JayJayH

Wow, the guy even talks like Trump.

Big league. It's gonna be beautiful, beautiful, what the #### does he have to lose?

I would seriously be ok with running over people that stand in the middle of a 6 line freeway. Darwin was right.

If my pregnant wife was in labor in the passenger seat, all bets are off.

If my family member was in critical condition at the hospital, all bets are off.

If I was an ambulance driver, not my problem.

A firetruck driver, not my problem.

The health of a protester putting him/herself in that position, not my problem in those circumstances.

What do you reasonably think is going to happen?

I respect anyone's right to protest. I've been to plenty of protests myself, especially anti-Bush protests during my college years. I even support the rights of the clowns shouting "#### the cops" from behind a wall of police in riot gear protecting them from angry onlookers. I'll even go as far as supporting the right of my childhood friend-turned-Islamist to hold signs saying "Sharia now, freedom is sin" as a Norwegian court upheld his right to such protest. The right to be an ####### is a fundamental 1st amendment right.

There's a fine line between 'protesting' and being a pretentious self-absorbed criminal. If you block a freeway, throw firebombs at Portland PD, destroy people's businesses, smash innocent people's windows, burn innocent people's cars and spray paint vulgarities on people's property, you belong in jail and I have zero sympathy for whatever message you were trying to get across.

You forgot ,the earth is going to end soon, due to man made global warming. I see that hoax all the time.

The Earth has endured meteor strikes, mass extinctions, solar flares and other cataclysms for 4.5 billion years. The Earth will be fine no matter what we do.

The 50,000 year climate equilibrium by which all of human civilization is based upon on the other hand. That's a different topic.

"Save the Planet" sounds silly. A more accurate slogan would be "Save the climate equilibrium which we're accustomed to."

My main point is those who oppose voter id, are those who want to continue to cheat. It is not coming from minorities. Voter id is not racist, nor is it viewed as racist by minorities.

Remember that the overall assumption prior to this election was that Latinos would come out en masse to vote down Trump by overwhelming margins.

Then a third of them voted for Trump. Because the preconceived notion that everyone from Puerto Ricans (US citizens by birth) to Cuban-Americans to 4th generation Mexican-Americans are all concerned with immigration policies was just that, a preconceived notion. Then we can argue back and forth whether that notion was prejudiced against Latinos or not.

So far today in alt-media, I have learned that Obama plans to hasten the implementation of FEMA death camps, that Trump plans to send brown people to gulags, that the Earth is flat and that Nibiru is coming for the 7th year in a row.

Wonderful sweeping generalizations from a 4 minute video.

Do you have any idea how easy it would be to string together a 4 minute video from Trump rallies and title it "How Trump supporters view blacks"? I'm sure there is one already out there.

Bottom line both videos would be #######. Sweeping generalizations about a large vague group of people ("liberals", "trump supporters", "right-wing", "left-wing" etc...) are useless. It doesn't reflect well on you to keep posting stuff like this.

I agree.

But I have noticed an assumption among a lot of people on the left that " people think this" and the subtle hint that people who aren't in line are "race traitors" or just aren't "real" people. If the far right has a tendency of viewing race in the context of hierarchies, the far left has an equally disturbing tendency of viewing race as a 'state of mind.'

The far right at least are correctly labeled as racists. Meanwhile, the far left pretend to hold some sort of monopoly on 'anti-racism.'

https://9to5mac.com/2016/06/13/iphone-made-in-usa-cost/

This article quotes researchers who have estimated up to 100 dollars more if as much was done in the US as possible.

Ya it's a two-way street that has to be balanced. We can't just focus on "American made for American markets". There are other very significant markets out there. China is huge and we don't want to limit our product's reach in that market. God I wouldn't want to be in charge of any of this.

I always find it strange when people complain that [product] was made in China. But when you ask if they're willing to pay double for an American-made product, the deafening sound of crickets ensue.

