eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

Trump: L’improbable champion d’une revanche des bouseux que personne n’avait vu venir (How a lifelong New Yorker became tribune of the rustics and deplorables)

Posté le mercredi 25 janvier 2017 par jc durbant

trump-gothicamerican-tragedychart-presidents-ranked

static2-politico-comstatic-politico-comAttention: un idiot du village peut en cacher un autre !

En ce lendemain d’une investiture …

Qui ressemble de plus en plus à une gueule de bois pour une gauche aussi mauvaise perdante qu’imbue d’elle-même …

Qui n’a de cesse, comme elle l’avait fait pour Reagan ou Bush, de moquer le prétendu idiot du village …

Au moment même où commence à apparaitre au grand jour le bilan proprement catastrophique, pour son pays comme pour son propre parti, de son soi-disant brillant prédecesseur …

Et où un petit Etat sur lequel l’Administration Obama avait jusqu’à son dernier souffle tant craché fait son entrée dans le monde très select des huit plus grandes puissances de la planète …

Comment ne pas voir avec l’historien militaire américain Victor Davis Hanson et l’un des rares analystes à l’avoir perçue …

La revanche de ces bouseux que ces derniers avaient si longtemps méprisée ?

Mais aussi avec l’homme d’affaires britannique Conrad Black …

Le véritable génie de leur improbable multi-milliardaire et hédoniste new-yorkais de champion  …

Quasiment seul contre l’establishment des médias, de l’université ou du monde du spectacle ou même de son propre parti à l’avoir reconnue ?

jc durbant @ 03:14
Catégorie(s): Politique américaine


Laisser un commentaire


96 réponses à “Trump: L’improbable champion d’une revanche des bouseux que personne n’avait vu venir (How a lifelong New Yorker became tribune of the rustics and deplorables)”

  • 46
    jc durbant:

    Merci, Annika !

  • 45
    Annika:

    Hello JC. Vous l’aviez suggeré… Je poste ici mes contributions sur Dreuz.
    « Donald Trump: Les 100 premiers jours »

    Mardi 21 février
    Le Président Trump a visité le nouveau Musée national de l’histoire et de la culture afro-américaine à Washington D.C.
    Il s’est exprimé contre une vague récente de menaces antisémites, y compris des menaces à la bombe faites lundi contre onze centres communautaires. Des menaces similaires avaient été faites dernièrement envers des écoles juives, et jeudi dernier des vandales dans la banlieue de Saint-Louis au Missouri ont renversé des dizaines de pierres tombales dans un cimetière juif.

    «Les menaces antisémites qui pèsent sur notre communauté juive et leurs centres communautaires sont horribles et moralement pénibles. C’est un très triste rappel du travail qu’il reste encore à faire pour éliminer la haine, les préjugés et le mal.»

    Le Président a annoncé que le lieutenant-général McMaster sera son conseiller à la Sécurité nationale. Le général McMaster a servi dans l’armée pendant plus de trois décennies, y compris durant l’opération Liberté irakienne, l’opération Enduring Freedom, et l’opération Tempête du désert.

    Durant un point presse, Sean Spicer, le porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche commenta la visite du vice-président Pence en Europe, et le fait que Trump s’engage à travailler en collaboration avec l’OTAN. Le président et Pence vont récapituler ce voyage lors d’un dîner.
    Sean Spicer a évoqué les détails d’un nouveau décret présidentiel intitulé «Amélioration de la sécurité des frontières et de l’application de la loi.»
    Il a détaillé les mesures que le Département de la Sécurité nationale va prendre pour sécuriser la frontière mexicaine, prévenir l’immigration clandestine et rapatrier les immigrants clandestins rapidement et humainement dans leurs pays d’origine. Ceci comprend l’identification immédiate de toutes les sources de financement disponibles pour la planification, la conception, la construction et l’entretien d’un mur le long de notre frontière méridionale et l’embauche de personnel supplémentaire, dont 5 000 agents frontaliers supplémentaires.

    Un sondage Harvard-Harris indique que 80% des électeurs estiment que les immigrants illégaux appréhendés pour des délits doivent être transférés aux autorités fédérales afin d’être déportés. Ce sondage démontre combien Trump a le soutien du public américain dans son effort pour sévir contre les villes sanctuaires, et combien les médias restent déconnectés de la réalité et ne comprennent plus l’environnement qu’ils sont chargés de commenter. (Merci James!)

    On apprend que lorsque le président Trump avait fait une remarque sur la montée de la criminalité en Suède, il l’avait fait après avoir visionné un documentaire d’Ami Horowitz la veille.Horowitz : La Suède est aujourd’hui la capitale du viol au vu de l’immigration musulmane http://video.foxnews.com/v/5248024459001/?#sp=show-clips

  • 44
    jc durbant:

    HURRAH FOR HALEY !

    I am here to underscore to the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I am here to emphasize that the United States is determined to stand up to the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias.”

    Nikki Haley

    All this was going on while the press was questioning President Trump on what he was going to do about anti-Semitism. If his ambassador to the world body is any example, the answer is plenty. She has the principles of a Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the grit of a John Bolton, and the star power of a Jeane Kirkpatrick, and in her first press briefing she certainly made her point…

    http://www.nysun.com/editorials/haleys-comet/89905/

  • 43
    James:

    Yé soui entièrement d’accord avec hermano Madi.

  • 42
    jc durbant:

    Non, je pensais pas du tout à une « décence coupable » mais au contraire voulu rappeler, avec VDH et tout à l’honneur de ceux-ci, la décence d’un McCain comme d’un Romney qui hélas (au delà de l’évident besoin d’alternance après deux mandats Bush pour McCain) n’était peut-être pas suffisante face à la perfidie démocrate des Chicago boys d’Hussein et partant qu’il fallait peut-être un teigneux comme Trump pour faire le sale boulot …

    Voir VDH ci-dessous:

    They used this technique very effectively in 2012 to render a decent Mitt Romney as a tax-cheating, greedy Wall Street vulture, who ignored his regular garbageman, beat up kids in prep school, and strapped his terrified dog to his car top. Four years earlier the Democrats had blown John McCain to smithereens and left him little more than a closet racist and an adulterous and senile coot, who could not remember how many estates he owned nor the shenanigans of his pill-popping spouse. To avoid the rain of shrapnel, Romney had to battle both the moderator and his opponent in a presidential debate while contextualizing his own personal success and fortune. McCain, meanwhile, swore off referring to the racist personal pastor of Barack Obama and to Obama’s own litany of “typical white person” and “get in their face.” We forget that long before the wild man Trump, the most un-Trumpian, sober and judicious McCain and Romney were flattened by bogus charges against their spouses and false claims, respectively, of adultery and tax-cheating — and were completely unable to defend themselves from such smears and slanders.

