Translating ‘Make America Great Again’ into English

[Chris]

Williams, the author here, has some interesting things to say about the informed voter who has devolved from a man of reading to Aquinas's "homo unius libri," to the man of one sentence, but let's just get to the biting remarks about Trump and his fellow travellers...

Translating ‘Make America Great Again’ into English (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430227/donald-trump-supporters-establishment-books)


...But even “Make America great again” has embedded within it a vague general critique of the current political climate. It is essentially the same one as was proffered by the Tea Party some years ago, which is strange in that Trump was a prominent supporter of the proximate cause of the tea-party uprising – the bailouts – who assured his friends that he “didn’t march with the Tea Party,” though he could understand their anger. Of course he could understand their anger: Understanding and exploiting the baser emotions is what con artists do, and Donald Trump is a con artist par excellence. If you want to surf, you care about how big the wave is, whichever way it is breaking. In political rhetoric as in tacky ties, Trump’s is a volume-based business. The Tea Party’s fundamental complaint, which was the same complaint put forward by Occupy Wall Street minus the Maoist daydreaming, is that there exists a corrosive and distasteful relationship between certain politically connected businesses and the politicians who are both their patrons and their clients.

Donald Trump is the face of that insalubrious relationship, a lifelong crony capitalist who brags about buying political favors. But his enthusiasts, devoid as they are of a literate politics capable of thinking about all three sides of a triangle at the same time, take a kind of homeopathic view of Trump, believing that they can dispatch a crony capitalist to undo crony capitalism in the same way that New Age healers believe that a little bit of diluted poison chases away similar toxins....

[Cigar]

The Veterans Groups are now saying don't hide behind them because he can't handle Megyn Kelly

[Mac-7]

Williams, the author here, has some interesting things to say about the informed voter who has devolved from a man of reading to Aquinas's "homo unius libri," to the man of one sentence, but let's just get to the biting remarks about Trump and his fellow travellers...

Translating ‘Make America Great Again’ into English (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430227/donald-trump-supporters-establishment-books)

Does your mouthpiece Williams get paid by the word?

Apparently so since he just wasted a lot of words to say very little.

we already know that National Review is part of the inside washington elite establishment that is alligned to keep outsiders like trump and cruz in their place and out of the white house.

So critisim of this sort from sources like this is expected

[Ashton]

It is kind of bizarre when people begin saying National Review is not enough.

[Mac-7]

It is kind of bizarre when people begin saying National Review is not enough.

Enough of what?

[AeonPax]

`
`
"hominem unius libri timeo" - "I fear the man of a single book." That would be Trump and his "Trumpkins."

[Chris]

Does your mouthpiece Williams get paid by the word?

Apparently so since he just wasted a lot of words to say very little.

we already know that National Review is part of the inside washington elite establishment that is alligned to keep outsiders like trump and cruz in their place and out of the white house.

So critisim of this sort from sources like this is expected


So did you have anything to say about William's criticism? He is conservative, you know.

[Chris]

`
`
"hominem unius libri timeo" - "I fear the man of a single book." That would be Trump and his "Trumpkins."


I'd thought anti-intellectualism has faded, but I think it's coming back in vogue. What with the See Spot Run level of thought pervading the forum.

[Mac-7]

So did you have anything to say about William's criticism? He is conservative, you know.

If williams were here I would say more.

But he's not so what is the point?

[Chris]

If williams were here I would say more.

But he's not so what is the point?

OK, so then I'll just ignore your usual ad hom.

[MisterVeritis]

Williams, the author here, has some interesting things to say about the informed voter who has devolved from a man of reading to Aquinas's "homo unius libri," to the man of one sentence, but let's just get to the biting remarks about Trump and his fellow travellers...

Translating ‘Make America Great Again’ into English (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430227/donald-trump-supporters-establishment-books)

He begins in error. Taxed Enough Already (TEA) is the basic complaint of people who are trying to remain free in the face of an overwhelming, massive, unconstitutional enemy, the Federal government. Their fundamental complaint was that tax increases, trillion dollar deficits, borrowing to give away money, are all wrong-headed practices that needed to be stopped.


