To my fellow liberals: Understanding Trump’s support [Moderated Post]

To my fellow liberals: Understanding Trump’s support [Moderated Post]
  • 526
  • 120
  • 12

My Recent Posts

What [Moderated Post] means:

I will delete to protect the climate on my blog. If I delete, I’ll tell you why, at least the first time. It doesn’t mean you’re not welcome; it just means your deleted comment isn’t. I’ll give you a warning if I feel like it. If you show blatant disrespect for another blogger, show blatant disrespect for any minority, bring an argument or fight from another post that doesn’t apply to this one, or deliberately attempt to introduce an argument irrelevant to the post, expect your comment to be deleted. Decisions to delete on my blog are my decision and mine alone. If I leave the thread alone for a while, I’ll clean it up on my return. 

 

 


As a liberal, I was initially shocked by what Trump’s supporters would tolerate from him. It didn’t seem to matter what he did, any one of which they would have crucified Hillary over: Diss POW’s, give a mafia don a ride in his helicopter, stiff small businesses (including the woman who catered his second wedding, whom he nearly drove out of business), mock a guy with a disability, fondle women without their consent, run a phony charity, hire foreign workers off the books for construction, refuse to show his tax returns, lie with unbelievable consistency; didn’t matter. During the campaign, every week something else showed up on that list, something else that we liberals thought would certainly be a dealbreaker. Maybe when instead of draining the swamp, he cut taxes for the wealthy and put foxes in charge of every conceivable departmental henhouse in Washington. Nope. None of them were dealbreakers. Trump commented that he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose his supporters. He was right.

 

Some of us thought his supporters were being duped, that if they weren’t rich they were voting against their financial interests. They weren’t and aren’t making their decision based on economics, at least not that aspect of economics. We didn’t watch how Trump got their votes. It wasn’t by duping them per se. It was by respecting their concerns, which is why they’re so fanatically loyal to him still.

 

There is one consistent area of liberal bigotry which we tend to ignore because we don’t like to think of ourselves as bigoted. Liberals tend to look down on poor Whites, mainly I think because we view them as bigoted. They look at their world and see themselves losing control. They’re losing control economically, but the explanation as to how it got that way is pretty convoluted and involves a lot of events from the late seventies and early eighties. What they see and understand better is that they’re losing control socially, and America no longer makes sense to them. It started with civil rights and feminism, which moved quickly into Affirmative Action, where suddenly they found that their competition was inexplicably being helped by Government at the expense of what they view as Regular Americans, the guys who built America and defended it in wars that are still within living memory for many. The sixties were and remain very traumatic for this population. And then PC started and others and the press began to give them a hard time for the way they used language. Suddenly they weren’t allowed to say this and that, and for some reason they viewed it as more inexplicable than the basic obscenity censorship they always understood. They also viewed feminism as not only non-traditional but at least a bit anti-Biblical. And then gay rights happened, and now they were faced with being given a hard time for not only upholding tradition but upholding the Bible. Liberals very stupidly play into this by becoming impatient with religion itself and allowing this argument to be viewed in many circles as church vs. atheists. In other words, liberals basically gave conservatives permission to turn this into Christian Jihad, a perception reinforced heavily by Roe v. Wade.

 

And it gets worse and worse. Then gender identity got fluid. We’ve got people who are biologically guys insisting on using women’s bathrooms - which, in a serious episode of projecting, Trump supporters assume is a front for facilitating sexual assault. Very far from it, but Trump supporters don’t spend a lot of time talking to transgender people. The U.S. Government pays for the sex change operation of Manning, who they view as a traitor in the first place (and, in Manning’s case, I can’t say I disagree). And then there’s Mexican illegal immigration. Wait, liberals want to just let anyone over the border, regardless of what it does to our crime rate and unemployment, and give benefits that we pay for to people who are breaking our laws by being here?? Actually no, that isn’t an accurate assessment of average liberal views but we’ve managed to make it credible.

 

And then there’s Black Lives Matter. Why the Hell do Black lives matter more than the rest of our lives? They don’t, of course; BLM is interpreted to mean Black Lives Matter More when it actually means Black Lives Matter Too. And liberals are down on the police, who are risking their lives protecting liberals? What’s wrong with this picture?

 

And, in 2016, Hillary goes to West Virginia and tells people there in a speech that we’re going to close coal mines. Way to talk to poor White people – say you’re going to eliminate their jobs.

 

And along comes Trump. Unlike anyone else, Trump says:

 

You’re right about all of it.

 

And Trump gets elected, because someone is finally listening, someone finally gets it.

 

And then Trump gets into office and, utterly shockingly for a politician, says

 

Now that I’m President, you’re Still right about all of it.

 

And he means it and pushes it every day. That’s what the wall is all about – it has enormous symbolic value.

 

That is why he can shoot someone in Times Square in broad daylight and not lose their support. He kept the faith. He stayed loyal to his supporters. Why he goes to all those rallies – which somehow doesn’t make sense to a lot of the press because they don’t get it - is to continue to drive home the message that he’s still with them. They love him for it and will tolerate damned near anything because of it.

 

Yes, Trump is pandering, but pandering is preferable to ignoring, particularly to a population accustomed to being ignored and really angry about it.

 

Aside from Bernie, liberals tend to be tone deaf to this population. That bit us in the ass. Frankly, it should have.

 

We have been treating their fears as unreasonable. Whether or not they’re unreasonable, they’re real and, being real, they’re dangerous. A very wise friend of mine once told me that evil is based on fear. The longer I live, the more right he gets. People who are feared end up hated.

 

We’re very wrapped up in telling Trump’s supporters that the reason they fear all these people is that they’re bigoted and that they listen to fear mongers. Quite possibly true (well, in the case of fear mongers, definitely true), but the best way to talk to fearful people is not to simply tell them their fears are immoral. I get that we’re talking about a group of people who think that Christmas and Christianity are under attack because some large organizations that want to be welcoming to everyone instruct their people to say Happy Holidays. Maybe they’ve never been to a shopping mall in November or December. Maybe they have nightmares about Bill Maher putting court-ordered padlocks on their churches, I don’t know.

 

What I do know is that we’re much more likely to make headway if we sit them down and say:
“Have you heard anyone in a position of power suggest that you should be prohibited from worshipping? That’s when you’ll know you have a problem and, as a liberal and a non-Christian, I promise you that if that happens to you I will stand with you.”

 

In arguments about religion on WriterBeat, I already have.

 

I’m not saying Trump supporters are right. God knows I’m not saying Trump supporters are right. I am saying that Trump isn’t the problem. More than anything, I am saying that not listening closely is a bad idea. You will never win an argument with a Trump supporter by concentrating on your concerns while dismissing theirs. Fears don’t go away by being dismissed. And fears turn into votes.

 

I wish you all a happy and healthy new year and look forward to a lot of good conversations in 2019, particularly with people I mostly disagree with.

Comments

Ryan Messano Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:57am
Kosher: As a liberal, I was initially shocked by what Trump’s supporters would tolerate from him.
 
Most of us didn't vote for Trump, we voted for his policies.
 
 
It didn’t seem to matter what he did, any one of which they would have crucified Hillary over: Diss POW’s,
 
Mccain attacked him first.
 
give a mafia don a ride in his helicopter,
Citation?  Besides, he's a businessman, what evidence do you have that he had a relationship with the mafia don? 
 
stiff small businesses (including the woman who catered his second wedding, whom he nearly drove out of business),
 
 
Citation please?  Besides, the Clinton Foundation was about as corrupt as you can get.
 
mock a guy with a disability,
That is completely not true.
 
fondle women without their consent,
 
Billy Jeff raped Juanita, makes Trump look like an angel.  And no credible allegations of him fondling women without their consent emerged.
 
run a phony charity,
 
The Clinton Foundation was the biggest scam in American history. 
 
 
hire foreign workers off the books for construction,
 
Evidence that he knowingly did this?  Besides, the Democrats fought for free slave labor in the Civil War, and fought for low wage labor in the 2016 presidential election. 
 
refuse to show his tax returns,
 
Why would he?  It's theft to do wealth redistribution and for the government pay for health care or welfare.  It's the job of anybody but the government. 
 
lie with unbelievable consistency;
 
What 7 conservative news websites did you corroborate the lies on?  What do you attribute the 90% media hostility to? 
 
 
didn’t matter. During the campaign, every week something else showed up on that list, something else that we liberals thought would certainly be a dealbreaker.
 
The media is dominated by liberals that have controlled America's thoughts for far too long. The right finally had had enough, and we didn't care what they thought about Trump, we were voting for him no matter what.  They are obvious puppet masters who ignore the evil of liberal politicians and they scream bloody murder about every last minor indiscretion of conservative politicians.  It's a huge racket, and America, at least some of us, woke up finally. This is why I started my new website, and why in 5 months, I have 100,000 views.  I'll get 1,000,000 next year.  It's  unconscionable the liberal media makes billions off lying to people. 
 
 
 
Maybe when instead of draining the swamp, he cut taxes for the wealthy and put foxes in charge of every conceivable departmental henhouse in Washington. Nope.
 
The 20 wealthiest congressional districts in America are all run by Democrats.  So they should be using their money to help the poor. But no, they instead want the gubmint to do it. 
 
 
None of them were dealbreakers. Trump commented that he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose his supporters. He was right.
 
When you are running against a woman who belongs in jail, and who deleted 30,000 subpoenaed e-mails, you can get away with quite a bit. 
 
Some of us thought his supporters were being duped, that if they weren’t rich they were voting against their financial interests. They weren’t and aren’t making their decision based on economics, at least not that aspect of economics. We didn’t watch how Trump got their votes. It wasn’t by duping them per se. It was by respecting their concerns, which is why they’re so fanatically loyal to him still.
 
There is one consistent area of liberal bigotry which we tend to ignore because we don’t like to think of ourselves as bigoted. Liberals tend to look down on poor Whites, mainly I think because we view them as bigoted.
This is cultural Marxism.&nbs
Ryan Messano Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:57am
  You've been indoctrinated to despise Whitey as a cruel oppressor.  How you can do that as a Jew is unconscionable.  Whitey in America was the one that liberated the Concentration camps, though not as promptly as we should have.  If someone talked about latino's, blacks, or Asians, as you just talked about whites, it would be on.  Totally a double standard.
 
They look at their world and see themselves losing control.
That's CNN and the Atlantic nonsense for you.  They simply know the Constitution and value their rights.  You should do the same, if you live in America.  Other people helped you out this election, as you wouldn't even stand for your basic human rights. 
 
 
They’re losing control economically, but the explanation as to how it got that way is pretty convoluted and involves a lot of events from the late seventies and early eighties. What they see and understand better is that they’re losing control socially, and America no longer makes sense to them.
 
Quite true.  Marxist insanity is the destruction of societies.  You simply don't know where it came from, or else, if you're sane, you'd object to it. 
 
It started with civil rights and feminism, which moved quickly into Affirmative Action, where suddenly they found that their competition was inexplicably being helped by Government at the expense of what they view as Regular Americans, the guys who built America and defended it in wars that are still within living memory for many.
Affirmative action is racist. 
 
The sixties were and remain very traumatic for this population. And then PC started and others and the press began to give them a hard time for the way they used language. Suddenly they weren’t allowed to say this and that, and for some reason they viewed it as more inexplicable than the basic obscenity censorship they always understood. They also viewed feminism as not only non-traditional but at least a bit anti-Biblical. And then gay rights happened, and now they were faced with being given a hard time for not only upholding tradition but upholding the Bible. Liberals very stupidly play into this by becoming impatient with religion itself and allowing this argument to be viewed in many circles as church vs. atheists. In other words, liberals basically gave conservatives permission to turn this into Christian Jihad, a perception reinforced heavily by Roe v. Wade.
 
And it gets worse and worse. Then gender identity got fluid. We’ve got people who are biologically guys insisting on using women’s bathrooms - which, in a serious episode of projecting, Trump supporters assume is a front for facilitating sexual assault. Very far from it, but Trump supporters don’t spend a lot of time talking to transgender people. The U.S. Government pays for the sex change operation of Manning, who they view as a traitor in the first place (and, in Manning’s case, I can’t say I disagree). And then there’s Mexican illegal immigration. Wait, liberals want to just let anyone over the border, regardless of what it does to our crime rate and unemployment, and give benefits that we pay for to people who are breaking our laws by being here?? Actually no, that isn’t an accurate assessment of average liberal views but we’ve managed to make it credible.
 
And then there’s Black Lives Matter. Why the Hell do Black lives matter more than the rest of our lives? They don’t, of course; BLM is interpreted to mean Black Lives Matter More when it actually means Black Lives Matter Too. And liberals are down on the police, who are risking their lives protecting liberals? What’s wrong with this picture?
 
And, in 2016, Hillary goes to West Virginia and tells people there in a speech that we’re going to close coal mines. Way to talk to poor White people – say you’re going to eliminate their jobs.
 
Except Trump has the lowest unemployment rates for latinos and blacks practically ever.  And they are waking up.  For so long they've been controlled by the liberal media and schools, but they are finally throwing off the bondage. 
 
And along comes Trump. Unlike anyone else, Trump says:
 
You’re right about all of it.
 
And Trump gets elected, because someone is finally listening, someone finally gets it.
 
And then Trump gets into office and, utterly shockingly for a politician, says
 
Ryan Messano Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:58am
 
 
Now that I’m President, you’re Still right about all of it.
 
And he means it and pushes it every day. That’s what the wall is all about – it has enormous symbolic value.
 
That is why he can shoot someone in Times Square in broad daylight and not lose their support. He kept the faith. He stayed loyal to his supporters. Why he goes to all those rallies – which somehow doesn’t make sense to a lot of the press because they don’t get it - is to continue to drive home the message that he’s still with them. They love him for it and will tolerate damned near anything because of it.
 
Yes, Trump is pandering, but pandering is preferable to ignoring, particularly to a population accustomed to being ignored and really angry about it.
 
Aside from Bernie, liberals tend to be tone deaf to this population. That bit us in the ass. Frankly, it should have.
 
We have been treating their fears as unreasonable. Whether or not they’re unreasonable, they’re real and, being real, they’re dangerous. A very wise friend of mine once told me that evil is based on fear. The longer I live, the more right he gets. People who are feared end up hated.
 
We’re very wrapped up in telling Trump’s supporters that the reason they fear all these people is that they’re bigoted and that they listen to fear mongers. Quite possibly true (well, in the case of fear mongers, definitely true), but the best way to talk to fearful people is not to simply tell them their fears are immoral. I get that we’re talking about a group of people who think that Christmas and Christianity are under attack because some large organizations that want to be welcoming to everyone instruct their people to say Happy Holidays. Maybe they’ve never been to a shopping mall in November or December. Maybe they have nightmares about Bill Maher putting court-ordered padlocks on their churches, I don’t know.
 
What I do know is that we’re much more likely to make headway if we sit them down and say:
“Have you heard anyone in a position of power suggest that you should be prohibited from worshipping? That’s when you’ll know you have a problem and, as a liberal and a non-Christian, I promise you that if that happens to you I will stand with you.”
 
In arguments about religion on WriterBeat, I already have.
 
I’m not saying Trump supporters are right. God knows I’m not saying Trump supporters are right. I am saying that Trump isn’t the problem. More than anything, I am saying that not listening closely is a bad idea. You will never win an argument with a Trump supporter by concentrating on your concerns while dismissing theirs. Fears don’t go away by being dismissed. And fears turn into votes.
 
Your entire article completely ignored the Constitution, the Founders, and the wisdom and virtue that made America great.  I have a wonderful book that you'll find informative.
 
I wish you all a happy and healthy new year and look forward to a lot of good conversations in 2019, particularly with people I mostly disagree with.
 
It takes courage to honestly hear the other side.
 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 2:55am
Ryan,
I’m going to sleep soon so I’ll answer you in at least some detail in the morning. The most obvious point I’ll make is that talking about what the Democratic Party did during the Civil War era is irrelevant both because it’s too long ago to reflect current policy and because they weren’t the liberal party in that era like they are now; the Republicans were. Over the years, they essentially switched places. 
 
