• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

Excellent piece that underlines some uncomfortable comparisons between the religious right in the US and the hard line clerics in Iran.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/neil-macdonald-sarah-palin-1.3416452

In her solipsistic return to the campaign trail last week, Sarah Palin blamed President Barack Obama for the fact that her military reservist son punched his girlfriend in the face, then drunkenly threatened to kill himself with an assault rifle before winding up under arrest, facing criminal charges.

Track Palin had been "fighting for you-all, America," shouted his mother in Oklahoma, suggesting that her son's time in Iraq eight years ago left him with PTSD.

"It is now or never, for the sake of America's finest, that we have that commander-in-chief that will respect them and honour them!"

The audience roared.

Palin then explained that the better commander-in-chief would be Donald Trump, her pick for the Republican presidential nomination.

Veterans, you see, would never punch their girlfriends or need to be handcuffed by police if Trump was president. They'd feel his deep respect, and calm down and be more nurturing.


Forgotten by the fevered crowd was the supposedly bedrock conservative principle that people are responsible for their own actions, and that it's time to stop blaming society.

Wait. Sorry. Track Palin is white, and the son of Sarah Palin. In GOP land, that "blaming society" stuff is really just meant for blacks and Latinos, and Islamic terrorists who are, after all, Obama's fault, too.
When facts are irrelevant

Also forgotten in all that Republican excitement was the fact that Track Palin headed off to fight not for American freedom, but as part of the so-called troop surge behind George W. Bush's lie-based invasion of Iraq, a war Obama opposed.

And, of course, forgotten was the fact that under Bush's Republican administration, veterans often returned to official neglect and indifference.

But facts are irrelevant. The GOP campaign runs on the octane of emotion: resentment, anger, nativism and religious righteousness.

In fact, Palin's speech reminded me of another one I attended, years ago, in Tehran during my time as CBC's Middle East correspondent.

Mohammed Khatami, the reformer, had been elected president of Iran, and you could taste the craving for change in the city's mountain air.

Bumper-sticker politics seems to be everywhere in the U.S. this presidential election cycle, though mostly on the Republican side of the fence. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

On a whim, I decided to attend a Friday sermon by Ayatollah Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, probably the most hardline cleric in the theocracy.

He scorned the reformers and called down divine judgment on them, and exhorted the crowd to go and impose the will of the people.

It was a speech filled with hatred and religious bigotry and nativism, and the crowd absorbed it with the same sort of ecstasy U.S. conservatives evidently experience at Republican rallies nowadays.

I spoke to several people as they exited the sermon; most were rural, uneducated, and were bused in for the event. In cosmopolitan Tehran, Yazdi wouldn't likely have been able to fill a big classroom, let alone pack in thousands of panting zealots.
'You're fired'

Sarah Palin, likewise, feels most comfortable outside America's big cities, talking to the white evangelical Christians she calls "real Americans," as opposed to the ethnic stew of the more permissive, homosexual-tolerating, non-God-fearing souls who populate the coastal population centres.

Her speech endorsing Donald Trump had a stream-of-consciousness demagoguery about it; gibberish, almost. There is no other way to sensibly describe it.

"How about the rest of us?" she asked at one point. "Right-winging, bitter-clinging, proud clingers of our guns, our God, and our religion, and our Constitution."


She began by talking about "our great United States of America," then, a few minutes later, rhetorically asked the crowd if they wanted to "make America great again."

Like Yazdi, she spoke to her listeners' deepest insecurities and religious furies.

She called political correctness a "suicide vest," neatly conflating liberal prissiness with Islamic terrorism.

She suggested America, enjoying an economic recovery that's the envy of the world, is perilously close to utter ruin. She praised Trump's private-sector ability to run balanced budgets (he's filed for bankruptcy four times).

And the entire time, Trump stood at her side, mugging for the crowd, making silly gestures, mouthing "You're fired," his signature reality-show line, and generally clowning around.

This is a man whose campaign has mostly consisted of slinging around coarse invectives at women, Latinos and Muslims, among others, in the name of battling "political correctness," which is some sort of obsession of the American right.

He is revered by the party base as a truth-teller. And he leads Republican polls.

Watching Palin and Trump, it was impossible not to wonder, once again, how America, a country that has achieved such excellence, and has so often shown the world a better way, descended into a political discourse that demonizes enlightened thought and glamorizes mean-spirited, lowbrow crudeness.

And something else occurred, a notion I've always shied away from because I find jingoism distasteful: None of this stuff would go anywhere in Canada. It would draw snickers and derision, not cheers.

