Beck slams Trump supporters, Breitbart boss, compares both to NazisThe more I hear this kind of shit from "conservatives", the more I hate them and the closer I come to supporting Trump. Trump has forced the conservatives to show their elitist hatred of the "commoners", just like the Leftists do. At least Leftists pretend to care about commoners as a Class issue (after blacks, women, homosexuals, trannies, etc. etc. etc., of course and unless the commoners believe in using the actual Constitution, of course, and unless... well, you know).
Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck slammed Donald Trump’s supporters Wednesday on his radio show as "vile” and likened them to Nazis – while accusing Breitbart Chairman Stephen Bannon of doing Trump’s bidding, comparing him to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
The conservative radio personality and former Fox News host lit into Trump and Bannon following an incident on the sidelines of Tuesday’s Nevada caucuses, in which Trump visited a caucus site where Beck was campaigning for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
On his show, Beck accused Trump of dividing the country and “grooming brownshirts,” while describing many of the Trump supporters he encountered Tuesday as “beyond recognition as anything I’ve ever seen — rude, vile, nasty.”
But he reserved his most fiery comments for Bannon, claiming his Breitbart news blog site is promoting Trump’s “lies.”
“I’m telling you that I believe that Bannon thinks he’s either going to be the chief of staff or he’s going to be the next Roger Ailes. And let me tell you something, Bannon whatever your first name is. Um, you’re not going to be the next Roger Ailes. There is not going to be another Roger Ailes,” Beck said, referring to the Fox News chairman.
He continued: “Roger Ailes didn’t answer to anybody. He certainly didn’t take orders from a real estate developer. … By taking orders from a political candidate and reworking your entire site to promote the lies of a specific candidate without any kind of truth behind these things ... If that is what your idea of being Roger Ailes is, you are so sadly mistaken. That doesn’t make you Roger Ailes. That makes you Goebbels.”
Thursday, February 25, 2016
One Thing About Trump; He Brings Out The Cuck In Establishment Cuckservatives
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
As I've said before, Trump is a Frankenstein's Monster created by the establishment Republicans. First they gave them control of the House, and the crying Cheto did nothing. Then the voters gave them control of the Senate, and they still did nothing, and the house doubled down on the capitulation with Ryan's budget surrender. Now the conservatives in the country have had enough and they are throwing a wrench in the works. Trump is not at all my first choice, I think he is a bad choice.
He represents the penned up anger and frustration of the GOP constitutes who are tired of eating shit and being told "here is some more, you are going to vote for us anyway." Well, that clearly isn't the case. All Jeb Bush's money couldn't get him much past the starting gate. Karl Rove sold him a crate of snake-oil, which Karl's specialty, tell him he could bypass the 30% base. I personally think it was Jeb condescending comments from a couple of years ago where he called the Tea Party candidates crazy. No matter what it was, the electorate has had enough of the mealy-mouthed RINO like McCain and Romney. They are tired of the establishment chicanery and their anger is personified by a clown, but a clown who I imagine will still be more effective than Jeb, Mitt, or McCain every would have been.
Nah, I get Beck's complaint.
He's well aware that Trump's a liar with a sketchy past. That the man knows how to push all the right buttons doesn't mean a damn thing. Obama knew how to do that - Hope and Change - and look what we got.
Trump's past is glossed over, and with good reason. If anyone looks down on on 'the little people', it's guys like him.
I like Carson. He's honest. But that won't make him a good President all by itself. I don't like any of the others, but sending an honest man to Washington is like sending a snowball to the mouth of a blast furnace.
Trump's saying a lot of stuff that I agree with, but that doesn't mean he'll do jack-diddly about it come the revolution. He has an irritating habit of doing whatever pleases The Donald. Today it's our issues. Tomorrow, who the hell knows what side he'll be on?
Suppose the Republicans choose one of the others as their nominee? Trump so divides the voters between him and one of the Republican candidates that the (*shudder*) Democratic hopeful gets in after all. Despite what they are. Despite what they've done.
Beck's issue isn't that he's a Republican. His issue is that we're trying to choose the least of several evils, and Trump ain't one of them. He's taking Bannon to task for being a stooge and pulling the same shit the other side does.
