Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Donald Trump and diversity

Dr. Helen explains why she is supporting Donald Trump for President:
In 2008, during election night, my husband Glenn and I did some commentary for PJTV and I remember PJTV host Bill Whittle asking me if the election of Obama would reduce the anger of liberals to which I said, "no, it would probably enhance it because now they feel entitled and emboldened to be even nastier." If one thinks of liberal bias and anger in behavioral terms, winning the presidential election would reinforce the self-entitled behavior of liberals even further:

In operant conditioning, positive reinforcement involves the addition of a reinforcing stimulus following a behavior that makes it more likely that the behavior will occur again in the future. When a favorable outcome, event, or reward occurs after an action, that particular response or behavior will be strengthened.

So, what does all this psychological jargon mean for the individual in regards to politics? It means that liberal bias and anger against those of us who do not go along with the liberal agenda could increase and in ways that cost people their jobs, livelihoods, relationships etc. A Trump election means that people (mostly liberal) will stop to think about the consequences of their acts more with the other side in power. The fact is, the media, schools, universities and much of society in general these days is driven by liberal thought and with a liberal president and Justice Department at the helm, people feel very free to engage in acts against dissidents without as much restraint.

How does this play out? It means that there will be fewer conservatives allowed in the media, in schools and universities and in all institutions that are left-leaning which is to say most of them. If a conservative (one of the few) happens to be within earshot of a liberal, it is possible that they may lose their job, their reputation, and their livelihoods.

But with president Trump, though liberals may be angry at conservatives and try to get them fired, harassed, mobbed or jailed, they will try a little less or maybe not at all if they feel that they will not be backed up by the Justice Department or other liberal henchmen (or women). And for those who are not conservative and think you are safe if liberal, not so fast. Fewer conservatives in the liberal crosshairs means fewer targets; then they start picking off their own.

Don't be surprised if you find out that your fellow liberals will take you down too, and you will have nowhere to turn since the government and your office is all on the same side.
There are other, even more important reasons, such as the opportunity for immigration restrictions, to support Donald Trump. But this is a non-trivial one. And one can only imagine how much further amok feminists would be permitted to run under a Hillary administration.


dc.sunsets said...

I take Clinton at her word:
1. She'll throw open the borders to those rejected by the 3rd world.
2. She'll "confront" nuclear-armed Russia over geopolitical disasters she helped foment.
3. She'll nominate for the SCOTUS more Sotomayor-style Affirmative-action lunatics who'll undo Heller and otherwise spend the rest of their lives legislating leftist lunacy from the bench.

Discussions on a different forum populated exclusively by 140-plus IQ members informs me that leftism, denial of reality and simple viciousness are rampant in that crowd.

I couldn't care less if Trump was Daffy Duck. All anyone would have to do is simply NOT follow HillBilly's program and that candidate should win in not just a landslide but in acclamation.

chris said...

If Trump gets in, he should not waste the opportunity he has and he should entrench the alt-right's power in the culture. He should set the foundation for our march through the institutions. Just think, a Republican Presidency, a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate, and soon to be a Republican Supreme Court. The sky literally is the limit. The right can stack the cards so that we win all future elections, just like the left was trying to stack the cards so that they would win all future elections (through demographic replacement and destruction of the family and marriage (single women vote leftist whereas married women vote rightist.))

Puzzle Privateer said...

Everyone assumes a Trump presidency will slow things down. I'm not so sure. Given how hysterical the Establishment & average liberal reaction has been so far they might go completely off the rails if Trump gets in.

There's also the fact that a Trump Justice Department could go to prosecute Hillary and friends (see: the DNC email leaks). If the heads of the Democrat party are in a position where they could be looking at real jail time who knows what they are capable of doing? Flee the country perhaps, or maybe they are nasty enough to try and crash the whole system.

Acceleration of the current insanity may happen no matter who we elect. In which case maybe America isn't picking Presidents but rather picking war leaders.

Mr.MantraMan said...

Women are a terror till they are not, once they are off the offensive they pretty much crumble.

But the Right was taken over by nancy boys and here we are in a feminist dystopia.

Whisker biscuit said...

Either way, I honestly believe the left will become even more insane.

If LizardQueen wins, see the Obama reaction with even more GRRRRRL POWAH crap, and a heaping helping of the smorgasbord that is the gay/trans/ Satanic movement. And wars. It will be a globalist paradise with perpetual bombings and mass immigration. The net positive will be an even larger alt-right movement--perhaps too late if the demographics shift.

For the God Emperor, it will be pure hysteria all the way from scripted network shows, movies, Michael Moore documentaries, musical acts releasing protest songs, and mass protests at the border to stop any wall construction.

