary Republican party. He even figured out how to be booed at the most recent GOP debate. He's an uglier, more grating, less successful version of Mitt Romney--exactly the wrong kind of person to garner the middle American support essential for Republicans to have a shot (here's Trump channeling the sentiments of just about everyone who knows who Kasich is).

The attempt to propel Kasich and amnesty point man Rubio to the top is nakedly self-serving. The goodwill electoral advice offered to Republicans from Democratic insiders is about as genuine as the advice that Hispandering is the way to go. If the GOP listens to what we say they are sure to beat us, but we can't help but be helpful anyway!

Fortunately, Ipsos-Reuters' interactive polling explorer allows a check on these presumably self-serving assertions made by Democratic insiders. Here are the results from the most recent rolling 5-day period on who among those voting for Obama in 2012 would vote for on the Republican side if they had to vote for someone:

And here is the same for those who self-describe as political independents:

Nationalism (or citizenism) has broad appeal. The Establishment really, really hates that.