I want Obama out of office and his cronies with him. I don't want the Hildebeast in there, nor some goofball who failed basic economics. But God love us all, Barack ruled for eight years due to the will of the American people. The mob voted him in. And I am not rushing into the arms of another gawdforsaken demagogue promising us all he'll fix our problems. That stuff is not happening overnight. Anyone who says it will is fulla crap, and that includes mouthpieces like Bannon.
Steven your complaints are wholly valid. I agree completely. I heard Levin say what you have said. Why trade one tyrant for another, just because you (universal) agree with some of the tyrants edicts.
The problem is much larger, however. Whoever said you get the government you deserve was a genius. Only a minuscule portion of the electorate understands how the American system of government was suppose to work, and why the President is just one part of many. Heck, the President was never supposed to be elected by popular vote, and technically they aren't, but the electoral college wasn't originally all or nothing. And don't get me started on the 17th Amendment. Anyway, a large portion of the voters think they are voting for something other than CEO. They want this false god to come and and fix everything in one fail swoop, even though its taken us 100 years to dig ourselves into it.
Since television the Presidency has become a popularity contest. A beauty contest, if you will. How apropos that a Beauty pageant pimp is in line for the GOP nomination. What angers me is that they could have kicked Trump's legs out from under him if they had recognized the anger. I mean I don't believe Rubio for a New York minute, but at least he has the wherewithal to lie about this immigration stance. By not recognizing how fed up the voters were, they empowered Trump by attempting to mock his original, if completely unsubstantive, stance on certain key issues.
Now we are probably stuck with him as a nominee. I'll tell you this. The GOP congress will fight him like they've never fought Obama, and that is saddest truth of all.
The next president needs to be strong enough to raze the education department, fire all management in the EPA, IRS, DHS, State Department, and DOJ. They are completely contaminated with raging leftist proto-communists and are irredeemable. Allow them to re-apply for jobs, and re-hire only those who have constitutional compliant histories. (I worked for a major corporation which did that one time; very interesting way to re-organize)
This won't happen, of course. But parts of it could happen. It will take a Patton-type individual to do it. Revolutions are very, very messy.
And who knows, maybe Trump IS the revolution.
Further thought. Trump is so deeply hated by the political class that if he goes too far astray he definitely would be impeached and convicted, with both establishment Republicans and Democrats ganging up to oust him.
Trump is not protected by skin color, sexual preference, gender issues or any other Victimhood Class characteristics which would save him from either criticism or legal injunctions, or if necessary removal - unlike Obama who is untouchable as a half-black.
One last comment on Beck: his NAZI analogy is inexcusable in my estimation. my opinion of Beck (who I really don't follow at all) has hit bottom. His comments are not analysis, they are defamation, and not just of Trump but also of those who Trump is championing. Trump is now appealing to all demographics in the unheard ranks of flyover USA. That says that the "revolution" - whatever that means, is simmering just below the surface, ready to boil.
And that's why the Establishment Politicians and Pundits and Media are so distraught and filled with disbelief and fear: the unwashed masses have a champion who is fearless. And uncontrollable with either money or criticism.
What a year this will be.
Stan, if the shoe fits....
The Nazis were installed by the will of the people... the German people. Not all of them, but then, I didn't vote for Obama. Look what that got me.
The Nazis represented what their supporters wanted. They said the things all those people had on their mind during the Depression... among them, 'the Jews are our misfortune'. The Nazis did not force themeselves on an unwilling populace, and that, nothing else, is the German's shame to this day.
If Beck thinks that Trump is another demagogue sliding to victory by appealing to what we, the people actually think about things as they are, and thinks that's analogous to the rise of the Nazi party, I should think it would be educational if you would explain why, exactly, this is a completely false analogy. Or at least mere hyperbole.
After all, Beck has a show to sell to sponsors. But he does share one thing with Donald Trump. He is not beholden to any party or individual. It's why I dip in from time to time to see what he has to say. He's been predicting a lot of crazy stuff over the years. Much of it has come true.
Maybe the man has a valid point?
Correlation != Causation. Germany had a political and cultural history of totalitarian government. The republic was new to them, and was easily subverted. There are certainly striking similarities between the situations: national embarrassment; national weakness; perception of scapegoating (Jews and Muslims); Perception of failed national exceptionalism.
