Conservative anchor, 22, becomes viral star with passionate rant against Obama: Heated speech about President's 'half-baked' ISIS policy is viewed nearly one million times... and counting

First topic message reminder :

Conservative anchor, 22, becomes viral star with passionate rant against Obama: Heated speech about President's 'half-baked' ISIS policy is viewed nearly one million times... and counting

Tomi Lahren called out Obama on her show, One America News Network's On Point with Tomi Lahren
The comments came after four U.S. Marines and one active-duty Navy reservist were killed in a shooting on Thursday in Chattanooga, Tennessee
Lahren, from Rapid City, South Dakota, comes from a family of Marines
She claimed that 'radical Islam is becoming the rule, not the exception. Yesterday's moderate is today's terrorist'

A conservative news anchor has been catapulted to internet celebrity status after a video of her blasting President Barack Obama's efforts in the fight against terrorism went viral.

Tomi Lahren, host of One America News Network's On Point with Tomi Lahren, called out Obama's administration for their 'half-way, half-baked, tip-toe, be-friendly-to-Jihadis mentality' in a passionate speech that has been viewed more than 755,000 times on YouTube.


The conservative 22-year-old's comments, said on Friday's episode on the fringe broadcast network, were in reference to the fatal shooting of four U.S. Marines and one active-duty Navy reservist, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Thursday.


Read more about the video that is going viral (and strangely, being removed from Facebook...!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3168926/Tomi-Lahren-22-rants-live-TV-Obama-s-tip-toe-efforts-against-terrorism.html

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He did, however, talk about Abdulazeez as if he was not American, as if he was part of a global threat to the US.

I don't know about that.  A senior federal official, interviewed by NBC, said that Abdulazeez is 24-years-old and a naturalized U.S. citizen from Kuwait.  According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, a man named Youssuf Abdulazeez attended the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, and graduated in 2012 with a degree in engineering.

I think Biden would know.

He probably does know, but the point is that he talked about Abdulazeez in a "them and us" kind of way.

"When this perverted jihadist struck, everyone responded," Biden said. "We have a message for those perverted cowards around the world. America never yields, never bends, never cowers and never stands down."

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He did, however, talk about Abdulazeez as if he was not American, as if he was part of a global threat to the US.

I don't know about that.  A senior federal official, interviewed by NBC, said that Abdulazeez is 24-years-old and a naturalized U.S. citizen from Kuwait.  According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, a man named Youssuf Abdulazeez attended the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, and graduated in 2012 with a degree in engineering.

I think Biden would know.

He probably does know, but the point is that he talked about Abdulazeez in a "them and us" kind of way.

"When this perverted jihadist struck, everyone responded," Biden said. "We have a message for those perverted cowards around the world. America never yields, never bends, never cowers and never stands down."

What was he supposed to say? "This man just murdered some of your fellow citizens in cold blood, but hey, he's family!"

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Precisely, except she might be quite intelligent in real life.  Whether she means it, or even gets it, is not for us to say.  After all, we don't know her.  

The issue is the show she puts on...in that sense, she's an actress.  If an actress plays a dumb blond, is it an indictment on her personally?  No, it's just a role, as I said 2 - 3 pages ago.

Well you've been saying all the way through this thread that she's just saying what someone else wants her say, and now you say "we" don't know her, and it's not for us to say.

She doesn't seem dumb to me, and every time you repeat your slur, you sound more and more sexist.  

Who knows if she's dumb or smart?  When I started on this point, I didn't distinguish between the girl and role she was playing.  That's because my point was the show orchestrated by conservatives, that she was putting on.  That's where the misunderstanding started. It was about the show, not about the female.

That show is as an attractive blond, putting on a 'dumbed down' and patently false message.  Now, you and eds shout I'm being condescending toward women.  My message was not directed at women.  I said the conservative powers that be were using a gorgeous blond as a distraction, and while the listeners were distracted she was making some really false points.  My point is about conservatives and how they lie, and only tangentially about women inasmuch as they are used to distract.

The point is the tactic, and the deception used by conservatives.  Conservatives always lie and try to distract.  If they told the truth no one would ever elect them.

Raggamuffin wrote:If it was a man, or a black woman, Quill would not be saying this stuff - he's very transparent.

Of course I would.  My point is about conservative mendacity, not about any particular race or gender of person.  Republicans and conservatives put up black candidates all the time, and we liberals routinely label them 'Uncle Toms' because they, too, are for show.  They are tokens, like puppets, spouting conservative platitudes...just like gorgeous blond, Tomi Lahren.  

As far as a "man" is concerned, my whole criticism of conservatives is that they are Old, White Men, who lie for a living.  Did you somehow miss that?  I daresay, you most likely lost the plot, just as eds admitted she did ("And the minute your post became a tad pompous, I stopped reading.").

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you've been saying all the way through this thread that she's just saying what someone else wants her say, and now you say "we" don't know her, and it's not for us to say.

She doesn't seem dumb to me, and every time you repeat your slur, you sound more and more sexist.  

Who knows if she's dumb or smart?  When I started on this point, I didn't distinguish between the girl and role she was playing.  That's because my point was the show orchestrated by conservatives, that she was putting on.  That's where the misunderstanding started.  It was about the show, not about the female.

That show is as an attractive blond, putting on a 'dumbed down' and patently false message.  Now, you and eds shout I'm being condescending toward women.  My message was not directed at women.  I said the conservative powers that be were using a gorgeous blond as a distraction, and while the listeners were distracted she was making some really false points.  My point is about conservatives and how they lie, and only tangentially about women inasmuch as they are used to distract.

The point is the tactic, and the deception used by conservatives.  Conservatives always lie and try to distract.  If they told the truth no one would ever elect them.

You're still assuming that she didn't mean anything she said, and that she had words put into her mouth to impress conservative men.

So where do the female viewers fit in with all this Quill? Do you think that women are going to be putty in her hands because she's blonde and pretty? Are you suggesting that there are no female conservatives?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He probably does know, but the point is that he talked about Abdulazeez in a "them and us" kind of way.

What was he supposed to say? "This man just murdered some of your fellow citizens in cold blood, but hey, he's family!"

You're doing it too - you're talking about him as if he's not an American citizen too. You've created a "them and us" situation, and I don't mean murderers versus non-murderers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He probably does know, but the point is that he talked about Abdulazeez in a "them and us" kind of way.

What was he supposed to say? "This man just murdered some of your fellow citizens in cold blood, but hey, he's family!"

You're doing it too - you're talking about him as if he's not an American citizen too. You've created a "them and us" situation, and I don't mean murderers versus non-murderers.

Well, I do mean murderers vs. non-murderers, and I'm sure Biden did too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who knows if she's dumb or smart?  When I started on this point, I didn't distinguish between the girl and role she was playing.  That's because my point was the show orchestrated by conservatives, that she was putting on.  That's where the misunderstanding started.  It was about the show, not about the female.

That show is as an attractive blond, putting on a 'dumbed down' and patently false message.  Now, you and eds shout I'm being condescending toward women.  My message was not directed at women.  I said the conservative powers that be were using a gorgeous blond as a distraction, and while the listeners were distracted she was making some really false points.  My point is about conservatives and how they lie, and only tangentially about women inasmuch as they are used to distract.

The point is the tactic, and the deception used by conservatives.  Conservatives always lie and try to distract.  If they told the truth no one would ever elect them.

You're still assuming that she didn't mean anything she said, and that she had words put into her mouth to impress conservative men.

Well, that's what conservatives do and how they arrange things.  If you want to change that, don't vote Conservative or Republican...show them their lies have no effect.  It's the show that is false, not the girl.  The girl is just the spokesperson: an actress.

Raggamuffin wrote:So where do the female viewers fit in with all this Quill? Do you think that women are going to be putty in her hands because she's blonde and pretty?  Are you suggesting that there are no female conservatives?

I'm suggesting that the gender of 'female', as a group, is the farthest from conservative care or concern.  If there are female conservatives, it is only because they are deeply misguided.  But in fact, I think women get what I am saying.  They are not bedazzled by all the tits and ass, used to sell war messages.  I have told the Democratic Party, and anyone who will listen, that 2016 is the year of the woman.  

The way America got into this headlock in the first place was by Republican gerrymandering.  It locked the Republican Party into a local power base, where control of the House could be had by extremist groups.  The Tea Party seized this opportunity to take over.  Then, through leverage, they took over the House, then the Senate...ironically removing the executive branch from their grasp, because the presidency is a national institution.  That's where we are today.

If gerrymandering is the cause, it also offers the answer.  Gerrymandering, as I'm sure you know, is the redrawing of district lines to assure the maximum number of your kind get elected.  That means, for example, drawing a district such that all blacks are in one district, and reciprocally removing all blacks from surrounding districts.  Hence, only one black will be elected, and the rest will be white.  In the body (House of Representatives) the effect will be to give the whites--or any conservative population--the majority.

But Gerrymandering depends upon residential demographics: race, ethnicity, etc.  However, one thing you cannot gerrymander is gender.  Blacks and Hispanics may be clustered in ghettos and barrios, but nearly all homes in any neighborhood have a man and a woman.  It's one demographic that can't be gerrymandered.  We have an immense task in undoing the gerrymandering, and women are the key to doing it.  2016 IS THE YEAR OF THE WOMAN.

Republicans like to stir up social issues, because--as mentioned--social issues don't involve money directly, and thus detract from interest politics.  That's why they stir up hatred for blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, and other minority groups.  One social issue Republicans tinker with all the time is abortion.  They have widened this to women's healthcare, because it is the arena of abortion.  Republicans oppose funding women's healthcare.  But, healthcare is so fundamental that Republicans have effectively declared war on women, and the answer for Democrats is to emphasize this aspect...give women the resources to make their issues the biggest in 2016.  It's a win-win game: women get the heavy artillery and money for their issues; Democrats win women voters in heavily gerrymandered districts.

Women represent 52% of the voters overall in the US population.  They represent even more than that if we filter the numbers for who votes.  Clearly, the Democratic Party is the only one for women.  Democrats already have the clear majority of the country, but they can solidify that if they secure the female vote.

So you see, women are the answer.  Democrats have spent the past 55-years protecting blacks, less for other ethnic minorities, and yet again less for gays and lesbians.  Now the Democratic Party must become the Party of women.  Most of all, the issues of women must become paramount in the Democratic Party.  Republicans would screw anyone for money...and women are right in line for them  So, it's a natural marriage: Democrats and women.  Protect the rights of women and secure the future of liberal politics in America.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're doing it too - you're talking about him as if he's not an American citizen too. You've created a "them and us" situation, and I don't mean murderers versus non-murderers.

Well, I do mean murderers vs. non-murderers, and I'm sure Biden did too.

That would imply that no Americans ever murder anyone though, and I don't think it's what he meant at all. If you look at what he said, you'll see he's talking about jihadists, not your everyday murderers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Well, I do mean murderers vs. non-murderers, and I'm sure Biden did too.

That would imply that no Americans ever murder anyone though, and I don't think it's what he meant at all. If you look at what he said, you'll see he's talking about jihadists, not your everyday murderers.

It wouldn't imply any such thing.  It would state succinctly that those who break the law--certainly a capital offense law--ipso facto place themselves outside the realm of civil American society.  His citizenship is not even in question.

I disagree with Ben and Quill, but I'm so bored with their refusal to understand this issue that I can't be arsed with it any more.

Raggamuffin wrote:I disagree with Ben and Quill, but I'm so bored with their refusal to understand this issue that I can't be arsed with it any more.

In other words, you're giving up but don't want to admit you are beaten. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, every response you make is a chance for me to expound on another obscure corner of the correct answer. So, I enjoy our exchanges. But if you want to abandon the discussion, I yet feel I have fulfilled my argument.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I disagree with Ben and Quill, but I'm so bored with their refusal to understand this issue that I can't be arsed with it any more.

