Friday, May 20, 2016

The rise of "Neoliberalism" and the fall of the Democratic party.

MORE DISCLAIMERS The Field Negro education series continues.

"In an interview with Chris Hedges in 2010, Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned linguist and dissident intellectual, remarked that he has "never seen anything like this."
By this, he meant the state of American society, relative to the time in which he was raised — the Depression years — and to the tumultuous state of Europe during that same period.

It is very similar to late Weimar Germany," Chomsky said. "The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over."

For decades, Chomsky has warned of the right turn of the Democratic Party, which has, in an effort to win elections, adopted large swaths of the Republican platform and abandoned the form of liberalism that gave us the New Deal and, later, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

"Trump has been viewed with bewilderment by politicians who have divorced themselves from the needs of the people and who have sold them false goods to get ahead. But Trump, as Chomsky's prescient interview demonstrates, was inevitable."

This new approach was canonized by Bill Clinton, who triumphantly declared that the "era of big government is over."

With this declaration, Clinton ushered in a new era of the Democratic Party (the so-called New Democrats), which left behind the working class and cultivated amiable relationships with corporate executives and Wall Street financiers; many of them would eventually occupy key positions in Clinton's government, and many of them emerged once more during the presidency of Barack Obama.

The philosophical bent of the New Democrats was best summarized by Charles Peters in "A Neoliberal Manifesto," in which he defines neoliberalism as an ideology perfect for those who "no longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military and big business." Democrats, since Peters penned his manifesto, have far exceeded the bounds of this seemingly neutral stance.

Bill Clinton, for his part, destroyed welfarederegulated Wall Street, worsened the growing mass incarceration crisis, and signed into law the North American Free Trade Agreement, a sweeping deal that harmed millions of workers, in the United States, Mexico, and elsewhere.
Today, President Obama, in partnership with congressional Republicans, is lobbying aggressively for the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has been deemed by critics "NAFTA on steroids." The agreement, if made the law of the land, will encompass 40% of global GDP and will grant massive companies unprecedented power.

Despite President Obama's promises of transparency, the public has been forced to rely on leaked information to glean any specifics about the deal — and, based on the information we have, the agreement is a disaster for workers and the environment and, unsurprisingly, a boon for multinational corporations.

Democrats, in short, have left the working class in the dust, often using "the excuse," as a recent New York Times editorial put it, "that they need big-money backers to succeed."
Republicans, meanwhile, as Chomsky has observed, are "dedicated with utter servility" to the interests of the wealthy, and their party, with its longing for war and denial of climate science, "is a danger to the human species."

So we are faced with a political system largely devoted to the needs of organized wealth, which leaves working people anxious, worried about the future, and, as we have seen, very angry. In essence, political elites — on both sides — have created a vacuum into which a charismatic and loudmouthed demagogue can emerge.

As Chomsky noted in his interview with Hedges, "The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen. Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response."

That was in 2010. Now, in 2016, we have Donald J. Trump, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.

Trump is, of course, not "honest" in any meaningful definition of the word, but his supporters believe that he "tells it like it is." They view him as a no-nonsense straight-talker, a man not confined by the limits of political correctness.

To garner votes, Trump has tapped into the fears and animosities of members of the white working class who previously backed Republicans but now view the party as a collection of bureaucrats who have sold them out.

Trump, they believe, is different. He isn't bought, they say; he uses his own money, accrued by his uncanny deal-making abilities. He's an outsider; he'll stand up to the stuffy elite. And he, above all, speaks the truth about who they perceive as the real enemies — not billionaires like Trump, but illegal immigrants and Muslims.

"What are people supposed to think if someone says 'I have got an answer, we have an enemy'?" Chomsky asked. In Germany, he added, "it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority."
Sound familiar?' [More]

So now we kind of know what goes on in the mind of the Bernie supporter.

Honestly, I can't say that I blame them for wanting something (or someone) besides Hillary and the dems to run the country, but when you consider the alternative......*shudders*  

43 comments:

The Ministry of Truth said...

"Honestly, I can't say that I blame them for wanting something (or someone) besides Hillary and the dems to run the country, but when you consider the alternative......*shudders*"

There are a number of reasons besides his platform that I can see for why Bernie was not successful.

My working theory on his lack of success in winning enough black and Latinos voters is that they are more cynical than whites toward politicians -- which is understandable, given that the government hasn't exactly made their wellbeing and interests a priority, historically -- and it requires more effort to build up an initial level of trust with them. Hillary had a big head start on Bernie in this respect and he didn't do enough to compensate for that.

