Wednesday, June 08, 2016

It's HRC v. Trumpo (And Anti-PC Yet Again)

Hillary is going to run to the center...correct? 
It's smarter to run to the fat part of the curve...i.e. right...right?
Any hope that she starts taking on the illiberal/regressive left? I know that will lose her much of the idiot child/neo-totalitarian vote...but I expect it would also take votes away from Trump. Chatter seems to indicate that at least some of his support is coming from people voting against the loony left. 
   Incidentally, isn't voting for Trump a bad way to strike a blow against the illiberal left? Voting for a not-terribly-bright, patently unqualified asshole/blowhard/con-man with the temperament of a spoiled four-year-old who is against PC is just going to make the anti-PC cause look insane. It's smarter to trust HRC to do the right thing. Uh...right? 
   OTOH, Obama has done the right thing rhetorically...but he seems not to have reigned in DoE OCR or DoJ...yet, anyway... So I don't know.
   My guess is that Hillary will now start condemning the anti-Trump rioters clearly and unequivocally. They're really kinda associated with Bernie, and he didn't seem to be interested in criticizing them much. Both of them could kind of look the other way and pretend neither of them had any special responsibility to call bullshit on them... Now Hillary clearly has the special responsibility. 
   But where's my man Obama in all this?? (Whoops! I just used a possessive pronoun when speaking of a black person! And you know what that is...) Why hasn't he come out and said something about this madness? Or did I miss it? Maybe he's waiting for Hillary to do it?


Blogger The Mystic said...


10:34 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Ehhhhh..... What do *you* think?

10:36 AM  
Blogger The Mystic said...

That was actually the one I thought it was.

I think it gets no clearer than "If you're thinking about engaging in violence of any kind, please do not tell anyone you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, because those are not the kind of supporters I want." [I am approximately quoting this from my memory of the video]

I mean, I guess he could go into a long diatribe about the importance of not being violent, but that seems unnecessary to me. I think it's obvious that he wouldn't agree with this stupidity, and that's basically what he's said.

I kinda tire of the estimating-how-appropriately-critical someone is over what-the-hell-ever game. If someone starts supporting insanity, well then, that's one thing. But if someone clearly opposes it, critiquing that person for failing to clearly oppose it...what...frequently enough? This bores me.

He's been asked about it, he gave his answer. Everyone knows and already knew his answer. No one had any reason whatsoever to ever think he had any other answer. His campaign has never suggested or supported such behavior in any way.

If you ask me, we have to start moving past this sort of quibbling. It's part of what's preventing actual policy discussions. That's something everyone points out all the time, but then, just seconds later, we're all back looking at whether or not Hillary's expensive jacket was appropriate for her speech about poverty, or "Sure, Bernie disavowed violence, but was he disavowy enough?"

Obama, on the other hand, is worth discussing, since he seems to be, as you say, rhetorically against Neo-PC idiocy and yet, he's overseeing a department which is making an unprecedented effort to shove it down everyone's throats.

That's a good one, right there.

10:50 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable point to me--that is, the were-you-disavowy-enough game. It's stupid.

OTOH, if a bunch of morons were assaulting people on behalf of my political campaign, I'm pretty sure I'd wade out there in person and give them the business. I mean, the very idea is appalling to me.

So--though you're right, Bernie is clear--if I were the candidate, I'd be ranting and railing against them...MAYBE EVEN RIGHT HERE ON THIS BLOG!!!!111

10:54 AM  
Blogger The Mystic said...

lol, yes. That is clear, too.

Of course, that's more-or-less the point of your blog. When you're a political candidate with more universal goals that transcend various particular instances of stupidity, you gotta choose how to spend your airtime. I'd probably choose to fixate rather relentlessly on actual policy changes. Making little more than a pit stop to clearly rebuke and condemn violent "supporters" seems adequate to me. Leave it up to the media parrots to repeat such a rebuke ad nauseum if it's really necessary.

11:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home