Friday, March 02, 2018

Popularis Trump

Most Americans favor allowing teachers to arm themselves, and some states already allow it. It's not a radical or reactionary idea, it's a modestly populist one. From Reuters-Ipsos, the percentages who favor permitting teachers and other school personnel to conceal and carry (N = 1,450):


Keeping guns away from the mentally ill gets overwhelming support:


Homosexuality used to be a mental illness while chain smoking was not classified as one. Now chain smoking is a mental illness while homosexuality is not. Most Cloud People probably think anyone who voted for Donald Trump is mentally ill.

What qualifies as a mental illness at any given time is largely driven by cultural fads, not science. This is not my endorsement of such a policy, but it is a popular one.

As is the case on so many things, Trump's positions are more popular than he is.

The president's talk of firearm restrictions has crossed a line for many of his erstwhile supporters.

That's understandable, though I suspect this is the usual non-committal Trumpian blather. He floats it out there to create an impression of reasoned moderation and to test the waters before pulling it back in and doing what his base wants him to do.

If a bill actually looks like it might make its way to his desk, though, it's time to burn down the capitol building. The government can't protect its own stuff, so it sure as hell won't protect yours:

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

The GOP must find a way of spiking the base turnout.

2018 midterms are the US equivalent of a British "snap election". If the GOP loses the House, Trump will be impeached.

Anonymous said...

The thing about a gun ban for 'mental health' reasons is that 'crazy' people have the same Constitutional Rights as the 'sane'. If a person is able to pay their own way in the world they MUST be considered 'sane' enough to exercise ALL Constitutional Rights.

Chan Chan Studios said...

the media & establishment desperately want to maintain the focus on this guns issue....because that keeps the focus off of other more important issues that could hurt the big corporations--issues like immigration and multiculturalism and affirmative action...

Glen Filthie said...

The worst thing for the democrats is that they get what they want - a revised constitution and gun control.

The fact is that most citizens will not comply and the Donks and law enforcement will have a mutiny on their hands. And - once one group of idiots have a go at revising the constitution - all of them will want to go at it and modify it to their benefit. The queers and pedos will probably be the first ones to take a swing at it.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Trump for most of his life was a New York City Democrat. New York City has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and I doubt that it's a popular consensus there, even among the few that consider themselves Republicans, that more guns in NYC would mean less crime. Another thing to note of course is that Trump has very few advisers who aren't liberal Democrats or career bureaucrats who have gone up through the ranks in left wing or at best, RINO, organizations. They would support gun control because RINOs and everyone to the left of them automatically assume leftist moral frameworks. So he doesn't have many people close to him to remind him that Republicans and red state Democrats will not go for gun control.

It was a genuine misstep on his part and again, this being a midterm year, he's not going to get a gun control bill passed. I'd say even if this wasn't a midterm year, it's not going to happen. If someone close to Trump were to be reading this comment (lol), they should also remind the President that if people don't see a wall being built in 2020, he's a one term President. I understand he knows the media and has a penchant for drama but people are going to want to see results outside of generic boomercon initiatives like the tax cut. It's time for him to stop wasting time on a gun control bill that will never happen and start getting that wall built. People's patience is starting to run out.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Barring a hard economic downturn, I don't think that's going to happen. If Trump is trying to placate the left with this, it of course won't work and they'll impeach him anyway. I don't think that's his calculation, either.

Anon,

The idea that the federal government, 'governing' 330 million people, should be deciding what does and does not constitute mental illness is absurd. The more local, the better.

Chan Chan,

Indeed. Like Trayvon Martin, it looks like de Jesus Cruz slipped through the disciplinary cracks over and over again because no one wanted to discipline a NAM. Diversity is deadly.

Glen,

They won't. There isn't even broad support for gun grabbing, and the 2A defenders are not only more numerous than the gun grabbers, at the grassroots level they're a lot more organized and motivated. Like Random Dude said, this isn't going anywhere, especially not months out from the mid-terms.

Random Dude,

What I wonder: Is Trump playing the gun meeting like he played the immigration meeting, where he puts on the appearance of acting in good faith, moderate, thoughtful, etc knowing that he'll end up leveraging the optics to get what he wants? It's not 4D chess, it's just smart checkers.

I wonder, too, if there are beta body language tells when he's acting in what he knows is a ruse. Jump to 3:10 in this video. That's not standard Trumpian non-verbal communication.

