« More Democracy in action. | Main | Thoughts on Syria - 7 June, 2016 »

06 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Racism" gets used a lot where "bigotry" would be more accurate.

As far as Trump, I'm not sure that pointing out that he's said awful things is destroying democracy. HRC has said awful things and (rightly) gets called out on it as well. She's just a professional politician so she tries to avoid handing ammo to her opposition, unlike Trump who revels in it. It's part of his appeal.


Hank P "Racism" is deliberately used with regard to him because the media knows that this is a term of total condemnation. Is their twisting of the meaning of words in a search for a way to deceive the public not "destroying democracy?" As for HC you must be completely in the bag for her if you think she is being called out for her violations of the law and the money laundering of the CGI. IMO the motto of her campaign should be to quote SNL, "why is this old Jew in my way?" pl


Actually that is not exactly true. Racial studies in the west pretty much died out as far as I understand, but in Russia for example this topic is still studied by serious scientists. And from what I understand Mexica and Brazil are two places there new races are being born right now. That is not races of first order but science divides even Europeans for a few races like East Baltic race or Mediterranian race.


Well, they looked for a meme, but they didn't destroy him, so now they are trying to decide whether his popularity is due to an insular minority of "racists" or perhaps they have so lost credibility that their memes no longer matter. A couple of observations, and I preface this by agreeing that he is to my mind more of a crass buffoon than anything else;

1) his original comments, since shorthanded as a judgment on Mexicans as a people, were limited to those crossing the border, i.e. "they aren't sending us their best." Also, he commented upon the fact that a very high percentage of female Mexican migrants are raped to which he made the obvious observation that somebody was raping them. Were these comments dog whistle calls to racism? perhaps so, but the reporting doesn't reflect what he actually said and it appears that the press has chosen to "simplify" for the consumption of the general public, which it pretty clearly assumes are idiots.

2)Same with the Muslim immigration issue. Perhaps a religious baiting dog whistle, but what he actually said was that the ban should be limited until the government can provide some confidence in vetting potential "terrorists" from the population.

3)The McCain POW remarks were just stupid, on the other hand he backed down and rethought within the next 10-15 seconds of the same interview, and offered up that McCain was, in fact, a hero for his service.

In truth I am doubtful that anyone currently in the race has any principals at all, save Sen. Sanders. On the other hand, most of the "memes" about Mrs Clinton are a result of the drumbeat of repeated, but unsubstantiated, rumor and innuendo. As suggested here by others it is quite possible that, if elected, Clinton will turn out to be George Bush "lite," but equally possibly that Trump would turn out to be fairly progressive.

My bottom line is that Trump seems to shoot from the hip, while Mrs. Clinton appears to be very, perhaps overly, careful.


Living in the South, and encountering Latinos, legal and illegal, all the time, I have to laugh over the attempt to turn what is essentially an economic problem for the 'nativists', of all colours, into a racial bias issue.
The 'natives' are good and fed up with the business world undercutting the workers pay by importing cheaper labour. This has been around almost forever. The alienating of the 'races' is a distraction, albeit easy to do.
Finally, many of the Latino 'immigrants' I speak to say that they would love to be home, if those places could be made safe for ordinary people. The main destructive issue mentioned is the War on Drugs. In many places, the WOD has gained the dimensions of a civil war. As Syria shows, no one wants to live in a civil war zone. The 'Illegales' are our American grown refugee problem. Add them to the run of the mill economic migrants, and one has a suddenly 'major' problem. Many of these people will not go home because it is not safe for them to do so.
So, to see this problem turned into an "example" of Trumps' 'evil nature' is both simplistic and dishonest.
As for the 'Mexican' meme in general, well, when I try my mangled Spanish on real Mexicans, they crack up, because I learned much of my Spanish in Miami, where 'Cuban' Spanish is predominant. Next, try calling a Guatemalan a Dirty Mexican. The fight that results is over you calling a perfectly self respecting Guatemalan, Mexican.



You may not have to write in Sanders. It seems he's hoping for a big win in California tomorrow and then campaigning all the way to the convention.


So, its gonna depend on how my California votes tomorrow. Many of my Democrat friends, family and neighbors have already voted for Sanders using postal ballots. Also, several of my fellow independents have requested Democrat ballots to vote Sanders. I however chose to abstain from voting in the primary of the duopoly. It seems however that Sanders has been unable to close the deal with ethnic minorities, seniors, middle-aged white women and blacks here in California as well.

The only thing I'm certain about right now for November is that I will not be voting for the Borg Queen.