Jay, it's my position that Bannon is not intending to deliver a ''New Deal''. I don't believe that he believes in a Constitutional Republic, I believe he is into something different entirely. He is a self-avowed Leninist, and wishes to destroy our entire system, by throwing some pro-anarchist philosophy, and streams of nationalism gobbledegook into the mix. His method in doing this is to appeal to these elements to stoke a movement (as most despots are wont to do). His world is a love affair of the 1930s and an obsession with WWI (overlooking the perils of WWII entirely). While his defenders constantly point to Milo as ''but he's a Jew!'' and ''but he's gay!" as if this should give him a pass for being a despicable human being and utter racist xenophobe - news flash, anyone, no matter their background can be horrible individuals. Milo is not exempted for this. His claims of Thomas Cromwell, speaks of megalomania, if not lacking in the fundamental understanding of whom Cromwell was - and that even as he was hailed as a martyr by one faith, he too was also a horrible person via his actions in defense of it. Liberals are not the only people in the mix who have grave concerns about Bannon and this 'socio-political movement' he has helped to bolster, but you'd find conservatives, are too, vocal opponents. Even if I gave a sliver of doubt that he should have some lofty, honest, and non-violent-non-discriminatory goals to change our nation for the better, he has already tainted himself by aligning himself to movements that are inherently destructive to this Republic. I don't misunderstand Bannon. To the contrary. But his placement on the team is no surprise to me, it's all part of the greater plan.

I would agree, and I find Steve Bannon to be about as likable as the plague.

Which is why I'm worried about the current mainstream media reaction. Rather than pointing out the problems of turning the clock back to a 1930s economic nationalist era, I'm hearing people freak out about the word 'nationalism' to mean 'white supremacy.' This is a dangerous comparison because it makes the assumption that 'America = white.' I'm particularly concerned with the left freely making this assumption. Bernie Sanders' economic platform was every bit as nationalist as well - In a nutshell: Limit immigration from the 3rd world, manufacture in America and scrap free trade deals.

As far as Milo goes, sure, you could have the odd one out, but that doesn't change the fact that Breitbart is a much more ethnically diverse employer than the Huffington Post, yet, it's the Huffington Post that likes to slam Breitbart for being a bunch of white nationalists. This is the paradox of leftist identity politics today - Skin color isn't an ambiguous thing anymore, it's a state of mind. Ben Shapiro left Breitbart because he didn't think Breitbart was conservative, not because it was anti-semitic. Again, Breitbart is perhaps the most staunchly pro-Israeli media outlet in existence today, so I find the unquestioned charges of antisemitism to be strange at best, crying wolf at worst. I'm honestly more worried about Israeli settlements where they don't belong, than I am of Bannon's alleged antisemitism.

Steve Bannon is a despicable human being, but he isn't a stupid one, and he's certainly not out of touch. He knows 'the movement' isn't going to succeed if Trump doesn't deliver. He admittedly knows it's going to fail if 'the movement' doesn't get 40% of the black and Hispanic vote. He knows he's working within the realities of a state apparatus that functions a whole lot better than Germany's did in 1930. It's European-style right-wing populism, plain and simple. It has been brewing like a pressure cooker under the lid of political correctness and liberal smugness for years - (For decades in Europe). Right-wing populism is nationalism, but nationalism in the American context isn't necessarily a terrible thing at the get go if it isn't ethnic nationalism.

I'm saying basically what Bernie Sanders is saying - Have caution. Give credit where credit is due. Don't flinch when it comes to defending people's rights and have zero tolerance for ethnic scapegoating. But if you set the bar low. If you're unnecessarily cautioning against genocide, then the only winner is going to be Trumpism. Much of the left has already jumped on the "Trump is going to deport 3 million people!!!" bandwagon. As if deporting someone who didn't visit VJ before coming here was akin to racial genocide. With no understanding of immigration law, this is now classified as racism and xenophobia. No mention of the fact that Trump has actually called for a possible amnesty bill "once the borders are secured."

