im not agitated, im just being helpful.

This is Trump you're talking about? He doesn't believe in, or understand, democratic institutions, so that's a non-starter. You need to bring more context into focus: Trump's an ignorant racist, of course he equates the west with white people. Why would an ignorant racist like Trump be concerned about anyone else? He wouldn't.

He certainly understands democratic institutions to some degree, he was democratically elected president

other than that im not sure how to argue your point; i voted for hillary.

fyp

But you're carrying water for Trump. Don't do that!

im not trolling, please delete your account.

wow ok

do not talk to me again . thanks.

thedailystormer headline for the speech reads: "In Poland Trump Declares Global Supremacy of the White Race".

i know, and if you do end up getting your account deleted please let me know right away so i can call dibs on your purple color. i read they have a one-in one-out policy with color names these days

Bryce: I think this piece explains the reaction Trump's speech has gotten well. Especially alongside the headline chips posted.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...poland/532866/

so I dont know if even a sober me could argue this point that well but would just like to say this statement by the Atlantic strikes me as disingenious. Nowhere in his speech did he define morocco, haiti and egypt as west or east, rather he defined poland as an asset in the fight for freedom against countries like syria , russia and iran- which all could be considered "white" by certain groups. The article also ignores polands issues and treats poland as a pawn.

he never said that though. That's just the dailystormers take on it and i dont read that site but assume its terrible.

this is his only mention of russia

Lol @ the hill Bryce is passing out on.

I know; i thought that was pretty good. We can agree to disagree. mentioning that is hard because of his perceived or real alliance with russia. idk like i said I dont know what trump thinks but what i heard in this speeched i liked.

stormfront is the original online home for white supremacy. They are loving Trump. They haven't previously loved high level politicians because none of them would give speeches proclaiming the global supremacy of the white race.

It is terrible in that their ideas are bad. Their endorsement is unlikely to be a mistake though. White supremacy is what they know, that's their thing.

spaceman,

Praising Polish nationalism isn't NAZI-like in the sense that NAZIs murdered Poles. In fact, it's offensive and disrespectful. Trump was appealing to Poles who want to keep their communities ethnically and racially pure though.

I mean, you could be right but ive read conflicting opinions on this from the alt right people and my interpretation of trump is that hes more of a narcissist rather than being in bed with the "alt right: as we call them. For example i know bannon wants a wall and trump has vociferously called for a wall- i'll believe it when i see it.

yes! thank you for the first sentence. As for the third sentence, zero chance i can debate that right now and possibly could come to agree with you.

TYVM sir. And thanks to my fellow politards for sharing their wisdom !!!1!

To my obvious surprise, the very legitimate industry sources I consulted all assured me that it is 100% industry standard that uninsured motorist coverage doesn't cover hit&runs. I also asked these good folk to please not say "go after" (pet peeve).

I'm also pretty surprised that a couple of politards mentioned that coverage they believed was only liability & uninsured paying off in a parked car hit&run. But, as mentioned, one or maybe both payoffs were decades ago. I never had to file such a claim back in the day, but I vaguely remember hearing/etc it was like that back then. It might be a matter of the insurance product being offered under the name "uninsured coverage" has drifted over time.

As for daisy-chaining the insurance coverage back through the vehicles... I've always heard that to be true as "accepted wisdom" also... it's something I've heard all my live.

However, I've been assured, that I can file an insurance claim, or a lawsuit, against anyone I can identify. However, if the insurance company has a police accident report in hand, saying their client wasn't to blame, that filing such a claim would be variously what my insurance company advised ("a waste of time"), to most optimistically "don't hold your breath, but anything's possible, I guess".

The Blazer drivin' fool, like myself, has a major-mega insurance company, both of which takes claims over the interwebs. Actually reading the policy, getting a free lawyer consult, and making a perhaps futile but easy online insurance claim... that is basically a free-roll... I figure. I might just get off my ass and do these things. Unless lightning strikes... I'll spare my fellow politards the sorry remainder of the saga of Sabo's car wreck.

Not sure I buy some of this. It's a matter of opinion really but:

My answer would be "obviously not" for all those examples. To me "the West" is Western Europe (meaning EU-aligned, essentially) and the ex-British Anglosphere - USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. The biggest question mark for inclusion is Israel. The idea that Latin America, in particular, might be a candidate is pretty startling to me.

Of course, I'm not including Bosnia for religious reasons, so I'm not saying that the core point of the article is wrong, just that the author has some weird ideas on "the West".

I agree that there's some ambiguity. Beinart is reading the references to the west as being coded, i.e. as dogwhistles. I think knowing that Stephen Miller wrote the speech, and seeing the reaction of the Daily Stormer provides some support for reading the speech this way, but it's true that it's not completely overt. Personally, I think it's pretty likely Miller understood exactly how the alt-right (to say nothing of open white supremacists) would interpret the speech, but it's not clear whether Trump does.

I'd also say though that you don't have to engage in that much interpretation to see the use of the "west" in this way. The whole speech sets up this confrontation between "the west" and some other powers which seek to destroy it:

"The west" may be ambiguously defined, but the antagonists are much clearer, and so it's fairly reasonable to read the meaning of "west" in relation. It's not an accident that the above asks about defending borders. The threat of terrorism is discussed explicitly also, but "defending borders" doesn't really fit with a particularly narrow reading about the threat of terrorism specifically. It's a reference to immigration and refugees, but clearly mostly immigrants and refugees who are Muslims.

So, I think even leaving aside the fact that terms like "western civilization" are established dogwhistles in white nationalist politics, it's not too hard to read "the west" in the speech as referring in a coded way to Christendom.

I made a big ole series of posts about the incohearance of Trump's speech in the main Trump thread and all the action is in here? Lame.

If it makes you feel better I enjoyed your posts :P