And with both white and minority voters, her greater intra-party support also mattered -- which is partly Bernie's fault, too. He was an independent for his whole governmental career and didn't join the Dems until he decided he wanted to run for president, and so he doesn't have many friends in the party. (And his own at times uncompromising, self-righteous nature probably didn't help matters.) I won't go along with the premise that everything's rigged against him in the primary process and he would absolutely be winning if the party didn't favor Hillary. However, there's no question they do favor Hillary. It is one factor.

And his lack of support among the Dems undermines his appeal to voters, too. Voters had to ask themselves: If this perennial backbencher and non-Democrat Democrat with no friends in either party became president, how could he expect to accomplish his incredibly ambitious goal to rip up the social contract and start over from scratch? Getting anything done in gridlocked Washington requires allies that he doesn't have, and just saying "revolution" a lot doesn't inspire confidence.

Anyway, regardless of why he wasn't able to defeat Hillary, I think Bernie's campaign has unfortunately made her into a terrible bogeyman among his supporters, inflating her negatives way out of proportion to the to reality. She may not excite the Left, but she's not some kind of horrific monster, either. Even if you don't like Hillary and you don't think she'll do much to change the status quo and you have to hold your nose to pull the lever for her, this should still be an incredibly easy choice when the other option on the menu is Trump.

Roberto Cabrera said...

Hillary is racist crook.

Trump will be the savior of Black America.

Leon said...

My fingers are going to give my asshole such a good scratching tonight. It's gonna be amazing.

dinthebeast said...

TMoT: Bernie's revolution could have rendered the country governable by his administration if it had really existed. I mean as an actual political revolution that won the presidency by a substantial margin AND won both houses of congress. Then and only then could he have had eighteen months to try and enact his vision. Would it have been a good thing? I probably would have liked it, as I lean that way politically, but besides that, we'll never know unless some major changes allow for someone else with a similar vision to succeed.
And I know a bunch of people don't want to hear this, but the first and maybe the most important of those enabling changes is front and center in Hillary's agenda: getting someone on the supreme court who will give the (so called) liberals the vote they need to overturn Citizens United, which if you remember, was a case about an anti-Hillary movie.
Realistically, if the less radical seeming program she is campaigning on gets enacted, which is not a sure thing given the gerrymandered house being in Republican control, some of the so-called anger will be a harder sell in the next election and a Bernie-like candidate will have a harder go at it. On the other hand, Bernie himself stands almost no chance at all at enacting his program if he were elected, so again it boils down to the opportunity to push Hillary into enacting some progress (like we had to do with Obama) vs. having the government infested with Trump appointed Republicans who will do their dead level best to destroy the "big" government they hate so much while Trump strokes his ego for four years while the country goes to hell and the climate gets past the point of no return...
As for the rightward movement of the Democrats, politicians need to get elected, and the media can't cover any Republican atrocities without trying to make it the fault of "both sides" out of fear that Republicans will stop coming on their shows.

-Doug in Oakland

PilotX said...

Agree with your sentiments MoT and Doug. Bernie never stood a chance because the DNC was against him from the start. Why would Debbie W-Schultz help him at all when Bernie hasn't raised one dime for the Dems? Hil-dog and her husband have raised millions for the DNC which makes her job soooooo much easier so when it came to support there was no contest who would get the thumb on the scale.

On another topic, I think it is possible for there to be greater influences from third parties if people get active in local politics. Barack showed gave us the blue print. He went from state senator to President of the U.S. in only about 8 years. Once people get used to local politicians from third parties they will feel more comfortable voting for them on a statewide level and then who knows? Jesse Ventura was also a good example of how to work the system.

The Ministry of Truth said...

"TMoT: Bernie's revolution could have rendered the country governable by his administration if it had really existed. I mean as an actual political revolution that won the presidency by a substantial margin AND won both houses of congress. Then and only then could he have had eighteen months to try and enact his vision. Would it have been a good thing? I probably would have liked it, as I lean that way politically, but besides that, we'll never know unless some major changes allow for someone else with a similar vision to succeed."

Right, well, that's the part that sounds, let's just say, iffy. If his ability to govern as president depended on a mass uprising that instantaneously expelled most of the Republicans and centrist Democrats and replaced them with Bernie clones ... it doesn't sound too likely.

As that military saying goes, Hope Is Not A Method. (And, no, that's not a knock on Obama's original slogan.)