Mogg Tsur,
Correct me if I’m wrong because I may not perceive myself accurately but I don’t think I have a track record of being rude on other blogs. I’ll follow some tangents but I don’t know the extent to which I drag arguments from blog to blog. I generally prefer content to invective while anywhere. In short, I’m under the impression that I already behave on other blogs like I want people to behave on mine. If I’m wrong, I’ll try to correct that. 
 
You’ll notice that I not only put a notice at the beginning of this post, I put a designation in the title. I’m putting out a sign saying “If you want a non-confrontational place to comment, I’ll try to make this blog fit the bill.” 
Ryan Messano Added Jan 1, 2019 - 3:05am
 
It's great to say let's have a non-confrontational place to blog, but doesn't an honest exchange of ideas, without DISSIMULATION, require confrontation?  And is it wise to be milquetoast and passive, when ideas that need to be challenged are repeated constantly?  Solomon said, "Open rebuke is better than secret love".  The idea that we don't criticize or condemn, and we all try to get along is a female one, and if our Founders had heeded it, would have made forming our Constitution impossible. 
Steel Breeze Added Jan 1, 2019 - 8:55am
when in a conflict with others, war/debate etc, the best path to sucess is understanding your opponents thinking as well as you do your own..........
opher goodwin Added Jan 1, 2019 - 9:37am
Kosher - People in Europe are still stunned by the sheer fact that Americans (all-be-it a minority) would deign to vote for such a crass, coarse person, so obviously devoid of the skills necessary for international diplomacy. But your analysis clearly demonstrates the process. He panders to a working class base who have felt neglected and ignored.
Ironically he does so while being an active part of the wealthy elite who are busy screwing them and caused the problem in the first place.
Ryan Messano Added Jan 1, 2019 - 9:44am
Opher: Kosher - People in Europe are still stunned by the sheer fact that Americans (all-be-it a minority) would deign to vote for such a crass, coarse person, so obviously devoid of the skills necessary for international diplomacy.
We don't elect Presidents to get along with other nations.  We elect Presidents to follow the Constitution. 
 
But your analysis clearly demonstrates the process. He panders to a working class base who have felt neglected and ignored.
 
Until you understand the Constitution and American history, Trump's election will never make sense. 
Ironically he does so while being an active part of the wealthy elite who are busy screwing them and caused the problem in the first place.
 
He's part of the elite that actually care.  The Democrats control the 20 wealthiest Representative Districts in America, and they outspent the GOP by nearly $400 million in the past elections, and still lost the Senate. 
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 1, 2019 - 9:53am
Koshersalaami:
I did not know you were the moderator, nor did I know what your political leanings are. It so happens that I voted for Trump and I feel completely deceived by him. 
Many of the reasons you and I have debated. After reading your post I certainly will be much more circumspect regarding Jewish issues. 
I believe we agree that Trump is one the worst or the worst President we have had. He is deliberately destroying America.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 9:59am
Good morning, Ryan
I couldn’t find seven conservative websites I’d trust. Whatever you want to say about the mainstream media, they at least go through pains to corroborate their sources. 
 
To a certain extent you’ve missed the point of the post. The point of the post is that liberals aren’t doing a good enough job of listening to Trump supporters, being far more interested in dismissing them. I would think you’d agree with that. 
 
What Hillary did was relevant in 2016. It isn’t relevant to continued support in 2018.  Not that it matters. The problem with your response is that you’re doing the mirror image of what I accuse liberals of doing - you’re too anxious to make your points to figure out which points might actually work. You may be able to harass liberals but you’re not going to persuade any like that because no one thinks you’re actually listening. I could go back and document some of the things I’ve said about Trump but I use mainstream sources and your first tactic will be to dismiss them because they’re mainstream sources. Sorry, Ryan, but there are things mainstream sources get right. They do respect process. And even if they have as much of an ideological bent as you think they have, about which I don’t agree, there are times that axe murderers are right. Hell, there are times that Trump is right. I really, really don’t think the Trump Presidency is good for the country, but I’m reasonably sure that I am more likely to defend Trump than you are to defend Hillary, and I don’t think that’s based on the merits of either. Have you ever defended Hillary on anything? Have you ever defended Obama on anything? 
 
I wasn’t blogging here at the time, but I have written a post defending Trump. He had a sort of town hall meeting with veterans and he was accused of being disrespectful of veterans with PTSD. (By the way, the fact that McCain attacked first does not justify attacking POW’s in general, which Trump certainly did. That’s something you should have caught.)  Joe Biden gave a very eloquent condemnation of what Trump did. Then I watched the video because I got curious and I concluded very quickly that the accusation was completely wrong - Trump was actually being more compassionate than I’ve seen him be before or since, so I immediately wrote a post saying the accusation was baseless. Incidentally, that night Trevor Noah on the Daily Show reached the same conclusion I had and defended Trump on the same grounds. 
 
The Constitution has nothing to do with liberal perceptions of Trump supporters. Coming at me with anything you can think of regardless of the strength or weakness of the case won’t work because most readers will say “That’s what Ryan does” instead of “Ryan has a point.” 
 
Put another way, and this is personal advice, you’d win more by fighting less. I don’t expect you to take my advice because, given my observations of blogging styles and tactics over several years, I think the fight matters to you more than the win would. There’s also the question of what a win entails. Persuading conservatives of what they already believe isn’t a win, just as an underlying message of my post is that liberals persuading other liberals of what we already believe isn’t a win either. 
Ryan Messano Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:00am
Michael: You are new to America.  Can you tell me what five biographies of our other Presidents you have read?  If you haven't read at least 5 of the 45 Presidents, what are you comparing Trump with? 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:19am
Koshersalaami, great article, and you are not a true modern liberal that is in America identified as the Democratic Party or in Europe as those on the side of the European Union but much chooser to a classic liberal.  Martin Luther was the first international (Europe) classic liberal by opposing the Holy Roman Empire Sea.  By saying that the leadership is not free to make up rules.  That all citizens are given permission to read the bible and interpret Gods word for themselves.
 
This Koshersalaami, is the difference between a 'classic liberal' now associated with 'conservative,' that all citizens are given permission to interpret for themselves.  And a 'modern liberal' now associated with 
'socialist (communist, fascist, progressive, and the XXX socialist)' that say that some 'master mind' or group of 'master minds' make better decision so they decide for all of us.  
 
The allure of a charismatic leader is hard wired in animals.  Dr. Jonathan Peterson give the example of lobsters having a hierarchy society which means that it was coded into animal genes before humans even existed.  This is why ~99% of human nations are governed by a class based society where 'master minds' make better decision so they decide for all of us, those in lower, less human, classes.
 
You defined the Trump supports which is a lesser class that feel they have been barred from opportunities available to higher classes.  Like the founders the governing class in England barred the colonial citizens not part of the governing class from entry.  Koshersalaami this is the real reason for the revolutionary war and the reason for 99% of all revolutions,  barriers between classes, the lack of mobility, the genetic coding to move up the  hierarchy. 
 
Trump has been thrown out of governing class by the Democrats and Media which makes him a martyr.  And they are throwing out those that work for him or support him.  They have show that the the laws are different depending on your class, and if you support the establishment's hierarchy, one of their solders like Antifa, and your 'liberals.'  Or are opposed to the establishment's hierarchy, your conservative.   
 
Do you see the irony in the names.   They are flipped in actually beliefs from the associated definition of the words. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:29am
Michael,
I am the moderator of my own blog only. Autumn is the moderator of the site and she has chosen to give us the tools to moderate our own blogs rather than taking on the thankless task herself. And thank you on the Jewish issues.

Opher,
”...caused the problem in the first place.” Depends which problem. I would agree about the economic problem but a lot of the concerns of Trump’s supporters are not about the economic problem. “How could they vote for the guy who is screwing them?” is a liberal question, asked from a liberal viewpoint that doesn’t take the perspective of those voters into account. They are deeply upset by things that don’t upset us at all, in part because we do not perceive the same threats they do. 
 
Steel Breeze,
Absolutely. I’ve always blogged with that in mind. Generally speaking, when I’ve blogged (previous to here mostly) about liberal issues, I’ve justified my case on business and fiscal grounds, sometimes on public order grounds, and certainly on the grounds of what I perceive being good for the country. I usually steer away from obvious liberal grounds because that doesn’t do any good - liberals believe that stuff already anyway.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:47am
Opher goodwin,  I hope that this very different view of the two different paths that humans choose is eye opening.  
 
Kosher*,  as a classic liberal I can assure you that permission is not needed from master minds.   Classic liberals, your conservatives, have rejected the belief that master minds make any better decision then any individual and would say from history that the evidence is that they make worse decisions.   
 
So long as you keeps the belief in a master mind, " liberals basically gave conservatives permission to turn this into Christian Jihad, a perception reinforced heavily by Roe v. Wade." then you are truly still a socialist/modern liberal.
 
It is much simpler then that.  The opposition to abortion on demand is simply because classic liberals do not need the issuing of a 'government birth certificate, recognition of being human' as their measure of the creation of a human.  They do not need a master mind created document, they can think on their own. 
 
The issue of men and women bathrooms is just as simple.  A true transgender person is not a problem to a classic liberal.   Just thing more then a few seconds.  I could not pick out a true transgender in a crowd because they look, act, and think as the the opposite sex.  When the go into a bathroom that doesn't change.  So they are no threat.   
 
What classic liberals understand that their is a significant differ between proclaiming 'transgender status' and actually 'living as a transgender.'  We reject a 'master mind' saying that they are the same in the view of the law.  
White Hair'd Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:48am
"Whatever you want to say about the mainstream media, they at least go through pains to corroborate their sources."
 
You actually believe that.
Typical, really.
John Minehan Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:55am
I'm (and I guess it is obvious) not a Trump guy.
 
I'm also more of a classical liberal than a Progressive.
 
I found this article by John Robb useful in understanding the Trump.  I also found some of Salena Zito's writing useful in understanding this issue.
 
One factor most people have not mentioned is that Trump got a lot of support from successful small business people, often a very diverse array of such people. 
 
Doctors, lawyers and accountants in small practices, developers and contractors, people who own small time car dealerships or garages, those people identified with Trump.  This was either because The Apprentice depicted him as a canny "Main Street Businessman" whose "Main Street" was Park Avenue and because, this being the Northern Suburbs, they had done work with the Trump Organization (and had been paid, perhaps with both sides pushing their luck)
 
The GOVERNMENT has been hemorrhaging "Legitimacy" since Vietnam and Watergate, so it was not hard for an outsider to win. (Remember Jimmy Carter?).
 
The problem is: how talented is this outsider? 
 
With Trump, not very. 
 
He is a great salesman (and, as with most great salesman, his best product is himself).  He really knows commercial real estate in the Tri-state, but not much else. (Remember the Jersey Generals, Trump Steaks?  The list goes on . . . )
 
He is also about half a goniff, a big macher developer with Roy Cohn as a mentor?  What else would he be? 
 
We will (as with Carter) undo this mistake.  However, I'm concern with the trend line.   
 
 
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:56am
Ryan;
I guess when you say "biographies' you mean the time a person was President.  I first voted for Reagan, so count all the Presidents since him. I know about Carter and Nixon. they were during my time here in America but I was too young to vote. 
Then you have the regulars such as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and a few others
Koshersalaami:
Thanks for the explanation. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 11:01am
Thomas,
Thank you. 
A lot of Trump’s supporters aren’t poor and, for those who aren’t, their anger is more social than economic. 
 
When you talk about “governing class,” are you referring to economic elites or political elites? Or do you view them as congruent? Trump is still among the economic elite and a lot of them appreciate his support. 
 
Political elites is a different issue. There is a relatively new factor in how society is organized: Because of drastically increased complexity brought about both by technology and enormous increases in population, the only way a society can get a handle on it all is to specialize. No one can know most of it any more, there’s too much of it. Specialized expertise is necessary. To a certain extent, this phenomenon diffuses power; it can’t be strictly hierarchical because people down the ladder have monopolies on certain kinds of information. Trump has a great deal of trouble with diffused power and how he’s chosen to approach this is to disagree vehemently with specialists based on no real knowledge and, worse to fire specialists. Given that he occupies the most consequential office on Earth, operating while minimizing his expert resources can have nasty consequences. This has really freaked out political elites who are justifiably afraid of the President of the United States deliberately flying blind. 
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 1, 2019 - 11:05am
Thomas:
I am opposed to abortion because it is murder.
I am opposed to the modern trend of Transgenderism because the medical solution is to cut off healthy organs and not deal with an unstable mind. 
John Minehan Added Jan 1, 2019 - 11:18am
"Trump has a great deal of trouble with diffused power and how he’s chosen to approach this is to disagree vehemently with specialists based on no real knowledge and, worse to fire specialists."
 
Compare Truman's comment about needing to find a "one handed economist."
 
Some of what you are saying is Hayek (particular, local information makes centralized solutions less effective).  But the operative question is if this is "expert information" or is it "conventional wisdom?"
 
It may or may not be a good idea to leave Syria and Afghanistan AND the very respected Jim Mattis's opinion may be the result of a 45 year distinguished career leading Marines from the front . . . or it could be an opinion he formed in order to get to lead Marines from the front for 45 years.    
 
After the Gulf War, a mentor of mine said that you make compromises to get to a place you can change the Army . . . but by the time you reach that place. it no longer looks like there is much wrong with the Army.
Bill H. Added Jan 1, 2019 - 11:40am
John M.-
Many who voted for Trump also did so out of fear. I find many whites have a deep-down fear of the quickly changing state of demographics and see themselves as becoming a minority. Trump used this in his campaign to his advantage. His statement of wanting more immigrants from places like Norway said it all.
The "Make America White Again" agenda created many die-hard Trump supporters that will apparently tolerate virtually anything, as long as they are told that not only will we stop people from "shithole countries" from entering the US, we will deport all of those who snuck in before.
Even A Broken Clock Added Jan 1, 2019 - 12:03pm
Kosher, you have captured many of the thoughts I have had concerning the rise of cultural populism culminating in the Trump election. Trump is not the cause of the issues, he is the result of the processes you describe. Having lived in the heart of flyover country, I can attest to the despair that leads to an epidemic of opioid addiction - but the economic conditions don't seem that different to me than they were when I moved here over 30 years ago. I could drive 10 minutes out of Charleston and be in the middle of a holler where they had to pump in the sunlight. Tar paper shacks reminded me of the sharecropper houses I saw in my previous home of Memphis. Point is, there have always been locations where the advances of the economy have never shown up. What's different now is how those pockets of economic misery have metastasized through much of the middle of the country.
 
Where Trump is his most dangerous is in his ghosting of the expertise of the departments of the government. Read The Fifth Risk to see what the real risks are at leaving a government that protects its citizens from existential threats, leaving it under-resourced and ignored. The risks will catch up, primarily because we've built such an intricate system over the decades. Thanks for this post.
George N Romey Added Jan 1, 2019 - 12:17pm
Trump is nothing more than a remake of the 1950s and 1960s marketing hype man.  He looks for areas of opportunity and exploits them.  Like the mad men of the 50s and 60s they weren't particularly deep thinkers, were egotistic, pretty loud and conceited and not always well mannered.  But they had guts, grit, determination, and savvy.  Intelligence of a different form and in certain situations vastly preferred.  There's a reason the intellectual Harvard types are rarely found in real estate.
 
