Sunday, December 11, 2016

Who? Whom? is all that matters

It's worth remembering that the Obama administration was actively making foreign policy concessions to Ecuador in an attempt to get that country to influence the outcome of the presidential election:


It's an administration just trying to do what's in its own best interests, of course:

19 comments:

Dan said...

The Obama administration intensively tried to put its thumb on the scale in both the 2015 Israel election and the 2016 Brexit vote, to name two recent actions that were widely noticed.

Going a little further back the US installed Yeltsin in power in Russia itself. They haven't been able to influence Russian elections in the way that they used to, because Putin kicked out all of the NGOs.


Random Dude on the Internet said...

I enjoy the screeds I see on my Faceberg about how Elite Russian Hackers, Internet Underground Hitlers, and Secret Racist Whites all colluded together to vote in Literally Hitler. The left has gone totally insane and it's fun to watch.

I think the best policy is to encourage their delusions. Take them so deep down the rabbit hole that they permanently disconnect from reality so the GOP/Trump can enjoy even more victories in 2018 and 2020. Turn modern day SJWs into the hippies of the 60s and early 70s who turned into laughingstocks thereafter.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Right, there's a Time magazine cover floating around that deals with American meddling to get Yeltsin installed.

Random Dude,

Agreed. I've been talking up Keith Ellison as the embodiment of the new Democrat party. He's who true progressives need to get behind!

Black Death said...

Keith Ellison indeed. Let's go for the gold - what about Bill Ayres?

Audacious Epigone said...

Black Death,

Ayers' ship has sailed. The closest he got to power may have been helping ghostwrite Obama's Dreams book. Burned out white boomer hippie-terrorist? No thanks, way too cis white etc.

ChickenChicken Sweep said...

Intervening in other countries' domestic politics has been US foreign policy for nearly 240 years, and from a realpolitik viewpoint, it's actually good statecraft. What isn't good statecraft is to reveal possible weaknesses to foreign parties for petty domestic politic ends, especially when the ploy obviously fails.

Black Death said...

AE -

Heh heh. Ellison is a Muslim (I wonder why his name isn't Abdullah Craphead or something like that). How would he feel about all the LGBT's and their sympathizers who make up a big part of the Democrat coalition? Might be interesting to find out.

Dan said...

" How would he feel about all the LGBT's and their sympathizers who make up a big part of the Democrat coalition?"

Eh, housebroken Democrats leave their religion at the gate when they enter the Democrat planation. Even supposed ministers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are secular humanists in the political world. Same with Barack Obama who had a Muslim upbringing. I assume Ellison is no different. There are many tests along the way where Democrats have to show sufficient enthusiasm for such things as male perverts in girls restrooms. As Vox Day would say, the Democrat Party is now a fully converged organization, totally committed to SJW causes and totally unable to function. Observing Trump simply emplacing capable people is to see how wrecked the Democrat party is. Hillary at this point would be struggling over whether there is the right balance of transfolk and illegal immigrants in her administration and whether Lena Dunham should be Attorney General or Secretary of State.


Sid said...

"As Vox Day would say, the Democrat Party is now a fully converged organization, totally committed to SJW causes and totally unable to function."

Democrats can't even recognize how toxic SJWism is to their brand. In all of the autopsies I've read about Hillary's defeat, I don't see too many calls, even implicitly, to turn down the anti-white bigotry, to recognize that BLM, Muslim refugees and the like are security disasters, or acknowledge that trannies in girls' bathrooms is a joke issue.

The consensus among leftists so far has been to double down on SJWism and just scream and cry about how Trump is a jerk who is appointing other meanies. Eventually, the Democrats will have to decide whether to be pro-corporate the way Hillary was, or to merge Bernie Sanders' economic populism with SJWism (which means dispensing with the Bernie Bros). Right now it's still too early for them to be making that decision.

Sid said...

"I think the best policy is to encourage their delusions. Take them so deep down the rabbit hole that they permanently disconnect from reality so the GOP/Trump can enjoy even more victories in 2018 and 2020."

The biggest problem the Democrats have is how they're so explicitly anti-white male. Look at what happened with Martin O'Malley: he got absolutely nowhere. If you want to be the Democratic presidential nominee, you can't just be a successful governor or senator anymore, you need to have some Diversity Pokémon points.

The problem with barring white men from leadership roles is that you've cut yourself off from the biggest pool of leadership talent in the country. Imagine if there were an NFL team that barred black men from joining their team: they might be able to find good players here and there, and maybe even win a few games, but barring black talent from your team would be disastrous in the long run.

If Trump had lost, the Republicans had dozens of candidates they could have chosen from in 2020. Right now, no one has much of an idea who the Democratic nominee with be in 2020. Cory Booker? He's someone suited for being a mayor, not president. Pocahontas? Give me a break.

Dan said...