"The Tea Party’s fundamental complaint, which was the same complaint put forward by Occupy Wall Street minus the Maoist daydreaming, is that there exists a corrosive and distasteful relationship between certain politically connected businesses and the politicians who are both their patrons and their clients."

[Chris]

He begins in error. Taxed Enough Already (TEA) is the basic complaint of people who are trying to remain free in the face of an overwhelming, massive, unconstitutional enemy, the Federal government. Their fundamental complaint was that tax increases, trillion dollar deficits, borrowing to give away money, are all wrong-headed practices that needed to be stopped.


"The Tea Party’s fundamental complaint, which was the same complaint put forward by Occupy Wall Street minus the Maoist daydreaming, is that there exists a corrosive and distasteful relationship between certain politically connected businesses and the politicians who are both their patrons and their clients."




Agree to some extent but there William's is focusing on what the Tea Parties and OWS had in common. The former wanted less taxes, much of which goes to crony capitalism. The latter, twoward the end, realized Wall Street wasn't the real problem, the collusion between big government and big business was.

A major difference was Tea Partiers also wanted smaller government, OWS wanted bigger.

[Mac-7]

If we do away with crony capitalism - and I'm for that - shouldnt we also do away with crony social welfare scams where government gives money to private groups to go out and do good in the community?

[Chris]

If we do away with crony capitalism - and I'm for that - shouldnt we also do away with crony social welfare scams where government gives money to private groups to go out and do good in the community?

Yes.

[MisterVeritis]

Agree to some extent but there William's is focusing on what the Tea Parties and OWS had in common. The former wanted less taxes, much of which goes to crony capitalism. The latter, twoward the end, realized Wall Street wasn't the real problem, the collusion between big government and big business was.

A major difference was Tea Partiers also wanted smaller government, OWS wanted bigger.
Those are differences. They are not things in common.

My local TEA Party wanted limited government restored.

[Truth Detector]

"Make America Great" is another of those substantless political slogans like "Hope and Change."

They only appeal to low information voters; which seems to be a growing majority throughout the globe.

But slogans are a great thing when used with a public that places their faith in mere mortal men and look to men to solve all of their problems instead of seeking faith in a higher being and believing in themselves.

[Chris]

Those are differences. They are not things in common.

My local TEA Party wanted limited government restored.

I think they both saw the same problem but, yes, wanted different solutions. OWS didn't realize that growing government grew the target of crony rent seeking, that only reducing the size of the government can achieve that. At least OWS was half right, and I think that's all William's was pointing out.

[Truth Detector]

It is kind of bizarre when people begin saying National Review is not enough.

Even more bizarre when people believe more Government is not enough.

[Truth Detector]

Agree to some extent but there William's is focusing on what the Tea Parties and OWS had in common. The former wanted less taxes, much of which goes to crony capitalism. The latter, twoward the end, realized Wall Street wasn't the real problem, the collusion between big government and big business was.

A major difference was Tea Partiers also wanted smaller government, OWS wanted bigger.

In other words, there were NO similarities between the TEA movement and OWS.

This was Williams most moronic claim. One movement is using the political process to get Government OFF the backs of the American sheeple, the other merely protests and abuses private property rights in a demand for MORE Government handouts.

That stated, I would hold the stupid slogan "crony capitalism" with same low regard I have with "Make America Great" and "Hope and Change." It's a meaningless slogan that does nothing to advance intelligent debate; but rather, provide a simplistic method of stifling it, much like race hustling does.

By the way OSW did indeed blame Wall Street as the problem; so once again your statements lack credibility.

[Truth Detector]

If we do away with crony capitalism - and I'm for that - shouldnt we also do away with crony social welfare scams where government gives money to private groups to go out and do good in the community?


Yes.