Ultimately Trump is nothing more than a side show in a very big act.  It's like people obsessing about the comic that opened the show with a 5 minute routine and forgetting about the main liners.  In reality it's quite sad that so many Americans don't understand Trump's rather benign role in how government really operates.  It's kind of like the old "ha, ha made you look" (at nothing.)
Dino Manalis Added Jan 1, 2019 - 12:24pm
 My fellow Americans; foreigners; liberals; conservatives; and everyone else, Trump represents change and wishes to appeal to his base of supporters with his comments.  He's too political, in my opinion, and should govern more like a businessman and less like a politician to make America better with pro-growth policies on all issues.
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2019 - 12:27pm
KosherS, I liked the post.  I agreed with some of it and not so much of some of it.  Big surprise. :)
 
I can’t say if you, or anyone else, would consider me a “Trump supporter”; since I’ve never voted for the man.  We’ll see in two years.  But, I’ll give my two cents anyway.
 
The List:
First, your list of Trump sins has a mixed record of validity, IMO.  I don’t think it was unreasonable for Ryan to address them, since you brought them up.  The main point of the post (what you say it is and I agree) could have held up without the list, but you chose to include it… so let people comment on it.
 
On the list and the statement that “we liberals thought would certainly [consider them] a deal breaker”; that’s obviously not true.  When it comes to the Clintons, treatment of women, corruption, and the use of a “charity” as a slush fund certainly didn’t break any deals on the left.
 
I’m not going to comment on the list, since others have already done so.  I’ll just say you have some valid points in the list and some no so valid points.
 
What Choice?:
I will reiterate (because I’ve said it before), what choice did we have in 2016.  I could not vote for Trump (see below), but I don’t blame anyone who did (even Christians).  He was deemed the lesser of many evils.  You and I may or may not agree with that, but I can follow the logic of coming to that conclusion/decision.
 
I thought (and pretty well still do)...
 
Hillary Clinton was (and still is) a crook on a massive multi-billion-dollar scale.  Some of the stuff she did as Secretary of State, and through her foundation was literally treasonous.  The woman should be in prison and the fact that she isn't says something about how broken the criminal justice system is on a national level.
 
Donald Trump was a selfish, self-centered billionaire running for the office for the wrong reasons.  I did not think he had the temperament necessary to be a good President.  Most of all (for me), Donald Trump is not a conservative, and after McCain and Romney, I was not going to support another non-conservative.
 
Gary Johnson was the libertarian dope-head president.  That was pretty well his one and only issue.  2016 was finally a chance for Libertarians to get my vote had they only concentrated on fiscal responsibility.  All that took a back seat to the drugs.
 
Jill Stein was the nut-ball environmental, anti-capitalism president (on the level with socialist Bernie Sanders).  I watched one interview with her and it scared the living crap out of me.
  
For the record; I supported Ted Cruz in the Republican primary and after that... nobody.  I was not a "never Trumper"; and accept him as my president just as I did Barack Obama when he was elected... even though I despise Obama and consider him incompetent.
  
So, I ask you.  What choice did the people you speak of in this post have?  Logically, who should they have voted for instead of Trump?  Should they have simply sat on their hands and allowed Clinton to become President?  WHAT should they have done to maintain credibility in your eyes?
  
I’ll give a hat-tip to Ryan.  He is right that most did not vote for Trump; but voted against the insanity of the Obama administration and the continuation that Clinton represented.  Voters didn’t vote for Trump, they voted for his policies; which is all anybody can do.
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2019 - 12:28pm
Poor White Fear:
To a main point of you post.  I’m glad to see someone on the left at least acknowledge this bigotry; though I still think you believe in some of the premises it is based on.
 
 I base this on the fact that you start off saying “civil rights” is a cause of the poor whites feeling they are losing control.  I’m not a poor white but grew up in and understand that culture.  You say that what happened during the Civil War is immaterial, and what Bill and Hillary did back in the nineties is immaterial to a lot of this.  I agree.  So is much of what happened in the 50s and 60s.  I don’t know of any poor white person who is concerned about legitimate civil rights today.  Poor white racism may still exist… but it is practically extinct compared to what it used to be.  It is no more prevalent than black racism today (maybe less so).
 
As for as “affirmative action” which is in itself racism… as far as gay rights… as far is flued gender (which you seem to admit is absurd)… as far as leftist hatred of Christianity… as far as importing massive number of immigrants (legal and otherwise)…  Yes, we (poor whites) see this as an attack on us and the foundation of the nation.
 
You say, “Actually no, that isn’t an accurate assessment of average liberal views but we’ve managed to make it credible.”  That may be technically true, but not functionally true.
 
So, I say our fears have been proven to be credible.  Why?  Because even though the majority (of leftist) may not hold those views, that majority doesn’t stop the minority who does hold them from instituting policy and law that pushes those views.  It’s like Islam.  The majority of Muslims are not violent or terrorists… but they are irrelevant concerning the damage done (and the terror in its name) the minority chooses to perpetrate.
 
Pandering:
Whether or not Trump is pandering we’ll see.  I will say, I’ve seen him hold up quite a few of his promises.  Taxes (yes I am without a doubt much better off and I’m not rich), Business (my small business man boss says he hasn’t been this optimistic in many years), Border Security and immigration (he does seem to be trying)… AND Supreme Court nominations.  Exactly how much of any of this would we have seen with the three other Presidential options.
 
It gets back to who am I going to support.  Someone who promises what I want (and may only get some of) OR someone (candidate and Party) who point blank tells me that hate me, consider me deplorable, and will screw me every chance she/they get.
 
Hmmmm… now that’s one hard decision to make.
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2019 - 12:29pm
The Sit Down:
I regret to inform you that you’re not likely to make much headway even if the left takes your advice.
 
Here is the conversation that I envision; and note that Left is not you (Kosher S) specifically, but the majority left; and the Right isn’t me but the poor whites and Christians you addressed.
 
Left: “Have you heard anyone in a position of power suggest that you should be prohibited from worshipping?”
 
Right: “Specifically? No, but is it common for those who would deny you liberty to announce it in advance?  You say I’m being paranoid, I say I’m being practical especially when considering history and human nature.”
 
Left: That’s when you’ll know you have a problem.
 
Right: No, that’s when I’ll know it’s too late.
 
Left: Well, as a liberal and a non-Christian, I promise you that if that happens to you I will stand with you.”
 
Right: Really?  And what have you done to assure me of that that.  Did you stand with me when that poor baker was drummed out of business in Colorado?  Did you stand with me when Anise Parker (in Houston) demanded the sermons of all who opposed her agenda?  Did you stand with me when that little minority of your ideology whittled away my rights and freedom?
 
Right: I can’t hear your words as they are drowned out by your actions… or in this case inactions.
 
Conclusion:
KosherS, I do give you credit for seeing more than most on this side of the aisle; but you don’t see it as clearly as you think, nor are you immune to the all the biases of your brethren, IMO. 
 
But, again, to give credit where it is due, you much, much more aware than most and that is refreshing.
 
And I do like the post… it was very good.
 
KosherS >> I wish you all a happy and healthy new year
 
You too…
 
KosherS >> and look forward to a lot of good conversations in 2019, particularly with people I mostly disagree with.
 
That, I hope, would be me. :)
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 1, 2019 - 12:48pm
Koshersalaami, if you look through history political power can not be separated from economic power, and they are not the same but also can not exist without the other. Trump is showing the differences that a possible in the coexistence. He is just showing the difference between the Democrat and Republican political differences (classic Republican) which as the swamp indicates the economic similarities, they both support crony capitalism. He can not be removed from the economic upper class because that is based on money.
Michael Bagala, I clearly stated that classic liberals, conservatives, think for themselves which is open to you believing that abortion is murder. And I think that your in the majority by a long shot. Christians believe that men are flawed and we do sin. So I am more inclined to take the old testament view of when a human is defined. It moves within the mother. This adds a undeniable component that a lab report doesn't. It allows for us to not be perfect but sinners which we can not escape from.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 12:51pm
Michael,
I want to be careful about introducing a tangent here, and I’m emphatically not suggesting we take the discussion down this road, but what I think we’re going to find regarding transgenderism is a biological mismatch between organs and brain chemistry/structure. I don’t think it will prove to be as simple as “instability.” 
 
John,
Disagreeing with conventional wisdom is one thing. Gutting the State Department is another. If you’re trying to get a country to do something and a particular aspect of their culture could lead to the most logical way to proceed or to avoid proceeding, the President should know that about their culture so he can make an informed decision. He needs expertise to bring that information to the table. To get rid of it is irresponsible. This is not a partisan observation. The same is true with EPA. Even if you disagree with conclusions, you can’t make an informed decision by making sure you’re uninformed. 
 
Which I think is part of EABC’s point. 
 
EABC,
Thirty years ago is after some significant economic changes in the United States. We haven’t seen gains in real spending power in the middle class since the Nixon administration. I could walk you through why I think that is if you’re interested. 
Mustafa Kemal Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:01pm
Koshersalaami,
 
I spend alot of time among deplorables, and after the election I offered my services to help with  understanding the Trump base.
I offered to help the local Democrats, Sanders Our Revolution, the Green Party, pretty much everyhere I could. I also reached out locally to friends of family who were active.
 
The result?  Crickets...........
 
They had so much contempt and cognitive dissonance that they were unable to think about it.
 
I have noticed this is changing lately. But it is very slow. Good to see you thinking about it.  
 
Mustafa
Cullen Writes Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:10pm
A lot of devout Evangelicals supported goofy Ted Cruz until the bitter end of the primaries (i.e. they did not support Trump). But once it turned to the general election, what, where Evangelical Christians going to vote for Hillary? 
 
In the final years of Obama, you had court cases were Christians were threatened with jail time by judges for refusing to bake a cake for gay wedding. 
 
Seriously, do liberals know anything about history? Martin Luther (on trial for his life) says: I cannot and I will not recant anything...Here I stand, I can do no other? In a nutshell, I'll go to my death rather than submit to the will of any anyone forcing me to sin against God? 
 
The ancient Christians in the Roman Empire, going to their deaths in the Coliseum rather than publicly renounce Jesus? 
 
You're literally firing the most base emotions of half the country with this government-enforced participation in gay weddings for people that don't want to be. This is the Christian (peaceful) version of Islamic jihad. This is how practically all the followers of Jesus met their end (and Jesus himself arguably) being hauled before a court or governor who is offering them a choice: death or renounce Jesus. 
 
The American Revolution was fought for less biblical reasons than this. 
 
The government can't force people to do things against their will and against their religion. End of story. 1st Amendment says so. Gay rights, trans rights don't outweigh the first amendment. 
 
I think the author has it about right though. Liberals have left conservatives practically no choice but to support a man like Donald Trump because they've gone so far to the Left. 
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 1, 2019 - 1:37pm
Koshersalaami:
You are right Transgenderism is now politically incorrect to point to its glaring errors and pretend the Emperor is clothed. To "be careful"  is the byword of America. 
Thank God in heaven that there is a world wide resistance to America's culture.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 4:22pm
My replies are slow enough that it looks like I’m ignoring comments. I’m not, I’m just in the middle of often interrupted answers while new comments come in. 
 
Someone earlier made a comment about the opioid epidemic. I married into a midwestern family and I lost a 27 year old nephew to that epidemic in 2017. (He’d been clean for a year; his heart abruptly went.) Just in case anyone thinks liberals are insulated from this phenomenon. 
 
TexasLynn,
Of course we’re going to disagree with each other a lot. That’s a given. All I care is that we can discuss those disagreements civilly and cordially. So far so good, particularly given the subject matter. 
 
I don’t find gender fluidity absurd; my point is that the group of people I’m talking about find it absurd. I have no idea what it’s like to have your body and mind so out of tune with each other that you’d consider surgery to correct it. I don’t know what causes it. I’m lucky to have been born a straight male and to be satisfied with that role. God was kind to me in that respect; non-normative lives when it comes to sex and gender are a lot more difficult. I would not want to pointlessly increase someone’s suffering. 
 
Sure I could go through the list concerning Trump but Ryan would only accept it if I were using conservative sources to verify it. He has in essence said so. I’m not at all sure I can do that and to go through the process of doing it with mainstream sources would be pointless if it were to be DOA because of the identity of the sources. 
 
In terms of voting for someone who calls you a deplorable, I have to agree. That lines up with the theme of my post. Simply dismissing your concerns as invalid doesn’t work.  As Mustafa points out, what most liberals want to do is exactly that: dismiss your concerns. 
 
Of course I’m not free of liberal biases. I’m a liberal. I don’t expect you to be free of conservative biases. That would be an unreasonable expectation. I’m not pretending to agree with you.  I’m just refusing to dismiss you. 
 
Regarding bakers, and I’m more familiar with the Indiana case than the presumably more recent Colorado case, from 2006 to 2016 I lived in Greensboro, NC. There’s a very famous place there, now made into a museum, specifically an old Woolworth’s lunch counter. There was quite a flap there when people were refused service because of who they were. The law says businesses can’t do that any more. You can’t have a White only lunch counter that does business with the public and you can’t have a straight only bakery that does business with the public. And yes, they are analogous. I realize that some like to harbor the belief that being gay is a choice. Speaking personally, I can tell you that for me being straight was not a choice. If sexual preference is not a choice for me, why would I assume it’s a choice for anyone else? If it is a choice for them but not for me, what that says instantly is that we are different by nature, not by choice. I apologize if this preference choice tangent is irrelevant in this case. If choice is not involved, the cases become analogous in a hurry.
 
The mayor of Houston lost her case. I will admit I had to look the whole thing up.
 
So you think you’re a step away from having your worship prohibited? Take it from someone who comes from a religion that has experienced that: Not happening here anytime soon. If it would ever start, it sure as Hell wouldn’t be with Christians, it would probably start with Muslims, and when Trump started to move in that direction, his effort was shut down from multiple directions simultaneously, both sides of the aisle. Do you know how House and Senate sessions start? With prayers from their respective chaplains. How many United States Presidents have been anything other than Christian? (I assume I’m not talking to someone who thinks Obama is/was Muslim.) And you don’t think I’d stand with you if anyone tried? There have been people on this site who have expressed their opposition to religion. Where I’ve been present, I’ve been on your side of those arguments, though it is perhaps telling that the main person expressing that viewpoint is not American. Freedom of religion is sacred here. 
 
Cullen, 
I don’t see anyone in a position of power asking you to renounce Jesus. 
 
Mogg, 
I’m not going to be non-confrontational to the point of not allowing disagreement or expressing it. That would make most of this site both pointless and boring and certainly wouldn’t expand anyone’s horizons. Find me a conservative here who doesn’t think liberals are gullible. When it comes to disagreement, it comes with the territory. In terms of
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 4:45pm
Damn, I lost part of my comment. Now I’ve got to try to reconstruct it. 
 
Where I was going next was that in spite of the fact that we’re talking about subject matter about which there is severe disagreement and which is important to both sides, no one has lost it. I haven’t felt remotely tempted to go for the delete button. [knocking on wood] 
 
I am absolutely not implying that most of Trump’s supporters are guilty of that which I accused Trump. On the contrary; I assume that if most of them ran for President, most of these issues wouldn’t surface. My point is that this population is so alienated that this list became unimportant. That’s really the point of the post. This post was written to explain some conservatives to liberals. Maybe I should write just a little in the other direction.
 
I have been blogging for a few years on a small, rather sparsely populated site that is overwhelmingly liberal. Two of my friends there are of color (I use that expression because one is not Black). My Black friend says he feels and is less safe as a result of the election (technically, so am I, as hate crimes have skyrocketed in the last couple of years and most of the increase has been against Jews, but even with the increase I’m still way safer than he is) and he wonders with an extreme sense of anger and betrayal how his fellow Americans could have voted for this to happen to him and others like him. My other friend thinks the election was all about bigotry and about Whites being afraid of a backlash when we lose the majority demographically. (I disagree completely for a lot of reasons.) He basically thinks the 2016 election was the latest skirmish in the Civil War. I’d imagine those are views you don’t expect, and I’d further imagine most of you don’t talk to guys who think like this or, if you do, neither of you speaks calmly. I have one running argument with both of them. They think that most of the people who voted for Trump did so because they hated people like them. I think that most of those who voted for Trump did not do so because they hated these people of color but because they found them irrelevant. Still an issue, but a different kind of issue. 
 