We'll have to see post convention how the race shapes up and if the election will be once again voting for the lesser evil or if people actually vote their conscience. I typically never vote for the duopoly.


Hoping the Larry David lookalike makes her triumphant coronation convention a living hell. And will absolutely write in Bernie in the fall.


"He is, IMO a business buffoon who has no idea what to say and what not."

Colonel LANG, on this I can't agree with you more, I wish he, or somebody, could shout him up for next few months, but nevertheless , writing Sanders name on the ballot, while it's a protest vote of a kind ( I did a similar thing by not voting in last 3) still it means more chance to HRC and possibility of continuation of This same failed policies you are writing here all along.
I for my self, this time around I rather to vote for a buffoon outsider than giving more chance to the same failed policies, both the same internal and external policies of these last three administrations. Looks like this time around, we both are holding our noses and going to polls. But the irony is, how different, and how similar we all are.

The Sheep Look Up

La Raza might beg to differ with you on the notion of a Mexican "race" - but the incoherence of "Latino" and "Hispanic" is obvious. Just one example: if a cop shoots a Chicano (my preferred term) the latter is referred to as a Latino or a Person of Color by the media, politicians, and activists. However, if a Chicano shoots a cop, the FBI records him as white.

And "Racism" is a magic word that might be losing its power...

Medicine Man

While I too think the national media operates in bad faith, I'm not sure what response you'd like to see from them in this case, Col. Trump himself left very little ambiguity in his meaning. Even accepting that Trump has probably given them exactly what they want, I can't see how even an honest media would be responsible for spinning Trump's ranting into something less damaging.


And they say Sanders supporters are just a bunch of young, impressionable, and hopelessly liberal kids!!


Why not vote Trump? OK, he's a reprobate in many respects, but if you really want to poke the Borg in the eye, a Trump vote is more effective.

At the end of the day, for all his buffoonery at least he is a mammal and not a reptile, and there is a long shot that his foreign policy will inject a modicum of sanity.


They really miss the plot. In seeking for a single remark to mark as "beyond the pale" or "this time he's gone too far" they imagine an audience of people who think only terms of immediate msm 'optics.' They should understand that it's too late for that sort of manipulation.

Trump fans won't be appalled by this remark, because they don't fundamentally respect the institution of the judiciary. They've been told since the 70s that "activist" judges are subverting the popular will.

Democrats cheered for judicial usurpations of various widely supported, but bigoted, laws, and in response, reactionaries groomed a generation of their own lawyers to overturn the popular will in their favor. Eventually they filled the ranks, and the huge capital outlay of scholarships and law school endowments paid off. Citizens united, the Roberts court, the constant bizarre decisions of 2nd circuit, profitable judgements happen daily.

Laws should be made by elected representatives of the people, those representatives should serve citizens rather than money, and the best interests of citizens should be the first and last concerns.

The "optics" focused campaign of Hillary Clinton, with its naked pandering to any interest group that sits before her, is fundamentally disdainful and anti anti-democratic. Shuffling the words used about policies that people don't want, until those people can be temporarily tricked, is something we would have associated with totalitarian states not a horribly long time ago.

She has the same disgust for the common people as hereditary royalty. Hillary wants to be allowed to reign, and her courtiers are filled with hate for anyone who opposes her, for any reason.

People feel her disgust, and will happily vote for someone nakedly speaking the opposite of her words. If those statements are bigoted and horrible, even better, catharsis in the face of constant half truth and misrepresentation from the msm. They know Clinton and the associated political/media class fundamentally do not respect them and do not care if they live or die. Violating their norms is only positive for Trump.


Col. Lang -

There's been pretty extensive coverage of her issues with the email server, her actions as SOS, and other issues going back to the 90s. I don't see that any of it has been covered up or overlooked. It seems that like Trump, a lot of the stuff that's been reported just doesn't matter to many voters. Or at least not enough to make them change their mind.

As far as the use of "racism" as opposed to "bigotry", a lot of commenters on the left and right make the same mistake, not just the media.



rakesh wahi

what was birtherism if not pure racism? there is along history from housing violations to questionable approach to alleged "central park rapists".

Daniel Nicolas

So long as Clinton is not in jail/prison and still on the ballot in November as the Democratic Party candidate, I feel obligated to vote is for Trump to ensure the Clintons and their circles do not return to power.