Feryl said...

he media & establishment desperately want to maintain the focus on this guns issue....because that keeps the focus off of other more important issues that could hurt the big corporations-"

Prior to Obama's 2nd term, a decent number of people thought that the GOP would win the White House. But then Obama won again, and it's as if the already Left-leaning impulses of most Western elites went beserk. A kid in a candy store. Under this mindset, most who lived in Charles Murray's super zips and in SWPLville thought that it simply was not possible for any Republican, much less an out of left field loud mouth populist, to ever win again. So they blame Trump winning on a nascent Neo-Nazi movement and Russian trolling, and if anything with every passing month the Left (e.g., what elite's now permit as the only thing acceptable for mainstream consumption) grows more arrogant and entitled. David Brooks recently said in an editorial that he's gratified to see that people can no longer have jobs or have their voices be heard if they have insufficiently progressive or Neo-con credentials.

Many things that Left leaders now promote would have been unthinkable in the 2000's, when Al Gore and other liberals envisioned the internet as a means for populism and free exchange of ideas and opinions. It sets the stage for revolts and civil wars to have leaders who stubbornly cling to highly partisan, niche, or radical ideas while ignoring and often censoring what at least 40% of the country believes (in the case of guns, well over 50%). Remember that when he ran for president, Obama did not support gay marriage, nor did he have much of a history of making statements about gay issues one way or the other. Yet we are now to believe that every single Left-wing Boomer outside the South and Plains states has been a tireless champion for sexual minorities their entire lives. Give me a break. The Left itself has of course memory-holed every conservative stance taken by a Democrat in the pre-2010's.

Feryl said...

"Indeed. Like Trayvon Martin, it looks like de Jesus Cruz slipped through the disciplinary cracks over and over again because no one wanted to discipline a NAM. Diversity is deadly."

Funny thing is that the MSM tries to spin both cases as examples of whites behaving badly. George Zimmerman is incited to take action by a black delinquent, and it takes months to dissect the WWWW&How of the case due to the MSM weaving every single detail into a PC narrative about a "white" thug picking on an angelic black boy.

In the case of Cruz, who's got much more in common racially with Latin America than historical USA lineage and folkways, the MSM fell for Alt-Right trolls who planted stories about Cruz being a neo-Nazi. And Cruz's wiki claims that he held bigoted views towards women and Muslims....The implication is that he's an honorary white, since only whites can be prejudiced and ignorant.

The MSM didn't mind showing Zimmerman's face, due to his name and his burly middle-aged appearance ("toxic masculinity"), and he looked Euro and attractive enough. On the other hand, I bet the MSM is deeply embarrassed by Cruz's appearance, he looks like a butt ugly Hieronymus Bosch vision of a Latinized USA. And he doesn't have an "Anglo" surname either (amusingly, Zimmerman is anything but a WASP name and decent number of Jews have it).

Feryl said...

For the record, many people these days (certainly Millennials and Gen Z) would consider Zimmerman and Cruz to be "white enough", certainly by Latin classifications of race. But in old-school/normal America, they aren't white enough; they're mixed, not fully European. I didn't grow up around any white kids who looked remotely like Cruz.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

It doesn't even necessarily matter that Cruz could more easily pass as "white Hispanic" than Zimmerman can. It's not like the administrators who are getting his information even looked at a picture of, let alone ever saw, him. They just saw the name and said "nope, no discipline here, let him go on his way".

Feryl said...

With mixed Hispanics, the MSM/authorities get to have it both ways; everything can be spun to make POC look better and further vilify whites.

Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics can be angelic victims of oppression; whites can't be. Hispanics can be one or the other depending on whatever is convenient to the narrative.

The MSM rarely or never acknowledges bigotry and ignorance on the part of black and Muslim bad guys. But with whites and many Hispanics, they pass the white threshold above which you can be assigned racial and sexual bigotry by the MSM narrative. The Good Whites tell us it's ignorance to assign negative traits to Muslims, many of whom do not permit females to show their hair in public. Then the Good Whites tell us that it's Xtian traditional Western mores that are responsible for oppression of women.

It's become a rule of the thumb since the late 80's that the more disagreeable a group is, the more the Left forbids negative statements about that group. That's why the victim Olympics always end up looking like this:

1) Muslims (the most inbred people in the world, btw)
2) Black males
3) Black females
4) Transsexuals
5) Homosexuals
6) Hispanics of any gender

Audacious Epigone said...