    VDH

  • 41
    madimaxi:

    Vous avez évoqué ici l’élection de 2008 et la « décence » coupable de John McCain. L’Amérique est un pays magnifique qui marche sur deux pattes. L’une est celle de l’Âne et l’autre celle de l’Éléphant. Et c’est comme ça qu’elle avance et c’est comme ça qu’elle est grande.

    J’ai, comme la majorité des contributeurs ici, la sensibilité républicaine mais je ne rejette pas la moitié démocrate de ce fabuleux pays. Un peu de théorie des ensembles pour illustrer mon idée. En superposant les deux, il y a secteur commun où les RINO’s sont plus à gauche que les Blue Dogs. Joe Lieberman vient à l’esprit.

    Je pense, en toute simplicité, qu’en 2008, l’Âne reposé a pris le relais de l’Éléphant fatigué. C’est le principe des plus démocratiques de l’alternance. Si on réécoute la « concession speech » de John McCain, émouvante et digne, cela transparaît. Décent ou pas, aucun républicain ne pouvait gagner cette année-là. L’Amérique a changé tout naturellement de pas et de bête attelée à la charrette. Pas plus compliqué que ça.

  • 40
    Polémos:

    «Diversity is really an intolerant ideological movement that subordinates race and gender to progressive politics.»

    VDH… Encore jc, encore du VDH!

  • 39
    jc durbant:

    Oui, excellent, merci waa.

    Il reprend d’ailleurs la même idée dans l’un de ses derniers billets:

    The United States (…) is one of the few successful multiracial societies in history. America has survived slavery, civil war, the Japanese-American internment, and Jim Crow—and largely because it has upheld three principles for unifying, rather than dividing, individuals. The first concerns the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, which were unique documents for their time and proved transcendent across time and space. Both documents enshrined the ideal that all people were created equal and were human first, with inalienable rights from God that were protected by government. These founding principles would eventually trump innate tribal biases and prejudices to grant all citizens their basic rights. Second, given America’s two-ocean buffer, the United States could control its own demographic destiny. Americans usually supported liberal immigration policies largely because of the country’s ability to monitor the numbers of new arrivals and the melting pot’s ability to assimilate, integrate, and intermarry immigrants, who would soon relegate their racial, religious, and ethnic affinities to secondary importance. Finally, the United States is the most individualistic and capitalistic of the Western democracies. The nation was blessed with robust economic growth, rich natural resources, and plenty of space. It assumed that its limited government and ethos of entrepreneurialism would create enough widespread prosperity and upward mobility that affluence—or at least the shared quest for it—would create a common bond superseding superficial Old World ties based on appearance or creed. In the late 1960s, however, these three principles took a hit. The federal government lost confidence in the notion that civil rights legislation, the melting pot, and a growing economy could unite Americans and move society in the direction of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision (…) This shift from the ideal of the melting pot to the triumph of salad-bowl separatism occurred, in part, because the Democratic Party found electoral resonance in big government’s generous entitlements and social programs tailored to particular groups. By then, immigration into the United States had radically shifted and become less diverse. Rather than including states in Europe and the former British Commonwealth, most immigrants were poorer and almost exclusively hailed from the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, resulting in poorer immigrants who, upon arrival, needed more government help. Another reason for the shift was the general protest culture of the Vietnam era, which led to radical changes in everything from environmental policy to sexual identity, and thus saw identity politics as another grievance against the status quo. A half-century later, affirmative action and identity politics have created a huge diversity industry, in which millions in government, universities, and the private sector are entrusted with teaching the values of the Other and administering de facto quotas in hiring and admissions. In 2016, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on identity politics, banking on the notion that she could reassemble various slices of the American electorate, in the fashion that Barack Obama had in 2008 and 2012, to win a majority of voters. She succeeded, as did Obama, in winning the popular vote by appealing directly to the unique identities of gays, Muslims, feminists, blacks, Latinos, and an array of other groups, but misjudged the Electoral College and so learned that a numerical majority of disparate groups does not always translate into winning key swing states. At one point Clinton defined her notion of identity politics by describing Trump’s supporters: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up… Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” (…) but (…) ethnic solidarity can cut both ways. In the 2016 elections, Trump won an overwhelming and nearly unprecedented number of working class whites in critical swing states. Many either had not voted in prior elections or had voted Democratic. The culture’s obsession with tribalism and special ethnic interests—often couched in terms of opposing “white privilege”—had alienated millions of less well-off white voters. Quietly, many thought that if ethnic activists were right that the white majority was shrinking into irrelevance, and if it was acceptable for everyone to seek solidarity through their tribal affiliations, then poor whites could also rally under the banner of their own identity politics. If such trends were to continue in a nation that is still 70 percent white, it would prove disastrous for the Democratic Party in a way never envisioned during the era of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton discovered that Obama’s identity politics constituencies were not transferrable to herself in the same exceptional numbers, and the effort to ensure that they were often created new tribal opponents. (…) it is not certain that immigration, both legal and illegal, will continue at its current near record rate, which has resulted in over 40 million immigrants now residing in America—constituting some 13 percent of the present population. Trump is likely not just to curtail illegal immigration, but also to return legal immigration to a more meritocratic, diverse, and individual basis. Were immigration to slow down and become more diverse, the formidable powers of integration and intermarriage would perhaps do to the La Raza community what it once did to the Italian-American minority after the cessation of mass immigration from Italy. There are currently no Italian-American quotas, no Italian university departments, and no predictable voting blocs. (…) class is finally reemerging as a better barometer of privilege than is race—a point that Republican populists are starting to hammer home. The children of Barack Obama, for example, have far more privilege than do the sons of Appalachian coal miners—and many Asian groups already exceed American per capita income averages. When activist Michael Eric Dyson calls for blanket reparations for slavery, his argument does not resonate with an unemployed working-class youth from Kentucky, who was born more than 30 years after the emergence of affirmative action—and enjoys a fraction of Dyson’s own income, net worth, and cultural opportunities. Finally, ideology is eroding the diversity industry. Conservative minorities and women are not considered genuine voices of the Other, given their incorrect politics. For all its emphasis on appearance, diversity is really an intolerant ideological movement that subordinates race and gender to progressive politics. It is not biology that gives authenticity to feminism, but leftwing assertions; African-American conservatives are often derided as inauthentic, not because of purported mixed racial pedigrees, but due to their unorthodox beliefs. The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry. It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances, which means that identity politics may lose its influence. These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we’ve seen in recent weeks. A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power.