I’d imagine you wouldn’t think I’d have arguments about the same things going in opposite directions, particularly given that I don’t consider myself a centrist. 
Cliff M. Added Jan 1, 2019 - 4:54pm
Texaslynn,  Gary Johnson was probably the most fiscally responsible candidate of all running for president. He promised to immediately balance the books and did a very good job fiscally as governor of New Mexico for 2 terms.
Cliff M. Added Jan 1, 2019 - 5:08pm
Gary Johnson is a good example of many moderate Americans today. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. To me being pro Marijuana is actually more conservative than supporting alcohol which is legal and far more dangerous and destructive.
Cliff M. Added Jan 1, 2019 - 5:42pm
My biggest problem with Trump is that even though he speaks platitudes of support for the ordinary American little has been done in their support. Right now he has put the farmers in the barrel with his conflict on trade with China.With the current politics under control of the financial elite I don't know that helping out the middle is possible. Trump was a shot in the dark by all those ignored for the last 30 years. If anything he has made everyone stand and take notice.I voted for him and agree with his immigration ideas. I would like to see more accomplished than tax cuts for the wealthy and ending Obamacare.
A. Jones Added Jan 1, 2019 - 5:44pm
 any one of which they would have crucified Hillary over:
 
So how come they didn't crucify Hillary over her keeping a private email server when she was SecState? How come they didn't crucify Hillary over her obvious cover-up and dumbshit statements over the massacre in Benghazi ("It was a spontaneous riot caused by anger over an amateurish video on YouTube that was ridiculing Islam!" Yeah, sure.).
 
What about her influence peddling on behalf of "Friends of Bill" and the Clinton Foundation?
 
The mainstream, lefty press adored Hillary, so they wouldn't have crucified her for any reason whatsoever.
A. Jones Added Jan 1, 2019 - 5:45pm
Gary Johnson is a good example of many moderate Americans today. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
 
It's called "Libertarianism."
ChetDude Added Jan 1, 2019 - 5:59pm
Gary Johnson: Still capitalist...and a captive of the fossil-fueled "free market" religious myth...
 
dead end...
 
'Johnson supports the use of fossil fuels, presumably because they would be supported by the free market. While Johnson has expressed concern about pollution from fossil fuel combustion, he has also said that he would not want the US to "turn their back" on these traditional fuels.' 
 
Somehow AGW/Climate Change will magically disappear thanks to the "invisible hand" of the "free market"?
ChetDude Added Jan 1, 2019 - 6:06pm
One of the GREATEST ironies of the 2016 pResidential race is that of all of the candidates the most Religious Christian of them all was Hillary Clinton... 
 
She's a totally devout Methodist who can recite chapter and verse from bible.
 
The estimable Thomas Frank ("Listen, Liberal") explained how Hillary would have rolled over every other candidate if she'd just demanded one of the debates as a "Bible Challenge"...
 
 
Doug Plumb Added Jan 1, 2019 - 6:13pm
Trump got a lot of votes just for not being Billary.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 1, 2019 - 6:14pm
Its hard to see people complain about corruption and believe in AGW.
George N Romey Added Jan 1, 2019 - 6:20pm
Neither party has an answer to the growing income gap and continued lost of social mobility.  HRC was telling people in the heart land of all the wonders Obama did for "their economy."  No wonder people in the center of the country was like what is this bitch talking about.  Then comes along Trump that tells the truth.  Now whether he has actual workable answers or even intends to recreate social mobility and close the income gap is debatable.
 
So what do the Democrats do.  They talk about tranny bathrooms, Russian spies and Trump's hiring of whores.  Really, you can't make this stuff up.  
 
Again, the Democrats have become the party of uber, whinny rich people that have no real problems in life so they make up stuff like "transgendered" bathrooms or so called wide discrimination against women, or those poor, poor illegal immigrants.  Then they are shocked at the "deplorables" that couldn't give a rat's ass about any of this.  Try living the life that you stay up a night wondering how you are going to pay the rent and see if you really care about where "chicks with dicks" are taking a pee.
Cliff M. Added Jan 1, 2019 - 6:25pm
Chet, HRC was just another neoliberal elite who showed no empathy or signs of actually giving a shit about those who are being left behind. A continuation of the Obama doctrine was unacceptable to enough to get the donald elected. There's an old saying about the mob, "They will go to church on Sunday and then kill you on Monday". 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 6:57pm
OK Mogg,
The mob helicopter ride was I think through the casino business. It may have been normal in his business but Hillary wouldn’t have been given a pass for a reason like that. There’s a lot else along the same lines. Stiffing businesses? OK. (And I’m one degree of separation from a business it happened to. I do some business in the Philadelphia/South New Jersey area.) Undocumented foreign construction workers? Here. I watched the videos on the reporter with a disability compared to other times he’s done similar things and that call can go either way because the spasticity gesture is way longer and more elaborate in that instance than any other shown. Here’s a video of his doing it In a few situations, the last one concerns the reporter with a disability. To me it looks like a legitimate call, but this one’s not airtight.
 
Just so you get I don’t make this stuff up. 
 
A. Jones,
Given the amount of free coverage Trump got from the media during his campaign I don’t think anyone has a leg to stand on regarding favoritism to Hillary. CNN and the New York Times estimate the coverage at $2 billion. With friends like that, I don’t think Hillary needed enemies. 
 
The private email server? Done first by Colin Powell and more recently by Ivanka Trump. 
 
 
 
 
A. Jones Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:02pm
She's a totally devout Methodist who can recite chapter and verse from bible.
 
I doubt that very much, though I'm sure she can recite long passages from Marx and Alinsky.  
 
However, even IF it were true, I'll remind you of an old and wise saying:
 
Even the devil can recite scripture.
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:04pm
Kosher S >> I don’t find gender fluidity absurd...
 
My mistake... I do.  And I (we deplorables) consider it a degradation in society that we are told we must accept it as anything other than absurd.  We are being told we must believe light is dark and dark is light OR be labeled bigots.
 
But... our concerns are dismissed as equivalent to racism.
 
Kosher S >> Sure I could go through the list concerning Trump...
 
I didn't request you to do that.  My point is that you have some valid concerns in my opinion; and you have some not so valid concerns in my opinion.
 
You're post, IMO, would have been better without the list that will simply foster disagreement and thrown people off the scent of your main point.
 
Kosher S >> Simply dismissing your concerns as invalid doesn’t work.
 
OK?  But a paragraph or two above, you just dismissed my concerns (meaning those of poor white Christians) on gender fluidity.  I say dismissed because you simply stated your opinion and gave no consideration that my opinion might have any validity.  We should simply accept it and "not pointlessly increase someone’s suffering."  What did I hear... “you're wrong, you're insensitive, DISMISSED!”

And... you did it again with our concerns on religious freedom just a few paragraphs later. (see below).
 
Kosher S >> Regarding bakers...  And yes, they are analogous.
 
Without going into how they are not.  After the lecture what, in essence, did you just say.
 
“You're wrong, you're insensitive, DISMISSED!”
 
Kosher S >> The mayor of Houston lost her case.
 
Yes, she lost her case... which has nothing to do with her trying to deny citizens (Christians) their First Amendment rights.  That (she tried) being the point.  Maybe the next mayor/governor/President doesn't lose her case.  Is that when I'm to expect you (the left, not you personally) to ride to my rescue?
 
Kosher S >> So you think you’re a step away from having your worship prohibited?
 
One step?  No.  Two or Three?  Maybe.  All I'm saying is "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".  I don't know how many steps away we are... so I choose to eternally push back on every step in that direction.  It's only logical.
 
Kosher S >> Take it from someone who comes from a religion that has experienced that: Not happening here anytime soon.
 
Now if that's not saying, "You're wrong, you're don't have perspective, DISMISSED!", I don't know what does.  Then you added for good measure "And if anybody does this (denies freedom of religion) it will be YOU intolerant Christians against the Muslims."
 
You're one of the most "reasonable" liberals I know, and I’m not getting any warm fuzzies that you're even remotely receptive to my concerns.  This little sit-down seems to be a bust.
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:05pm
Kosher S >> And you don’t think I’d stand with you if anyone tried?
 
No Kosher, I don't.  Less now than I did before you wrote this post or replied to my comments.  All I've heard is multiple dismissals of concerns after you wrote about the problem being out of hand dismissal of concerns.
 
I'll give you general credit for believing in and verbally supporting the overall concept of freedom of religion.  But given an actual scenario pitting liberal objective over religious freedom, you seem inclined to... DISMISS our concerns out of hand.  You seem to see our concerns as “analogous” to racism; which is what we’ve heard over and over and over and over...
 
Maybe it's you're unfamiliarity with the Colorado case.  I don't know.  They (the two cases) are not the same.  I would agree that you can't generally say I will not serve gays or blacks or Muslims.  That's not what the Colorado baker did. 
 
More to the point, one should be able to say, I (my business) will not service a gay wedding or a transgender coming out party or a Wiccan spell casting ceremony or a Satanic animal sacrifice... etc... The baker in question had plenty of off the shelf product he would sell to any of these groups... but he would not personally create for or participate in these events.
 
Maybe this will help... A Muslim or Jewish caterer, should not be forced to prepare and serve bacon wrapped shrimp (or any other non-kosher foods I can think of) for any customer.  Those businesses should not be forced to choose between doing something their Allah or God (there is a difference) demands they abstain from OR being forced out of business.
 
Expecting that, no... demanding that is immoral... but the minority in your ideology does demand the equivalent of Christians.  AND where are you in our defense?  For now, agreeing with them.
 
So, please excuse my reluctance in believing you (or many leftists at all) will be defending my rights (religious or otherwise).  There have been many, many opportunities for that very defense, and I've not seen it to date.
Jeff Jackson Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:30pm
Good points Koshersalaami. Trump's supporters had been ignored for too long, and he played to them. Bear in mind that the U.S. became a very successful country with at least some of the values of Trump's supporters.  I do not agree with governmental oppression of people who were born different from the majority. Does it seem to you that the minorities seem to be waiting for a time when they comprise the majority so that they can oppress those who were formerly the majority? As the French call it "the revenge of the cradle." That saying came from somewhere, now didn't it?
 
 
ChetDude Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:35pm
As she's a true-believing capitalist plutocrat (just like Donald), I doubt that Hillary Clinton knows much Marx or Alinsky.  Try another meme based in reality...
 
But it's definitely true that she knows here holly bibboli...I've seen the YouTube -- alas, I just looked but couldn't find it easily right now.
 
The "devil" may be able to quote "scripture" but unlike Hillary, he doesn't believe any of it...
A. Jones Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:38pm
The private email server? Done first by Colin Powell and more recently by Ivanka Trump. 
 
Ooops! You fucked up, again. <sarc>No doubt it was "unintentional" </sarc>
 
1) Colin Powell complied with the law by archiving his private emails and dutifully turning them over for government vetting. By contrast, Hillary used a private email account linked to a personal server she had installed in her Chappaqua, NY home; she did NOT archive them and she did NOT turn them over: they had to be forensically culled from her private server by the FBI. That's obviously quite different from the practice of Colin Powell and Ivanka Trump.
 
"Secretary Clinton is the only secretary from the e-mail age to not actually turn over all her e-mail."
 
2) Ivanka Trump used an ordinary private email account to send out invitations, etc. Like Powell, she turned over everything:
 
"Mirijanian [a spokesman for Ivanka's attorney, Abbe Lowell] said Ivanka Trump turned over all her government-related emails months ago so they could be stored permanently with other White House records . . . And he stressed that her email use was different from that of Clinton, who had a private email server in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home. At one point, an archive of thousands of Clinton’s emails was deleted by a computer specialist amid a congressional investigation.
 
'Ms. Trump did not create a private server in her house or office, no classified information was ever included, the account was never transferred at Trump Organization, and no emails were ever deleted,' Mirijanian said.
 
Like Trump, Clinton also said she was unaware of or misunderstood the rules. However, Clinton relied solely on a private email system as secretary of state, bypassing government servers entirely."
 
https://www.quora.com/Did-Colin-Powell-and-Condaleezza-Rice-have-their-own-private-email-servers
 
"The Inspector General Report on the use of private email by the Secretary of State covered all the modern holders of the office. Secretary Clinton is the only one to have had a private email server . . . [as well as] the only secretary from the e-mail age to not actually turn over all her e-mail."
 
* * * 
 
I see why you omitted relevant facts and mitigating circumstances regarding the differences between Hillary and everyone else: it's because according to you, Hillary can quote the Bible. So that's supposed to excuse her malfeasance.
A. Jones Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:39pm
Given the amount of free coverage Trump got from the media during his campaign I don’t think anyone has a leg to stand on regarding favoritism to Hillary
 
Except  that 95% of the "free coverage from the media" given to Trump was negative, while 99% of the coverage proffered to Hillary was positive. Big difference.
ChetDude Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:40pm
And isn't it ironic that Hillary and the DLC/DNC did all they could to get their friends in the corporate media (who were after the almighty dollar) to build up Trump the bad joke into a candidate who whipped his wimpy republican "opposition".  
 
And then because neither of them stood for anything and she didn't realize that it was a Reality-TV "election" that had nothing to do with reality or even "politics", her hubris allowed her to blow the election...
ChetDude Added Jan 1, 2019 - 7:46pm
The CORPORATE media built up Trump for Ad $$$$.
 
The CORPORATE media gave him billions of dollars of free media for Ad $$$$ and they figured that it wouldn't do any harm since their preferred candidate Hillary the neoliberal war monger was a shoe-in.
 
Ooops.
 
 
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2019 - 8:41pm
Cliff M >> Gary Johnson was probably the most fiscally responsible candidate of all running for president.
 
I have little doubt of that.  I also have little doubt that was a very low bar to clear.
 
BUT, every time I looked into what Johnson had to say... all he concentrated on was the drug issue.  He seemed to have latched on to it when it should have been secondary (to fiscal responsibility) in his campaign.  I reasoned if the libertarian can't even make fiscal responsibility THE key issue of his campaign... %$#@ him.  I might have been a bit pissed at the time...
 
Look, while I'm not libertarian, I have great respect (envy even) for their understanding and positions on fiscal issues.  They get it when nobody else does (GOP or Democrat).
 
But, I'm no libertarian because of foreign policy (isolationism) and social issues.
 
Cliff M >> Gary Johnson is a good example of many moderate Americans today. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
 
Absolutely, but I'm not a moderate; so, he missed out on my vote.  I was so desperate to find someone to vote far, he had a chance had he emphasized the fiscally conservative message.  He chose to emphasize the socially liberal message, so I passed.
 
I have no hard feelings for the man (or moderates for that matter); but I'm a conservative, fiscally and socially.
 
Cliff M >> To me being pro Marijuana is actually more conservative than supporting alcohol which is legal and far more dangerous and destructive.
 
I've heard all the arguments before, and I'm just not with you on legalization.  But yes, you are right concerning the ill alcohol does to society.  I'm just not ready to add another such substance to that list.
 
I do admit to having this logical little libertarian demon inside me who brings forth all those arguments in my mind.  He says, let's legalize it... but before you do that I have a few libertarian prerequisites.
 
1) No government assistance of any kind for those who choose to partake. (Enforced with drug tests).  Forgive me, but I (the taxpayer) am already supporting more dope-heads (on mostly the hard stuff) than I care to.  So, let's nip that little problem in the bud before we go any further, please.
 
2) We’ll need new law and policies to quickly take away neglected children from those who partake too that point.  And there will be a lot of them.
 
Because, as a society, we are not equipped to handle the demons we are prepared to unleash in the name of freedom.
 
A. Jones Added Jan 1, 2019 - 9:26pm
1) No government assistance of any kind for those who choose to partake. (Enforced with drug tests).  Forgive me, but I (the taxpayer) am already supporting more dope-heads (on mostly the hard stuff) than I care to.  So, let's nip that little problem in the bud before we go any further, please.
 
Same should apply to alcohol abusers.
 
