Right Wing Fighter

Month: July, 2016

Ironic: AP Criticizes Russian State Television for Clinton Coverage

The AP, sometimes known as American Pravda for its statist way of manhandling the truth, had this in part to say in an article from today:

Viewers [of Russian state television] were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted, while the Democratic Party convention was portrayed as further proof that American democracy is a sham.

In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was “proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia.”

In doing so, she was implicitly rebuking her rival, Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has questioned the need for the Western alliance and suggested that if he is elected president, the United States might not honor its NATO military commitments, in particular regarding former Soviet republics in the Baltics.

It’s rather understandable that the Russians would resent Clinton’s repeated attacks. This is not to say that Russia is governed by good people or that they are beyond criticism. But this habit that Clinton and many politicians have of throwing sand in Russian eyes is idiotic. It seems to be the one country they don’t mind verbally kicking around. It’s clear why Republicans do it: they’re reliving the Cold War. But Democrats are the ones who wanted to lose the Cold War. It’s not immediately apparent why they like to jab at Russia.

As for Trump and NATO: he hasn’t “suggested” that America would dishonor its commitments to NATO. He’s suggested he would renegotiate those commitments. American Pravda is suggesting that Trump would just turn his back on our obligations. That is not true. Trump wants to alter our commitments to reflect America’s interests. That’s a big difference.

And finally, the Russians are correct that the Democratic convention was a proof of the corruption in American politics. Hillary Clinton could well have lost to Bernie Sanders, if it wasn’t for Superdelegates handing her the nomination. Additionally, the moneyed interests who paved the way for Clinton, whilst giving nothing at all to Sanders, were clearly scratching her back so she’d scratch theirs. That is why Trump says that Clinton is bought and paid for: she is.

Now, is American politics completely corrupt? No. But there is still plenty of corruption. It’s always funny when such “news” outlets as American Pravda get in a tizzy over someone accusing American Democracy of having corruption. AP is practically the definition of corruption.

Charles Koch Apparently Won’t be Supporting Trump

From the AP:

Billionaire industrialist and conservative benefactor Charles Koch’s expansive political network will not help Donald Trump win the presidency.

That’s the message from one of the Koch network’s chief lieutenants as hundreds of the nation’s most powerful Republican donors gathered for a weekend retreat on Saturday. With Election Day just three months away, Koch lamented the state of the 2016 contest during a welcome reception inside a luxury hotel at the foot of the Rocky Mountains.

“We don’t really, in some cases, don’t really have good options,” Koch said of the “current political situation.”

Well, that’s a surprise, isn’t it?

The Koch Brothers have never been ‘in it for the country.’ They’ve been in it for their bank accounts. That’s why they’ve also donated to Democrats.

The Koch’s donation network is focused on essentially one thing: the good of business.

The Koch’s like to pass themselves off as libertarians. But that is only meant to give them a veneer of intellectualism. The real reason that they are socially liberal and economically “conservative” is that they don’t want to pick up friction fighting moral fights, and at the same time they want to grease the wheels for money-making. In short, their “political philosophy” is nothing but a cover for whatever increases the bottom line.

Donald Trump, and his workers-first candidacy threatens this. Would it bankrupt them? Absolutely not. But the Koch’s don’t like to take losses ever, even for the good of workers. For this reason, they at the least will not support Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised if they took mild steps to oppose him.

Jonah Goldberg: Democrat Convention was Better than Republican Convention

From the Twitter account of Jonah Goldberg, of National Review “fame”:

And nothing shows “love for America” quite like featuring the anti-police Black Lives Matter bunch, eh?

What about Clinton’s statement that there would be “no wall” built on the border? Isn’t it a little unloving to America for Democrats to not seal off the border, since killers, drug deals, and rapists are coming through? Some love!

I haven’t kept up with Goldberg’s “thinking” at all. But I imagine he’s still driven by his Trump hatred. Of course, Goldberg was never a genius anyway. Perhaps, like Limbaugh, he actually found things to like in the Democratic convention.