This is dangerous.

My fear is I don't know how much the Trump administration understands about international trade. Say tariffs are applied to imports from China. This is great on the surface. American companies will have a greater incentive to manufacture goods in the U.S. because 1. 'Made in the USA' looks a whole lot better than 'Made in China', and 2. Tariffs would minimize any profits of outsourcing in the first place.

What I haven't seen the Trump crew address is what happens when India, China and Mexico decide to ditch Boeing in favor of Airbus, and 1 billion Chinese decide to buy Huawei and Samsung instead of Apple because a 35% import tariff on iPhones isn't worth it.

Why not Kanye?

I have nothing left over for Steve Bannon. Breitbart is the right-wing equivalent of Slate, and is about as serious a news outlet as MTV and TMZ. If you were to take a character out of a political horror show, it would be Steve Bannon.

That said, I think a little more analysis than "Jackson-populism = native genocide" is needed. All I've really seen so far in the media is that Steve Bannon is a genocidal maniac and an unabashed anti-semite, mostly from having seen the words "Nazi" and "Bannon" mentioned in the same sentence somewhere at some point. Nevermind the fact that he's possibly the most pro-Israeli person to set foot in the White House in two decades, nevermind that the vast majority of the headlines he's being criticized for were written by a gay Jew (Milo Yiannopoulous) and never mind that the editor-in-chief of Breitbart London, Raheem Kassem can hardly be classified as a white nationalist. Nevermind that Breitbart Jerusalem is dedicated to anything but anti-semitism.

Say what you want about nationalism, but the only way to conclude that "American nationalism" = "white nationalism" is to assume that "American = white." A remarkably high percentage of people on the left seem to have concluded that this is the case and that's worrisome. In nation states across Europe, it makes sense to make that comparison. In the U.S., it really doesn't.

"DarknessIsGood" is a satirical wordplay referring to exactly what most of the leftist media is doing right now.

1. Freak-out session.

2. Fundamental misunderstanding.

3. Failure to analyze.

When the bar is set so low from the onset, it's easy to overdeliver, hence "darkness is good."

Bannon is correct on one thing: If 'he' delivers what he actually intends to deliver (an FDR-style New Deal almost), a more populist-oriented GOP will be in control for the next 60 years while Democrats sit and wonder why the inevitable genocide never happened (This is an awfully big 'if').

This is far from support of Bannon, but rather a plea to Democrats to focus their efforts on reality rather than a continued cry of "racism!" and "[fillinblank]phobia!"

Caution is a great thing, but hyperbole freak-out sessions is what got Trump elected in the first place.

In 2016, the absolute worst thing you can possibly be is a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, transphobe or a homophobe, and the threshold for being called such things is so low that it is applied to anyone who objects to any contemporary liberal policy, including roughly half of America.

First Twitter, and now Salon. Such credible sources for the left. But don' t you DARE post a Foxnews link on here...

Could have been Slate.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Exit Polling Data Refutes Claims that Hispanic Voters Punish Candidates Who Support Immigration Enforcement

PRESS RELEASE | NOVEMBER 17, 2016

“The conventional wisdom that advocating enforcement of immigration laws is a deal-killer for Hispanic voters is just plain wrong.”

That's because when journalists and pundits talk about Hispanics, they assume Hispanics are all related to someone who's here illegally, or that Hispanics are some sort of monolithic group of people who think the same and have the same concerns and life situations. Or worse, that somehow Hispanic-Americans are somehow fundamentally differently wired than i.e. Italian or Irish Americans. Yes, for a second generation Mexican-American in southern Arizona or Nevada, immigration might be a highly relevant issue.

For a Puerto Rican born with U.S. citizenship, it's irrelevant. For a Cuban-American in Miami, it's irrelevant. For a 4th generation Mexican-American, it's irrelevant.