    Victor Davis Hanson

  • 38
    Annika:

    Il a dit qu’il le ferait, et il s’y donne à fond les ballons. Quitte a prochainement se servir de la national guard.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/memos-signed-by-dhs-secretary-describe-sweeping-new-guidelines-for-deporting-illegal-immigrants/2017/02/18/7538c072-f62c-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?utm_term=.2c0824ebc021

  • 37
    waa:

    @jc durbant
    VDH dans ses œuvres

    Sa conclusion est particulièrement pertinente : Trump doit faire de ses électeurs blancs, noirs et latinos, la base permanente du Parti Républicain, et élargir cette base grâce à des résultats économiques.

    Trump a axé sa campagnes sur trois idées fortes : remplacer Obamacare par un système plus juste et moins couteux, ramener les jobs aux USA, et garantir la souveraineté par un contrôle des frontières.

    S’il réussit un des ces paris, il pourra être réélu
    S’il en réussit deux, il sera réélu.
    S’il fait un sans faute, il entrera dans l’Histoire

  • 36
    jc durbant:

    Le plus difficile n’est pas de dire ce que l’on voit mais d’accepter de voir ce que l’on voit.

    Charles Péguy

    « Il y a beaucoup de vrai dans cet article de Peter Thiel. Quand il dit sur Trump «Ses électeurs le prennent au sérieux mais ne le prennent pas au pied de la lettre.» Oui, je suis tout à fait d’accord. Je pense que les Américains en général sont très indulgents, ‘ils’ ont, après tout, voté 2 fois pour obama … Les détails ne semblent pas trop nous importer.  »

    Oui, merci, Annika, pour ce salutaire correctif. Des fois, je me demande si les gens qui sont si sûrs de leur fait quand il s’agit de démolir et délégitimer Trump ont déjà rencontré dans la vraie vie des membres de son électorat …

    Quant à moi qui ne suis ni américain ni résident aux EU, je ne peux que m’appuyer sur ce que je lis et les seuls commentateurs ou journalistes (que je connaisse) qui me semblent avoir vraiment compris l’incroyable exploit qu’a accompli un amateur comme Trump parce qu’ils avaient fait leur boulot, ie. pris la peine d’écouter et de voir et, selon la formule de Péguy, accepté de voir ce qu’ils avaient vu, et donc « pigé » à l’instar de ceux qui l’ont élu que, pour le meilleur comme pour le pire, seul un infâme goujat comme Trump pouvait finalement abattre la machine de guerre prétendument « progressiste » qui avait laminé des gens « decent » comme McCain ou Romney, c’est Hanson et Zito (voire Thiel et Adams) …

    Voir notamment:

    Trump thrives despite, not because of, his crudity, and largely because of anger at Barack Obama’s divisive and polarizing governance and sermonizing — and the Republican party’s habitual consideration of trade issues, debt, immigration, and education largely from the vantage point of either abstraction or privilege.

    VDH

    Democrats would seed the summer and autumn election battlefields with new and updated models of politically correct IEDs. They used this technique very effectively in 2012 to render a decent Mitt Romney as a tax-cheating, greedy Wall Street vulture, who ignored his regular garbageman, beat up kids in prep school, and strapped his terrified dog to his car top. Four years earlier the Democrats had blown John McCain to smithereens and left him little more than a closet racist and an adulterous and senile coot, who could not remember how many estates he owned nor the shenanigans of his pill-popping spouse. To avoid the rain of shrapnel, Romney had to battle both the moderator and his opponent in a presidential debate while contextualizing his own personal success and fortune. McCain, meanwhile, swore off referring to the racist personal pastor of Barack Obama and to Obama’s own litany of “typical white person” and “get in their face.” We forget that long before the wild man Trump, the most un-Trumpian, sober and judicious McCain and Romney were flattened by bogus charges against their spouses and false claims, respectively, of adultery and tax-cheating — and were completely unable to defend themselves from such smears and slanders. Instead of staying on a winning message and avoiding the subterranean traps, Trump on cue tramped right through this progressive minefield. The explosive result was predictable. He wasted precious hours rudely taking on a Mexican-American judge — who, to be fair, had foolishly joined a “La Raza” lawyers’ organization (imagine a white counterpart as a member of a local legal organization with “The Race” in its name) — or jousting with a Gold Star family, indifferent to the fact that the father was an immigration lawyer who logically would oppose Trump’s immigration moratoria. So when all these mines went off, Trump in theory always had some sort of legitimate counter-argument: Yes, Megyn Kelly was not commensurate in her sexism questions, in that she did not ask Hillary Clinton to account for her own sexist past, whether laughing over aspects of a case involving a rapist client, or demonizing Bill’s victims of coerced sex. And, yes, it was also a fact that bombastically inviting Putin to find Hillary’s missing 30,000 e-mails could not be a breach of security if they were truly about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding.