With “leaders” like these, who needs an enemy?

Limbaugh: Obama’s Speech at Democratic Convention was ‘Reaganesque’

From the Daily Caller:

On Thursday’s broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh said, “I was told, that Barack Obama’s speech last night was fabulous. It was just great. It was uplifting. It was positive. It was Reaganesque.”

Later Limbaugh said, “If Obama had been, the last eight years, in word and policy, as he was in that speech last night, we wouldn’t have a prayer. If Obama had been what he was last night for the last eight years, there would be no Republican Party.”

[Link in original]

This may sound a little bizarre, but what Limbaugh is saying is “Mr. President, I would have supported you if you’d let me! I would have been with you if you’d just been like Reagan!”

I listened to Rush regularly for the first half of Obama’s presidency. He could never bring himself to criticize Obama. He always had to find a way to dance around it. He’d say Obama was making America into something “the founders hadn’t intended,” or something similar. But he wouldn’t just come right out and say “Obama’s policies are bad.” He’d always make it vague. He’d always avoid criticizing Obama directly.

Why? I don’t know. Limbaugh always felt he could criticize Bill Clinton. But Obama? He always seemed out of reach to Limbaugh.

In any case, this quote is Limbaugh doing a little conscience clearing. He wants to make it clear that it was nothing personal or racial, but just a matter of policy. Of course, it goes without saying that opposition to Obama was policy based. It was never a matter of racial hatred, as the Democrats like to slanderously say.

Perhaps that little fear of being called a racist was at back of Limbaugh’s mildness when talking about Obama.

Trump Did Not Ask Russia to Meddle in US Politics

The media is running around with a quote from Trump that they are torturing into a call for Russia to meddle in our elections.

From the AP:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said. He was referring to emails on Clinton’s private server that she said she deleted – because they were private – before turning other messages over to the State Department.

Trump was not calling for Russia to meddle in our elections.

The media likes to ignore the fact that Trump, unlike every other politician, talks like a normal human being. We all make comments that we wish this or that. We talk off the cuff. Trump does this a lot, and it’s part of his appeal with voters: they enjoy that they’ve got a real human being running for president.

The media is just waterboarding this statement into a confession of guilt. Fortunately, Trump doesn’t back down to media pressure.


 

In other worlds, here’s an interesting quote from the above cited AP article:

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said bluntly: “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election.”

An entire country is a global menace?

Many Republicans have been paranoid of Russia for years now. Russia is a problem, geo-politically speaking. But so is China, Mexico, and frankly half the world. To call Russia a global menace is hysterical. They aren’t looking at the political situation of today as it is: they’re looking at it as if it’s 1985. Thus anything that strengthens the Soviet UnionRussia, is bad, because it’s still, in their minds, the country it was when they were growing up. It is still the ‘bad guy’ in the global drama of good vs evil that’s playing out in their minds.

If you’ve read any in-depth history of the post-Revolution era in America, you can see something similar. The Founding Fathers almost universally disliked Great Britain. This was understandable. But some of them acted as though we were practically still at war with Britain. To these men, politics was a struggle between us and the perpetual oppressor Britain. Thus, many of them were bound and determined for an alliance with France when, after its revolution, it went to war with Britain. Fortunately for us, these men didn’t succeed in dragging us into a conflict that would have smashed us to pieces.

But there’s a difference between the Revolutionary generation and these particular Republicans: many of the founders had passed their formative years and not a few of their middle-years in an environment of conflict with Britain, either over colonial rights, in outright war, or with the haggling peace-settlement process that followed the war. But these modern Republicans spent only a portion of their formative years in the Cold War. And then, shortly after Reagan, the situation changed completely. The USSR ceased to exist completely. All that was left was the former countries that made it up. This, in contrast to Britain’s continued existence and dominance of world affairs after the Revolution.