This is why I want to pull my hair out every time I hear Jorge Ramos go "Latinos want immigration reform."

It's like saying "white people want lower taxes."

when it's consensual and for a specific event/goal? we do it in tv/movies all the time.

Let's put it a different way:

If the goal is to end racism, how on earth does it make sense to relegate people with specific tasks based solely on their skin color?

What they're saying, loud and clear, is 'skin color' defines you.

These people don't care about 'ending racism.' They care about forcing people into specific groups based on skin color and background, and then equal out differences between these groups through social engineering. They care about engineering specific identities for people based on skin color. There are 'the blacks' who think a certain way and are oppressed a certain way. There are 'the Latinos' who think a certain way and are oppressed a certain way. There are the "LGBTQUDWOMWFOJDJ++" who think a certain way and are oppressed a certain way etc. Individualism does not exist. Melting pot is a dirty word.

It's been evident throughout this presidential campaign. "Latinos hate Trump." When it turns out a third of Latinos voted for Trump they're not "real" Latinos. Ben Carson? A race traitor. I have no sympathy for the far right. But I don't go the Stormfront route of relegating opinions and traits based on skin color.

Divide into racial hierarchy of oppression, redistribute, equal out accordingly.

For some here on VJ, "fine by me" when it is convenient for them.

No, I cannot. I cannot imagine some of these people's reactions when it's time to pay the rent but there is not enough money in the bank...

Should have majored in physics.

Both campaigns this year were built up around hate prejudice. Whether it was protesters being punched at Trump rallies, or Trump supporters being beaten up in the street, is there really a difference? I'm seeing a lot of reports of minorities being harassed, which is absolutely despicable. I'm also seeing reports of people being harassed and beaten up by protesters.

It all boils down to this: "The opinions I attribute to you are horrible, and you should be physically harmed and harassed because of the opinions I think you hold."

Some of the best, warmest and most welcoming people I have ever met had Trump yard signs.

Some of the most amazing, loving people I have ever met voted for Hillary.

eta: concerning the article, pretty sure white people that support the cause are willing to support in whatever capacity they are most needed. imo, the 'segregating protest' slant is just that. slant.

When you start physically putting people into different groups based solely on their skin color, what else would you call it?

I am sorry, I was cracking up with your comment, then I saw they were Law students and completely lost it!

??????????????

Can you imagine these children in a semi-contentious court room?

You always seem to nail it. I voted for Trump bUT at one point was leaning heavily toward Johnson. I might have considered Sanders had he won. That hardly makes me a racist deplorable ignorant .

I truly despised Hillary, because she is a smug elitist, who was in bed with those who are killing the country.

I am a social constitutional moderate/liberal. However I think shutting down illegal immigration is very important. I am also provides strong defense, notice I said defense, that does not include being the world's police

I think Trump is the best choice to shake things up on both sides of the aisle.

I also despise labeling Trump and his supporters Racist and homophobes, cause it just isn't true.

You always seem to nail it. I voted for Trump bUT at one point was leaning heavily toward Johnson. I might have considered Sanders had he won. That hardly makes me a racist deplorable ignorant .

I truly despised Hillary, because she is a smug elitist, who was in bed with those who are killing the country.

I am a social constitutional moderate/liberal. However I think shutting down illegal immigration is very important. I am also provides strong defense, notice I said defense, that does not include being the world's police

I think Trump is the best choice to shake things up on both sides of the aisle.

I also despise labeling Trump and his supporters Racist and homophobes, cause it just isn't true.

Thanks.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

I think this article, in a very creative way, nails what a lot of left-leaning urban voters don't understand about middle America.

Take the Star Wars analogy. Luke is a farm boy who lives in a sparsely populated area on Tatooine. All he wants is to be left alone.