In other words, you're giving up but don't want to admit you are beaten.  You can't have it both ways.

Personally, every response you make is a chance for me to expound on another obscure corner of the correct answer.  So, I enjoy our exchanges.  But if you want to abandon the discussion, I yet feel I have fulfilled my argument.

If by "beaten", you mean that you refuse to see any point of view but your own, and that's it's futile to carry on talking to you, you can "win" if you like.

USA news-media and politics is so contrived and full of bullshit... and I think this is deliberately done so as to drown out any real sensible and meaningful debate on any real issues...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

In other words, you're giving up but don't want to admit you are beaten.  You can't have it both ways.

Personally, every response you make is a chance for me to expound on another obscure corner of the correct answer.  So, I enjoy our exchanges.  But if you want to abandon the discussion, I yet feel I have fulfilled my argument.

If by "beaten", you mean that you refuse to see any point of view but your own, and that's it's futile to carry on talking to you, you can "win" if you like.

I don't like the term "beaten" either. It suggests violence, and I abhor violence. In fact, I don't even like conflict as a metaphor. Why not think of it as problem solving, shared mutually.

When we deliberate, we try to find ground we can agree on, then move on to the next issue until we come to general agreement on the whole issue. A point of view (POV) is simply frozen deliberations...just as bad as losing. Resolve differences in POV, that's the way to proceed. Don't harbor them like little pockets of hatred.

Your mind is always moving. Don't have a pov; have an evolving thought process. If you wish, treat a pov as a position or starting point, but expect that you will move away from it. Thought should always be moving. You snooze you lose.

Waffle...

Tommy Monk wrote:USA news-media and politics is so contrived and full of bullshit... and I think this is deliberately done so as to drown out any real sensible and meaningful debate on any real issues...

But tommi, your's is the classic conservative answer.  Throw up your hands in despair.  Conservatives are used to despair, aren't they?  When you start with wrong premises, that's what it ends up looking like...a mess. When conservatives get into politics....that's what they inevitably end up with...a mess. Thought and action...same, same.

A better way is to stop the theory of selfishness, adopt a commonality of interests, and move on to working with your fellow human being, not against him or her.  Then you are not shrouded in inhuman or anti-humanity motives and goals.  

Confronting those goals is the problem...you have to lie to conceal them.  But when you lie you get caught.  And then you end up with the mess of which you speak.

This is the basic difference between conservatives and liberals.  Liberals embrace the common interests of all men, and are never placed in a situation of political selfishness.  It works, if you don't have that flaw in your fabric.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:USA news-media and politics is so contrived and full of bullshit... and I think this is deliberately done so as to drown out any real sensible and meaningful debate on any real issues...

But tommi, your's is the classic conservative answer.

Is it??? I thought I made a statement... not an answer of any kind!!!

Throw up your hands in despair.  

Didn't do that either...!

Conservatives are used to despair, aren't they?

Are they...???

And how is any of this waffle relevant to my post...?

When you start with wrong premises, that's what it ends up looking like...a mess.

And from what I can see... you are describing your own bullshit quite well so far...!!!

When conservatives get into politics....that's what they inevitably end up with...a mess.  Thought and action...same, same.

You're still leaping around wildly I see... all stemming from your original false premise...!

A better way is to stop the theory of selfishness, adopt a commonality of interests, and move on to working with your fellow human being, not against him or her.

Now you have completely lost me as to what the fuck you are talking about, what it has to do with my post, or what it has to do with me at all...!!!???

Then you are not shrouded in inhuman or anti-humanity motives and goals.  

...!!!???!!!!!?????... WTF...!!!!!!!???????


Confronting those goals is the problem...you have to lie to conceal them.  But when you lie you get caught.  And then you end up with the mess of which you speak.

Totally deranged babble there!!!

This is the basic difference between conservatives and liberals.  Liberals embrace the common interests of all men, and are never placed in a situation of political selfishness.  It works, if you don't have that flaw in your fabric.

Really!!!???