"Pocahontas? Give me a break."

Of all the Trump's labels, that is my favorite. It is so funny and memorable. She was dangerous opposition, neutralized.


Audacious Epigone said...

ChickenChicken Sweep,

America First and Party First, respectively.

Black Death,

Dan's right about Ellison's illiberal views, probably. Otoh, black Muslims can say whatever they want and they won't get much gruff about it. What would be optimal is if Ellison did have 'misogynistic' views. Tear that Coalition of the Fringes apart!

Sid,

Exactly. I don't see how anyone other than the "legacy" white males in the Democrat party ever make it to the top of the ticket again. And Biden and Sanders--the only two serious legacies who come to mind are just about aged out of consideration. O'Malley, Webb, Chafee--all total jokes with absolutely no shot. How does another cisgender white male ever get into a leadership role, especially a non-Jew (Schumer is legacy and also smart)?

Sid said...

AE,

Your point about legacy is spot on. Look at California's Democratic Party leadership: there are quite a few white leaders left, but scarcely any of them is younger than 70.

I think that Jewish men are just Vibrant enough to give a good show before inevitably being shot down. In retrospect, Bernie never stood a chance, but he at least gave Hillary a tough time before losing. I don't know if a Jewish male younger than 60 can pull that off, though.

I think having especially dazzling star power could help propel a white male to the Democratic nomination. A Kennedy might be able to do it. George Clooney might be able to pull it off. Still, as Trump learned, a celebrity running as a cis straight white male means your dazzle will wear off as people call you racist and sexist, so I doubt George Clooney would want his star power tarnished like that.

And that's about it. To be honest, if Bill Clinton had been born 25 years later, and had been a Southern Democratic governor with the same experience, charisma and political talent, I doubt he could've been nominated in today's Democratic Party. Not enough intersectionality!

The Democrats have thus handicapped themselves for ideological reasons. There are far more men than women suited for leadership. Black men have masculine charisma, but the number ready to lead on national issues is quite small. Hispanic and Asian men are rarely charismatic and seldom appeal to people outside of their racial bloc. Is Julian Castro really the best we can find? Apparently so.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Black Death,

Ellison used to go under a variety of names including Keith E. Hakim, or Keith X. Ellison, or Keith Muhammad. If there is one thing to point out, it's that "real" Muslims can't stand the Nation of Islam aka prison Islam. They're practically considered apostates.

Sid/AE,

I'd say this is the last time any white person, man or woman, would get the Democratic nomination. White women are now persona non grata thanks to their support of Trump. The thing of course is how this gets executed. Does the DNC say "no whitey" or do they stack even more superdelegates who are expected to throw their weight behind another non-white savior? They could try to sandbag or silence the whites like they did O'Malley, Chafee, and Webb but then there's always a chance that a Sanders could slip through.

The funny thing is that Republicans were wanting to come to the same conclusion which is how a clown like Marco Rubio got as far as he did. It's why Jeb married a squatamalan instead of a pretty looking sorority girl. Even the GOP has thought for a long time that a white face is no longer acceptable in politics. Trump disproved that, maybe at least for the next eight years but hopefully for at least another generation.

Sid said...

Random Dude in the Internet,

Republicans have been clamoring for a black Republican president for decades. Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, and Ben Carson had no business running for President, but they still made a splash. Colin Powell was a more serious option who never materialized, and the Republicans would have killed to have him run on their ticket.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans, especially cuckservatives, want to prove they're not racist, while Democrats just flat out despise white men. As such, Republicans will grade minority candidates on a curve, but Democrats have effectively barred white men from leadership roles in their party.

I think you have a good point that white women might be tainted. There's no doubt SJWs would much prefer for the first woman President to be a black lesbian, but I don't know if white women will be unacceptable to SJWs. One complicating factor is that SJWism was largely created by ugly white woman on the internet, so the ideology might not push so hard against that demographic. We'll have to see.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Don't forget Condoleezza Rice. In an act of stunning prescience, Dick Morris wrote a book about it!

Dan said...

I live in Montgomery County Maryland, which went 76% to 20% for Hillary over Trump. There is no office locally that has been competitive for a Republican in many years.

Here is our county council:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/

Six of nine are white male. One white female, one black male, one white Hispanic, female.

I think part of it is that only one demo group cares about elections that are not for president.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Good point, although Montgomery County is a SWPL wonderland. In the areas of the country that are Democrat because of Diversity! (not just a love for the idea of Diversity! in the abstract, but actual Diversity!) the city councils tend to look more like the Coalition of the Fringes. Still probably less so than at the national level, though. Maybe the farm leagues will still be safe for white men on the left. The majors, though, are closing quickly closing to them, probably forever.

Dan said...

MoCo has a lot of that blessed diversity, but it is primarily Hispanic and Asian, two groups not known for political overrepresentation in America.