I continue to remain optimistic that Clinton will be off the ballot by August 2016.


rakesh wahi

He bears the cultural imprint of German peasant and Scottish Calvinist grandparents. Do you not pity him? You on the other hand, are evidently descended from Indian ancestors noted for their cultural and ethnic tolerance. What was that about "untouchables?" pl


Hank P

Oh! BS! If you were not in the bag for her you would see that there is no comparison in the coverage. She violated the law concerning government secrets and is going to get away with it because Obama wants a successor he can control. pl


Col. Lang, I take issue with your characterisation of Trump as a "business buffoon". He is a very successful person and has the money to prove it - earned in property development, among other things, which is a blood sport not for the stupid or faint hearted.

Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame has characterised Trump as a master persuader - his utterances are (mostly) calculated and aimed extremely accurately at emotional states of listeners.

The only warning sign I can see is that he doesn't drink.....


Actually I think Trump has a good point. After all don't we choose our Supreme Court justices at least partially on the basis of race/ethnicity/gender ?
At least one woman because presumably only women can understand issues relating to women.
At least one black since presumably only blacks can fully understand black issues.
At least one latino since presumably only latinos can fully understand issues related to latinos.
And currently, at least four jews since ... ?

It could be argued that a judge who belongs to an organization called "La Raza" (the race) would be unable to fully understand an issue confronting a white/European man.

Of course it sounds silly when presented in that way, but apparently the members of Congress have no sense of humor.

robt willmann

It seemed to me a while back that when president Obama was telling donors to give to Hillary Clinton's campaign since Bernie Sanders was not doing so well, he (Obama) was not going to let attorney general Loretta Lynch seek a criminal charge against Hillary. Then, later Obama said that Hillary was "careless" with her e-mail system. Now, the New York Times newspaper says as of today (6 June) that: "President Obama, after months of sitting on the sidelines of the rancorous contest to succeed him, is now ready to aggressively campaign for Hillary Clinton, starting with a formal endorsement of her candidacy as early as this week." (you have to allow "cookies" on the browser to display it)--


Unless something surprising happens at the Democratic Convention, Hillary will be the nominee without a criminal indictment.

In my opinion, Obama was/is not going to allow Hillary to be charged with a crime because the banksters and large financial companies control him (yes, control him; his support for their legislation and his failure to prosecute any Wall Street executives for criminal fraud is clear enough); and Bill Clinton signed the legislation that repealed the Glass-Steagall law that allowed some financial institutions to get even larger and to do the fraud and looting they have been doing. Plus, financial companies have made their investment in her through large sums of money paid to Hillary for her silly speeches.

A book that is easy to read and worth buying is "JPMadoff, the Unholy Alliance Between America's Biggest Bank and America's Biggest Crook", written by Helen Davis Chaitman and Lance Gotthoffer, two lawyers very knowledgeable about the law of finance (and Helen Chaitman has been involved in a lawsuit about Madoff)--



Also, from 2014--



As was said many years ago by a particular female in France -- or by someone -- about the "little people": Let them eat cake.


Colonel Lang, jus FYI, looks like the Borg and their Queen didn’t want to take any chance on tomorrow’s primaries. The night before, through their ever loyal MS, they just announced Clinton has achieved the number of delegates to be nominated, so dear voters, don’t waste your time and don’t bother to go polls tomorrow. One wonders, if the Borg and their already selected nominee, do believe that the supper delegates do have the right to change their vote or mind, between now and Nov. So my dear Colonel Lang please sharpen your pen, that is, since in this coming Nov. you said, you are going to write a full name, and not just fill in the circle next to someone’ name.


The AP just announced HRC as the D nominee, having counted all of her pledged delegates and superdelegates...weeks before the superdelegates actually vote at the convention, and mere hours before the very important CA primary. Count me as disgusted by the AP's unprofessional decision. A lot can change between now and the convention. I am leaning toward Sanders, also, out of anger at our national situation.

Mark Logan

The media is ignoring the issue of obstruction of justice and choosing race for some reason. I may be because race is viewed as a better for ratings.

Here's one state's definition:

My gut tells me Trump is a man looking to get himself fired, and if at all possible before the convention. It could be subliminally driven, but I would be surprised if his lawyers handling his case have not warned him against this, or at least begged him to knock it off.


I rode on an elevator with him once, trump Taj Mahal. Surprisingly tall, cold and menacing. No eye contact- perhaps he wished us all out of existence? Hard to tell. Pretty reptilian, but then aren't we all.

My new pet theory is that Donald Trump is Bill Clinton's suicidal revenge scheme on HRC. For a little while I was hanging onto Trump as an FSB agent. That still could be right, although the odds have been trending downwards. As with everything.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad