AnthonyBourdain bashes fellow 'privileged Eastern libs' for making Trump win possible

I read that last night. He's right.

Very good read and very true. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]

i think that the constant pearl clutching about emails!!!1!@11!! had more to do with making the trump win possible than a bunch of people in flyover country feeling like victims. that's just me though.

92tide said:

i think that the constant pearl clutching about emails!!!1!@11!! had more to do with making the trump win possible than a bunch of people in flyover country feeling like victims. that's just me though.

Click to expand...

Whose mind did it change at that point? Doubtful that it was any significant number.

Here are some insane notions, none of which are true - and they need to be let go:

1) Perot did not get Clinton elected in 1992

2) Palin did not cost McCain the White House in 2008

3) Romney's 47% remark did not cost him the 2012 election

4) Hillary's emails didn't have diddly squat to do with her losing AT ALL

Her emails aren't why she never went to Wisconsin now are they? Let's face it, Hillary is the modern version of Bob Dole - an old, prehistoric candidate from another time who ran bad campaign after bad campaign at the national level (succeeding more by virtue of seniority than any particular political genius at issues)....and who felt entitled, one because of his WW2 service and the other because she stayed with a philandering husband.

I also think it's time a lot of people - by which I mean just about everybody here (excepting Tide-HSV, Gray, possibly CA, and 2 or 3 others...NT16).....the truth is that elections aren't REALLY about issues other than seeing those as symbols. Pick any issue you wish. Take that hot button of abortion. Polls always show the same thing - about 58% call themselves pro-choice and about 1/2 consider it murder (yes, there's crossover). So if abortion were this real big issue and the vote split so hard that way...why has the pro-life candidate won six out of ten elections since it got introduced in the 1980 campaign? Answer: because when Billy Bob and Janie Sue walk into the polling place, they aren't concerned about whether abortion ought to be legal or stricter regulated. They aren't concerned about whether gay marriage ought to be a state issue, a legal right, or illegal. They really don't give a damn whether Donald Trump grabbed some girl by the (word) or if Hillary sent classified information to all 324 million Americans in her campaign literature.

They DON'T give a damn!!!!!

They basically at the core make a choice between two goofballs held in near equal contempt.

Too many people both here and everywhere think these elections are about their own pet issue. My ex-FIL actually concocted the insane idea that the 2004 re-election of Bush meant the country wanted the military draft re-instituted. Why? Because that was his pet issue, Iraq, and having enough soldiers. He literally thought Bush's mandate was a vote for the military draft. (Mandate being his word, not mine). I've got a union buddy Democrat here. He literally thought Obama getting elected was going to unionize the entire country via card check (the EFCA, a labor union demand). After all, Obama won didn't he? He won a wipeout and the Dems picked up Senate seats yadda yadda. It was a gonna pass slam dunk.

Guess which provision of the bill the Democrats abandoned to overcome the filibuster?

And yet he still pulls the lever for them, so what do they care?

And I meet person after person whose whole thing is their pet issue. They absolutely convince themselves that if this person here is just elected that whatever they were promised is like a marriage vow. Well...in a country with half the folks divorced, I guess it sort of is.

I don't think Trump got elected because of any singular issue. He got elected solely because he wasn't Hillary. If she had gotten elected she - no doubt - would have pressed forth with her 'agenda' (hers is more organized than the cluster that clouds Trump's insanity)....and plummeted in the polls like every other pol who tries to do something. But if HRC had won, it would not have been because of a massive outpouring support for transgender rights or for a left-wing nutbag Supreme Court or even because she's a woman and somehow we need to have a gal President.

It would have been because she wasn't Donald Trump.


Btw - I've been meaning to say this for awhile. I'm 47 years old and can recall campaigns going back to 1980. I realize that people have ALWAYS said, "These two candidates are awful." Every election. But I find it hard to believe that somebody who was once my age looked at their ballot of, say, Reagan and Carter, Reagan and Mondale, Bush/Dukakis, Clinton/Bush/Perot, etc......and can say those candidates even in their time were WORSE than what we got this year. I know Clinton/Dole, for example, was boring, but you couldn't sit there and say "how did these two clowns wind up here" with the same vociferousness as nowadays.

I don't believe that for a minute.

And don't forget the West Coast elites:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...hypocritical-coastal-elites-soak-middle-class

The American progressive elite relies on its influence, education, money, and cultural privilege to exempt itself from the bad schools, unassimilated immigrant communities, dangerous neighborhoods, crime waves, and general impoverishment that are so often the logical consequences of its own policies — consequences for others, that is. Abstract idealism on behalf of the distant is a powerful psychological narcotic that allows caring progressives to dull the guilt they feel about their own privilege and riches.

Nowhere is this paradox truer than in California, a dysfunctional natural paradise in which a group of coastal and governing magnificoes virtue-signal from the world’s most exclusive and beautiful enclaves. The state is currently experiencing another perfect storm of increased crime, decreased incarceration, still ongoing illegal immigration, and record poverty. All that is energized by a strapped middle class that is still fleeing the overregulated and overtaxed state, while the arriving poor take their places in hopes of generous entitlements, jobs servicing the elite, and government employment.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, my self-described "radical socialist" left-wing lawyer friend said much the same thing last week when we got together for a drink and a football game. He understands how Trump won. He doesn't like it, but he understands it. The Democrats oozed contempt for the blue-collar worker that has been their backbone since FDR. And those blue-collar workers reciprocated in kind.

TIDE-HSV said:

Re: Bourdain - travel broadens. No doubt about it...

Click to expand...

I also think that there is something to be said for the job he does. He gets out and meets tons of people, often gravitating towards cooking that isn't always haute' cuisine because he appreciates culinary traditions. That isn't to say he doesn't associate with the finest of fine dining establishments, just that if you have ever watched his show he will always appreciate a good meal from a street vendor or open air market. Edit: *I should say that yes travel often accompanies the meeting of tons of people, but it is easy to go somewhere and not ever step out of your comfort bubble of like minded people. Whether it be political or socioeconomic bubble.

I say all of that as backing for this point. I believe that our insular society is allowing us to go unchallenged in our thinking and beliefs. When you hang out with the same types of people as you, and visit messageboards/facebook walls with predominantly the same views as you, you tend to believe that your version of the "truth" is "truer" than everyone else's.

I have to put in a plug for non-sports here, we don't always agree, but usually there isn't the typical vitriol and baseless falsehoods. Most people will actually attempt to back up their positions, and if proven to be from a discredited source, will even admit it. That is actually a pretty rare thing in today's internet cults of personality.

92tide said:

i think that the constant pearl clutching about emails!!!1!@11!! had more to do with making the trump win possible than a bunch of people in flyover country feeling like victims. that's just me though.

Click to expand...

I have to say that I find it just a little bit ironic that most liberal folks weren't concerned with Hillary's mishandling of classified information via lack of email security, and yet it was lack of email security that allowed the Russians to hack the DNC.