I think change to the Democrats will have to percolate up from the bottom, not be imposed by some insurgent outsider getting elected president. In fact, one of the problems with the Democrats -- and I mean the voters, not just the party bigwigs -- is that they put way too much emphasis on winning the presidency. They think they are electing a king every four years, and it does not work like that. The White House is important, but way more effort also needs to be invested in all the smaller jobs -- congressmen, state governments, etc.

The Ministry of Truth said...

"On another topic, I think it is possible for there to be greater influences from third parties if people get active in local politics. Barack showed gave us the blue print. He went from state senator to President of the U.S. in only about 8 years. Once people get used to local politicians from third parties they will feel more comfortable voting for them on a statewide level and then who knows? Jesse Ventura was also a good example of how to work the system."

The biggest roadblock for third parties is our electoral system. We have winner-take-all electoral districts, which strongly favors having only two major parties. So if, for example, 20% of people support a third party, that party will still likely win 0% of the seats, simply because their candidates will never be the largest vote-getters in any single district.

If we had, say, congressional districts with more than one rep being elected per district, with seats awarded on a basis of proportion of the vote, that would allow third parties to get a toe hold. 20% of votes would guarantee 20% of seats.

dinthebeast said...

"The White House is important, but way more effort also needs to be invested in all the smaller jobs -- congressmen, state governments, etc."

So true. That is why, even though the Democrats can usually get more total votes, the country is mostly governed by Republicans. I think it is a form of laziness, with a little cynicism thrown in: Democrats won't even show up for the mid-terms, much less run for city council or state assembly, and until we do, this is what we get.

-Doug in Oakland

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Another day, another atrocity committed by another piece of black filth. This time, it was a woman brutally raped and strangled by a BLACK ex-marine, Kenneth Franklin Gadson.

When will it end? How much violence are you apes capable of, anyway?

Anonymous said...

"The biggest roadblock for third parties is our electoral system."

I disagree, our electoral system is perfectly designed for third party candidates on the local level. You have to start small, get candidates elected to smaller offices and get people used to the idea of third party pols. It can happen but you have to have good candidates and patience.

PX

Another white baby rapist said...

Another day, another atrocity committed by another piece of black filth. This time, it was a woman brutally raped and strangled by a BLACK ex-marine, Kenneth Franklin Gadson.
----------------------
Because we all know white males don't rape or kill, oh wait they do. Actually more so than anyone else.
When will it end, how much violence are you yetis capable of anyway?

Queenie's STALKER said...

There goes Queenie.....again.

Let's talk percentages, OK?

I would personally shoot any white person between the eyes for such a crime.

Would you shoot a black?

NO. It was the white man's fault.

Die Mule said...

HE would have shot your cunt-ass, Queenie:

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/nathan-bedford-forrest

Faith_and_Fairness said...

After reading the terrific comments in FN, interesting to come across The Root's political analysis by Jason Johnson entitled "Yes, Bernie Sanders, the System Is Rigged—What Else Is New?"

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/05/yes_bernie_sanders_the_system_is_rigged_what_else_is_new.html?wpisrc=topstories

Lt. Commander Johnson said...

I haven't seen it addressed here, I don't think...but, the appointment of judges to the SCOTUS will loom large in the next few years.

I normally don't bother to vote, but I damn sure will for Trump, if for nothing else. His supposed nominees are some bad Constitutional asses.

Obama? Garland? Gimme a break.

I thought Trump's remark at the NRA the other day was classic: Let's see the Hildebeast make a list of her/it's nominees. I hope he hammers her on that.

But, of course, she'll never do such.

Lt. Commander Johnson said...

Um. Of course you could vote for Spermy/Communist Sanders.

How did he ever get to be a Democratic Nominee for the Presidency?

That's an honest question. He's been declaring himself a "Socialist/Independent" as far back as I can remember? Isn't that crap? I finally heard the Hildebeast trying to use that the other day.

Hopes she gets her Dyke ass smashed, so she & Huma can vanish, Bill can be spraying cum onto Jewish Interns until he dies, and leave little Weiner to his selfies.

Can you just switch yourself, like girls & boys do, in the restrooms of tomorrow?

James the Bitch's stalker said...

I would personally shoot any white person between the eyes for such a crime.
-------------
Let's see, there have been numerous baby rape cases involving white men but none have been shot between the eyes. Either you're full of shit or you're full of shit. My bet is you're full of shit. Just like all the other keyboard warriors, you won't do a damned thing. White boys are so tough sitting at home typing. You must be part of James Bitch's white army that's gonna start the race war. Nothing but a bunch of bitches.