2) We’ll need new law and policies to quickly take away neglected children from those who partake too that point.  And there will be a lot of them.
 
You just said there should be no laws assisting abusers. Now you want laws that in fact assist them by providing room and board to their "neglected" children at taxpayer expense. And now we can all waste lots of time and taxpayer dollars debating over the hyper-fine definition of "neglected."
A. Jones Added Jan 1, 2019 - 9:28pm
as a society, we are not equipped to handle the demons we are prepared to unleash in the name of freedom.
 
Then you should be prepared to back another constitutional prohibition on alcohol, and you might as well support one banning tobacco products.
 
And then when the inevitable black markets for these products appear, you can back even more laws for even more law enforcement to "keep tobacco products away from our kids!"
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 9:36pm
Two comments deleted
A. Jones. You don’t get to call anyone here a fuckwit, even if it’s me. 
 
Jeff Mishka
No “TraitorLynn” here. Your entire comment was a personal attack. I will not allow those here. If you have a view of the issues presented, comment on them. 
The Owl Added Jan 1, 2019 - 9:53pm
I'm late to this thread, but I want to take up a point that Opher was making about Europeans having no clue as to why Trump was elected...
 
Aside from the point that Americans see no necessity to consider the European view in our domestic politics, I would think that Europeans would...and should...be more concerned about the forces at work in the member states of the European Union than they are with what is going on in the USA.
 
I would remind Opher that the success of the European Union has come at a fair amount of expense to the United States and the people who have sustained the unparalleled prosperity that the United States represents.  First, of course, came the two World Wars where American arms and troops helped in significant ways to relieve Europe from the wars that they blundered themselves into.  During the Cold War, it was American military might...and the dollars that flowed to Europe from the Marshall Plan and US forces stationed on the continent...that allowed European Union and its member state the time and financing to become functioning states and an economic powerhouse.  
 
Today, even the US nuclear umbrella protects Europe from a hungry bear.
 
And what did the United States get in return besides an ally willing to sit comfortably under the penumbra?  Exclusionary tariffs, bureaucracy surpassing legends of the French, minuscule participation in their own defense, backbiting, and obstinance.
 
Frankly Opher, I could give a damn about what Europe thinks about our domestic politics.  It is ours, and ours alone.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:13pm
TexasLynn,
I don’t have the authority to dismiss you. I presented my own opinions on those issues and I presume you present yours. I am not the arbiter of anything other than what is rude or off-topic enough to delete and trust me, you’re in no danger of that. 
 
I apologize for coming off as dismissive in one case: pulling religious rank when it comes to facing prohibitions on worship. If nothing else, that was obnoxious. However, though my presentation could have been more polite, I would like to pursue the point. As a liberal, I am a strong believer in separation of church and state, but that doesn’t equate to being a believer in elimination of church. If I look at gay marriage, for example, my objection to opposing its legality is precisely that it allows church too much control of state. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I would define commerce as more the purview of state than of church. However, separation is a two-way street. To use an example: I would be adamantly opposed to obligating clergy to perform gay weddings. Having a civil right to the ability to have a wedding does not equate to having a civil right to the ability to have a Catholic wedding. That would be state interfering with church. 
 
What signs do you see that your ability to worship or practice your religion is being threatened? It is true that as a Jew I am sensitive to that and I haven’t seen it. I would be sensitive to it happening to you out of self-interest among other reasons because if it happens to you it will eventually happen to me. Such things have to be fought at the point of principle, not at the identity of the victims. Everyone is entitled to the same protections. Any church that is opposed to most of what I stand for is entitled to my advocacy on that point. A right is a right. 
 
To look at baking, given that I am not thoroughly familiar with all the cases involved: I would not favor forcing a baker to bake in pornographic shapes. If asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I’d say bake the cake, sell the customer the two plastic grooms to put on the top, but don’t place them. The cake and the figurines are sales, not endorsements. I might even refuse to write certain things in icing. From a civil vs. religious standpoint I’d say that the business is obligated to provide the customer with whatever the business would provide to any other customer because to refuse to do so is to practice discrimination, but to refuse to execute certain actions can be company policy, and religion-based policy in a privately held company is legitimate. For example, I have no right to obligate a company to be open on Sunday, whether or not the rationale is respecting the Christian sabbath. 
 
As to gender fluidity, I clearly have no right to overrule religious objections, even though I’m not quite sure what they’d be because I know of no religious law that directly addresses the question. Not that there couldn’t be; I’m pretty sure I could map a path there. 
ChetDude Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:19pm
Mr Owl: Very clever attempt (well, not really) at revisionist history.
 
You didn't mention 4% of the human population stealing 25% of the Planet's resources (for the primary benefit of point 1 of 1% of its population) with that bloated war machine and the threat of that "nuclear umbrella"...
ChetDude Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:26pm
The Marshall plan that created a massive market for USAmerica's industrial capacity after most of the rest of the Planet had finished committing suicide by war machine (1914-1945) and had cratered itself cost less than 10% of the ANNUAL cost of USAmerica's current bloated war machine.  Or put another way after Russia did most of the heavy lifting to defeat Germany (20 million dead), USAmerica scooped in and picked up the pieces for pennies.  Put another way, for just over 1% of the cost of the "war on terror", USAmerica created huge markets for its goods and allies to buffer itself and use as an excuse to loot the planet...
 
It would be nice if we took 10% of today's bloated war budgets (or if it were up to me at least 80%) for Restorative Justice today...
 
Alas, we're not the same New Deal country any more...
Koshersalaami Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:32pm
Owl,
You introduce some of my very few agreements with President Trump. I agree with him that the United States picks up too many international tabs, particularly when it comes to roles in alliances. There is no reason for prosperous Western European countries not to pull their own weight. I understand they’ve moved strongly in that direction. I also agree with him about protectionism, about which too many American leaders have been way too squeamish. The main factor that stopped American Middle Class income growth was 1970’s economic competition with Japan where they hit us with de facto protectionism (by government simply refusing to import certain products) while we hit them with none. If a Japanese speculative bubble hadn’t eventually burst, we were on our way to turning into a Japanese economic colony, which they were doing to us systematically. We now have an obscene trade imbalance with China and, given that we buy so much more from them than they buy from us, if both of us slow down our buying it is they who are going to be more hurt. If the roles were reversed there would be zero doubt as to their protectionism - it wouldn’t even be open to discussion. 
 
About Europe I will add that while Europe is horrified about Trump, many of us are horrified by the growing nativist movements in Europe, even though I certainly understand what has led to their rise. 
 
TexasLynn,
I have a question for you, being as we’re talking about religious objections to aspects of certain populations. Let’s use gay marriage as an example. I understand fully that you have religious objections to gay marriage and, for the most part, I understand why. I also understand that there is a serious difference between religious objection and bigotry as religious objection, at least if practiced honestly, is based on obedience. I am familiar enough with Jewish Orthodoxy to have a very clear idea how that works. 
 
My question is how you feel about separation between church and state in this instance and why. 
ChetDude Added Jan 1, 2019 - 10:33pm
Trump won because of Brawndo...
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2019 - 11:07pm
Kosher S >> What signs do you see that your ability to worship or practice your religion is being threatened?
 
First let me state that you seem to think there will be some crucial moment when action will be needed to avert the threat.  Such a moment has never been the case in the protection of liberty.  Liberty dies, liberty is taken piecemeal; and it's already well underway.  You've promised defense of it, but it's well past time for that cavalry to engage.
 
Directly to your question, nothing (not even death) threatens my ability to practice my religion.  What is threatened is my health, wealth, and liberty if I continue do not do things the state decide aren't protected (by my First Amendment religious rights).
 
Persecution today does not take the form of stopping worship, it takes the form of punishment for not holding or at least acquiescing to secular views.  The movement specifically targets Christians (because of 1) our nature and 2) we won't blow your asses up).
 
This persecution seeks to force us to choose between two things.  If we stay true to our beliefs, our businesses will be bankrupted by leftists and state agencies (That is what is happening to Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop).  If we compromise out principles, we become an example to others to submit.
 
Christ says... don't submit; not even under threat of death... so for many of us, that settles it.
 
When Rome wanted to destroy the Christian faith, one way they did it was to try and make it impossible for a Christian to work and provide for his family.  You couldn't buy or sell or own a business if you were a faithful Christian.  You had to pay homage to an image of Caesar in order to get licenses.  You had to belong to a guild to work in this or that profession and every guild had a patron Roman god you had to worship.
 
There is nothing new under the sun.  THAT is now the strategy of the left and many government entities.  Colorado through it's "Civil Rights Commission" is one such entity with the help of dirt-bags like Charlie Craig and David Mullins (who asked for service with the sole intent of suing all along).
 
So, you want a sign?  This case that I've referenced repeatedly is the perfect example.  Either you learn the details and see the signs, or you don't.  I'm not going to presume to provide you links; you are more than capable of getting the facts for yourself.  I would of course recommend not limiting yourself to the mainstream media or sources biased one way or another.
 
A few keywords might be: Colorado, baker, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Charlie Craig, David Mullins, Jack Phillips
 
Kosher S >> As to gender fluidity...
 
The same tactics are being used with transgender and other issues.  Either comply or don't work.  We'll eventually see civil fines and worse for not pretending the emperor has clothes.
 
Don't support abortion?  You really shouldn’t be a doctor or nurse or work in health-care...
 
Climate change denier?  Nothing a little jail time or re-education won’t fix. 
 
Yes... I know it sounds far-fetched, BUT all the above has been seriously suggested and that is where it all starts.
 
There's a word for the direction and tactics this vocal and active minority drive us down.
 
(I will get to your separate question directed to me on gay marriage.)
TexasLynn Added Jan 1, 2019 - 11:26pm
Kosher S >> My question is how you feel about separation between church and state in this instance (gay marriage) and why.
 
First, I approach such question from the perspective of original intent.  We are always free to blaze our own path, but if we decide to do that, it should be done within the framework of the law (the Constitution).
 
That said, the original intent of the "separation of church and state" was to prevent the creation of a state sanctioned church... like the Church of England.  That's it.  All this other stuff was invented my various factions who didn't want to bother with the law or Constitution to achieve their goals.
 
As for marriage (any kind of marriage) the state should have stayed out of it.  The state could have accomplished what it wants through contract law.  Of course, there are many complications when you get into government benefits tied to marriage (but that's a whole other state created mess).
 
A lot of this probably could have been avoided with semantics (civil unions); but understand that was never the goal of most of the LBGT community.  Equality by another name be damned.  A large part of this was the desire to poke the religious peoples in the eye.
 
Now?  Pandora’s box has been opened, there is no getting the evils release back in there.
 
I hope I addressed your question.
Flying Junior Added Jan 2, 2019 - 2:14am
While I do admire this effort to build bridges, I can't claim to really be on board.  I know the popular idea is that old attitudes and ideas from liberals which completely shut out uneducated whites will be the death knoll of the democratic party.  But I don't agree.  For one thing, I see the entire nation recoiling in horror at Trump and there is no love for him anywhere outside of the dwindling republican party.  This is the first time in the short history of our republic when young people have truly been poised to take over the reigns of power.  And believe me, the young do not adore Trump by any means.  Democrats will regain power despite the extensive gerrymandering that the republicans have perpetrated across the South.  It is more important than ever not to give one inch of ground.  There is more going on than confused, narrow-minded people being pandered to by a rabble rouser.  I should think that your top comment would have been a grave reminder of just how lost the republican party really is today.  I was glad that you included this paragraph.
 
We’re very wrapped up in telling Trump’s supporters that the reason they fear all these people is that they’re bigoted and that they listen to fear mongers. Quite possibly true (well, in the case of fear mongers, definitely true), but the best way to talk to fearful people is not to simply tell them their fears are immoral.
 
I was looking for something like that.  Because the FOX News propaganda machine, talk radio and the magic of the internets makes possible a constant diet of biased and fabricated false news, exaggerations and lies.  The fears you speak of are fanned with bellows every morning when that TV clicks on the FOX News for the five thousandth time in a row.
 
I was also glad that you mentioned Black Lives Matter.  But you did not explore the issue very deeply.  Perhaps you are not aware that these Trump supporters view BLM as a terrorristic organization.  They also believe that there is constant political violence coming from the left.  They believe whatever they are told.
 
I see Trump as gone by Christmas of 2020.
opher goodwin Added Jan 2, 2019 - 5:31am
Kosher - as I perceive it the working class in both the UK and USA has been left behind. They used to be respected as the salt of the earth. They had hard, messy, dirty, dangerous jobs that were well paid and respected - mining, oil, ship building, car construction, steel, power work, factory work, dockers, truck driving. Those jobs are going. Globalisation has taken many of these jobs abroad. Mechanisation has reduced the need for a workforce. AI will take the rest of those jobs. New technology, such as alternative energy, has superseded the old dirty technology. We no longer need all these miners, dockers, factory workers. They have been moved into low-paid, mundane work - stacking shelves in supermarkets, delivering parcels. It is work that is low paid and lacks respect.
Their way of life has gone. They no longer have the pay. They no longer have the respect. Their communities are crumbling. They do not have the skills to retrain into Hi-Tec work. they feel neglected, let down and abandoned.
They have been.
Politicians went for things that drove the economy. They focussed on the money. Unfortunately they forgot the people.
The money has all poured up to the wealthy investors and away from ordinary people.
They brought in cheap labour from abroad to do the low-pay, boring work to maximise profits.
They did not put in place any meaningful work for our own displaced workers that would command respect from the rest of the community. They overlooked the pride and sense of community in the workforce that was no longer required. They effectively dumped the working class.
What the result of this revolution in AI/Globalisation/mechanisation has been is a large number of angry, frustrated and embittered workers who have lost their self-respect, lost their purpose in life and feel unwanted and let down.
The perception is that the country has gone to the dogs, it was much better in the past, the lousy politicians have sold them down the river. 
They are angry with the influx of immigrants who have undercut them and keep pay levels down.
They are angry that their jobs have gone.
They are angry that factories have gone abroad where workers' pay is lower and health and safety and environment rules are less stringent.
They are angry at the new technologies that are replacing the old.
They are angry about mechanisation and AI that is taking away their jobs.
They are angry about being unemployed, having no money, having to do menial tasks and their loss of respect.
They are angry at the immoral politicians who have lined their own pockets and ignored what is happening to them.
Then Brexit and Trump come along.
Brexit was an opportunity for them to vent their spleen and shout out about the immigrants, the lousy politicians and the EU who have overseen the system.
Trump comes along and promised to keep the old industries going, denied there is any global warming necessitating a move to alternative energy, and offered a war against immigration.
Out of frustration, anger and impotence they turned to populist politicians, with their simplistic answers, who offered a shred of hope.
Brexit offers a return to a past that didn't exist. Somehow we could stop all immigration, get rid of the millions of immigrants who have taken our jobs, make Britain great again, get the country working for the working class again and everything would be alright. The blame for what has gone wrong could be placed on the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels.
Trump offered to keep coal, oil, steel and gas going. Ignore pollution and global warming. He told them it was all lies. He promised to build walls to stop immigrants flooding in and taking jobs and to drain the swamp of corruption. He'd put America first and make it great again. We'd go back to the good old days where the working class were paid well and respected.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Global warming is real.
Pollution is real.
We do not need the old polluting technology. The world is changing over to new clean technology.
AI is going to take away all those jobs.
It is ironical to think that Brexit and Trump will actually accelerate the decline of the working classes. Following a brief resurgence there will be an acceleration in their decline.
Global warming and climate change will exacerbate the mass migration. The more pollutants pumped out the faster the process.
The tax cuts brought in by Trump went straight to the top end. The inequality grows. They will take that money out of the system - usually abroad where they can invest at higher rates.
The swamp is far from being drained. Trump is merely adding his own swamp to the existing one. The swamp is getting bigger.
The corporate elite still control the world, have no restrictions, and are exploiting workers and stuffing their loot in tax h
Cliff M. Added Jan 2, 2019 - 7:28am
TexasLynn,  Johnson did not make Marijuana the key issue. It was highlighted by the MEDIA who were not on his side.With first hand experience on the alcohol/marijuana debate I have seen the disasterous effects that alcohol can have on people and those around them. The problems created by marijuana are minimal compared to alcohol. With all of these extremely dangerous legal drugs like alcohol and pharma opiates doing massive damage and taking thousands of lives marijuana could be a much better alternative and has been a victim of the politics run by corporate America for a long time. I am from New Jersey where they are getting ready to legalize weed. Believe it or not the biggest debate and roadblock has been how to tax it. Every week now I am seeing stories about Police being arrested for DWI.
George N Romey Added Jan 2, 2019 - 8:03am
Of course the MSM gave Trump massive amounts of exposure.  After all the MSM news is now the entertainment news.  In the end HRC because of her arrogance and elitism could not and did not want to understand the economic pain that many in this country are feeling.  
 