The only reason I can cite for this difference in national attitudes is religion. Not the quiet, old-line religiosity whose adherents believe worship is a private matter, best practised in church.

I'm referring to the messianic, aggressive religion of certain evangelical Christian sects, which believe that even other streams of Christianity, never mind other faiths, are false, and that their job is not just to spread the word of God but to impose it, and that the best way to do that is to run the government.

That sort of religion happily ignores inconvenient facts and contradictions, and has always been ripe for the con job pulled by the Republican elite: promise to end atheistic permissiveness, then get into office and implement an economic agenda most friendly to Manhattan billionaires like Trump and multi-millionaires like Palin. (She recently put her 8,000 square-foot Arizona compound up for sale for $2.5 million.)

To be fair, this loopy form of religio-political fantasy is particular to the Republicans, and lots of religious Americans find it offensive to rational thought.

But it should not be dismissed, as clownish as its heroes can seem.

Think about Iran: Yazdi and his fellow hardliners triumphed. The reformers were shut down and jailed. The urban elites were cowed. It can happen.
 
And yet more racism out of the people who surround Trump. You can no longer defend Trump and his campaign when his primary spokesperson has used terms like "pure breed" to describe people whose mothers were born in the US. Godwin's law notwithstanding, we're rapidly approaching the point where direct comparisons to the Nazis are no longer outlandish. They're doing the work for us.

http://gawker.com/donald-trump-spokesperson-decried-lack-of-pure-breeds-1754754451

Back in 2012, Donald Trump spokesperson and sentient ammunition display Katrina Pierson went on Twitter and publicly lamented what she called a lack of “pure breeds” in the U.S. presidential race.

Ostensibly, Pierson is somehow trying to imply that having a parent born overseas makes someone less American, or to put it in more menacing, eugenical terms, “less pure.” It’s also worth noting that Donald Trump’s mother was actually born in Scotland—though I can’t for the life of me figure out why she might have let that one slide (I can).

Pierson—who, like her boss, wants to ban all Muslims from being able to enter the U.S.—is also a big proponent of Donald Trump using America’s arsenal in some capacity (any capacity!), saying, “What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?”

Four years before Pierson tweeted about the lack of pure breeds in American politics, she sued her employer for racial discrimination.

We’ve reached out to Pierson for comment on the tweet (which, at the time of publication, has yet to be deleted) and will update if and when we hear back.

 
Kilo_302 said:
Excellent piece that underlines some uncomfortable comparisons between the religious right in the US and the hard line clerics in Iran.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/neil-macdonald-sarah-palin-1.3416452

Wow, you are right! It is like looking in a mirror! I mean, how could I have missed the Republican Party's Revolutionary Guard, which has been terrorizing the American public and stoning heretics for years, while running a corruption racket on breathtaking scale. And then there are the jails just full of gays, liberals and enemies of the US government who are tortured and executed on a daily...oh, wait.

I am pretty sure that you do not have the first clue about Iran. I myself have only the barest hint of the complexity that Iran poses and that comes from 3 operational tours in the region and decades of thinking about the problem.

But hey, enjoy your smug and facile comparisons to US politics... ::)
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Wow, you are right! It is like looking in a mirror! I mean, how could I have missed the Republican Party's Revolutionary Guard, which has been terrorizing the American public and stoning heretics for years, while running a corruption racket on breathtaking scale. And then there are the jails just full of gays, liberals and enemies of the US government who are tortured and executed on a daily...oh, wait.

I am pretty sure that you do not have the first clue about Iran. I myself have only the barest hint of the complexity that Iran poses and that comes from 3 operational tours in the region and decades of thinking about the problem.

But hey, enjoy your smug and facile comparisons to US politics... ::)

Did you read the article? Those aren't the similarities the author is talking about. The author's point (these aren't MY "smug and facile comparisons") is that Trump/Palin are using similar strategies to those used by certain Iranian clerics to whip up a base of largely uninformed voters. Neil Macdonald was the CBC's Middle East correspondent and spent a lot of time in Iran, which is why he specifically mentions Khatami and the reformist movement. That movement failed because conservative clerics were able to bamboozle many Iranians into believing that any dialogue with the West was unacceptable, any compromise on Islamic Iranian values was dangerous.

The similarities are that a dogmatic group of political figures are hiding behind "traditional values" and abstract ideas like "the strength of the nation" while they themselves are highly corrupt and part of the establishment.
 
Kilo you're glaikit.