Completely deluded!!!???

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:USA news-media and politics is so contrived and full of bullshit... and I think this is deliberately done so as to drown out any real sensible and meaningful debate on any real issues...

But tommi, your's is the classic conservative answer.  Throw up your hands in despair.  Conservatives are used to despair, aren't they?  When you start with wrong premises, that's what it ends up looking like...a mess.  When conservatives get into politics....that's what they inevitably end up with...a mess.  Thought and action...same, same.

A better way is to stop the theory of selfishness, adopt a commonality of interests, and move on to working with your fellow human being, not against him or her.  Then you are not shrouded in inhuman or anti-humanity motives and goals.  

Confronting those goals is the problem...you have to lie to conceal them.  But when you lie you get caught.  And then you end up with the mess of which you speak.

This is the basic difference between conservatives and liberals.  Liberals embrace the common interests of all men, and are never placed in a situation of political selfishness.  It works, if you don't have that flaw in your fabric.

Brilliant.....

And then shown to be the bollocks it is by the 'kiss of death' approval from the forum weasel!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:And then shown to be the bollocks it is by the 'kiss of death' approval from the forum weasel!!!

So unoriginal he has to use my insults lol

His points were clearly above your comprehension of understanding and even more so by your inane answers.
You answers were embarrassing in fact, but if you think they were good, it sums up your lack of abilities and understanding Twatty.
Never mind you will always be forever chasing your own tail.
So enjoy.

Anyway must go as Twatty seems starved of attention as nobody wants to play with him. Can somebody throw him a ball to keep him entertained please?

Thanks

Night all

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:So not too sure why you're thanking him?

The Internet is widely read.  The thesis above is the central point of my book, Why Elephants Lie.  Every opportunity I have to put the ideas our there is a golden one.  A question...or when I'm forced (permitted) to explain, is a golden opportunity.  So, even in adversity I win.

eddie wrote:And the minute your post became a tad pompous, I stopped reading.

I'll try to remember that.  But, it is written for a special audience.

snorts and splutters

oh, that just cracked me up

nice one

gelico again wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:So not too sure why you're thanking him?

The Internet is widely read.  The thesis above is the central point of my book, Why Elephants Lie.  Every opportunity I have to put the ideas our there is a golden one.  A question...or when I'm forced (permitted) to explain, is a golden opportunity.  So, even in adversity I win.

eddie wrote:And the minute your post became a tad pompous, I stopped reading.

I'll try to remember that.  But, it is written for a special audience.

snorts and splutters

oh, that just cracked me up

nice one

Care to enlighten us gels?

Tommy Monk wrote:USA news-media and politics is so contrived and full of bullshit... and I think this is deliberately done so as to drown out any real sensible and meaningful debate on any real issues...

Agree
Idiots like Trump suck up all the oxygen and prevents anyone else burning bright.

A man like Sander will not get to explain his position ,which many people would agree with if they had it explained to them (lets face 100's of times better than what they got) while Trump can fill Broadcasts with political chicanery.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:USA news-media and politics is so contrived and full of bullshit... and I think this is deliberately done so as to drown out any real sensible and meaningful debate on any real issues...

Agree
Idiots like Trump suck up all the oxygen and prevents anyone else burning bright.

Absolutely...Trump is a show, not a participant in the conversation.  He speaks in quips and epithets,  He's like daytime TV.  Look for one-liners and sight gags, but don't ask any deep questions.  Neither he nor his candidacy is geared for that.

veya_victaous wrote:A man like Sander will not get to explain his position ,which many people would agree with if they had it explained to them (lets face 100's of times better than what they got) while Trump can fill Broadcasts with political chicanery.

You need to read Herbert Marcuse.  His writings were precisely on that point.  In Repressive Tolerance he lamented that new and different ideas did not get a fair hearing because they so radically differed from established ideas that the latter shouted them out.

Marcuse took his cue, and a lot of his ideas from Alexis de Toqueville, and his chapter on 'Tyranny of the Majority', in Democracy in America (1832).