    VDH

    Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red. Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views. In recent elections, centrists, like John McCain and Mitt Romney – once found useful by the media when running against more-conservative Republicans — were reinvented as caricatures of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie. When the media got through with a good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian, unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and tortured his dog on the roof of his car. If it were a choice between shouting down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney in Ajaxian style (“nobly live, or nobly die”) chose the decorous path of dignified abdication. In contrast, we were to believe Obama’s adolescent faux Greek columns, hokey “lowering the seas and cooling the planet,” vero possumus seal on his podium as president-elect, and 57 states were Lincolnesque. Why would 2016 not end up again in losing nobly? Would once again campaigning under the Marquess of Queensberry rules win Republicans a Munich reprieve? The Orangeman Cometh In such a hysterical landscape, it was possible that no traditional Republican in 2016 was likely to win, even against a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton, who emerged wounded from a bruising primary win over aged socialist Bernie Sanders. Then came along the Trump, the seducer of the Right when the Republican establishment was busy early on coronating Jeb Bush. After the cuckolded front-runners imploded, we all assumed that Trump’s successful primary victories — oddly predicated on avoidance of a ground game, internal polling, ad campaigns, sophisticated fundraising, and a sea of consultants and handlers — were hardly applicable to Clinton, Inc. She surely would bury him under a sea of cash, consultants, and sheer manpower. That Trump was an amateur, a cad, his own worst enemy, cynically leveraging a new business or brand, and at any time could say anything was supposedly confirmation of Hillary’s inevitable victory. Her winning paradigm was seen as simply anti-Trump rather than pro-Hillary: light campaigning to conserve her disguised fragile health, while giving full media attention to allow Trump to elucidate his fully obnoxious self. Her campaign was to be a series of self-important selfies, each more flattering to the beholder but otherwise of no interest to her reluctant supporters. For insurance, Clinton would enlist the bipartisan highbrow Washington establishment to close ranks, with their habitual tsk-tsking of Trump in a nuanced historical context — “Hitler,” “Stalin,” “Mussolini,” “brown shirt,” etc. For all Hillary’s hundreds of millions of corporate dollars and legions of Clinton Foundation strategists, she could never quite shake Trump, who at 70 seemed more like a frenzied 55. Hillary would rely on the old Obama team of progressive hit men in the public-employee unions, the news ministries, the pajama-boy bloggers, the race industry, and the open-borders lobbies to brand Trump supporters as racist, sexist, misogynist, Islamophobic, nativist, homophobic. The shades of Obama’s old white reprehensible “Clingers” would spring back to life as “The Deplorables.” Yet for all Hillary’s hundreds of millions of corporate dollars and legions of Clinton Foundation strategists, she could never quite shake Trump, who at 70 seemed more like a frenzied 55. Trump at his worst was never put away by Hillary at her best, and he has stayed within six to eight points for most of his awful August and is now nipping her heels as October nears. Fracking Populist Fury Trump’s hare-and-tortoise strategy, his mishmash politics, reinventions, mastery of free publicity, and El Jefe celebrity had always offered him an outside chance of winning. (…) Trump’s electoral calculus was easy to fathom. He needed to win as many independents as Romney, enthuse some new Reagan Democrats to return to politics, keep steady the Republican establishment, and win at least as much of the Latino and black vote as had the underperforming McCain and Romney — all to win seven or eight swing states. He planned to do that, in addition to not stepping on IEDs, through the simple enough strategy of an outraged outsider not nibbling, but blasting away, at political correctness, reminding audiences that he was not a traditional conservative, but certainly more conservative than Hillary, and a roguish celebrity billionaire with a propensity to talk with, not down to, the lower middle classes. That the establishment was repulsed by his carroty look, his past scheming, his Queens-accented bombast, and his nationalist policies only made him seem more authentic to his supporters, old and possibly new as well. In sum, if Trump’s D-11 bulldozer blade did not exist, it would have to be invented. He is Obama’s nemesis, Hillary’s worst nightmare, and a vampire’s mirror of the Republican establishment. Before November’s election, his next outburst or reinvention will once again sorely embarrass his supporters, but perhaps not to the degree that Clinton’s erudite callousness should repel her own.

    VDH

    in his energetic harnessing of popular anger, Trump, my own least favorite in the field, was the more effective candidate in gauging the mood of the times. These are all valid rejoinders to those who say that recalcitrant conservatives, independents, and women should not hold their nose and vote for Trump. But they are not the chief considerations in his favor. Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump’s sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters. The Beltway establishment grew more concerned about their sinecures in government and the media than about showing urgency in stopping Obamaism. When the Voz de Aztlan and the Wall Street Journal often share the same position on illegal immigration, or when Republicans of the Gang of Eight are as likely as their left-wing associates to disparage those who want federal immigration law enforced, the proverbial conservative masses feel they have lost their representation. How, under a supposedly obstructive, conservative-controlled House and Senate, did we reach $20 trillion in debt, institutionalize sanctuary cities, and put ourselves on track to a Navy of World War I size? Compared with all that, “making Mexico pay” for the wall does not seem all that radical. Under a Trump presidency the owner of Univision would not be stealthily writing, as he did to Team Clinton, to press harder for open borders — and thus the continuance of a permanent and profitable viewership of non-English speakers. Trump’s outrageousness was not really new; it was more a 360-degree mirror of an already outrageous politics as usual. One does not need lectures about conservatism from Edmund Burke when, at the neighborhood school, English becomes a second language, or when one is rammed by a hit-and-run driver illegally in the United States who flees the scene of the accident. Do our elites ever enter their offices to find their opinion-journalism jobs outsourced at half the cost to writers in India? Are congressional staffers told to move to Alabama, where it is cheaper to telecommunicate their business? Trump’s outrageousness was not really new; it was more a 360-degree mirror of an already outrageous politics as usual. (…) The problem, however, is that a displaced real person, unemployed and living with his 80-year-old grandmother in a financially underwater and unsellable home, cannot easily move to the North Dakota fracking fields, any more than the destruction of an 80-acre small-farming operation owing to foreign agricultural subsidies is in any way “creative.” What we needed from our conservative elites and moderates was not necessarily less free-market economics, but fair in addition to free trade — and at least some compassion and sensitivity in recognizing that their bromides usually applied to others rather than to themselves and the political class of both parties. When Trump shoots off his blunderbuss, is it always proof of laziness and ignorance, or is it sometimes generally aimed in the right direction to prompt anxiety and eventual necessary reconsideration? Questioning NATO’s pro forma way of doing business led to furor, but also to renewed promises from NATO allies to fight terror, pony up defense funds, and coordinate more effectively. Deploring unfair trade deals suddenly made Hillary Clinton renounce her prior zealous support of the “gold standard” Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.(…) Many of us did not vote in the primaries for Trump, because we did not believe that he was sufficiently conservative or, given his polarizing demeanor, that he could win the presidency even if he were. The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.

    VDH

  • 35
    Polémos:

    À méditer…

    http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/yves-boisvert/201702/17/01-5070843-trump-est-il-fou-.php

  • 34
    James:

    L’amour est aveugle (Et heureux les pauvres en esprit)

    Quand il devient aveugle, il prend une forme grotesque.