Your not doing yourself any service by finding the most extreme examples to try and bolster your arguments.  All you are doing is demonstrating the distance between yourself and your audience and making it easier to ignore.

The tactics you are talking about are not unique to Trump, or the Iranians, or even ACORN or the Bolsheviks or the Liberal Party of Canada or even the Conservatives.

The tactics are identical.  It is all about pulling in a dedicated core of believers to do the grunt work.  The less questioning the grunts the better.

Anybody But Harper.......
 
Chris Pook said:
Kilo you're glaikit.

Your not doing yourself any service by finding the most extreme examples to try and bolster your arguments.  All you are doing is demonstrating the distance between yourself and your audience and making it easier to ignore.

The tactics you are talking about are not unique to Trump, or the Iranians, or even ACORN or the Bolsheviks or the Liberal Party of Canada or even the Conservatives.

The tactics are identical.  It is all about pulling in a dedicated core of believers to do the grunt work.  The less questioning the grunts the better.

Anybody But Harper.......

I reject the idea that comparing Iranian clerics to Trump is extreme.One of my posts above outlines how Trump's own spokesperson has used terminology ("pure breed") used by the Nazis. Is that really a rational position when compared to the clerics in Iran? Are these groups really that dissimilar?  When someone is talking racial purity, traditional values, religion and war there are no extreme examples.

Trump is habitually retweeting an account called "White Genocide" for god's sake. This account recently tweeted a picture of Trump putting Bernie Sanders in gas chamber. And people are still trying rationalize his campaign. These are dangerous times, if people choose to ignore them, well there are quite a few historical examples of willful ignorance leading to far worse.
 
Wait- you just said two posts ago, that this was not your opinion, it was the author's.

Now it does seem to be your opinion.

Which is it? Is the US Republican Party akin to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or is it not?

Not that your opinion really impacts my daily life, one way or another....
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Wait- you just said two posts ago, that this was not your opinion, it was the author's.

Now it does seem to be your opinion.

Which is it? Is the US Republican Party akin to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or is it not?

Not that your opinion really impacts my daily life, one way or another....

I agree with the author's opinion, and was responding to the specific language you used in your response. Now would you care to address anything in the posts or articles or will we continue going in circles? Given what I have said, do you still believe that comparing Trump to Iranian clerics (in some very specific ways which I have outlined) is extreme?
 
Well for starters, I doubt that Trump, if elected President, will sanction the storming of foreign embassies in Washington and hold diplomats hostage.

I doubt he will jail, torture and execute gays, members of the press and opponents of his regime.

I doubt he will establish a private and parallel military to the US military that reports only to him and is a tool of repression not only in his country, but around the region.

But that is just me....and I suppose I could be proven wrong, if he is actually selected in the Primaries and then actually gets elected President of the US.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Well for starters, I doubt that Trump, if elected President, will sanction the storming of foreign embassies in Washington and hold diplomats hostage.

I doubt he will jail, torture and execute gays, members of the press and opponents of his regime.

I doubt he will establish a private and parallel military to the US military that reports only to him and is a tool of repression not only in his country, but around the region.

But that is just me....and I suppose I could be proven wrong, if he is actually selected in the Primaries and then actually gets elected President of the US.

Right, the author is not saying "Iran and the US ARE THE SAME COUNTRY (I'm not saying that either)." Neil Macdonald is saying (and I agree), "listen to how many of the Republicans sound. Listen to the ideas they are appealing to. Once I was at a speech given by a conservative cleric in Iran who was opposed to the moderate Iranian President Khatami, and what he said sounded very much like what we are hearing in the US."

Do you understand this point? You can definitely disagree, but we've gone back and forth for several posts here, and it's not clear to me you grasp what he's saying. His overall thrust is, "our extremists sound a lot like theirs." Leading to the obvious conclusion that politically, our extremists help reinforce their extremists and vice versa.

I would suggest re-reading the article and specifically addressing his arguments.

 
The condescending way you've been replying to other posters is growing tiresome.

---Staff---
 
Chris Pook said:
Kilo you're glaikit.

Your not doing yourself any service by finding the most extreme examples to try and bolster your arguments.  All you are doing is demonstrating the distance between yourself and your audience and making it easier to ignore.

The tactics you are talking about are not unique to Trump, or the Iranians, or even ACORN or the Bolsheviks or the Liberal Party of Canada or even the Conservatives.

The tactics are identical.  It is all about pulling in a dedicated core of believers to do the grunt work.  The less questioning the grunts the better.

Anybody But Harper.......

recceguy said:
The condescending way you've been replying to other posters is growing tiresome.