At some point its useless debating this issue.  The Democrats will never, ever take responsibility that it was THEIR LOSS, and their loss alone.  Not the Russians. Not the media.  Not the FBI/Comey. Not the bots.  Their's, and their's alone.
 
As far as Johnson.  While I like some of what Johnson said he and his followers are pie in the sky. This idea that if you leave everyone up to their own devices everything works out perfectly.  The human race doesn't work that way.  We as a species have very evil streaks.  Some one has to do some moderation as very imperfect as that process will be.
 
Much of this is that as a society we've become so complex that running a large country like the US or land mass like Europe just invites self serving politicians attracted to the upper echelons of the world.  
opher goodwin Added Jan 2, 2019 - 8:10am
George - while the Democrats have to take responsibility it was a narrow result with many complex factors. Surely all those other factors played their part?
George N Romey Added Jan 2, 2019 - 8:20am
No Opher. The election for President for several decades has come down to winning a handful of "swing states."  That system may or may not suck depending upon your view but its the system we use to elect our President.  Trump went to those states repeatedly doing rally after rally.  HRC for the most part ignored those states and the needs of those people.  Plain and simple.  There are no complex factors.  It is nothing more than a case of one candidate worked harder where he needed to work than the other candidate.  
Steel Breeze Added Jan 2, 2019 - 8:21am
the more left/right debate i watch,the firmer an independent i become....
as for President Trump,didnt vote for him,never liked the man,still dont,but so far am impressed with the results,and results are what matters to me....of course,not having an idiot box to stare at makes an honest evaluation easier.....
opher goodwin Added Jan 2, 2019 - 9:10am
George - so what were the margins in those swing States? Did the targeted social media and media not play a part?
TexasLynn Added Jan 2, 2019 - 9:11am
Cliff M >> Johnson did not make Marijuana the key issue. It was highlighted by the MEDIA who were not on his side.
 
I do not disagree with you.  The MSM (Main Stream Media) is horrible and does not have our best interest at heart.
 
But, I will simply tell you this.  I watched two interviews with Johnson and the interviewers (as you say) concentrated on the drugs angle of his campaign.  All Johnson had to do was say "Yes, I'm for legalization, but I want to talk about something really important.  I want to talk about reducing the size and scope of government and balancing the budget."  He never did that.  He went right along with the direction he was led... so I wrote him off.
 
Fair, not fair?  I'm simply explaining that I gave the guy a chance, didn't see what I liked and moved on.  Johnson and/or the libertarians can use that information to do better in the future or just get pissed at me.
 
Cliff M >> With first hand experience on the alcohol/marijuana debate I have seen the disasterous effects that alcohol can have on people and those around them.
 
Again, I do not disagree with you on the disastrous effects of alcohol.  I don't necessarily disagree with you that marijuana isn't as bad.
 
And again, I'm just telling you that I don't support adding another legal intoxicant into the system that I think will make things worse; not necessarily by a lot, but worse.
 
And if you want to move me in the direction of legalization, consider my prerequisites.  Or ignore, them... the way things are going you probably don't need my support anyway.
 
Cliff M >> With all of these extremely dangerous legal drugs like alcohol and pharma opiates
 
I consider each a separate issue (that does need to be addressed) from the marijuana legalization issue.  Both (alcohol and opioid abuse) generally have to do with a lack of responsibility and consequences being at the core of the problem (be that from a regular Joe or even a police officer).
 
I don't see marijuana as an alternative to either.  I would suspect it would be just one more intoxicant to choose from.  Now if you have something that backs up the theory that legal marijuana reduces the use of alcohol and/or opioids (legal or otherwise), I have an open mind.  Educate me.  Show me.  Else, please excuse my skeptical nature… it’s served me so well in the past.
 
I'm really not trying to argue with you.  I'm trying to find common ground and let you know my concerns and what it would take to get me to change my mind.
George N Romey Added Jan 2, 2019 - 9:46am
Yeah Opher the media gave Trump coverage.  And Clinton?  She had a campaign of a dead fish.  She was horrible.  Your side (and I'm not on either side) conducted a horrific campaign and in the United States, for better or worst the candidate that puts up the best candidate wins.  Trump won fair and square.  End of story, period.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 2, 2019 - 10:25am
Flying Junior,
I don’t think that failing to address Trump supporters will be the death of the Democratic Party, I just think it’s bad strategy. Not everyone is a diehard. 
 
Opher,
I get the economics but what this post is about is that a lot of what attracted Trump voters wasn’t the economics. I live in an area that supports Trump (in a state that doesn’t). One guy I know who supports him owns a store. He’s not hurting, that’s not why. 
 
George and Opher,
To say that the election swung on one factor is BS. One straw doesn’t break the camel’s back. The election could have gone the other way without Russian interference, Comey’s announcement the week before the election, etc.  However, George is right in one very significant respect, probably the most significant respect: Trump didn’t get more votes than Romney did in 2012 but Hillary got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. The difference was ultimately not how well Trump did but how badly Hillary did. 
 
I don’t want to do post mortems to death (that almost sounds redundant but not quite) but a lot of the election turned on the fact that the DNC was broke, the Clinton campaign bailed them out, and that obviously meant they were going to favor Hillary. Though I think Hillary was the most capable candidate in the field in terms of her ability to handle the complexities of the job - whatever people accused her of, incompetence was not likely to be among the accusations - there was never sufficient evidence that doing what was necessary about income distribution was a high priority for her like it was for Sanders, and at the moment that’s America’s most significant problem.
opher goodwin Added Jan 2, 2019 - 10:56am
George - I'm in the UK - I've got no pig in this race! I watched the campaign from here and, like most Europeans, was disgusted by Trump, his belligerence and crass pandering. We complacently thought that nobody that bad stood a chance. How wrong we were. It should have been Bernie who stood against him.
I still do not think it comes down to a simplistic reason. There are a combination of factors. It was obvious to me that Comey, coming out with his statement that the FBI were investigating Clinton for criminal acts, put a stop to her progress and momentum and won Trump the Presidency.
opher goodwin Added Jan 2, 2019 - 11:01am
Kosher - it wasn't economics; it was the anger at having been abandoned that got the working class supporting Trump. He stoked up the fear of immigration and told them he was on their side. He'd keep their jobs, he denied global warming, told them he'd build a wall and clean up the corruption. He told them he'd make America great again and put them first. It wasn't economics. He worked on their fears, stoked up their hate and pandered to their desires. The standard populist crap.
John Minehan Added Jan 2, 2019 - 12:58pm
"Disagreeing with conventional wisdom is one thing. Gutting the State Department is another. If you’re trying to get a country to do something and a particular aspect of their culture could lead to the most logical way to proceed or to avoid proceeding, the President should know that about their culture so he can make an informed decision. He needs expertise to bring that information to the table. To get rid of it is irresponsible. This is not a partisan observation. The same is true with EPA. Even if you disagree with conclusions, you can’t make an informed decision by making sure you’re uninformed."
 
I spent one month of my one year tour in OEF as a liaison officer from a Joint Task Force to a certain US Embassy in Africa.
 
State does many things well (from talking to other military officers who have worked with State extensively, particularly in Europe).
 
However, there is also a sort of a "Pukka Sahib" attitude that seemed apparent as well as a somewhat parochial attitude that almost made them concerned exclusively with host nation concerns  rather than US concerns in the context of the region.  (As a health care lawyer, it made me think of co-dependency issues in mental hygiene,)
 
I think part of the reason they brought in Rex Tillotson was to address these issues, but that was obviously ineffective.
 
As I am not a Trump guy, neither am I a Bush 43 guy, but he seemed to make an attempt in the second term to hire more former-military and former-international business people at state to address these issues. 
The Owl Added Jan 2, 2019 - 1:40pm
"I watched the campaign from here and, like most Europeans, was disgusted by Trump, his belligerence and crass pandering. We complacently thought that nobody that bad stood a chance.... Opher...
Emphasis added.
 
Are you suggesting that had you not been complacent that you would have tried to interfere with the elections in the United States?
 
How noble of you, sir.  And how totally irresponsible and offensive, too.
 
I agree with the sentiment here in Koser's essay.  It is one of the first truly honest assessments that I have seen coming from anyone on the left.  The left and the Clinton campaign missed the mood of the lower and middle classes and the disgust that many moderated democrats and independents had with our federal government.  None the least of the disgust came on the core issues of immigration, healthcare, taxes, and regulation where the gridlock of the "post-partisan" presidency of Barack Obama made it apparent that the feds weren't willing to address the very real problems.  And, of course, the stagnant economy played a part.
 
When people feel cut away from the actions of the allegedly "representative governments", they react, and they react sometimes in ways that are neither predictable or superficially in the best interests of The People.
 
The United States, fortunately, is a stable democracy where taking to arms has yet to be the first choice...note that there was more than a decade of political compromise before our Civil War began.
 
Trump has been rather successful in delivering on his promises...and even on the ones where he has not been so, it is not on account that he hasn't tried.
 
I agree with Kosher that as long as the liberals ignore what their constituents have to say, they will have problems garnering the consensus to govern.
 
And the same goes for the conservatives should they lose sight of what The People really want.
 
 
 
 
The Owl Added Jan 2, 2019 - 1:43pm
John M...
 
How ironic that "deep" State needed a shake-up.
 
How unfortunate that the shaking didn't do the job.
Spartacus Added Jan 2, 2019 - 2:41pm
Kosh, I liked this article as, at least, it made a good attempt to grant authenticity to other's beliefs.  There are at least a dozen reasons why people voted for Trump.  It is a complex situation.  This complexity is what is more confounding to people who cater to their own cognitive ease by requiring things to be boiled down to one or two simple elements.
 
Bill H's comment typifies the problem with the left and represents one of the biggest reasons people voted with Trump and why society has shifted away from Cultural Determinism (progressivism/liberalism):
 
Many who voted for Trump also did so out of fear. I find many whites have a deep-down fear of the quickly changing state of demographics and see themselves as becoming a minority. 
 
He interjects racism where racism is not appropriate.  He does this as his religion tells him to do this.  His comment is viewed, by conservatives, as racist -- even though he claims to not be.  This bipolar moral hypocrisy scares the bejeezus out of us.  I understand why he does this as he needs this mystery to boil down the situation into simple terms which he can then understand and fits with the mantra that he prescribes.  That kind of mental simplification he employes, while necessary for him, is viewed by most moderates as a loaded gun pointed at a single, very subjective, skin reference.  We see his "religion" as dangerous and a dead-end road for a diverse society that does need to get along to go along.
Bill H is not alone.  We heard the same racist messaging for at least 20 years from MSM and cultural all-stars.  We believe it is destroying us.  Feminism is also viewed the same way -- I mean, it is self-describing its own sexism.  If it were about equality it would label itself as "humanism".
 
There are other reasons to vote for Trump.  Second reason on my list would be economical -- the last two years has proven correct my choice.
ChetDude Added Jan 2, 2019 - 5:08pm
To completely understand the symptom of Trump in the WH, one must being by understanding the massive, successful counter-revolution of the Plutocrat Class begun following the framework described in the Powell Memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of 1971 and implemented using a few billion dollars of right-wing/corporate money -- which of course is being returned to those investors ten thousand-fold since.
 
The framework was designed to build a propaganda machine to destroy the New Deal "We're all in this together" Communitarian narrative in favor of divide and conquer "individualism" (I've got Mine, Jack!).  This was done in order end the distribution of crumbs of economic benefits downward forced by elements of the New Deal and return complete control of political and socioeconomic systems to those who Own the Country.
 
The division of the minority of the electorate who bother participating in our sham "elections" into two partisan camps at each other's throats is one of the great successes of that counter-revolution.  Large parts of the design are meant to keep We the People at each other's throats over faux-issues, personal opinions, religion and personal characteristics in order to keep us from looking up at the point 1 of 1% who are stealing from us all.
 
The 2016 "pResidential election" accidentally turned into a three way race to "choose" the next mouthpiece, spokesmodel, apologist and bloviator for the USAmerican Commercial Empire. 
 
There were the two creatures of the status-quo involved, the compliant willing tool that was Hillary Clinton and the fake-populist, bigoted Plutocrat Donald Trump.  Both are firmly neoliberal capitalists and both believe in using a bloated war machine as resources thieves, Gangsters for Capitalism. Their "differences" are in their "styles".  Hillary the smoother establishment figure who pisses off 23% of the electorate and the crass, disgusting Trump who pisses off 23% of the electorate.
 
However, there was another unexpected element involved, a REAL honest Populist who started with nothing and nearly upset the nomination of the compliant tool.  This was frightening to the Owner Class.  Ah, but thanks to the even more undemocratic systems involved in the Democratic(sic) primaries, The DNC/DLC/Hillaryites and her supporters including her friends in the corporate media were able to put their thumb on the scales to keep the Real Populist from getting the nomination. 
 
At the same time the media (also with some DNC encouragement) built Trump into a faux "anti-status quo" figure and the nominee of the republican brand.
 
So, after 36 years of bipartisan crimes that has resulted in Working Class disappointment and frustration at being exploited and in a definite Change Year there was a "contest" between the obvious creature of the status quo who ran a sh*t campaign that ignored "safe states" - the only 5 ('swing states' - yuck) that counted - and a faux-Populist, pretend opponent of the status-quo. 
 
He barely squeaked in thanks to the Hillary/Corporate media miscalculation that publicizing Trump's disgusting reality would save "Her" candidacy and the profoundly undemocratic nature of USAmerican pResidential elections in which a candidate can get fewer of votes and still win! 
 
gwbush (which brought the world GWOT) then Trump...minority pResidents.
 
Although, 'Neither of the Above' got twice as many votes as either of the two miserable "candidates" of the Duopoly...so we're not ALL crazy...
 
Of course, USAmerica isn't the only country perverted by Dominator Hiercharies and the neoliberal vulture capitalism they utilize to f*ck over the masses.  In just the last few years Ukraine, the Philippines, Argentina and recently Brazil have suffered from the raging boil that is their own versions of Trump.  And even France, Scandanavia and Austria are having to deal with 'em.  Their Big Faux-Populist Liars from the "right wing".
 
In reality, we're experiencing end-stage capitalism now that we're at the end of age of cheap fossil-fuels.
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 2, 2019 - 5:44pm
Chetdude:
5% consuming 25% of the world's resources better keep going on for if we cut back economies around the world will get hurt. The world has just begun to consume resources to meet an ever-growing standard of living. 
Owl:
The only reason NATO was created was to deal with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. When the Soviet Empire collapsed the role of NATO ended. It is not supposed to take on wars in the Middle East.
ChetDude Added Jan 2, 2019 - 5:53pm
Michael B Bagala: 
Earth Overshoot Day was on August 1st in 2018, 3 days earlier than the year before.  We've consumed the muscle of the Planet for the last 5 months of last year.
 
Pissing away 140% of your available resources and polluting your only home planet at a rate 140% greater than it can recover and replenish to "meet an ever growing standard of living" is a great way to achieve species suicide.
 
