The Elephant in the Room

[Footloose]

Trump is right about political correctness.

Feb 29, 2016 | By David Gelernter

Donald Trump is succeeding, we're told, because he appeals to angry voters -- but that's obvious; tell me more. Why are they angry, and how does he appeal to them? In 2016, Americans want to vote for a person and not a white paper. If you care about America's fate under Obama, naturally you are angry; voters should distrust a candidate who is not angry.

But there's more to it than mere anger. Chris Christie was angry, and he's gone. Trump has hit on important issues -- immigration, the economy, appeasement unlimited -- in ways that appeal to voters emotionally. There's nothing wrong with that; I trust someone who feels what I feel more than a person who merely thinks what I think. But though Rubio and Cruz are plainly capable of connecting with voters emotionally, Trump is way ahead -- for many reasons, but the most important is obvious and virtually ignored.

Political correctness. Trump hasn't made it a campaign theme exactly, but he mentions it often with angry disgust. Reporters, pundits, and the other candidates treat it as a sideshow, a handy way for Trump (King Kong Jr.) to smack down the pitiful airplanes that attack him as he bestrides his mighty tower, roaring. But the analysts have it exactly backward. Political correctness is the biggest issue facing America today. Even Trump has just barely faced up to it. The ironic name disguises the real nature of this force, which ought to be called invasive leftism or thought-police liberalism or metastasized progressivism. The old-time American mainstream, working- and middle-class white males and their families, is mad as hell about political correctness and the havoc it has wreaked for 40 years -- havoc made worse by the flat refusal of most serious Republicans to confront it. Republicans rarely even acknowledge its existence as the open wound it really is; a wound that will fester forever until someone has the nerve to heal it -- or the patient succumbs. To watch young minorities protest their maltreatment on fancy campuses when your own working life has seen, from the very start, relentless discrimination in favor of minorities--such events can make people a little testy.

We are fighting Islamic terrorism, but the president won't even say "Islamic terrorism." It sounds like a joke -- but it isn't funny. It connects straight to other problems that terrify America's nonelites, people who do not belong (or whose spouses or children don't belong) to the races or groups that are revered and protected under p.c. law and theology.

Political correctness means that when the Marines discover that combat units are less effective if they include women, a hack overrules them. What's more important, guys, combat effectiveness or leftist dogma? No contest! Nor is it hard to notice that putting women in combat is not exactly the kind of issue that most American women are losing sleep over. It matters only to a small, powerful clique of delusional ideologues. (The insinuation that our p.c. military is upholding the rights of women everywhere, that your average American woman values feminist dogma over the strongest-possible fighting force--as if women were just too ditzy to care about boring things like winning battles--is rage-making.)

Continued here...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-elephant-in-the-room/article/2001170

[Jan]

I just read the article Charlie and found it spot on. Political Correctness is the
cancer that is consuming the west. It will be interesting to see the results from
the Carolina session to-night.

Jan
"If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined"

[Footloose]

I'm so impatient to see this elections progression. Times are like nothing I've ever seen.

Charlie

[mixed nuts]

On 2/20/2016 3:30 PM, Footloose wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:44:23 AM UTC-8, Jan wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 11:08:35 -0800 (PST), Footloose
>> <wiley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Trump is right about political correctness.
>>>

[...]

>>>
>>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-elephant-in-the-room/article/2001170
>>
>> I just read the article Charlie and found it spot on. Political
>> Correctness is the cancer that is consuming the west. It will be
>> interesting to see the results from the Carolina session to-night.
>>

>> "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined"
>
> I'm so impatient to see this elections progression. Times are like
> nothing I've ever seen.

Hating has always been in vogue. Angry people are good on the
battlefield. Wars can be quite profitable, you know. And they free up
land for luxury resorts and golf courses.

--
Grizzly H.

[Jan]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:59:30 -0500, mixed nuts <melops...@undulatus.budgie>
wrote:

What are you grizzling about now?

Jan

[mixed nuts]

Bernie got arrested in 1963 for protesting segregation:

"Sanders was leading a protest against segregation, the newspaper noted.

In the mid-1960s, protests over segregation in the area raged over
mobile classrooms dubbed "Willis Wagons," named for then-Chicago Schools
Superintendent Benjamin Willis. The phrase "Willis Wagons" was believed
to have been coined in 1963 by Rosie Simpson, a leader in education
reform in Chicago. She was describing the trailers that Willis set up
for black children instead of sending them to white schools.

Sanders, who was a leader of the Congress of Racial Equality, was found
guilty of resisting arrest. He was fined $25."
...
"In another recent discovery of a presidential candidate's civil rights
record, Donald Trump spent more than $85,000 in 1989 calling for the
deaths of the Central Park Five (1), a group of black teenagers wrongly
convicted of rape. Trump took out four full-page ads in papers including
The New York Times that referred to the teens as "rapists," "thugs" and
"wild criminals."