James the Bitch and Lt. Commander No-Johnson are lovers said...

Can you just switch yourself, like girls & boys do, in the restrooms of tomorrow?
------------

Lt. Commander is obsessed with trangenders. What's up with that? That's not normal, then again if that's what he's into....

Lt. Commander Johnson said...

Nah. I'm not "into" that trans crap. Those are some sick-assed people.

Some chick, thinking it's a man, can piss in a men's urinal any day, if I can just watch them pull it off. I could care less.

I have a daughter, and a grand-daughter. I just don't think they should be subject to this PC crap.

That's what's Up With That.

Lt. Commander Johnson said...

James the Bitch's stalker said...
I would personally shoot any white person between the eyes for such a crime.
-------------
Let's see, there have been numerous baby rape cases involving white men but none have been shot between the eyes. Either you're full of shit or you're full of shit. My bet is you're full of shit. Just like all the other keyboard warriors, you won't do a damned thing. White boys are so tough sitting at home typing. You must be part of James Bitch's white army that's gonna start the race war. Nothing but a bunch of bitches.

11:35

ANDBTW . I was alluding to PUBLIC EXECUTION.

I was just saying, I'd do it, and not lose a snore over it.

You stupid piece of shit.

You want some more? Go for it.

Lance Cockstrong said...

As a despised Sanders supporter, you smug political junkies make me sick. Seems like you all are resigned to President Butt Trumpet and are already advancing to the scapegoat phase with Sanders as culprit. Spare me the realpolitik lectures. What I want to know is what makes Clinton more attractive to you. I have heard it all in this space. Ta-Nehisi Coates ultimatum that Sanders embrace reparations or else relinquish his title of radical (no such demand on Clinton or for that matter Obama). Charles Blow castigating the "Bernie-Splainers" and singing arias to Clinton's mastery of retail politics in particular the "Make Me A World In Iowa" festival where she came up for air (more cynical than whites towards politicians - Ministry Of Truth?). "Yes, he [Sanders] was pressured into rolling out a racial justice platform". No doubt Mr. Field Negro, you believe he was similarly pressured into "as somebody who has been involved in the civil rights movement for my entire adult life. I was arrested when I was a student protesting segregation of schools in Chicago, fought against segregated housing in Chicago, marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in the great march on Washington."? "All poor Hillary wants to focus on the orange haired one, but she can't, because Bernie and his peeps keep yapping at her heels.
"
. Yeah poor Hillary. She is going to be the nominee, and if she cannot or will not rise to the challenge, that is on her. Not Bernie Sanders.

Colonel Bernie "KKK" Sanders said...

I'm going to put y'all back in chains!

James and Johnson are sick fucks said...

Oh that was you Johnson, so you stalk Queenie? You have some serious issues. You are a stalker, are obsessed with transgenders and talk tough about killing people (which we know you would never do). What is up with the insane white guys here? Master race my ass.

Anonymous said...

The fall of Democrats? Hardly. Hillary is the .01%'s choice for president. Bernie wasn't their choice and he doesn't have a chance to be the nominee even if he has received the most money from the people and not corporate interest.

Trump had no chance so the pundits said. He has been assaulted by the elites in BOTH parties for his entire campaign and still prevailed, much to the RNC and the rich and powerful's chagrin.

Some Democrats and Republicans don't see what is a stake in this election. It is no less than the voice of the people. Whether Bernie or Trump wins, both say fuck you to the elites, yet some don't see that.

The elites are terrified of both and they love that the dummies are fighting over them.

field negro said...

"I haven't seen it addressed here, I don't think...but, the appointment of judges to the SCOTUS will loom large in the next few years.

I normally don't bother to vote, but I damn sure will for Trump, if for nothing else. His supposed nominees are some bad Constitutional asses."

They are? And what exactly makes you say that?

field negro said...

"Trump had no chance so the pundits said. He has been assaulted by the elites in BOTH parties for his entire campaign and still prevailed, much to the RNC and the rich and powerful's chagrin."

Trump is a part of the "elite".

Anonymous said...

I disagree. Trump isn't a part of the political or powerful elite. He is rich, but he is unpredictable to the elite. They don't think he will preserve their interests by their actions. If he was in their camp why would Romney, the Republican Speaker, and numerous Republican politicians denounce him?