Good luck with that, folks...
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 2, 2019 - 6:11pm
Ched:
We have plenty of resources. What you are addressing is the mismanagement of it. Just in food and water, we waste far too much. That is not a better standard of living, that is a reflection of extremely bad management of resources. 
You are right on the fact that Americans 'waste' a lot. As I said that is not the same as consumption. In fact, due to our high tech society, we need to consume far more than the 100 Quadrillion watts of electricity per year. That amount is not sufficient to maintain an uninterrupted flow of electricity to meet the new tech of electronic money transfers to an electronic internet system including internet shopping which is just beginning to take off.
China currently consumes 115 Quadrillion watts per year for 1.3 billion. She has a ways to go before she meets our consumption per capita or achieves that technological step up to run an economy purely based on electronics. 
When we start factoring in Artificial Intelligence, robotics, Internet to electronic transactions we need way more than 100 quadrillion watts and we need to manage waste.
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 2, 2019 - 6:13pm
We have not built a nuclear power station since 3-mile island.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 2, 2019 - 8:27pm
Two observations about NATO:
 
The first is that NATO continued to treat Russia like the Soviet Union after the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia was no longer exporting a revolution. That was the time to integrate Russia. Instead, we exploited and attempted to encircle Russia. The justifiable backlash was Putin coming to power. We caused him. 
 
The second is that NATO should have gotten way more involved in the Middle East. I normally do not advocate increased military involvement, but both Europe and the Syrian population would have been way better off if NATO had committed enough forces to make Syria safe and peaceful instead of triggering an enormous influx of Arab refugees into Europe, where they are not integrating well (in part because most of Europe is lousy at integrating immigrants) and where the backlash is turning Europe nativist. Europe can’t integrate immigrants like American countries can because their national identities are largely ethnic whereas that’s not true in the Americas. It’s way easier to become a French citizen than to become French. It’s just as easy to become an American within a generation or so as to become an American citizen. 
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 2, 2019 - 8:57pm
The Owl:
"The United States, fortunately, is a stable democracy"
America is a flouring Plutocracy where the elite run this nation and the ballot box is nothing more than a suggestion box. Major issues of America are determined by DC and the elite after the elections are over 
Everything from wars to taxes to healthcare to Global warming issues suddenly come up only after we have voted,. America stopped being a Democracy when:
"Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States. while the bottom 90% held 73.2% of all debt."
Koshersalaami
I  believe those who flooded Europe with ME refugees did that to ignite Islamaphobic reactions from a continent that did not share those feelings with America. They were successful but only to a degree.
I believe that the wars Israel has ignited in the Middle East encompass a region greater than the ME and includes America  and Europe. 
Israel is getting desperate because:
-the ME is growing in power,
-she is not achieving control,
-Americans want out and have to be persuaded to stay in these wars
and
-the intrusion of China and Russia into the ME and on the side of Iran are reasons for her to take extraordinary actions. 
that is why I believe she orchestrated 9/11 and she is behind flooding Europe with Europe hating Muslims who are causing an Islamaphobic backlash. 
 
Ryan Messano Added Jan 2, 2019 - 10:19pm
Kosher: Good morning, Ryan
I couldn’t find seven conservative websites I’d trust. Whatever you want to say about the mainstream media, they at least go through pains to corroborate their sources. 
 
Good evening, Kosher,
 
Well, what determines what you trust or not?  Is it if they go along with the liberal narratives the media and schools are full of?  If so, you'll never trust any conservative news sites.  And your statement about the mainstream media is risible, I'm sorry to say.  They lie by omitting the whole story, and they focus on the tiny bits that tell you a point of view THEY WANT YOU TO SEE AND ACT UPON.  What the media and schools do not do, is give you any historical or moral perspective, and to those of us who exert ourselves to obtain a moral and historical perspective, it's quite frightening how effective the liberal media is. 
  
To a certain extent you’ve missed the point of the post. The point of the post is that liberals aren’t doing a good enough job of listening to Trump supporters, being far more interested in dismissing them. I would think you’d agree with that. 
 
I do agree with that.  But, the underlying idea is that liberals understand what is right, and that is fundamentally flawed, I would argue, because they miss 5,000 years of human history.  
  
What Hillary did was relevant in 2016. It isn’t relevant to continued support in 2018.  Not that it matters. The problem with your response is that you’re doing the mirror image of what I accuse liberals of doing - you’re too anxious to make your points to figure out which points might actually work. You may be able to harass liberals but you’re not going to persuade any like that because no one thinks you’re actually listening.
Empathy is not necessary to understand truth. 
 
I could go back and document some of the things I’ve said about Trump but I use mainstream sources and your first tactic will be to dismiss them because they’re mainstream sources.
You are wise.  You are starting to learn.  The right has sources that look at things from the view of history and the Constitution.  The left has the media look at things from the perspective of the highly flawed popular ideas of the day.  At least you recognize I'd recognize your sources as flawed.  One day, we can only hope, you'll learn to discriminate between truth and propaganda. 
 
Sorry, Ryan, but there are things mainstream sources get right.
 
They do respect process. And even if they have as much of an ideological bent as you think they have, about which I don’t agree, there are times that axe murderers are right.
Quite rarely.  The liberal media is becoming a laughingstock. 
 
Hell, there are times that Trump is right. I really, really don’t think the Trump Presidency is good for the country, but I’m reasonably sure that I am more likely to defend Trump than you are to defend Hillary, and I don’t think that’s based on the merits of either. Have you ever defended Hillary on anything? Have you ever defended Obama on anything? 
 
No, I don't defend Hillary on ANYTHING.  She is about as corrupt as a person can be.  Her deleting 30,000 e-mails is beyond corrupt, WHEN SHE WAS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.  She lied about Benghazi, and her Clinton Foundation was selling favors to the rich and famous all over the world. That should disgust every single sane American.  Besides, when you research how evil abortion, Islam, and homosexuality are, you understand the Democrat party is thoroughly evil.  I sympathize with you though.  Ten years ago I didn't know much about politics, and I simply followed the newspapers, Google, and the lamestream media, and, resultantly, I was a massive admirer of Obama, who turned out to be the worst president in American history.   Every link I post, you can go to Google, which I never use ( I use duckduckgo), and find some disinformation. That is why Google has been responsible for subverting our national wisdom and virtue.  It's intentional.  The more disinformation and garbage you feed the average person, the more you s
Ryan Messano Added Jan 2, 2019 - 10:20pm
 ubvert a nation.  Once you understand the beauty of the Constitution and recognize the threat the Marxist Democrats are to it, you begin to be repulsed by all their candidates.   
  
I wasn’t blogging here at the time, but I have written a post defending Trump. He had a sort of town hall meeting with veterans and he was accused of being disrespectful of veterans with PTSD. (By the way, the fact that McCain attacked first does not justify attacking POW’s in general, which Trump certainly did. That’s something you should have caught.)  
That is good you defended Trump.  He is the truest friend Americans have.  Low taxes, low regulations, shrink the bloated government.  What can any sane American not like about getting the opportunity to take charge of their own lives again, and make as much money they want with their own efforts?  If the left cares so much about the poor, then they can take their fabulous wealth, and help the poor. But that's not what they care about.  Like Judas, they claim to care about the poor, but in reality, they only care about their own power and money. 
 
Joe Biden gave a very eloquent condemnation of what Trump did. Then I watched the video because I got curious and I concluded very quickly that the accusation was completely wrong - Trump was actually being more compassionate than I’ve seen him be before or since, so I immediately wrote a post saying the accusation was baseless. Incidentally, that night Trevor Noah on the Daily Show reached the same conclusion I had and defended Trump on the same grounds. 
 
The media has been 90% hostile to Trump.  They do this to nearly every conservative leader, and they always say the last conservative leader was decent, but this one is truly the worst ever.  Meanwhile, they ignore the dirt in liberals backyards.
 

  
The Constitution has nothing to do with liberal perceptions of Trump supporters. Coming at me with anything you can think of regardless of the strength or weakness of the case won’t work because most readers will say “That’s what Ryan does” instead of “Ryan has a point.” 

 
I'm afraid the Constitution has everything to do with liberal perceptions of Trump.  If liberals understood low taxes and low regulations, along with a small government was the aim of the Constitution, which due to decades of neglect of Civics education in schools, most Americans do not understand, liberals would overwhelmingly support Trump. Our media may as well be financed by China, because they train Americans to hate our leaders and our heritage. 
 

 
Put another way, and this is personal advice, you’d win more by fighting less. I don’t expect you to take my advice because, given my observations of blogging styles and tactics over several years, I think the fight matters to you more than the win would. There’s also the question of what a win entails. Persuading conservatives of what they already believe isn’t a win, just as an underlying message of my post is that liberals persuading other liberals of what we already believe isn’t a win either. 

 
Not everyone will listen.  Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.  However, facts don't care about people's feelings.  Nor should they be expected to. 
The Owl Added Jan 2, 2019 - 11:19pm
Which would you prefer to be known by, KS, Kosh or Sal?
 
And while your assessment of the struggle of the middle class in the mid-seventies has some merit, I would say that it had more to do with Lyndon Johnson's guns-and-butter policies than anything else. 
 
(I was just reaching the point in my career when I was moving from the middle class to the upper middle class when Carter took office, so I have some personal recollections of that period and the public concerns.)
Jim Stoner Added Jan 3, 2019 - 2:27am
Mogg wrote: 
he was the one candidate in the field that was not like all the rest and in fact, was better than the rest. The anti-Trumpers should think that through much more carefully before criticising who America chose in 2016.
'better than the rest'?   Where do you get that notion, apart from the tautologous argument that he won, so he was the best (somewhat like George's above).   I watched plenty of Republican debates--too many--and he was the worst candidate of them in terms of the things that really matter in choosing a President:  integrity, understanding the role of a President, leadership, judgment.  He was just a bully and a demagogue, and those who love power or resented others liked it.
 
'who America chose in 2016' -  America did not choose him in 2016; a minority voted for him, though enough did to swing the Electoral College.  It's hard to be sure what that randomizing process will produce next time, but I see a steady drift away from him in support. 
 
Koshersalaami - I laud your attempt to explain Trump voters to us thick-headed "liberals". Good try--to me, this conversation has been mostly about some of the subjects politely refusing to be explained.  As for me, I don't want to hear about why any more; I don't judge them, and their judgment of me is equally irrelevant.
 
I'm more interested in putting this miserable episode behind us and what we will do once that is done.   If they haven't seen what the problem is with this administration yet, they will never be convinced:  in this case, they must simply be defeated. 
George N Romey Added Jan 3, 2019 - 8:16am
No the other GOP candidates were not any better.  They (as well as HRC) trotted out the same old talking points memo that promised all kinds of wonderful things and sounded as genuine as a three dollar bill.  
 
Again, Trump barely squeaked by so its not like he convinced the nation as a whole of his promises.  However, in this country we have a rule of law of how we elect our Presidents.  In reality the electoral college can benefit either party which is why there has never been a major move by either party to eliminate it and install election by popular vote.  Trump won by the rule of law.  Stop trying to claim there were externalities other than a bunch of really bad candidates. 
Jim Stoner Added Jan 3, 2019 - 11:22am
George,  First, let me say "thank you" for initiating this topic. 
I don't want to defend my statement that Trump was absolutely the worst candidate in the Republican primaries:  there were, after all, Ted Cruz and a worse businessperson than Trump (Carly Fiorina) in the field.  So, I admit I was probably wrong about that. 
 
But he was the one who offended my intelligence the most.  He had one big idea, essentially, "They're all stupid; I'm always right."  Perhaps from that distillation one can understand how unnervingly angry that would make (everyone who doesn't agree with his always being right) feel.  And he has yet to deviate from that point of view. 
 
George, But there were externalities!   The Comey nothingburger October surprise (simultaneous with Trump paying off women to keep quiet about his affairs).  Then, of course, the Russians. 
 
I've never been to that great land, but I've seen plenty of the products of their educational and developmental system here.  The "Russian temperament"--allowing myself to over-generalize--is incredibly cynical, convinced pessimism,  believing every negative idea about others' motivations and thus excusing any amoral behavior, if it is not directly contravened by effective authority. 
 
Yet educated Russians are extremely proficient technically, highly-skilled, studious and subtle in their planning.  Planting rumors and leaking secrets to affect the outcome of a process, serving their leaders and employers who fear and loathe that process,  are tasks right up that alley.  And, with the election being so close in the key swing states, definitely a factor. 
 
I would not call the Electoral College an externality; more like "an internality".  Let's stop there. 
Jim Stoner Added Jan 3, 2019 - 11:23am
I forgot to mention Ben Carson.  I forget; was Rick Perry in the field in 2016? 
Jim Stoner Added Jan 3, 2019 - 11:35am
And now, once again, I must apologize:  I confused this thread with George's "Who is this Donald Trump person?" one .   So, I apologize to you, koshersalaami.  And, for violating the three-comment rule! 
 
George N Romey Added Jan 3, 2019 - 11:43am
I hate to break it to you but all Presidential elections outside factors come into play.  In 2000 the Democrats at the last moment revealed W had been arrested for a DUI but it didn't gather much dust.  Some work, some don't.  Think Gary Hart and the admission he had an affair.
 
In the end voters go to the polls with a lot of information and innuendo.  2016 was nothing new in the dirty tricks game.  And a lot of the innuendos like the "Russians" are still nothing more than innuendos.
 
2016 was two of the worst and most despised characters ever to grace the stage for President.  No surprise at the number of people that stayed home.  Some voted what they considered their hero, some voted for the candidate they thought sucked the least.  The smart ones provided said the hell with it and streamed a movie instead.
 
Stop rambling on about the electoral college.  It's been the law of the land since the beginning.  We have a lot of stupid laws and methods in this country.  Taken a flight lately?  Do you know those billion dollar machines can't really trace explosives.  Anything can set them off and when they do you will be stripped search.  I was a few weeks back.  In a private room I had to take down my pants and underpants.  Our founding fathers would recoil over government's intrusion with no valid evidence (other than a bunch of high priced machines unable to do what they were built to do but the flying public suffers.
 
Our country is full of stupidity and it didn't start with Donald Trump.  He's a product of when the stupidity begins to reach epic levels, which it has.  
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 3, 2019 - 8:46pm
Ryan: 
Islam is rapidly rising in numbers and absorbing technology at a breakneck speed. Islam is going to be a modern faith with 2 billion followers by the mid 21st century. A good deal of the world's natural resources are found in the 57 odd Muslim majority nations and there isn't a continent bar the North and South pole, that don't have Muslims in them. 
The American Muslim population is keeping pace and will be a major demographic issue.
Ryan Messano Added Jan 3, 2019 - 9:32pm
 
Yes, and the west is stupidly trying to have fun, and to avoid having children, Michael.  They don't realize demography is destiny.  Those on the left who support contraception and abortion are literally arguing for the extermination of themselves and their nations.  Yet, as Epicurean Marxists, they lack foresight. They even make up stupid fairytales about climate change and overpopulation to assuage their consciences. 
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 3, 2019 - 10:18pm
Ryan:
I agree with all that you say but the "west" is a big place. South America and Russia do not fit that "childless" "Godless" profile. Catholic South America's population of 1 billion dominates the New world today and by 2050 will do so even more. Catholicism may outnumber Protestants in America. 
In Russia the Greek Orthodox church is seeing a rebirth with hundreds of beautiful cathedrals being built. Check the internet on images of these new Russian churches
Regarding Islam the biggest boost she got is coming from China. From Central Asia to Pakistan and soon Iran will gain from China's investments. Pakistan's CPEC alone is transforming South Asia. Russia plans to include Iran in her CSTO (Russia's NATO). With backing like that and OPEC money the Islamic world is rapidly evolving. 
At the same time I can make a case for the rise of Buddhism and even Hinduism but in different ways. 
Dave Volek Added Jan 3, 2019 - 10:44pm
Kosher
Nice article. I think you have a pretty good synopsis of the state of the USA. Most Trump supportors are not that bad of people. They have genuine concerns that the traditional power brokers are not addressing. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 4, 2019 - 12:55am
Two comments deleted
One by Ryan and one by Chetdude.
Ryan, 
You do not get to defame every Muslim on the planet or every Muslim in America here. I have very few conditions. One is not to show blatant disrespect for a minority.
 