They'll spaz out either way because that's who they are---spoiled brats who operate purely on emotions. It's all or nothing with them. There is no compromising.

Aeoli Pera said...

Damn good prediction there doc.

Gilbert Ratchet said...

How about linking to Dr. Helen's original piece?

Christopher B said...

Gilbet - I belive it's in the blogroll on the left side of the homepage.

dc.sunsets said...

Since I believe we're on the cusp of the greatest Credit Collapse Deflationary Depression in recorded history, regardless of whose name is on the Oval Oafice, to me only the details will be changed by a HillBilly vs Trump administration.

Those details, however, could matter quite a lot, so it's Trump all the way. Never has there been a Greater Evil to vote against, as I recall (although the current Affirmative Action hire for the oafice is runner-up. He makes Bill-the-Boner look statesmanlike.)

OTOH, can you imagine S&W stock price if HillBilly gets in?

dc.sunsets said...

Per the OP, leftists could be emboldened enough to begin ordering violent reprisals (using their BLM proxies) while the DOJ simply looks the other way (can't have disparate impact with regard to arrests and convictions over rioting and murder, so until some whites riot and murder and get sent away, life could imitate the movie "The Purge."

Robert What? said...

Since neither candidate is talking about stemming the growth of the government Leviathan, to me it comes down to a one issue election: the Second Amendment. Trump wins that one hands down. Something tells me Hillary has never even handled a gun.

javaloco said...

Race relations are at their worst in 50+ years since the first black president was elected.

What do you think is going to happen if the first female is elected president?

One Fat Oz Guy said...

One only has to look at Gillard in Australia:
She said a bunch of feminist sexist stuff (all men are interchangeable, blue tie speech) and anyone who questioned her about anything was just sexist, even when it related to actual criminal charges.
She was given a pass on a Federal investigation on the grounds of "I don't recall" because they couldn't have the first female PM convicted of a crime also be a woman.
Even after she got in, there were still the cries that women can't break through the glass ceiling.
Also, like most politicians, she left her electorate as soon as she finished because she was only living there because she needed to appear to be local. The moment she finished she left and bought a million dollar mansion in Adelaide, in the next state.

One Fat Oz Guy said...

Also, and this is the kicker, because Gillard wanted a woman to replace her in her seat, the Labor party put forward a young woman who HAD NEVER BEEN to that part of Melbourne and said she'd consider moving there if she got the seat (safe Labor seat).
The backlash was so bad they had to back down. Fancy thinking that a woman who has never been to an area could better represent the people than any man who does is laughable, but Labor tried.

Rex Little said...

Just think, a Republican Presidency, a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate

Those of you old enough to serve in Congress might recall that we had exactly that, not too long ago. How'd that work out for us?

My second worst nightmare is having the Republican Party in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress at the same time. (First place goes to having the Democrats control these.) For me, Trump's major appeal is that he doesn't have the Republican establishment behind him, so Congress will rein him in no matter who controls it. Hillary, if she got a Democratic majority in both houses, would ride roughshod.

Christopher B said...

Gilbet - I belive it's in the blogroll on the left side of the homepage.

GFR said...

We need to make it painful to be a libtard. Cut funding for universities if they don't hire 90% Conservative professors. Take away broadcast rights from TV stations that don't represent the Conservative point of view 90% of the time, same thing for teachers, government employees etc etc

S. Misanthrope said...

I remember back when Obama was first running, an Objectivist friend of mine said he hoped Obama won because "this country is so white." He thought getting the "first black president" thing out of the way would help us get over our race issues and move on. I remember asking him at the time when the last time was that he actually interacted with a leftist, because getting over things is never their MO. I wish I hadn't been right that time.

Ron said...

Fewer conservatives in liberal crosshairs means fewer targets. Then they start pickong on their own

Jim from blog.jim.com termed this a "holiness spiral". Once the priest caste reaches "peak holiness", ie, all enemies to the right are dead, then each tries to outdo the other in piety, usually by exterminating the heretics. At some point someone gets on charge and kills off all the other priests, thus "winning" the contest. For example Stalin who wiped out all the intelligencia, the khmer rouge who wiped out practically anyone who could so much as read, etc.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

"maybe America isn't picking Presidents but rather picking war leaders."

Yes, we're picking sides for the coming civil war.

If Trump scares the shit out of them now, wait until they see who's coming up through Nationalist / WN ranks.

Mmo Nam said...

Ngoài ra chúng tôi còn có một website khác đó là taigamehay chuyên updatenhững game mới nhất

Bên đây tai game mien phi đang hot hiện nay

Post a Comment