PilotX said...

"I haven't seen it addressed here, I don't think...but, the appointment of judges to the SCOTUS will loom large in the next few years."

That actually has been brought up several times. JS

PilotX said...

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/05/racist_michelle_obama_cartoon_is_just_another_example_of_conservatives_blatant.html


Check this out fieldhands. The article is interesting but the comments on the actual site. Well, we should be used to racism by now. Ha! So I guess they've given up on that conservative outreach.

PilotX said...

"If he was in their camp why would Romney, the Republican Speaker, and numerous Republican politicians denounce him?"

Not sure about Romney's motives but Paul Ryan is setting the table for himself in 2020. Also, the Republican elite have always held the rubes in disdain. This coalition of the wealthy, the religious right and the southerners was held together by a shoestring and now it's finally starting to unravel. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Anonymous said...

"it's finally starting to unravel"

Which is why Trump will win.

OJ said...

During the second half of the 20th Century, white Americans became extraordinarily favorably disposed toward black Americans, but blacks kept letting whites down.

Black violent crime against whites is a huge statistical phenomenon that we aren’t supposed to recognize.

Come on, black people, get your house in order.

Reset said...

Thanks to superdelegates, the Democratic Party is on the verge of nominating the most pro-war, pro-Wall Street lawmaker in the modern history of the Democratic Party.

You have a candidate in Hillary who is running on a pro-war platform about what she did in Libya, about what she’s doing in Syria, about the toppling of the Egyptian regime and the military of course took back control, who’s running on a pro-wall Street, pro-war agenda. That’s not the right fit for the Democratic Party or the country.

Hillary Clinton voted for war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton’s decisions in Libya unleashed an operating base for ISIS that will be a scourge of terrorism against the entire Western world. Hillary Clinton’s platform is, "I want to start wars in the Middle East and then import all the refugees into the United States and other countries without knowing who they are". That is a recipe for disaster.

Phoenix Woman said...

To all you Naderite "heightening the contradictions" folk:

So you think that electing a fascist like Trump will finally, *finally* get Americans, and especially white Americans, to turn Commie?

Let's review the past history of this stratagem.

1968: The Clean-for-Gene crowd turned up their nose at icky warmonger Humphrey, not realizing that unlike Nixon, he and LBJ really did have a plan to end the Vietnam War - and not by levitating the Pentagon either - but Candidate Nixon sabotaged it by sending Anna Chan Chennault to Paris to disrupt the Peace Talks. (None dare call it treason, indeed.) So we got Nixon, who prolonged the war another six years just to get elected in the first place and was perfectly fine with keeping it going (it took the Democratic Congress voting to defund it that finally forced its end), and the hippie-hating Silent Majority gave him a second term.

1980: Teddy Kennedy primaried a sitting president, not caring that he was setting the table for Philadelphia, Mississippi's hero Ronald Reagan and the massive Grover-Norquist-prescribed tax cuts that created the sky-high deficits Republicans (who controlled the Senate for much of the decade) then used as the pretext for cutting government programs. White Americans went along with two terms of this because the Southern Strategy, the modern GOP's Bible since 1968, told them that this was a great way to hurt black people. (Just ask Lee Atwater.)

2000: Ralph Nader decided that the third time was the Heightening-the-Contradictions charm and gave it a whirl, leaching enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to steal Florida and thus the election. Bush promptly got us into a couple wars (wars which Bernie has voted to keep funding by the way, just like he backed military action in Kosovo and Bosnia) and still got reelected.

Heightening the contradictions never works in America because white Americans are the world's biggest practitioners of identity politics. Elderly black Baptist ladies cheerfully vote for gay atheist Jews like Barney Frank or anyone who will better the economic conditions of black folk. Most whites on the other hand put bigotry - racial, religious and/or cultural - over economic considerations every time. Look at the recent gubernatorial election in Kentucky: poor and middle class whites voted for Matt Bevin knowing that he was going to kill Kynect and make it much harder for them to get Medicaid. Why? Because in addition to being against black people, he'd TIG-welded himself to Kim Davis, the anti-gay county clerk who was refusing to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples.

The good news is that demographics is moving to make America less white with each passing day. But that in itself wouldn't be enough for a Democratic win this year. It took the presence of Donald Trump to help the Democrats get over the hump, by both turning off moderate Republicans and spurring Latinos to register in record numbers.

Phoenix Woman said...