"They should be forced to suffer," Trump's ad said. "I want them to be
afraid.""

http://huff.to/20MAU4f

1.
www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/nyregion/5-exonerated-in-central-park-jogger-case-are-to-settle-suit-for-40-million.html

--
Grizzly H.

[Pharting Buffalo]

That is terrible of Mr Trump. The death penalty should be abolished in every nation. Only God should take life away. The changes my view of Mr Trump

[mixed nuts]

> That is terrible of Mr Trump. The death penalty should be abolished
> in every nation. Only God should take life away. The changes my view
> of Mr Trump

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that opposes the death penalty:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-on-the-death-penalty-the-state-shouldnt-be-in-the-business-of-killing-people/

Hillary sees it as a "hard choice" (eliminate left-wing oppression, let
nature take its course). She cries crocodile tears over it but has a
record of supporting it, whether within the US justice system or by
international policy.

http://commondreams.org/views/2016/02/20/hillary-clinton-cries-crocodile-tears-latin-american-immigrants

The republican side simply wants to arm everybody and eliminate the time
consuming and expensive legal process - especially when heavily tanned
people disrespect authority and a trial might lead a not-guilty decision.

--
Grizzly H.

[Pharting Buffalo]

Welcome to the home of the free and land of the brave

[Footloose]

In a country with such varied problems rejecting any candidate on WHAT THEY BELIEVE on a single issue seems very shallow. Many, perhaps most, voters make their decision based upon one particular issue. Abortion is probably the single biggest, or religion in general.

Is the issue of what a candidate might do against religion based mass killings at least as important thing to consider?

Charlie

[mixed nuts]

>> That is terrible of Mr Trump. The death penalty should be abolished in
>> every nation. Only God should take life away. The changes my view of Mr
>> Trump
>
> In a country with such varied problems rejecting any candidate on
> WHAT THEY BELIEVE on a single issue seems very shallow. Many, perhaps
> most, voters make their decision based upon one particular issue.
> Abortion is probably the single biggest, or religion in general.
>
> Is the issue of what a candidate might do against religion based mass
> killings at least as important thing to consider?
>

There is a long history of religion motivated killing in the US.
Unfortunately, those who do the killing are the same people who support
Mr. Trump. The targets are frequently black churches and other
institutions but political rallys, protest marches, politicians,
community activists, gay individuals and groups and more are also on the
very long list. I doubt that anyone on the republican side has any
intention toward correcting this as it's a fundamental part of right
wing doctrine and political strategy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/thugs-and-terrorists-have-plagued-black-churches-for-generations/396212/

These people document and report hate-related activity:
https://www.splcenter.org/

Some of the larger organized hate groups appear on this map:

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

--
Grizzly H.

[Joan F (MI)]

The gripe about Political Correctness (which isn't actually what you
describe it as) is white men whining about giving up a little of their
privilege.

[Footloose]

White privilege?

You are a lawyer and should have an advantage over this high school dropout. I'll name a LAW that gives privilege to blacks over whites. You name a law that gives whites a privilege over blacks.

Affirmative action.

Charlie

[Joan F (MI)]

Privilege isn't necessarily in the law.

[Pharting Buffalo]

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:25:02 PM UTC, Joan F (MI) wrote:
> Privilege isn't necessarily in the law.
>
> Footloose wrote:

What are the privileges you speak of? Jim Crow is dead

[Gordon H]

Ask the 106 year old black lady who mewt Obama and Michelle in the White
House and delighted them with her spirit and energy.

She has seen much positive change in 106 years, but America has further
to go.

--
Gordon H

Remove Invalid to reply

[Joan F (MI)]

This article explains it much better than any short definition I could find:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-howerton/white-privilege-doesnt-me_b_5296914.html

[Pharting Buffalo]

The majority of privileges seems to be economics rather than racial.

[Footloose]

What were the privileges clearly spelled out in that article? I could not detect them.

[Pharting Buffalo]

"There are many types of privilege: economic privilege, gender privilege, heterosexual privilege, and of course... racial privilege. "White privilege" is simply an interchangeable term for racial privilege, and refers only to race, not to other privileges a person may have been born into. This is what Tal Fortgang gets really wrong, because his essay assumes that white privilege refers to any kind of privilege. Not so. It's possible for people of other races to hold other kinds of privilege. They don't negate it either... we're not playing oppression olympics. When we ignore one form of privilege because another exists, we're being dismissive."

Frankly the article stinks, Separate but equal never worked,

[Footloose]

Yes, it is a piece of garbage, that article. Race bating for those who want to hammer white people, IMO.

Charlie