Chetdude, 
Another condition I have is not to show blatant disrespect to another blogger, in this case Ryan. 
 
The comments themselves are deleted for reasons listed at the top of the post. Both of you continue to be welcome here. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 4, 2019 - 12:27pm
Jim,
Regarding explaining to thick headed liberals, I am a liberal. I’ve seen a ton of liberals ask about Trump’s followers “Why don’t they see..?” What I haven’t seen is attempts to answer that question because we aren’t asking ourselves what’s important to them and why. 
 
I could do what’s normal here and write a post like:
 
”Hi, fellow [fill in your ideology here],
“Aren’t the [fill in opposition’s ideology here] immoral short-sighted fools? They’re unbelievable!”
 
I just gave you the blueprint for the average WriterBeat post. I’m not interested in writing those. I call them Cheerleading Posts. I’m no cheerleader. 
 
Ryan,
I think it was in this thread that I asked if you ever defended Hillary about anything, and maybe if you ever defended Obama about anything. What I have to say here applies to way more than you, but you happen to be the person with whom I’m having this conversation. What I’m about to say is emphatically not meant for your eyes only. 
 
If you never find any criticism of a given party invalid, you will look like your opposition is reflexive, like you start with your opinion that this person is to be hated and find your outrage based on whatever confirms this opinion for any reason as opposed to reaching the conclusion that you hate a series of actions based on the actions rather than the identity of the actor.  
 
I’ll give you an example of this:
Birtherism. 
The truth about birtherism is that I’ve never spoken to anyone outraged about birth certificates who would have voted for Obama if they were convinced he were American-born. Birtherism is not what soured anyone on Obama. It’s not why Birthers hate Obama, it’s why they hope other people will come to hate Obama. 
 
I’ll go a step further: Chances are that if their own candidate had an analogous difficulty, they’d treat it as unimportant. 
 
Your intellectual standards are pretty rigorous, so you’ll have no trouble getting this. The trouble is that such accusations amount to a double standard, and double standards are always dishonest. (Whether they’re detected by the opposition or not.) This is, incidentally, my main objection to antizionism: Israel is maybe in the middle of the pack when it comes to human rights at worst but is treated as if it’s at the bottom of the pack. When I ask myself why the double standard is being applied, it’s easy enough to guess what my answer is. 
 
That’s the difference between being dedicated to truth or partisanship. If you can’t look at Hillary or Obama and find an unjustified accusation in the strings of accusations both have endured, whether you’re really dedicated to truth becomes suspect. My antipathy for Trump is enormous but even if it is there are some shots I don’t believe in taking and some I believe in calling out as unjustified. You will not, for example, find me among the “tiny hands” crowd. I don’t attack a guy over what he was born with that has nothing to do with his performance in office. 
 
When it comes to Obama, I watched too many guys screaming that he was a Muslim who was too influenced by his Rev. Wright, his Christian pastor. I assume you see my point. 
 
 
 
 
 
Dave Volek Added Jan 4, 2019 - 1:20pm
Kosher
I like the way you handled the two comments you have deleted. Tactful, effective, and forgiving.
 
Ryan
Kosher makes an interesting point. Let me explain further. 
 
As you know, I am promoting a new system of governance. Western democracy has been a good ride, but it is falling apart. You seem not be interested, and that is your right.
 
But if I were to tell you that I liked dating porn stars, you would use that information to denigrate anything else I said on Writer Beat.
 
Yet you like Mr. Trump. You overlook his hobby of dating porn stars. That is a double standard.
 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 4, 2019 - 4:35pm
I don’t know Ryan well enough to know what he’d use to denigrate you. My second sentence in the post started:
 
”It didn’t seem to matter what he did, any one of which they would have crucified Hillary over:”
 
I wasn’t concerned about how bad any given action was, and in that respect I was not moralizing about Trump. My first observation was very specifically about being concerned with what I perceive as a double standard. For example, I understand why a guy in the New Jersey casino business would transport a high roller in his personal helicopter, even if the high roller was high up in the mob; my point is that Republicans would have had a fit if Hillary did it. And, incidentally, a lot of the concerns I read here about how differently Hillary and Trump were treated by the press involve a reciprocal concern on the part of Trump’s supporters. 
 
Thanks for the compliment about how I handled the deletions. Though this phrase doesn’t come from my tradition, I think Ryan would recognize this approach as “Hate the sin but love the sinner.” I want to exclude actions, not people. In one respect I got lucky about the deletions because their sequence allowed me to emphasize that point: While I was deleting a comment of Ryan’s, I was also deleting another comment for attacking Ryan. If that doesn’t make the point that this isn’t personal, nothing will. 
 
So far, this moderating approach seems to have worked. I hope it continues to. This is a fairly contentious topic, yet the discussion here has been long, involved, had participants from a lot of different viewpoints, and yet it has involved a real minimum of mudslinging. This is what I’d like the site to look like and, from what I’ve read, particularly on Autumn’s posts, I’m pretty far from alone. People call me on things and I’m completely cool with that, to the point where I’ve issued an apology in this thread - I was at one point condescending in a way I shouldn’t have been to Texas Lynn. 
 
We’ll see, both if I can keep it up on my own blog and if anyone else adopts this approach. 
John Minehan Added Jan 4, 2019 - 5:34pm
"How ironic that "deep" State needed a shake-up.
 
How unfortunate that the shaking didn't do the job."
 
The "Deep State" is an entrenched bureaucracy, like any other. 
 
Everything becomes a "self-licking ice cream cone" through sheer inertia if not challenged . . . .   
Cliff M. Added Jan 4, 2019 - 6:44pm
Ryan, A great quote from the first Muslim elected congresswoman today about Trump, "We are going to impeach that mother fucker".
ChetDude Added Jan 4, 2019 - 8:25pm
Two comments deleted
One by Ryan and one by Chetdude.
 
I'm good with that -- bottom line an EXTREMELY offensive post was removed...  :-)
ChetDude Added Jan 4, 2019 - 8:27pm
Cliff: And as he's already admitted, Trump would like to be a "daughter-f*cker" too.
Ryan Messano Added Jan 5, 2019 - 12:59am
Umm, Excuse me, Kosher, Islam is defined by the Quran and Muhammad, which are both bloody and support child molestation.  True Muslims obey the Quran, which commands to kill the infidel.  I recommend you read, 'The Sword and the Scimitar', which details 1,400 years of warfare between Islam and Christianity. 
 
You do not, like most liberals, understand Muhammad or Islam.  When you have 34,000 terror attacks from Islam since 9/11, a person with common sense begins to put 2 and 2 together, and recognizes that the ideology itself is responsible.  But not you and others.  And why are you allowing Cliff's vicious remark? Tlaib was way out of line, and is the only House of Representatives member to ever call the President a M****** F***er. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 5, 2019 - 11:02am
Ryan,
The reason I haven’t considered deleting anything is because I hadn’t been back until now. Again, I said that would happen in the post. You’ll notice I haven’t commented since that appeared, which is a pretty good indicator I haven’t seen them.
 
Having seen them, I’m not sure what to do with them. I have listed no rules about public figures, nor have I listed any rules about obscenities.  However, I find both comments gratuitous and I agree that the Congresswoman was out of line (this is the first I’ve heard the quote); it reminds me way too much of “You lie!” which was also way out of line. 
 
Cliff and Chetdude,
I’ll ask you not to do that because both comments do more to incite than to contribute. I’m telling you up front I’ll probably delete them. If you think I shouldn’t, because my standards on these weren’t necessarily explicit enough, talk to me about it. Chetdude, I appreciate your understanding on the last one. 
 
Ryan,
I’ll try to answer your comment about Islam here. If you look at the Bible, in this case the Old Testament, which our religions share, you’ll find some scary things in it. One is death to Sabbath violators, and yet Judaism concluded by doctrine that saving a life is obligatory on Sabbath, in spite of the fact that that conclusion is certainly not in the Bible itself. Another is death to disobedient children. One could look at the Bible and say: “Jews and Christians kill their disobedient children. It’s in the Bible. In order to be Jews and Christians they have to do this.” Well, no. I’ve been down this road with Michael Bagala’s quotes of Talmud, most of which are nothing like current doctrine in the vast majority of current Judaism, so I get what it’s like to have your religion characterized by your scripture (and related commentary) rather than by your practice.  Also, when you’re dealing with a religion that has a lot of branches, practice differs by branch. 
 
Do you know any Muslims? Have you read anything written by moderate Muslims, and I mean by them, not about them? Have you conversed with any on line if not in person? And by “conversing” I don’t mean starting the conversation with an accusation or an accusatory question. If I’m going to characterize a worldwide religion with over a billion and a half extremely varied adherents, I’m not going to do so by reading a book that might as well be entitled “Why Islam Sucks.” 
 
If I were going to look at history to judge religions, as a Jew I’d have to say that way more Jews have been killed in history by Christians than by Muslims, and I mean in the name of Christianity, not people who happened to be Christian. But I’m sure not about to make blanket generalizations about Christians based on that. Islam does not by universal doctrine consider the conversion of Jews and Christians mandatory, though historically there have been outliers that have. That’s why there are still ancient Christian (and to a lesser extent any more, Jewish) communities around the Muslim Middle East. Pre-Israel, there were a lot of Jewish communities.  You see fanatics looking at founding Islamic Caliphates but here’s the thing: back when there really were the kind of Islamic Caliphates that these guys are trying to duplicate, they were often tolerant of Christians and Jews. 
 
As it stands, your opinion does not match that of, to use an example which might be relevant here, the Pentagon. There are a lot of Muslims in the American military,  many have offered their lives for us and some have given them. There are interdenominational chapels in the Pentagon and some have been used for years for Muslim worship, I mean starting way before 9/11. The Pentagon is no liberal stronghold. They have the backs of our servicemen and women because our servicemen and women have the backs of our country. 
 
You’re researching one side of a question. That’s not a good way to get an accurate picture. If you are about truth, accurate pictures are important. 
 
 
 
 
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 5, 2019 - 3:41pm
Ryan: 
There are many books on Islam. "The Sword and the Scimitar" is a book written for those who want to validate their unwarranted hate towards Islam. 
Recently no other book has been quoted as much by those who validate their dislike for Islam. The book is more a reflection of the reader than subject matter.
Koshersalaami:
I quoted the Talmud because it played a central role in the Trial of the Talmud" in 1240. If the Pope saw it offensive how am I wrong?
 
Also that section of the Talmud has to be quoted because it was written during the Christian era and addresses Christ and Christians. IF the Gospel had such explicit language on Jews I would not take offense if you quoted them to demonstrate how the Church feels about Jews.

I also quoted them in the context of a discussion of Judaism in Europe and her relationship with Christians for the last 2 thousand years. It was never meant as reflection on you as a person.
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 5, 2019 - 3:42pm
Koshersalaami:
Frankly, I wish you knew enough about Buddhism and Hinduism to critique them with me. you will find a very Objective person and seldom personalize a debate. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 5, 2019 - 5:35pm
I know very little about either of them except that Buddhism may not exactly fit your description of a religion. 
 
The question isn’t whether the Gospel had explicit language about Jews, the question is whether modern Christianity followed that language if it existed. If we were to look back over 700 years you might find Popes who waged war and you’d definitely find Christians killing Jews. I could certainly make a case based on that but I wouldn’t because in modern times such a case would be invalid. What Christianity thought about Judaism nearly 800 years ago doesn’t tell me what it thinks about Judaism now. 
 
You’re looking at the Talmud not as the Talmud but through a series of accusations about the Talmud which, once again, is rabbinical opinion including minority opinion, in this case period rabbinical opinion. What you’re also missing is why rabbis would write such a thing, and a major reason is likely to have been to discourage Jewish conversion out, which was a definite threat. In looking at that text you’re assuming it’s offensive in nature but I think if you looked at the history of the period you’d find a lot more defensiveness than would be obvious now. In all respects, including conversion attempts, persecution, massacres, the threats of the period ran 100% one way. 
 
In looking at Talmud through the lens of a collection of accusations rather than on its own terms, you’re looking at it through the functional equivalent of The Sword and the Scimitar. I’m glad I don’t have to explain this to you in detail because you just explained the phenomenon eloquently to Ryan. 
Cliff M. Added Jan 5, 2019 - 7:29pm
Kosher,  I did not mean to be rude just stating the facts. I found it ironic that one commentor was getting down on muslims and this shit comes out. I do not know much about the muslim religion but she is a United States citizen who was elected to congress. The mudslinging was questionable but it is the current state of the politics. Feel fit to edit the comment if needed. I found it more humorous than offensive.
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 6, 2019 - 10:48am
Kosher:
I can see the defensive nature of the writings in the Talmud against Christ, Christianity and Goys but It fails to defend" and succeeds to offend when many of the laws place Goys in a subordinate position where abuse is against them is encouraged. The defensive language would not be provocative and encourage violence. Do you have an explanation for that. I do not. 
 
You point to attacks done on Jews 700 years to 800 years. That would bring it to the time when the Talmud became public knowledge during the "Trial of the Talmud' in 1240. After that court case thousands of copies of the Talmud were burned and attacks on Jews became a problem.  As a Catholic I could understand the anger Europeans must have felt. 
 
Historians often compare the relationship between Christianity and Judaism to that of Hinduism and Buddhism, leading to terms like "Judeo/Christian"  and "Hindu/Buddhist". 
 
Yet like in Christian Europe Hindu India attacked Buddhists and Buddhists were the first "outcasts". Long before the Muslims arrived Hindus were destroying Buddhist sites. The main reason is that the Buddha rejected everything that was Hindu except for few concepts and practices. 
 
He rejected the Caste system, the Hindu Gods, Temples and ceremonies, epics and all the Hindu scriptures. 
 
He only accepted the concept of reincarnation and the concept of Dharma. He also accepted the school of Yoga. Buddhism became the first theological challenge to Hinduism and Hindus reacted violently. Not simply due to theology but the threat it posed to its entire infrastructure as a religion. 
 
Yet Buddhism had no book that directly attacked Hinduism in the manner the Talmud does of Christianity. 
Michael B Bagala Added Jan 6, 2019 - 11:00am
Kosher:
Buddhism is an odd ball in the sense that of the many branches of Buddhism some treat the Buddha as a God in scripture and more often in practice. 
Be it Hinayana, Mahayana, or Vajrayana Buddhists worship the Buddha, in the same manner, Christians worship Christ. Buddhist Temples called "viharas" are holy places and so are the Stupas and Dagobas which often contain relics of the Buddha. From Buddhist Priests, Buddhist nuns, to the entire trappings that make up Buddhism the Buddha is treated like a God.
Then you have Vajrayana Buddhism (Tibetan) where the Buddha is depicted coupling with the Goddess Tara (a Hindu Goddess) and coming from the Hindu branch of Tantra 
In Mayahana Buddhism the Buddha remains the Buddha except the Gods now worship him. Hindu Gods, as well as other gods, are included in the Mahayana Pantheon. which also includes Bodhisattvas (Buddhas to be) compassionate beings who sacrifice their own Nirvana to lead others towards it. Mahayana Buddhism ended absorbing a good deal of Hinduism and other faiths. 
only Theravada aka Hinayana Buddhism (which flourished in Sri Lanka) makes an attempt to treat the Buddha as a teacher. Sri Lankan Hinayana Buddhism spread to South East Asia replacing Hinduism (Khmer Empire and Ankor vat) but stopped short in China.
Zen Buddhism left India, crossed China and entered Japan in the 6th century AD. it too is philosophical and not a faith as such. Yet in Buddhist temples in Japan the Buddha is worshiped. He is not treated like say Socrates or Plato.

Recent Articles by Writers Koshersalaami follows.