---Staff---

glaikit
Scottish word meaning: stupid, foolish, not very bright, thoughtless, vacant.

This is somehow more acceptable than me attempting to clarify an argument?  You yourself on this very thread called my arguments "bullshit."  The double standard you consistently enforce is what is growing tiresome.

SeaKingTacco hasn't addressed the arguments I've made today, so I've simply asked if it's a case of not understanding them. If that's condescending maybe you're overly sensitive.
 
Kilo_302 said:
glaikit
Scottish word meaning: stupid, foolish, not very bright, thoughtless, vacant.

This is somehow more acceptable than me attempting to clarify an argument?  You yourself on this very thread called my arguments "bullshit."  The double standard you consistently enforce is what is growing tiresome.

SeaKingTacco hasn't addressed the arguments I've made today, so I've simply asked if it's a case of not understanding them. If that's condescending maybe you're overly sensitive.

After reading your report to moderator complaint and knowing your posting style, I highly suggest you step away from the keyboard for a spell.

The Army.ca Staff
 
Nerf herder said:
After reading your report to moderator complaint and knowing your posting style, I highly suggest you step away from the keyboard for a spell.

The Army.ca Staff

Just as long as it's recognized that there's a clear double standard at play here. Any cursory review of responses to posts that don't align with the conservative consensus on this forum will show that the tone and content are far less civil. I can only imagine the kerfuffle that would ensue if I dared to call someone "glaikit" or any number of other things I've been called (Communist, Nazi etc).

Stepping away from keyboard... ::)

 
Ahh... I finally get it Kilo. You are saying that you and Neil Macdonald have noticed a nativist movement in both Iran and the US. You seem to imply that nativism will lead to the same conclusion in both places, without recognizing there are vast differences in culture and tradition in both countries.

Have I got that about right? I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

If I have, that is what is drawing the scorn towards your argument. So yes, I disagree with Neil Macdonald's conclusion. It is facile and misses a whole range of other factors at play.

That is not to say that anyone living in a western democracy should be sanguine about "a man on a white horse". There is always danger of that.

I am not sure what to make of Trump, Palin, et al. What I am sure of is that they equally dismay and threaten the Republican elite. I am pretty sure Trump is rich enough that he cannot be bought- which I am sure threatens a lot of interests in the US. It makes for an interesting situation.

I am pretty sure that Trump (if elected. A pretty big if) can do no worse towards Canada than Obama has over the past 8 years. Which, since I am Canadian, is about all that matters to me.

You will note, I have disagreed with you, without insulting you personally. Have a great day!
 
Nerf Herder:

Can Kilo return to the keyboard to respond to SKT?  He doesn't need to depart the boards on my account.  I just choose to take him in small doses.
 
Directly relevant to Canada and Keystone:

Toronto Star

Donald Trump demands ‘big chunk’ of Keystone XL profits for the U.S.

The Republican presidential front-runner declared that he is “not in love with the idea of taking Canadian oil.


By: Daniel Dale Washington Bureau, Published on Sun Jan 24 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he would reject the Keystone XL pipeline if TransCanada Corp. didn’t give the U.S. a “big, big chunk of the profits, or even ownership rights.”

All of Trump’s Republican rivals say they would immediately approve the pipeline from the Alberta oil sands, which President Barack Obama rejected in November. Trump, who bills himself as a master negotiator, now says he would require TransCanada to fork over billions.


(...SNIPPED)
 
S.M.A. said:
Directly relevant to Canada and Keystone:

Toronto Star

So, the deal for Canada is thus:

If the Democrats elect the next president, no pipeline gets built.

If the Republicans elect the next president, a pipeline gets built, but under terms in which Canada will wish it hadn't.

This, kids, is why we do not build strategic infrastructure through other countries. I will also bet that almost every foundation, group and First Nation objecting to pipelines within Canada is getting large cheques from US interests that serve to cut our own throats.

It is enough to make you weep...
 
SeaKingTacco said:
So, the deal for Canada is thus:

If the Democrats elect the next president, no pipeline gets built.

If the Republicans elect the next president, a pipeline gets built, but under terms in which Canada will wish it hadn't.

This, kids, is why we do not build strategic infrastructure through other countries. I will also bet that almost every foundation, group and First Nation objecting to pipelines within Canada is getting large cheques from US interests that serve to cut our own throats.

It is enough to make you weep...

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/07/vivian-krause-great-green-trade-barrier/
 
Yep. We have been badly outplayed. And the very people in Canada who generally hate the US the most, got paid to do their bidding.
 
Back
Top