Put another way, the Founding generation spent many more years in conflict with a power which continued to exist after our war with them ended. Thus, not only did they have more years to marinate in the emotions of conflict, but their former antagonist remained after the struggle ceased. Britain was still in the forefront of practical political affairs. As such, old memories would have a focus point to rest on.

But not so with these modern Republicans. Ryan, for instance, was only 19 when the Berlin Wall fell. The USSR collapsed three years later, shortly before Ryan’s 22nd birthday. He can hardly be said to have marinated for any time in hatred for the Soviets. Additionally, since the USSR ceased to exist after 1991, Republicans lost their psychological focal point for antipathy. In short, the enemy had departed the scene. So why cling to this saber-rattling?

At bottom, these modern Republicans have very little reason to be hankering for conflict with Russia. The Cold War changed soon enough in their lives that they had ample time to change their thinking, to re-orient their thinking away from U.S. vs U.S.S.R. into something that reflected new conditions.. That they didn’t is entirely their fault.

It may be understandable. It may be predictable, as I pointed out in my post on epochs in history. But it is still a serious fault on their part.

Anti-Trump Folks Backing onto the Trump Train

I’ve mentioned this somewhere before, but I’ll restate it here:

When things start getting hot, election-wise; when November starts getting close, many anti-Trump folks are going to start talking about how we’ve “got to stop Hillary from getting elected. Oh I’m not saying we should vote for Trump: I’m saying we should vote against Hillary!”

Already this is happening.

I and some people I know catch a fair amount of talk radio each week. In my case it’s incidental – the radio happens to be running at the time I’m around. But what I’ve heard has been telling.

Some of the most anti-Trump people, people who were attacking Trump literally day after day, are now talking up the need to stop Hillary! They usually have to assuage their consciences by throwing in a few attacks on Trump. But they are, as noted above, backing into the Trump Train.

What pathetic people! For months they did everything they could to sabotage Trump. They tried to spoil his chances with Evangelicals especially. And now it’s all “we’ve got to stop Hillary! She’s a monster and must be stopped!”

And where was all this before? It was predictable, though not absolutely certain, that Trump would win. Any hope for Cruz stopping him or for a battle at the convention was a pipe-dream. And yet they allowed themselves to dream. And with that as their justification, they attacked Trump day and night. They tweeted, commented, and argued that he was a monster. Worst of all, in their minds, they said that Trump would mark the end of Reaganism in the Republican party. To them, that’s like saying morality itself would depart the Republican party.

So after fighting a hopeless rearguard for months; after doing everything they could to sabotage him; for them now to back onto the Trump Train is infuriating.

Let me provide a somewhat ahistorical analogy.

Ireland during World War II wanted to use Britain’s war with Germany for their advantage. They tried to leverage it. Now pretend for a moment that the Irish had rebelled, and broken away from Britain. Britain would have to send troops, planes, and ships to Ireland to take it back. It would not ruin the war effort, but it would hurt it. Now imagine that after the Irish are reconquered, they were to suddenly say “Well, looks like we’re stuck with Britain. So let’s work to stop Hitler! He’s got to be stopped! He threatens everything we stand for, even if Churchill is a monster for not giving us independence. Let’s go get Hitler! Raa raa!”

Any thinking man would tear out his hair at such a sight. In this ahistorical example, the Irish ran head-first into a hopeless rebellion, not out of good sense, but because they got carried away with what they wanted. As such, the cost in men and materials has hurt the war effort.

That’s the same thing that’s going on here. The anti-Trump forces engaged in what was almost certainly a hopeless battle. But they were willing to fight for that 10% chance of victory, because they were carried away by what they wanted. They weren’t thinking rationally.

And now they want to back onto the Trump Train, with mewing jabber about “stopping Hillary!”

Pathetic.

AP: “Clinton Saddened by GOP’s ‘Lock Her Up’ Chants”

Oh that’s rich.

The AP is reporting what saddens Clinton?