American Indians at 6) and Asians at 7).

snorlax said...

IIRC Australian aboriginals are even more inbred.

I'd say the current standings in the (US left's) Oppression Olympics are

1. Muslims
2. Black men

This one is tough; blacks are the paramount deities of the prog religion, but Muslims manage to behave even worse, so they're the only group permitted to be openly "racist" towards blacks. Plus you have this story last year where they helpfully confirmed that Muslim > gay black.

3. Black women
4. Hispanic illegal immigrants
5. Feather Indians

In terms of attention from the left they'd be several notches lower.

6. Trannies

"Trans kids" are the best.

7. Lesbians
8. Women
9. Native-born Hispanics
10. Gays
11. Asians

As always, the worst — North Koreans, Viet Cong, WWII Japanese — are the best.

12. Jews, other white groups who allege oppression (e.g. Armenians, atheists)

A dying (2), but still extant unprincipled exception.

In terms of attention it goes

1. Black men

The only group whom they'd rather placate than win elections.

2. Women

The richest vein of swingable votes.

3. Hispanics (illegal and native-born)

The Emerging Democratic Majority

4. Black women
5. Muslims
6. Gays (both sexes)
7. Trannies

Soon to overtake gays, but AFAICT not quite yet.

8. Jews, etc.

Their neuroses can still be exploited for votes, even if they no longer count for anything in the Oppression Olympics.

9. Asians
10. Feather Indians

Ignored except for "stolen land," sports mascots and the recent retarded conspiracy theory that there are lots of unsolved disappearances of Feather Indian women, so therefore Occam's Razor tells us they're being kidnapped by white supremacist gang-rapists.

Audacious Epigone said...

Snorlax,

That's really good. Have you memed something along those lines? There's a hunger for an oppression pyramid.

snorlax said...

@AE

Thanks! Which part?

I have to admit my meme game's a little rusty; I think I last dusted it off for Anonymous vs. Scientology back in the Bush administration. Still, happy to give it a go.

Apologies if this is a double post; I think it ate my last reply.

Audacious Epigone said...

Snorlax,

The entire ranking system (the first one--the second one is a little more convoluted). I'm not very aesthetically gifted, but I'm imagining something like the old FDA food pyramid, except it's an oppression pyramid. Maybe add a base level underground for heterosexual white men.

Feryl said...

"12. Jews, other white groups who allege oppression (e.g. Armenians, atheists)"

Ellis Island people's always come before white Protestants. Jews have power bottomed so hard for PC since 9/11 that they've lowered their standings in the Olympics. Many Western Jews openly welcome Muslims into the West and have become totally anti-Israel. And this is true for American Jews and who they want in America, ironic given that post-WW2 America is the most philo-Semitic country to ever exist. Still, one thing you absolutely can't say is that Jews run the media or Hollywood. As usual, the more true something is the less PC it is. Blacks commit more crime, ugly people are less trust worthy, women aren't built for sports or combat, etc.

Feather Indians are of little use to the Left, since they can't be used easily for street muscle. Immigrants, Blacks, MS13-ers, and trustafarian/swpl white college kids form most of the Left's street troops.

" but Muslims manage to behave even worse, "

Actually, Muslims are better behaved than non-Muslim Sub Saharan blacks. What makes Muslims so worthy of protection to the Left is the fact that they've belonged, for thousands upon thousands of years, to a cult started by a warlord who smashed every other religion. Muslims are the most illiberal people in the world, but the Left is so gleeful about conservative distaste for Muslims that they forget the fact that in an ethnic war, secular liberals would be hated by Christians/Buddhists/Hindus etc. and also hated by Muslims. In the beginning, Muslims would use liberals as useful idiots (and vice/versa), but once the conflict reached a certain pitch secularists/liberals would be cast out by Muslims. They then would have to either join the non-Muslims or risk being overrun.

Note that in Europe the Left tends to be more skeptical of Muslims than what we're used to in America. That's because Muslims have had a growing influence in Europe for the last 40 or so years, while Christianity has declined in Europe during that period. In America we get used to the Left being fixated against Christianity, which has only quite recently begun to decline. And the American Left hasn't seen enough of Muslims to develop a greater distaste for them.