To all you Naderite "heightening the contradictions" folk:

So you think that electing a fascist like Trump will finally, *finally* get Americans, and especially white Americans, to turn Commie?

Let's review the past history of this stratagem.

1968: The Clean-for-Gene crowd turned up their nose at icky warmonger Humphrey, not realizing that unlike Nixon, he and LBJ really did have a plan to end the Vietnam War - and not by levitating the Pentagon either - but Candidate Nixon sabotaged it by sending Anna Chan Chennault to Paris to disrupt the Peace Talks. (None dare call it treason, indeed.) So we got Nixon, who prolonged the war another six years just to get elected in the first place and was perfectly fine with keeping it going (it took the Democratic Congress voting to defund it that finally forced its end), and the hippie-hating Silent Majority gave him a second term.

1980: Teddy Kennedy primaried a sitting president, not caring that he was setting the table for Philadelphia, Mississippi's hero Ronald Reagan and the massive Grover-Norquist-prescribed tax cuts that created the sky-high deficits Republicans (who controlled the Senate for much of the decade) then used as the pretext for cutting government programs. White Americans went along with two terms of this because the Southern Strategy, the modern GOP's Bible since 1968, told them that this was a great way to hurt black people. (Just ask Lee Atwater.)

2000: Ralph Nader decided that the third time was the Heightening-the-Contradictions charm and gave it a whirl, leaching enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to steal Florida and thus the election. Bush promptly got us into a couple wars (wars which Bernie has voted to keep funding by the way, just like he backed military action in Kosovo and Bosnia) and still got reelected.

Heightening the contradictions never works in America because white Americans are the world's biggest practitioners of identity politics. Elderly black Baptist ladies cheerfully vote for gay atheist Jews like Barney Frank or anyone who will better the economic conditions of black folk. Most whites on the other hand put bigotry - racial, religious and/or cultural - over economic considerations every time. Look at the recent gubernatorial election in Kentucky: poor and middle class whites voted for Matt Bevin knowing that he was going to kill Kynect and make it much harder for them to get Medicaid. Why? Because in addition to being against black people, he'd TIG-welded himself to Kim Davis, the anti-gay county clerk who was refusing to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples.

The good news is that demographics is moving to make America less white with each passing day. But that in itself wouldn't be enough for a Democratic win this year. It took the presence of Donald Trump to help the Democrats get over the hump, by both turning off moderate Republicans and spurring Latinos to register in record numbers.

Anonymous said...

"Heightening the contradictions never works in America because white Americans are the world's biggest practitioners of identity politics"

If you believe this you are an idiot.

Anonymous said...

"During the second half of the 20th Century, white Americans became extraordinarily favorably disposed toward black Americans, but blacks kept letting whites down."

Bullseye .. and right down to Barack Obama’s last 2 years in office.

teh blacks said...

"During the second half of the 20th Century, white Americans became extraordinarily favorably disposed toward black Americans, but blacks kept letting whites down."


Really? I guess you were hanging out with the wrong teh blacks. Try a different group of teh blacks next time.

Mitt Romney said...

Which is why Trump will win.
-----------

Last time I listened to trolls here they told me Romney would win in a landslide. So go right ahead and start measuring the drapes son.

dinthebeast said...

@Pheonix Woman: Thank you, that was tight.

-Doug in Oakland

Kanchipuram sarees said...


kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees

Ankita Tiwari said...

KOLKATA ESCORTS
KOLKATA ESCORT
KOLKATA ESCORT SERVICE
KOLKATA INDEPENDENT ESCORTS
KOLKATA INDEPENDENT ESCORT
ESCORT IN KOLKATA
ESCORTS IN KOLKATA
VILLAGE CALL GIRLS
VILLAGE CALL GIRL
CALL GIRL
CALL GIRLS
ESCORT
ESCORTS
KOLKATA FEMALE ESCORTS
KOLKATA HOTEL ESCORTS
KOLKATA MODEL ESCORTS
KOLKATA CALL GIRL
KOLKATA CALL GIRL SERVICE
KOLKATA CALL GIRL SERVICE
KOLKATA CALL GIRLS
CALL GIRL
CALL GIRLS
CALL GIRLS SERVICE
CALL GIRL SERVICE
KOLKATA INDEPENDENT CALL GIRLS
KOLKATA INDEPENDENT CALL GIRL
ESCORT
ESCORTS
ESCORTS SERVICE
ESCORT SERVICE
ESCORT SERVICES
ESCORTS SERVICES