Hillary Clinton says the chants of “lock her up” at last week’s Republican National Convention made her feel “very sad.”

I wonder if foreign leaders will worry about what “saddens” Clinton?

Obviously it’s just rhetoric. But still, to say that it “saddens” her sounds a little…wimpy?

Do you think Trump would say that the caricatures of him that people are waving around “sadden” him? He’d sound pretty wimpy if he said that.

Silly rhetoric.

Here’s the link. Scroll down to the 7:00pm mark.

 

Tim Kaine is Clinton’s VP Choice

Tim Kaine, a Democratic senator from Virginia, is Clinton’s choice for VP.

This is significant.

Seeing as he is both white and male, this signals that the Clinton campaign is skittish.

They could have picked Elizabeth Warren, and pleased the feminists.

They could have picked Julian Castro, and pleased the illegal aliens and the Mexican chauvinists in the country.

Instead, they chose the “working-man” type senator from Virginia.

This signals:

(A), that they are afraid of losing working-class voters;

(B), that the Clinton campaign is more conservative, campaign strategy-wise.

Democrats have frequently won working-class voters because they lie better than Republicans do. Neither party, generally speaking, cares about workers. But the Democrats do a better job of hiding it, and so they get more working-class voters.

The Clinton campaign is worried that Trump is going to run off with the election by carrying white workers and the middle class. They’re probably right.

With Trump’s trademark boldness, I expect him to destroy Kaine’s pathetic “working-man” image.

The reason this signals a more conservative approach is that, instead of trying to reach for non-whites to win, the Clinton campaign is reaching for white workers, who were the core of the New Deal coalition. Obama tried to make the party into the party of non-Americans and non-normal people. The Clinton campaign is trying to pull the working-class back into the party again. It is still a feminist campaign, but they’re trying to add a large working-class adjunct.

Against Jeb Bush, that probably would have worked.

Against Trump? Unlikely.

A Theory of Feminism

I’ve been thinking a lot about feminism lately. What with Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee for president, the issue gets a lot of airtime.

Feminism is not new. It has existed in one from or another since the early 1800s. Thus it’s not the product of some immediate philosophy or backlash. Rather, it’s the product of something longer-lasting. I’ve been cogitating for some time as to what it’s origin is. I think I have it. But I’ll have to ask you to be patient while I set the table, as it were.

Women want to be successes as women. That is, being attractive to men; being successful mothers; being a credit to their communities in a womanly way: all these things are, more or less, active in the female heart.

Now, not every woman is particularly womanly. But this doesn’t change the fact that she wants to be a success as a woman. Her self-image, her measure of success as a human being, is within the context of being a woman. But for the woman that isn’t womanly by nature, it is much harder to fulfill the requirements of womanhood.

Put another way: the gold star of human achievement for women is won within the context of womanhood. If a woman is not very feminine, it makes the race harder for her to win.

This brings me to my theory: that feminism is the product of women who want to win as women, but don’t think their odds are good. Therefore, they try to go into the male sphere and live there, since their self-image is not involved in male activities. In short, they can fail in the male sphere without losing their overall struggle for human achievement, because they are women. As such, they are not as worried about failing in that sphere.

This, I believe, is why many feminists are driven by fear into male activities. I’ve seen many feminists, especially older ones. They always have fear and disappointment written all over their faces. It’s as if the goal of their lives has been a failure, and now they’re merely eking out an existence in some fairly male activity that they do plausibly well.

To recapitulate:

Women want to be successful as women;

Some women are ill-favored by nature to do so;

As such, they fear to risk their success as human beings by trying and failing as women;

Thus they avoid the issue completely, try to crush their womanly impulses, and try to act like men.

The linchpin of this theory is this: if our self-image is based on success or failure in a particular field, we aren’t going to risk our psychology to failure unless the odds are good. Since not a few women are ill-favored by nature to succeed as women, I believe they try to avoid the issue rather than risk their psychology to a test they haven’t a great chance of passing.