  • 33
    jc durbant:

    L’amour est aveugle (Et heureux les pauvres en esprit)

    http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/rob_eshman/213581/ (merci james)

  • 32
    jc durbant:

     » Qui veut noyer son chien l’accuse de la rage »

    LaFontaine

    « Nous crions d’un bout à l’autre de l’Afrique : Attention, l’Amérique a la rage. Tranchons tous les liens qui nous rattachent à elle, sinons nous serons à notre tour mordus et enragés. »

    Sartre (après l’exécution des espions Rosenberg, Libération, 22 juin 1953)

    https://newrepublic.com/article/140702/medical-theory-donald-trumps-bizarre-behavior (merci james)

  • 31
    jc durbant:

    ATTENTION: UNE INCOMPETENCE PEUT EN CACHER UNE AUTRE !

    « I expected some broken dishes, some firings, some chaos, and some rookie mistakes. We got all of that. But I also expect a systems-thinker to tame the chaos over time as he learns on the job. For example, the leaks will stop as soon as Trump fires the right people. He’ll figure out which meetings he can skip. He’ll know who to trust. He’ll learn where all the buttons and levers are. It’s a process. If you are comparing the incoming Trump administration to the smooth transfer of power that defines our modern history, that’s an irrational comparison. If the country wanted a smooth ride it would have elected Hillary Clinton. Instead, voters opted to “drain the swamp.“ And you can’t drain the swamp without angering the alligators and getting some swamp water on your pants. That’s what we’re watching now. My liberal friends are gleefully scouring the semi-fake news and sending me articles that show Trump is “incompetent.” That’s the new narrative on the left. The Hitler illusion is starting to fade because Trump refuses to build concentration camps as his critics hallucinated he would. And Israel likes Trump, which is making the Hitler illusion harder to maintain. So the critics are evolving their main line of attack from Hitler to “incompetent,” with a dash of “chaos.” You’ll see those two words all over the Opposition Media’s coverage. It isn’t a coincidence. Persuasion-wise, focusing on incompetence and chaos is a strong play by the anti-Trumpers. One would expect the new Trump administration to have lots of growing pains. That means the Opposition Media will have plenty of fodder that they can frame as incompetence and chaos. Confirmation bias will make it all seem to fit the narrative. This is the same persuasion play that Trump used when he assigned to his opponents nicknames such as Lyin’ Ted and Crooked Hillary. He depended on future news cycles to serve up lots of confirmation bias to make his labels more credible over time. Trump’s opposition is running the same persuasion play on him. Now everything he does will be seen through their frame of “incompetence” and “chaos.” Even if it isn’t. That is strong persuasion. If you step out of the Opposition Media’s framing of Trump, another frame that fits the data is that he’s learning on the job, just like he learned every other field that he entered and eventually mastered. I don’t know what you expected when Trump went to Washington, but it isn’t too different from what I imagined. I assumed there would be broken dishes. And I assumed it would take him months to get his systems in place. When I worked in corporate America, I was usually involved in setting goals for the department. When we didn’t meet those goals, I always pointed out that the problem could be on either end. Either the goals were unrealistic or the performance was bad. Both explanations fits the data. Likewise, Trump’s first few weeks do look exactly like “incompetence” and “chaos” if you are primed to see it that way. But they also look like a systems-thinker simultaneously draining the swamp and learning on the job. »

    Scott Adams

  • 30
    jc durbant:

    Attention: un « meltdown » peut en cacher un autre ! (Chacun son film)

    « We live in our own personal movies. This is a perfect example. Millions of Americans looked at the same press conference and half of us came away thinking we saw an entirely different movie than the other half. Many of us saw Trump talking the way he normally does, and saying the things he normally says. Other people saw a raving lunatic, melting down. Those are not the same movies. So how can we know who is hallucinating in this case? The best way to tell is by looking for the trigger for cognitive dissonance. In this case, the trigger is clear. Trump’s unexpected win forced the Huffington Post to rewrite their mental movies from one in which they were extra-clever writers to one in which they were the dumbest political observers in the entire solar system. You might recall that the Huffington Post made a big deal of refusing to cover Trump on their political pages when he first announced his candidacy. They only carried him on their entertainment pages because they were so smart they knew he could not win. Then he won. When reality violates your ego that rudely, you either have to rewrite the movie in your head to recast yourself as an idiot, or you rewrite the movie to make yourself the hero who could see what others missed. Apparently the Huffington Post chose to rewrite their movie so Trump is a deranged monster, just like they warned us. That’s what they see. This isn’t an example of so-called “fake” news as we generally understand it. This is literally imaginary news. I believe the Huffington Post’s description of the press conference is literally what they saw. If you gave them lie detector tests, they would swear they saw a meltdown, and the lie detector would say they were telling the truth. There are two clues that the Huffington Post is hallucinating and I’m not. The first clue is that they have a trigger and I don’t. Reality violated their egos, whereas I was predicting a Trump win all along. My world has been consistent with my ego. No trigger. All I have is a warm feeling of rightness. The second clue is that the Huffington Post is seeing something that half the country doesn’t see. As a general rule, the person who sees the elephant in the room is the one hallucinating, not the one who can’t see the elephant. The Huffington Post is literally seeing something that is invisible to me and other observers. We see a President Trump talking the way he normally talks. They see a 77-minute meltdown. »

    Scott Adams

  • 29
    Annika:

    J.C. : Il y a beaucoup de vrai dans cet article de Peter Thiel. Quand il dit sur Trump «Ses électeurs le prennent au sérieux mais ne le prennent pas au pied de la lettre.» Oui, je suis tout à fait d’accord. Je pense que les Américains en général sont très indulgents, ‘ils’ ont, après tout, voté 2 fois pour obama … Les détails ne semblent pas trop nous importer.

    Je pense aussi que ce sont les médias qui travaillent à diviser la société, and they have been relatively successful.
    Il est ironique que les deux présidents, obama et Trump, aient pris le pouvoir en faisant des déclarations relativement claires sur leurs intentions. Quand obama promit de «Transformer fondamentalement les Etats Unis d’Amérique» la réponse des medias fut principalement de l’admiration. On se souvient du standing ovation lors de sa première conférence de presse. Mais quand Trump promit de «Construire un mur à la frontière mexicaine», il est mis au défi d’expliquer comment payer pour le mur, la taille du mur, la couleur du mur, la profondeur des fondations, l’effet du mur sur la biodiversité du désert alentour, ainsi que l’effet psychologique d’un mur sur les populations pauvres.
    C’est deux poids deux mesures, comme vous dites en francais.

  • 28
    Annika:

    Madimaxi: « Et puis, émotif comme je suis.. » 🙂

  • 27
    Letel:

    Tout ça n’a guère de sens, JC, il a affirmé une contre-vérité et c’est tout. Autant le reconnaître.