Quill are you not concerned that a fair chunk of the constituency wont ask deep questions and wont even understand why failure to answer the questions is so critical. Realistically there is a fair chunk that wont even know/care if the answer is nonsense as long as the colours are pretty

By the way... You need to read Plato 'the tyranny of the majority' is a phrase over 2000 years old
http://enockvera.hubpages.com/hub/plato-and-democracy

"The people always have some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato

"Democracy passes into despotism." Plato

"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." Plato.

The rule is simple. Never, ever, let someone offer you 'protection' in return for anything. When offered 'protection' of a jury it must be offered with no strings attached. If there are strings. You are looking at a tyrant.

also i quite like Lord Acton

The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.
—The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton

Both I think highly relevant (as were yours) but what i like about Acton is that he doesn't assume the leaders wins fairly, which as you say the last republican didn't

veya_victaous wrote:Quill are you not concerned that a fair chunk of the constituency wont ask deep questions and wont even understand why failure to answer the questions is so critical. Realistically there is a fair chunk that wont even know/care if the answer is nonsense as long as the colours are pretty

In addition to a general interest in political science, I became interested in precisely the lack of understanding of political implications by the general public during the GWB/Cheney administration.  I was appalled at how easily the public came to accept kidnapping, rape, torture and murder--not to mention repeated violations of our own Constitution--with hardly a blink.  I went through a period of depression, believing that Americans perhaps were too stupid to be given gifts like freedom, democracy and civil rights.  Perhaps the great experiment had truly failed.

I started writing my first book on the flaws of mainstream American ideology at that time (before that I wrote morphologically, on metaphors like atomism).  Simultaneously, the Internet was gaining ground and I began to write on websites like this one.  

It has cheered me to see how many people are not bamboozled by political rhetoric.   People are not dumb, just silent.  It appears there are plenty of right-thinking people out there, but that they are not organized, or are co-opted away from their deeper convictions out of frustration that they are too small and the task is too big.

So it turns out there are two important things about modern politics: 1) the convictions themselves; and 2) the delivery system.  It is the delivery system that winnows us down to, well, in the US's case, two major political parties.

Bernie Sanders is a man of high and noble convictions, who hasn't got the delivery system to compete with the bigger boys.  I like him.  I like Elizabeth Warren even better.  I like Wendy Davis best of all.  But it is an aesthetic liking.  Like I can appreciate a Monet or a Degas.; but such things are not construction material, and you can't build a house with them.

veya_victaous wrote:By the way... You need to read Plato 'the tyranny of the majority' is a phrase over 2000 years old  
http://enockvera.hubpages.com/hub/plato-and-democracy

"The people always have some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato

"Democracy passes into despotism." Plato

"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." Plato.

The rule is simple. Never, ever, let someone offer you 'protection' in return for anything. When offered 'protection' of a jury it must be offered with no strings attached. If there are strings. You are looking at a tyrant.

also i quite like Lord Acton

   The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.
   —The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton

Both I think highly relevant (as were yours) but what i like about Acton is that he doesn't assume the leaders wins fairly, which as you say the last republican didn't

I know.  But don't be seduced by mere names.  Two entirely different works cannot be married by a coincidence of titles.

Plato and Acton are discussing politics structurally, comparing the relative merits of a system versus a personality.  Acton is more modern and discussed ideas over personalities, but still ontologicaly.  He wrote to Gladstone during the American Civil War that he sided with the Confederacy because he sided with divisiveness, over union, which he thought would lead to corruption; but he is still talking about structure, and forms of government.  Toqueville was talking about the minds of people...pure ideology.

It may be that Toqueville was building on the metaphor with their ideas, placed in a modern, highly-leveled western political system: a demigod versus a population. What effect?  If so, the metaphor was washed over with the independent importance of what he wrote, applicable to modern (1832 - forward) political society, and what happened in 1932. 

Toqueville is a bit more down-to-earth.  But don't interpret that as naive or backward.  He is right on the cusp of understanding mass psychology...a subject that became much more popular and relevant after Nazism and fascism