Who are the bad guys? Well, they dress in strange clothes and live in a densely populated, shiny space station, wanting to inflict their influence on the likes of Skywalkers around the Galaxy. Take the Hunger Games. Katniss lives in a destitute, impoverished sector where all they really want is to be left alone. Meanwhile, all power lies in the Capitol, where people look down on the likes of Katniss, and try to inflict their influence and 'stupid clothes' on 'good folks' from the country side. As Johnathan Pie put liberal bewilderedness: "It's almost as if the political acumen of Jay-Z and Beyonce count for nothing."

I admit, it was difficult for me to put myself in that mindset at first. But I lived in small-town America for a year as a 'big city', liberal European foreign exchange student during the Bush years. When I went to college in Los Angeles, people would frequently tell me "ooh..... I'm sorry.." when I told them where I lived before. It took me a while to reconcile the fact that some of the absolute best, most loving and caring people I have ever met, were also ardent 2nd amendment supporters and pro-life, and that preserving their way of life was as important to them, as mine was to me.

While I think coastal America needs to reach out a hand to middle America - Or at least understand it better, I also think middle America could learn a thing or two from the big city. But this is also why I think we're making a mistake when we take too much power away from the states. A country as diverse as the U.S. functions when we have a diversity of states, with very limited federal reach to uphold fundamental constitutional rights.

Regardless it was a poor choice of of words on her part

I agree. While I certainly think there are a number of people who voted for Trump because they're 'deplorable', I really think it fed into this overall narrative of "smug Washington liberal' who doesn't care about the base. I also think such smugness can be classified as deplorable in a number of ways.

John McCain is the poster child for the Republican establishment, He has been anti trump for over a year. He is the very thing that helped get Trump elected.

This has spread to the democratic party as well, it appears as if they are ready to get rid of their establishment also, The Clintons are gone, Nancy looks like she is gone, Harry Reid has retired. This is basically a reset for both parties.

I miss the old Bill. He had no patience for the excesses of the left. Unfortunately, he was restrained and kept on a leash this year.

Nancy and Harry gone? This is exciting news. Send Mike Huckabee out along with them too. If Lena Dunham holds firm on her vow to move to Canada too, perhaps America will be great again one of these days. Above all, hopefully, Bernie and Donald can learn that they have more in common than most people think.

While they use very different rhetoric, their views on trade, immigration, foreign policy and (some) social issues are a lot more similar than people give them credit for.

I'm under the impression that the left has gotten drawn into some sort of obsession over skin color, gender and a deeper, darker abyss of identity politics. I'm also under the impression that while the left won the culture wars of the early 2000s, the left is about to lose the current culture war in a backlash against overreach. Same-sex marriage is a fact. It's the law of the land. Done. Settled. Perhaps if we gave it some time and stopped hectoring local bakeries about gay wedding cakes, it would actually benefit the LGBT cause in the long term. Likewise, your economic message might not fall in good taste with some, when you use your index finger to shame people into using pronouns that never existed in any dictionary before.

I wouldn't normally quote the National Review, but if the GOP would have listened to liberals when their establishment candidates were more concerned about conversion therapy than their Wall Street connections, perhaps Donald Trump wouldn't be the head of their party today. But nevermind Trump. If the Democratic Party listened to conservatives a bit more, perhaps they wouldn't be the current minority in both houses of Congress as well as most of the country's state legislatures and governorships.

It's never okay to call a black person an "ape." This mayor's political career is thankfully over because of it, and I think very few people, left or right, are going to protest that. But this is elementary.

White, working-class, union household voters in the Midwest used to be the Dems' bread and butter. This year, the same group of voters helped carry Donald Trump to victory. I'm not saying social issues should not be on the agenda - They should. But you don't win anything when you spend half your campaign subtly calling your base 'racist xenophobic bigots' while telling them to stop whining because they have 'privilege.' Rather than win, you're catering to a growth in white nationalism and right-wing populism. This is exactly what happened in Europe in the 90's. We're just a little behind in America.. But when we finally do something in America, we do it big.