  • 26
    jc durbant:

    « But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that? »

    Voilà, au-delà de son évident problème d’égo et de langage, tout ce que Trump demande et qu’il n’arrive toujours pas à obtenir de ces journalistes qui l’ont jamais pris au sérieux avec leurs pinaillages de cour de récréation mais surtout qui n’ont pas arrêté de se planter tout au long de la campagne et prétendent aujourd’hui lui faire la leçon …

    Comme diraient les Chinois, le sage montre la lune et l’idiot regarde le doigt …

    Et dans le cas précis, c’est les journalistes qui jouent au plus fin, emportés qu’ils sont par leur refus de reconnaitre vraiment l’incroyable tour de force de cette victoire (quasiment sans argent et contre tous les pronostics et surtout eux les prétendus journalistes et même les caciques du GOP) qu’ils s’obstinent à vouloir lui voler à lui et à ses électeurs comme prétendument illégitime.

    Comme l’a si bien compris Salena Zito, la seule vraie journaliste qui avait pris la peine d’aller écouter les bouseux et prédit la victoire de Trump :

    « When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.  »

    Salena Zito

    Reprise et développée plus tard par Thiel:

    « I think one thing that should be distinguished here is that the media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally. … I think a lot of voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally, so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment, their question is not, ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is we’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy. »

    Peter Thiel

    Ou en VF:

    « Les journalistes prennent toujours Trump au pied de la lettre mais sans le prendre au sérieux. Ses électeurs, en revanche, le prennent au sérieux mais ne le prennent pas au pied de la lettre. Par exemple, quand il propose de construire un mur à la frontière mexicaine, les journalistes exigent des détails, veulent savoir comment il va s’y prendre. Ses électeurs comprennent qu’il ne veut pas vraiment édifier un mur. Ils entendent simplement qu’il propose une politique migratoire plus saine et plus intelligente. »

    Peter Thiel (merci james)

  • 25
    Letel:

    By the sea, Mr. T., that’s the life I covet,
    By the sea, Mr. T., ooh, I know you’d love it!
    You and me, Mr. T, we could be alone
    In a house wot we’d almost own,
    Down by the sea!
    Wouldn’t that be smashing?

    T.: Anything you say

  • 24
    James:

    Sinon, d’accord avec Letel. Il aurait effectivement pu soit reconnaître l’erreur, soit s’en sortir avec un commentaire (même si il n’y croyait pas) du genre : « J’ai dit cela car les premiers résultats des urnes qui nous parvenaient, à mon équipe et à moi, étaient au-dessus de ceux de Reagan » ou bien « En fait, vous avez mal interprété mes propos, je parlais du nombre des électeurs; l’élection de Reagan en 1980 totalisait 79 millions d’électeurs, celle de 2016 128 millions. »

    Certes, c’est un peu de la mauvaise foi, mais il serait retombé sur ses pattes.

  • 23
    James:

    Mr T., excellent ! 🙂

  • 22
    Letel:

    Les sermonneurs de journalistes, vous les critiquez à raison, continuez ! Mais ça n’enlève rien à la bourde de Mr T., mal rattrapée, inutile de se raccrocher aux branches, autant la reconnaître et passer à autre chose. C’est ce type d’attitude – nier tout, ne rien reconnaître – qui est contreproductive.

  • 21
    jc durbant:

    « Super sérieux »…

    Oui, justement !

    Et que dire de nos sermonneurs de journalistes qui le prennent au mot et crient au mensonge d’Etat à chaque fois ?

    Quant à la pondération, on est bien sûr dans la comparaison: qui ne serait pondéré face à un tel personnage ?

  • 20
    Letel:

    🙂

  • 19
    James:

    On veille au grain en haut lieu.

  • 18
    Letel:

    Ah, ouf, le bannissement est terminé.

  • 17
    Letel:

    Mon pauvre banni, nous sommes Madi, euh non, maudits… Euh re-non : Mon pauvre Madi, nous sommes bannis !

  • 16
    Letel:

    > I don’t know, I was given that information. I actually, I’ve seen that information around.

    Super sérieux…

  • 15
    jc durbant:

    « I don’t know, I was given that information. I actually, I’ve seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that? »

    Donald Trump

  • 14
    madimaxi:

    Annika,
    Panipwoblèm’. Je suis américanophile, atlantiste et légitimiste. Je soutiendrai le personnage face à tout l’ennemi de l’Amérique mais on est en famille ici et je lave le linge sale.

    Jean-Claude,
    Je n’ai jamais connu John McCain « pondéré ». Au contraire, c’est un gueulard, un « Maverick » selon son nickname. Il a perdu car il a préféré rester fidèle à ses convictions plutôt que de céder à les sacrifier. C’est un battant, un soldat qui connaît la valeur de la formule : « respect dû à son ennemi ».
    Et puis, émotif comme je suis, je précise que l’on ne critique pas John McCain impunément en présence de madimaxi ici. Sinon c’est la bagarre.

  • 13
    Letel:

    Quand Trump dit par exemple qu’il a eu le plus grand nombre de grands électeurs depuis Reagan, à quoi ça sert, à quoi une telle déformation des faits sert ? C’est manifestement faux, il en eu 304, Bush en a eu 426 en 1988, Obama 365 et 332, seuls Carter et Bush 2 en ont eu moins depuis Nixon.

  • 12
    Letel:

    Il ne s’agit pas de pondération ni de modération, simplement de ne pas donner des armes à ses adversaires en s’éloignant des faits.

  • 11
    jc durbant:

    Contreproductif ?

    Mais faudrait voir où la pondération a mené McCain ou Romney ?

    Et que répondre à tant de pondération ?

    What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

    “I’ve seen this before, I lived this before. We were met by an angry mob that beat us and left us lying in a pool of blood. Brothers and sisters, do you want to go back? “Or do you want to keep America moving forward?”

    “I’ve been around a while and Trump reminds me so much of a lot of the things that George Wallace said and did … Sometimes I feel like I am reliving part of my past. I heard it so much growing up in the South…I heard it so much during the days of the civil-rights movement. As a people, I just think we could do much better.”

    “They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews … trade unionists … Catholics … Protestants … Read the Republican contract. They are coming for the children. They are coming for the poor. They are coming for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.”

    “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians, and others, that helped him get elected.”