Unless you both are willing to abolish the Federal Tax Code and supplant it with a Fair consumption Tax, pass term limits and abolish all Federal subsidies, you will never achieve this goal.

[Truth Detector]

I think they both saw the same problem but, yes, wanted different solutions. OWS didn't realize that growing government grew the target of crony rent seeking, that only reducing the size of the government can achieve that. At least OWS was half right, and I think that's all William's was pointing out.

What is this term "crony rent seeking"? Your talking points sound more Marxist than Libertarian.

OWS never saw high taxes as the problem. Once again, your talking points lack factual acuity.

Again, Williams is a moron.

[Mac-7]

Unless you both are willing to abolish the Federal Tax Code and supplant it with a Fair consumption Tax, pass term limits and abolish all Federal subsidies, you will never achieve this goal.

I think you tie them together.

if liberals want to end crony capitalism make them give up the community service slush funds at the same time.

[AeonPax]

I'd thought anti-intellectualism has faded, but I think it's coming back in vogue. What with the See Spot Run level of thought pervading the forum.
`
Coming back? It never left.

[Chris]

`
Coming back? It never left.

For homo unius libri, true. But thought it had died out generally over the last decade.

[JVV]

Those are differences. They are not things in common.

My local TEA Party wanted limited government restored.


TEA Parties campaigned on limited government but then got in to office and started cranking out all sorts of governmental impositions on women who wanted abortions.

Obama and Washington Democrats blew things so badly in 2009 that Tea Parties were given a chance in 2010. And then Tea Parties showed that they weren't sincere about fiscal responsibility and they generated enough scary social nonsense to keep Democrats in power in 2012.

[Chris]

What is this term "crony rent seeking"? Your talking points sound more Marxist than Libertarian.

OWS never saw high taxes as the problem. Once again, your talking points lack factual acuity.

Again, Williams is a moron.


Again, nice ad hom!! Some of you are really good at that.

I take it you do not know what rent seeking is. In economics, it refers to pursuing political means over economic means to attain what you want, to, iow, seeking political favors. This can be divided into legitimate petitioning the government for redress of grievances, or corruption where politicians sell out the people to special interests, be that crony collusion for social or corporate welfare.

I doubt you know much about Marxism. Read a book for once.

I never said OWS sought lower taxes. Nice straw man though!

[Chris]

TEA Parties campaigned on limited government but then got in to office and started cranking out all sorts of governmental impositions on women who wanted abortions.

Obama and Washington Democrats blew things so badly in 2009 that Tea Parties were given a chance in 2010. And then Tea Parties showed that they weren't sincere about fiscal responsibility and they generated enough scary social nonsense to keep Democrats in power in 2012.


There are no Tea Partiers in office. The name has been hijacked by some Republicans and the media.

[JVV]

There are no Tea Partiers in office. The name has been hijacked by some Republicans and the media.


Are true Tea Partiers as hard to find as true Conservatives?

Unicorns, huh?

[Chris]

Are true Tea Partiers as hard to find as true Conservatives?

Unicorns, huh?

Nowadays, yes. Just like OWS.

The government's the unicorn.

[MisterVeritis]

TEA Parties campaigned on limited government but then got in to office and started cranking out all sorts of governmental impositions on women who wanted abortions.

Obama and Washington Democrats blew things so badly in 2009 that Tea Parties were given a chance in 2010. And then Tea Parties showed that they weren't sincere about fiscal responsibility and they generated enough scary social nonsense to keep Democrats in power in 2012.
The problem you describe is that some Republicans campaigned as Conservatives and immediately joined the Establishment Republicans. That is not the fault of TEA parties. Lyers lie. Hence Trump. He will break the bastards.

We have not had Conservatives in power positions for a couple of decades.

Just for fun can you point to the federal rules on abortions that changed?

[MisterVeritis]

I doubt you know much about Marxism. Read a book for once.

I know a fair amount about Radical Karl. His writings fill fifty volumes. Nearly everything he wrote is a waste of time.