The differences are these:
1. The USA is historically liberty based, and they populace wants that back, including Bill of Rights protections.
2. The USA has historically fought for freedoms in global wars, returning enemy nations to their peoples in republican fashion.
3. The USA is not scapegoating Muslims; The USA is in a war with Qur'anic Islam, which is expanding, not decreasing in scope. Caution with adherents of Islam is warranted.
4. The national exceptionalism of the USA is based in its free access to opportunity, not to race as was the policy of the NAZIs.
5. Supporters of government overhaul do not intend to conquer the world; they intend to regain and preserve the constitutional freedoms which have been under attack for decades. If there is any Fascism in play, it is by the unelected federal agencies which cannot stop producing punitive unlegislated law directed at control over citizens.
6. Hitler engaged in violence and threats of more violence (Beer hall putsch, the burning of the Reichstag, for example), well before coming to power.
7. The "Enabling Act" was passed, and that was what made the German republic into a totalitarian monster. In the USA that would be unconstitutional, warrant impeachment, and if necessary, the deposing of the president by military force.
Trump might be a tyrranosaur; Beck doesn't know that. It is interesting that folks like Beck and the legions of National Review and faux conservatives fight harder against Trump than they do against either Hillary or Bernie. Now Rubio is cozying with the party money control dictators. Glenn Reynolds is right: the establishment totalitarians will likely stifle the uprising of citizenry which is personified by Trump/Sanders. This is especially visible in the Democrat party which is showering Clinton with favoritism at every juncture. Not so visible yet in the Republican Party, but watch after Super Tuesday if Trump scores big - the party long knives will be out to prevent the establishment loss of power.
Trump is not the monster; the gargantuan establishment machine is already the monster in control.
I should note: anti-Trump advertisements are already on broadcast TV here. But not anti-Hillary/Bernie ads. The big money is after Trump's hide, and I suspect that they would rather see a Democrat win than allow an outsider to have any control of the Republican Party.
Comparing someone to Hitler has become so cliche is borders on the ridiculous. Passionate sentiment is now always linked with the third Reich. Beck calls Trump supporters "Brown Shirts". Yet, anyone who watched the video of Beck losing his audience to Trump will not there was no violence or threats of violence. Beck is an ego-maniac on the same level as Trump, so he was embarrassed and lashed out.
The real Sturmabteilung where running around beating up anyone who disagreed with them. They were storming into churches and attacking crowds and snatching the sermon out of the pastor's hand because he refused to publish its contents. To compare people more excited to see Trump, than Beck, Sturmabteilung, is highly disingenuous.
We can argue about how hyperbolic Trump's rhetoric concerning immigration is, but he's never argued for invading Mexico. Hitler was threatening the invasion of Czechoslovakia to reclaim Prussian lands long before WWWII. There are so many factors that went into the rise of Nazism, but firebrand rhetoric was only a small part of it.
Hey, thanks! I wasn't aware of the video of the Beck/Trump incident. Here it is:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=video+beck+and+trump&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=video+beck+and+trump&sc=0-17&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=19790F02C0484965A511A009FDCFFA50
Beck was more than marginalized, he was completely trivialized by The Donald. No wonder he has exuded hatred and vitriol.
More: toooo funny.
Correlation != Causation. Germany had a political and cultural history of totalitarian government. The republic was new to them, and was easily subverted.
I'd like you to elaborate on the political and cultural history of German totalitarian government. The concept was developing during the republic; previous German states could not have been ruled by certain types of ideologies if they didn't really exist (even if some individuals may display similarity in mindset), and I doubt you can fit a long culture, history, and politics to fit into the framework of one or two ideologies. The only way I see to harmonize the statement is the claim that a non-republican government is a totalitarian government.
Lets critique some of the differences:
1. The USA is historically liberty based, and they populace wants that back, including Bill of Rights protections.
Yet, history shows hostility and erosion of rights to Catholics, Communists, and the climate predicts Muslims next.
What difference would you expect if hundreds of thousands of US civilians died in a 5 years starvation blockade, including eight months after the armistice to enforce the agreement to all the terms of surrender?
2. The USA has historically fought for freedoms in global wars, returning enemy nations to their peoples in republican fashion.
Such as using Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam, white phosphorus in Fallujah, supporting terrorist groups Iraq and such as MAK in Iran, providing anti-Cuban terrorists like Omega 7 and Alpha 66 a base of operation and shelter in Florida and Miami, giving anti-Cuban version of Osama bin Ladin, Luis Posada Carrilies, who is responsible for blowing up an airplance a comfortable life in the US, fuelling civil war through more terrorists like the Nicaragua's Contras, a concept of "collateral damage" that violates international law is held unaccountable, and sponsoring various dictators and puppet rulers, etc.?
Um, how about spreading 'democracy and freedom' without targeting the weak, like say China. Yeah, good luck having some of the historical fight for freedom (spreading Liberalism and stealing natural resources even if civilians may die and get oppressed as a result) there.
While the US did a good job regarding the after-war procedure with Japan and Germany, that credibility is lost with Vietnam and Iraq.
3. The USA is not scapegoating Muslims; The USA is in a war with Qur'anic Islam, which is expanding, not decreasing in scope. Caution with adherents of Islam is warranted.
Sure, sure. You are not providing a rational argument against their existence, you are merely asserting that they are a threat to non-Muslims and prone to do evil to them, because 'Islam' apparently 'commands' Muslims to do evil to non-Muslims.
4. The national exceptionalism of the USA is based in its free access to opportunity, not to race as was the policy of the NAZIs.
Nationalism. Not much different as arbitrary classification go. Furthermore, Muslims have become racialised in the political and public discourses, and as you mentioned there are parallel between the Jewish treatment.
5. Supporters of government overhaul do not intend to conquer the world; they intend to regain and preserve the constitutional freedoms which have been under attack for decades. If there is any Fascism in play, it is by the unelected federal agencies which cannot stop producing punitive unlegislated law directed at control over citizens.
Lets' be realistic; it is doubtful Hitler or any sane person would intend to "conquer the world". He likely wanted to increase German influence and power even beyond borders. Are there similar motivation (even by more underhanded methods)? Yes.
As for your later point, um, how would you fix that? The leaders are not obliged to consult the people in running the affair, nor fulfil their promises. They derive laws from what is convenient, and may and do take away people's right using that justification (ex. 'its for security', 'the majority wants it against the minority').
No question that we can't rely to have competent or just candidates, and they can get elected again simply by lying to the people and persuading them that they are the lesser of two evil. A large part of why Trump and Sanders are popular is that they send the message of not being bullied, controlled, or bossed around by corporations, lobby groups, and rich businessmen (Sanders by relying on small individual donations, and Trump by loaning his campaign). What parts of the governance and election cycle would you expect to get an overhaul?
6. Hitler engaged in violence and threats of more violence (Beer hall putsch, the burning of the Reichstag, for example), well before coming to power.
Well, Trump didn't shy away from bragging that he will commit war crimes once elected (kill families of suspected terrorists, a 'helluva alot' worse than waterboarding, and somehow... get China to assassinate Kim Jong Un). Not an anomaly among Republicans and brain-dead Hilary Clinton, but sociopath-like behaviour (which tends to be competitive in 'reality shows') nonetheless.
7. The "Enabling Act" was passed, and that was what made the German republic into a totalitarian monster. In the USA that would be unconstitutional, warrant impeachment, and if necessary, the deposing of the president by military force.
As previously stated, it is not 'rights' that matters as much as 'convenience'; as long as it exists it can justify. I wonder how he is going to null trade treaties in order to bully freaking Mexico into pulling up the resources to finance an unneeded wall. Though I agree that even Trump wouldn't be able to pull off an "Enabling Act" in the current climate, actions can still be justified.
Shadow,
1. Actually it is the inverse of your statement, isn’t it? The USA elected a Catholic as president over half a century ago. There is no discrimination except from the increasingly Atheist/Leftist government which is now being challenged. Communists walk and talk freely, especially on campuses. Muslims who read the Qur’an are, in fact, challenged to hostile acts against the Other.
2. Napalm is a weapon of war, not a policy. You could have mentioned the atomic bombs, too. If you do not approve, that’s too bad, too late.
