The liberal/establishment press attributes the latest Republican/conservative primary election wins to “angry white males”. I believe women also voted in those elections, along with blacks and Hispanics, but when you want to undermine a vote and a large section of the American population, you go after the “angry white males” because they are a safe target, and we all know how crazy and out of control these white male people are. Take for example the white males on the editorial staffs of the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the Washington Post if you want to see some crazy angry white males.
But is one “crazy” when one sees their lives and all they’ve worked for being destroyed by socialist/leftists and make a peaceful, legal attempt to halt the destruction by actually voting? There are no city blocks of Ferguson or Baltimore being looted and burned by white males. There is no equivalent to the Occupy Wall Street movement with riots and raping and city parks being used as public toilets. The press expressed understanding when these nuts took to the streets, and even made convoluted attempts to justify the planned violence in Chicago last Friday as leftists halted a Trump speech. But if a white male votes to re-establish sanity and constitutional principles to his government and his daily life, he’s declared to be out of control and “angry”. In this way the liberal press can then ignore the white male voting block and make pitches for more destructive and intrusive government.
One supposes that white males are singled out in today’s political environment because they have largely been silent and accepting of social changes as long as these changes didn’t infringe on him or his family’s lives. But Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” and Hillary’s and Bernie’s out-right socialism have awakened these men, and now they want their country returned to sanity and are voting for Cruz and Trump to get it back.