Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (950078)	7/26/2016 12:25:21 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576348

The GOPe still does not get it....lol

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (950078)	7/26/2016 12:35:44 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1576348

Looks like the whole world wants "change" Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com, It turns out that Donald Trump’s proposed border wall is not such a bad idea after all. Though Mexico’s current and former Presidents have both lambasted Trump for implying that a wall would curb immigration, it turns out that Mexicans like the idea. There is one small caveat, however. Mexicans don’t want to build the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, but rather, they want to stem the tide of immigration into their own country by building the wall on their southern border with central America: One of the largest newspapers along Mexico’s border with Texas is calling for a border wall with Central America, similar to the one being promoted by Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump. The editorial board of El Mañana, one of the largest newspapers in the border state of Tamaulipas, penned a piece called “ Yes to the Border Wall … but in Mexico’s South.” The piece praises the idea of border wall, not on the border with Mexico, but on the border with Central America. “Along the Mexican border peace and quiet came to an end, Central Americans played a large influence,” El Mañana’s piece claimed. The Mexican border newspaper provides a controversial view on the Border Wall; which is one of the main topics in Trump’s campaign. “Mexico’s southeast has two borders; one with Guatemala and one with Belize, that do not provide any benefit, but on the contrary only problems are brought by these crossing points that are being used for the new invasion. The one use by Central American’s looking for a way into the United States. ” El Mañana’s editorial board wrote. One of the issues mentioned in the editorial piece points not only to the hordes of Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans that flock to Reynosa in an effort to get to the U.S., but also to the large number of Central Americans that are left in Mexico after deportation. Full report at Breitbart Eastern European countries are expanding their border fence networks to keep middle east refugees from crossing into their countries, a strategy that has cut illegal immigration by over 90% in those nations. President Obama made the one in front of the White House even higher and more elaborate. Prisons tend to build them, too. The Mexicans want one. And now even the Democratic National Committee has decided that fences work to keep out the riff-raff. They’ve built an 8 foot high, 4 mile long fence around their convention. It seems like these days everyone wants to build a wall. But according to former DHS chief Janet Napolitano, walls don’t work to keep people out and are ineffective immigration policy, so we’re not sure what all the fuss is about.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (950078)	7/26/2016 12:36:14 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576348

The full Vox interview with Roy... vox.com excerpt: Conservative intellectuals, for the most part, are horrified by racism. When they talk about believing in individual rights and equality, they really mean it. Because the Republican Party is the vehicle through which their ideas can be implemented, they need to believe that the party isn’t racist. So they deny the party’s racist history, that its post-1964 success was a direct result of attracting whites disillusioned by the Democrats’ embrace of civil rights. And they deny that to this day, Republican voters are driven more by white resentment than by a principled commitment to the free market and individual liberty. “It’s the power of wishful thinking. None of us want to accept that opposition to civil rights is the legacy that we’ve inherited,” Roy says. He expands on this idea: “It’s a common observation on the left, but it’s an observation that a lot of us on the right genuinely believed wasn’t true — which is that conservatism has become, and has been for some time, much more about white identity politics than it has been about conservative political philosophy. I think today, even now, a lot of conservatives have not come to terms with that problem.” This, Roy believes, is where the conservative intellectual class went astray. By refusing to admit the truth about their own party, they were powerless to stop the forces that led to Donald Trump’s rise. They told themselves, over and over again, that Goldwater’s victory was a triumph. But in reality, it created the conditions under which Trump could thrive. Trump’s politics of aggrieved white nationalism — labeling black people criminals, Latinos rapists, and Muslims terrorists — succeeded because the party’s voting base was made up of the people who once opposed civil rights. “ tapped into something that was latent in the Republican Party and conservative movement — but a lot of people in the conservative movement didn’t notice,” Roy concludes, glumly.... This soul-searching led Roy to an uncomfortable conclusion: The Republican Party, and the conservative movement that propped it up, is doomed. Both are too wedded to the politics of white nationalism to change how they act, but that just isn’t a winning formula in a nation that’s increasingly black and brown. Either the Republican Party will eat itself or a new party will rise and overtake its voting share. “Either the disruption will come from the Republican Party representing cranky old white people and a new right-of-center party emerging in its place, or a third party will emerge, à la the Republicans emerging from the Whigs in the [1850s],” Roy says. The work of conservative intellectuals today, he argues, is to devise a new conservatism — a political vision that adheres to limited government principles but genuinely appeals to a more diverse America. “I think it’s incredibly important to take stock,” he says, “and build a new conservative movement that is genuinely about individual liberty.” I don’t know how this would work. I don’t think Roy knows either. I’ve read dozens of conservative intellectuals writing compellingly about non-racist conservative ideals. Writers like Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and too many others to count have put forward visions of a conservative party quite different from the one we have. But not one of these writers, smart as they are, has been able to explain whatactual political constituency could bring about this pure conservatism in practice. The fact is that limited government conservatism is not especially appealing to nonwhite Americans, whereas liberalism and social democracy are. The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off. Maybe Roy and company will be able to solve this problem. I hope they do. America needs a viable, intellectually serious right-of-center party. Because we now know what the alternative looks like. It’s Donald Trump.