    John Lewis

    If a Republican had said this about President-elect Hillary Clinton, Democrats would be up in arms.

    Anderson Cooper

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/7-other-extremist-outrages-from-democrat-john-lewis/#L31WEQIvjqK2IH8D.99

    http://ijr.com/opinion/2016/03/253717-donald-trump-can-actually-expand-electoral-map-win-november/

  • 10
    Letel:

    Le problème est que c’est contreproductif, le bâton n’est pas « tordu dans l’autre sens », mais tendu à ses adversaires.

  • 9
    jc durbant:

    « il a parfois tendance à se laisser emporter par la passion, ses idées primant sur les faits » …

    Oui, ça s’appelle, non tendre le bâton pour se faire battre, mais comme disait souvent Bourdieu contre la représentation devenue trop dominante, « tordre le bâton dans l’autre sens » …

    Voir:

    Au risque de paraître excessif, et d’offrir aux esprits pondérés l’occasion de mises au point pleines de mesure, il faut (…) « tordre le bâton dans l’autre sens » (…) contre la représentation dominante

    Pierre Bourdieu (La Noblesse d’Etat)

  • 8
    Annika:

    Le Real Clear Politics lien est tout un poème… qui nous rappelle les tréfonds d’inexactitude des sondages avant l’élection. On valse de Gallup -18 pour Trump, à +10 sur Rasmussen !! Et on est supposé y croire comme des morts vivants écervelés.

    Le Moyen Orient est à feu et à sang. ISIS est en guerre contre notre civilisation, la Corée du nord, l’Iran, la Chine et la Russie sont belligérants. L’Amérique croule sous une dette colossale de 20,000,000,000,000 de $$. Elle croule aussi sous une population étrangère et illégale qui s’élève entre 11 et 30 millions dont des milliers de criminels, qui rentrent et sortent quand ils veulent. Les institutions américaines, dont la CIA, NSA, EPA, IRS, et ses établissements d’enseignements supérieurs ont été infiltrés par les clones islamo-gauchistes d’obama et autres radicaux. Pour la première fois depuis le début de son histoire, les standards de vie sont tels que les américains doutent que leurs enfants seront prospères. Et il faudrait que je sois «choquée» que Trump ait vaguement surestimé son score en collège électoral.
    Sorry fellows, I really don’t give a darn.
    Let’s focus on what’s important.

  • 7
    James:

    Gallup: Number of Americans who see foreign trade as an opportunity rather than a threat reaches … all-time high?

  • 6
    Letel:

    JC est toujours très intéressant et poste des trucs très utiles, mais il a parfois tendance à se laisser emporter par la passion, ses idées primant sur les faits.

  • 5
    jc durbant:

    IF YOU LOOK AND LISTEN

    It’s not just visual: In interview after interview in all corners of the state, I’ve found that Trump’s support across the ideological spectrum remains strong. Democrats, Republicans, independents, people who have not voted in presidential elections for years — they have not wavered in their support. Two components of these voters’ answers and profiles remain consistent: They are middle-class, and they do not live in a big city. They are suburban to rural and are not poor — an element I found fascinating, until a Gallup survey last week confirmed that what I’ve gathered in interviews is more than just freakishly anecdotal. The Gallup analysis, based on 87,000 interviews over the past year, shows that while economic anxiety and Trump’s appeal are intertwined, his supporters for the most part do not make less than average Americans (not those in New York City or Washington, perhaps, but their Main Street peers) and are less likely to be unemployed. The study backs up what many of my interviews across the state found — that these people are more concerned about their children and grandchildren. While Trump supporters here are overwhelmingly white, their support has little to do with race (yes, you’ll always find one or two who make race the issue) but has a lot to do with a perceived loss of power. Not power in the way that Washington or Wall Street board rooms view power, but power in the sense that these people see a diminishing respect for them and their ways of life, their work ethic, their tendency to not be mobile (many live in the same eight square miles that their father’s father’s father lived in). Thirty years ago, such people determined the country’s standards in entertainment, music, food, clothing, politics, personal values. Today, they are the people who are accused of creating every social injustice imaginable; when anything in society fails, they get blamed. The places where they live lack economic opportunities for the next generation; they know their children and grandchildren will never experience the comfortable situations they had growing up — surrounded by family who lived next door, able to find a great job without going to college, both common traits among many successful small-business owners in the state. These Trump supporters are not the kind you find on Twitter saying dumb or racist things; many of them don’t have the time or the patience to engage in social media because they are too busy working and living life in real time. These are voters who are intellectually offended watching the Affordable Care Act crumble because they warned six years ago that it was an unworkable government overreach. They are the same people who wonder why President Obama has not taken a break from a week of golfing to address the devastating floods in Louisiana. (As one woman told me, “It appears as if he only makes statements during tragedies if there is political gain attached.”) Voice such a remark, and you risk being labeled a racist in many parts of America. The Joe-Six-Pack stereotype of a Trump supporter was not created in a vacuum; it’s real and it’s out there. Yet, if you dig down deep into the Gallup survey — or, better yet, take a drive 15 minutes outside of most cities in America — you will learn a different story. That is, if you look and listen.

    Salena Zito

  • 4
    madimaxi:

    D’accord avec Letel. Peu importe ici de savoir si Trump aurait gagné ou perdu si l’élection se réglait selon les seules suffrages exprimés. Faut se limiter aux faits. Et les faits disent que :

    – Donald Trump est le président le moins bien élu depuis ??? Chai’s plus. Une première probablement.

    – Donald Trump a perdu là ou le parti républicain, qu’on annonçait haut et fort comme implosé, déchiqueté, détruit… a gagné. En effet, le parti Éléphant remporte le scrutin populaire à la Chambre et au Sénat. Les « mauviettes » selon Trump, Marco Rubio en Floride et mon idole John McCain font mieux que lui dans leurs fiefs respectifs. Le seul vote populaire que le parti républicain a perdu dans cette élection était à la « présidentielle ».

    – le bonhomme commence son mandat avec 39% d’opinions favorables. Du jamais vu. Remarquez, il dispose de la marge de progression.

    Personne ne conteste ici la légitimité de cette élection. On pointe juste des faits qui réduiront sensiblement son champ d’action. Sa position est fragile car elle ne s’appuie pas sur une large adhésion de la population. C’est un handicap.