[JVV]

The problem you describe is that some Republicans campaigned as Conservatives and immediately joined the Establishment Republicans. That is not the fault of TEA parties. Lyers lie. Hence Trump. He will break the $#@!s.

We have not had Conservatives in power positions for a couple of decades.

Just for fun can you point to the federal rules on abortions that changed?


I never claimed that any federal rules on abortions were changed. Just that Republicans wasted their time and their political capital on that.

I count on the state laws to be overturned.

The point is that Republicans campaigned on the fiscal and then they wasted their time on things like abortion.

They showed they were not serious about focusing on what people cared about and what they themselves campaigned on, such as jobs and the economy.

They couldn't even do right by veterans.

Hypocrites through and through, and that's why we got President Obama again in 2012 and will get President Clinton in 2016.

[Chris]

I know a fair amount about Radical Karl. His writings fill fifty volumes. Nearly everything he wrote is a waste of time.

Right, but it's good to know enough of what he argued--his theory of exploitation, his labor theory of value, his historicism, etc--to know arguments against it when you see it crop up in arguments here by the left and even the so-called right.

[Chris]

I never claimed that any federal rules on abortions were changed. Just that Republicans wasted their time and their political capital on that.

I count on the state laws to be overturned.

The point is that Republicans campaigned on the fiscal and then they wasted their time on things like abortion.

They showed they were not serious about focusing on what people cared about and what they themselves campaigned on, such as jobs and the economy.

They couldn't even do right by veterans.

Hypocrites through and through, and that's why we got President Obama again in 2012 and will get President Clinton in 2016.



The point is that Republicans campaigned on the fiscal and then they wasted their time on things like abortion.

I think that hits the nail on the head. For decades the Republicans have courted fiscal libertarianism but pursued social, and at times neo-, conservatism.

[MisterVeritis]

I never claimed that any federal rules on abortions were changed. Just that Republicans wasted their time and their political capital on that.

I count on the state laws to be overturned.

The point is that Republicans campaigned on the fiscal and then they wasted their time on things like abortion.

They showed they were not serious about focusing on what people cared about and what they themselves campaigned on, such as jobs and the economy.

They couldn't even do right by veterans.

Hypocrites through and through, and that's why we got President Obama again in 2012 and will get President Clinton in 2016.
So no laws were actually changed. Thanks.

[MisterVeritis]

Right, but it's good to know enough of what he argued--his theory of exploitation, his labor theory of value, his historicism, etc--to know arguments against it when you see it crop up in arguments here by the left and even the so-called right.
True.

[JVV]

So no laws were actually changed. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Sounds like you think this makes some point in favor of the Republicans.

It doesn't. It shows how completely Republicans have wasted their time after campaigning on fiscal responsibility and on doing good things for the economy. And wrapping themselves up in the red, white and blue of supposedly caring for veterans.

Republicans have not given any evidence that they deserve to be re-elected.

They're just lucky that Democrats have not shown much evidence that they deserve to be re-elected either. Democrats at least have fairly cohesive policy proposals, so that puts them ahead of Republicans on a national level. But neither party shows they can be trusted. Especially not Republicans.

[MisterVeritis]

You're welcome.

Sounds like you think this makes some point in favor of the Republicans.

It doesn't. It shows how completely Republicans have wasted their time after campaigning on fiscal responsibility and on doing good things for the economy. And wrapping themselves up in the red, white and blue of supposedly caring for veterans.

Republicans have not given any evidence that they deserve to be re-elected.

They're just lucky that Democrats have not shown much evidence that they deserve to be re-elected either. Democrats at least have fairly cohesive policy proposals, so that puts them ahead of Republicans on a national level. But neither party shows they can be trusted. Especially not Republicans.
What it shows is typical political posturing. Nothing more.

They lied. I mentioned that earlier. They ran as Conservatives. Instead, they were Establishment Republicans. This is why Trump has maintained the top spot.

Democrats are socialists. Socialism always ruins the countries where it is used against the people.