If the Democratic Party continues along the road it's been going, its fate will be the same as the mainstream GOP.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442210/racism-elected-donald-trump-according-people-who-make-everything-about-race

Trump won 61,242,652

Romney won 60,933,504

Votes aren't done yet so maybe it'll change. At least right now though it's only a 300,000 vote gain. Compared to the "eligible" population gain of 7-10 million.

True, it'll probably end up around 500,000. What I'm saying is, it's important to look at where the votes (and margins) were gained, not just the total number.

Trump gained a quarter million votes in Pennsylvania. Over 150,000 in Michigan and 110,000 in Ohio.

oregon is blue. most probably didn't see the point since they believed hillary had it in the bag. there's a reason so many people are shocked, it's hard to fathom so many people falling for such an obvious con.

This is part of a persistent problem Democrats have had with its base - Particularly with young people.

Not bothering to vote because Oregon will 'go to Hillary anyway' is one thing, Trump almost won Virginia from that mentality. I'm more concerned though about the amount of people who think the election was between Trump and Clinton, and just that. Aside from very slowly affecting the makeup of the SCOTUS and temporary executive actions, the presidency has very little effect on Americans' daily lives. What does effect people's daily lives are the congressmen, senators, judges, state legislators and ballot measures they vote for - Or don't vote for. Congress right now is deep red. If the Democratic base actually voted in midterm elections, the Senate at least would be blue.

You do make a valid point. But when you put those republicans in blue states that stay home up against the dems in blue states that stay home for the same reason, I would imagine they would at least even out. Living in a blue state, I do know a lot of dems that stay home because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I'm sure the same would be true for dems and republicans that stay home in red states.

The biggest difference in this election was the dems that stayed home, at least 6 million of them.

I agree, and that's an important distinction. But Trump gained 1 - 2 million votes from McCain and Romney, in part due to an exodus from the Democratic Party of working-class white voters in the Rust Belt. This used to be the Democrats' bread and butter, and the Democrats have failed to talk to them. Part of this is likely due to issues that Bernie Sanders attacked Hillary for in the primaries, another part is due to the Democrats moving away from economic issues to a much larger focus on social issues. This is popular in California, New York and the DC area. Not so much in Youngstown, Ohio.

Trump's margins in the Rust Belt were fairly narrow, but keep in mind that Obama won Michigan by 10%, Wisconsin by 7%, Iowa and Pennsylvania by 6% in 2012. By even more in 2008. The Democrats shouldn't be reckoning with why they lost. They should be reckoning with why it was even close to begin with. Hillary Clinton's edge in the popular vote can be attributed to the fact that 4 million more Californians voted this year than in 2012.

He is Racist has been slung at every recent Pub candidate in Recent Memory. Its pretty much the corner stone off the Democratic Offense. Basic Off tackle right

Unfortunately, this is true. McCain referred to Obama as 'that one' one time. Which the Guardian was able to spin to somehow being a white supremacist way of talking to someone 'beneath you.'

Then, the far left was very concerned about Mitt Romney and his hidden agenda of wanting to 'put black people back in chains.'

Which is why no one really cares what Donald Trump says anymore. Had Trump come along in 2000, he would have been ostracized out of public life for half his comments. By 2016, I was unfortunately so used to frivolous allegations of racism bordering ridiculousness that I can't take real allegations seriously until they're right in your face.

I could have lived with McCain were it not for Sarah Palin. I felt bad, and was quite proud of him for telling people that questioned Barack Obama being a US citizen to their faces, bluntly, yes he is an American. That was class.

His pick of Palin, not so much.

He screwed up big time with picking Palin.

Oops.

Did you just go and change the gender of mayor Beverly Whaling, or director Pamela Taylor?

In my defense, I don't think we should outright assume someone's preferred pronouns.

Ze can choose xir own.

It's 2016.