You failed to mention all the Cubans who have been killed by the Castro/Guevara hegemony, seized by bloody revolution and mass murders. Apparently that was OK?
The Sandinistas were waging civil war with no help from the USA; they seized the country from the dictator, Somoza, and installed a junta. The Sandinistas were lying communists who replaced a dictator with promises of Rights and democracy, but actually installed a communist junta dictatorship that preferred the USSR to the USA. They were strict “redistributionist” communists who took land and valuables, and somehow the people did not benefit. They continued the Nicaraguan descent into the poverty which now still infects it. Pressure from the Contra rebellion finally forced democratic elections.
”Um, how about spreading 'democracy and freedom' without targeting the weak, like say China. Yeah, good luck having some of the historical fight for freedom (spreading Liberalism and stealing natural resources even if civilians may die and get oppressed as a result) there.”
Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, none of these conflicts was about “stealing natural resources” by preying on the weak. That is a Leftist trope without any basis.
” While the US did a good job regarding the after-war procedure with Japan and Germany, that credibility is lost with Vietnam and Iraq.”
Viet Nam and Iraq were lost by Leftist Democrat presidents. Truman is rolling over in his grave.
3. Sure, sure. You are not providing a rational argument against their existence, you are merely asserting that they are a threat to non-Muslims and prone to do evil to them, because 'Islam' apparently 'commands' Muslims to do evil to non-Muslims.”
You have not read the Qur’an or the Hadiths or the life of Muhammad, have you? You make no actual argument here because you have none to offer.
4. Nationalism. Not much different as arbitrary classification go. Furthermore, Muslims have become racialised in the political and public discourses, and as you mentioned there are parallel between the Jewish treatment.”
I don’t detect much meaning here. You apparently think that “nationalism” is an evil, yet you do not address the characteristics which are exceptional (or were, at any rate) for the USA and western nations in general.
5. ” Lets' be realistic; it is doubtful Hitler or any sane person would intend to "conquer the world". He likely wanted to increase German influence and power even beyond borders. Are there similar motivation (even by more underhanded methods)? Yes.”
That’s absurd. Hitler wanted his troops and citizens in ALL places (ex-countries). The motivations are not similar. Influence is not the same as conquest. Influence can be by treaty or economic withholding (sanctions).
6. ” As for your later point, um, how would you fix that? The leaders are not obliged to consult the people in running the affair, nor fulfil their promises. They derive laws from what is convenient, and may and do take away people's right using that justification (ex. 'its for security', 'the majority wants it against the minority').”
Several conservative candidates have claimed they would eradicate some of the most oppressive bureaucratic agencies (IRS, Education, EPA, etc.), which, BTW are not constitutional governmental creations under the 10th Amendment. The president has the capability of firing management, say in the DOJ, and removing portions of incompetence or ideological cesspools.
In the end, you are correct: anyone can lie. The current crop has, and must be removed, peacefully if possible.
” Well, Trump didn't shy away from bragging that he will commit war crimes once elected (kill families of suspected terrorists, a 'helluva alot' worse than waterboarding, and somehow... get China to assassinate Kim Jong Un). Not an anomaly among Republicans and brain-dead Hilary Clinton, but sociopath-like behaviour (which tends to be competitive in 'reality shows') nonetheless.”
Was it sociopathic to bomb entire German cities to rubble to force Germany to its knees? To bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to stop the pacific war cold? No, of course not. The same situation exists with Muslim families who are paid $7,000 to turn a family member into a bomb-carrying martyr for profit. This practice must be stopped. It is not sociopathic, it is rational.
7.” I wonder how he is going to null trade treaties in order to bully freaking Mexico into pulling up the resources to finance an unneeded wall.”
Two issues embedded in one sentence.
First, if the USA is a country, then it needs the wall because its borders must be national boundaries controlled by law for legal entry. Every nation has such boundaries, but the USA has politicians who have illegally ignored the existing laws and become law unto themselves. If borders are not respected, then the entity is not sovereign – view what is happening in the EU.
Second, the State Department has the power to declare treaties invalid due to circumstances which violate either the treaty or the sovereignty of the USA. You apparently think that the USA is not a country with laws worth respecting or sovereignty which has any value whatsoever.
Post a Comment