    Toujours aussi instructifs tes liens, Jean-Claude. Cependant, en le compilant j’ai comme l’impression d’assister à une théorie de complot. Les média, les fuites orchestrées, les services secrets tous ligués. C’est digne de figurer dans « Conspiracy watch ». Toutefois, franchement ! Pourquoi aller chercher si loin ?

    C’est cette administration, elle-même qui distribue les bâtons pour se faire battre. L’amateurisme et la malhonnêteté du général Flynn crève les yeux. Le type qui devait assumer la fonction de conseiller « sécurité » ne savait même pas que la mission première de ces services est de surveiller les contacts des ambassades des puissances étrangères. Faut faire ! Et l’autre, le désormais POTUS qui affirme que son score en collège électoral était le plus haut depuis Reagan ! Est-ce que ces monumentales bêtises sont aussi le fruit des forces occultes et malveillantes ?

  • 3
    jc durbant:

    WHAT A FAILED MEDIA LOOKS LIKE

    « His poll ratings are falling at unprecedented speed »…

    David Brooks

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb17

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

  • 2
    jc durbant:

    Ces castes intello-bobo-culturelles qui s’affranchissent volontiers des beaux principes qu’elles entendent imposer au commun des mortels:

    La société du spectacle – ou plutôt des people, comme il convient de la désigner aujourd’hui -, est bien étrange et pétrie de contradictions. Dans une pétition publiée le 14 février par Libération, quelques dizaines d’artistes émus à juste titre par l’affaire Théo s’insurgent contre les violences policières et y vont de leurs petites exigences

    Mais ne nous y trompons pas: nos artistes condamnent aussi «avec force les casseurs et les voyous», histoire de nous faire croire qu’ils se sentent un tantinet concernés par la banalisation des guérillas urbaines et des agressions croissantes commises à l’encontre des policiers, des pompiers, des enseignants, des conducteurs de bus, du corps médical et des citoyens lambda. Pas au point, toutefois, de signer des pétitions pour ça, ni même pour protester contre l’impunité des violeurs en général, dont on rappelle au passage que seuls 1% écopent d’une condamnation en cour d’assise. Et là où on ne pige vraiment plus rien, c’est qu’on se souvient vaguement que cette société du spectacle, des people, du showbiz, de la jet set, qui se veut si soucieuse d’égalité, de respect des droits, d’équité, avait signé, voici sept ans, la pétition d’un certain BHL (le bienfaiteur de l’humanité libertine) afin de soustraire à la justice américaine un prestigieux cinéaste poursuivi pour une vieille «affaire de mœurs» (novlangue médiatique pour «viol sur mineure»). Aujourd’hui âgé de 83 ans, Roman Polanski devait présider la cérémonie des César le 24 février prochain. Mais face à la polémique, il a préféré renoncer. Preuve du décalage abyssal entre l’opinion publique et les castes intello-bobo-culturelles, qui s’affranchissent volontiers des beaux principes qu’elles entendent imposer au commun des mortels

    Et elle s’y connaît en revendications, la société des people: tribunes et mobilisations en faveur des migrants de Calais ou d’un meilleur accueil des «réfugiés» débarquant à Paris ; appels au barrage contre le FN pendant les régionales ; et cerise sur le gâteau (on ne vous dira pas lequel), pétition contre le Hollande-bashing. Mais il se trouve que sa perception de la réalité est de moins en moins en phase avec celle du peuple, qui se coltine au quotidien les conséquences de cet humanisme mondain. Le peuple n’est pas indifférent au sort de Théo, aux agissements de certaines «brebis galeuses» de la police. Mais il supporte encore moins la déliquescence d’un cadre de vie que des forces de l’ordre débordées ne parviennent plus à pacifier. Ce ne sont pas les people qui subissent les méfaits de campements sauvages de clandestins ni l’insécurité des périphéries, où l’on règle parfois ses comptes à la Kalash’. «C’est une tribune de bobos, de gens qui ne connaissent pas la réalité du terrain, parce qu’aujourd’hui les seuls qui pénètrent dans ces cités, ce ne sont pas les artistes, mais les policiers», réagit Patrice Ribeiro, du syndicat Synergie-Officiers.

    Mercredi soir, des émeutes ont éclaté à Paris dans le quartier de Barbès, scène de feux de poubelle, de jets de projectiles et d’affrontements avec les autorités. Parmi les manifestants, les inévitables groupuscules d’extrême gauche, antifas et anars, toujours fidèles au poste dès qu’il s’agit de défouler leur hargne. Si les insurrections gagnent les beaux quartiers, un peu plus à l’ouest ou au centre de la capitale, alors nous guetterons avec intérêt la réaction des people. Nous verrons s’ils sont toujours aussi persuadés que l’urgence est aux formules de politesse, aux récépissés de contrôles d’identité, aux comités d’éthique et au désarmement des flics pour «retrouver une République juste et apaisée».

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/2017/02/16/31001-20170216ARTFIG00228-la-bonne-conscience-des-people-contre-les-violences-policieres.php

    https://jcdurbant.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/boboland-attention-une-exclusion-peut-en-cacher-une-autre-trouble-in-boboland/

    https://jcdurbant.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/presidentielle-2012-vous-avez-dit-bobos-how-frances-bobos-fell-out-of-paradise/

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Clinton’s popular vote win is an illusion. I don’t mean that it doesn’t exist, but it is more apparent than real. Presidential elections are run according to the Electoral College. Candidates compete to win electoral votes; the popular vote is a by-product of that. To put it in terms of video games, the popular vote is a side quest. It’s impossible to say that Trump would have lost if the election had been contested on the basis of winning the popular vote because it wasn’t conducted that way — just as it’s impossible to say Romney would definitely have won an election with electors awarded by congressional districts. Ideally, a candidate gains both the popular vote and the Electoral College, but if only one can be had, in our system it’s the Electoral College that matters, and that’s the way it should be. Do we want a president who wins by running up the score in one or two states, or do we want a president who wins by garnering narrower victories in a wide array of states? Clinton won New York and California. Trump won Texas. And Florida. And North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and even one electoral vote in Maine. He won the Electoral College by assembling a more politically and geographically diverse group of states than Clinton did. In our system, winning the Electoral College confers legitimacy because such a victory exemplifies the reality the Electoral College was created to ground in our political order: that the United States is a federal union of semi-sovereign states. Those states, not the Electoral College, were Hillary Clinton’s downfall.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442231/popular-vote-hillary-didnt-really-win-it (merci james)















  • '