Comments

Campaign 2016: promises, schmomises — 76 Comments

1. HEAR!! HEAR!!! He is an embarrassment, and makes me cringe sometimes….I can only hope that he can change…but I doubt it…

2. Well said, neo. IMO, Trump is much like Obama. We are all trying to analyze who he really is and what his motivations are. Trump’s supporters, much like Obama’s, see what they want to see. On the otherhand, many voters are now discounting anything a candidate may say.

   Both men are case studies in how demagogues can succeed. It is disturbing to say the least.

   Much of what is happening now may explain why nearly 100 million people have given up on the process.

3. I don’t trust Trump at all. I am more interested in seeing whether Congress seems able to control (at least partially) what he does. Maybe we could get a petition where people refuse to visit anything with Trump in the name if he violates the constitution or gets us into trouble internationally.

4. Why vote at all, Neo? I plan not to. I can’t accept this Hobson’s choice.
   I know it’s my civic duty and all, but the idea of civic duty seems quaintly antique in these latter days.

5. Just wondering why you give him the benefit of love for America, Neo? What particular evidence?

   In an interview with Time, he said he feels guilty about never serving in the military. He had student deferments, and a “foot injury” (that didn’t keep him from being a star athlete according to his PR). He, of course, points out that he built the NY Vietnam memorial and many other memorials to assuage his guilt Actually he contributed $1mil of his, or someone else’s, money toward the NY memorial, but you can’t take anything he says too literally.

   In another interview he said that he felt like he served in the military because he went to a military prep school. He went on to say that he learned more military stuff at his prep school, than the guys who actually served. He simply doesn’t care who he insults, and apparently the insulted don’t mind either.

   Trump has been quoted that he will bomb the s**t out of ISIS. Well, actually he would have someone else do it, but that is the way politicians speak. Given his own history, I think the sobriquet “Chicken Hawk” is appropriate.

6. Oldflyer:

   Mainly just a gut feeling about that.

7. @ mizpants. “Quaintly antique” is actually a better reason than some others. Voting with no hope of affecting the outcome, simply as a declaration that there once were better days and a re-enactment of them. Sort of noble, really, like Frodo in Mordor, or Puddleglum’s speech to the Green Witch.

   I do have an additional perspective. I followed the Romanian elections after the 1989 revolution, and the available candidates were worse than anything America has ever offered. Trump has been compared to Schwarzennegger and Berlusconi with some justice. Hillary would actually be pretty good by Latin American standards. Yes, it’s insane that those are our points of comparison, but Americans don’t have a uniquely bad situation. Decent people find a way to navigate this and vote anyway, because the non-voting choice is worse.

8. For those not yet suffering from TDS, this article may be of interest; TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
   What can they be thinking?

   “I can’t accept this Hobson’s choice.” mizpants

   Many of us share in that dilemma. But for those living in swing states, a refusal to vote for Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary. Nor can any amount of rationalization change that reality.

9. Never let it be said that I’ve neglected the obvious.

   In West Virginia, much of Hillary Clinton’s support comes from those whose loyalty to the Democratic Party is akin to church membership. No matter what she says, no matter what Trump says, they would never vote for a Republican — even one who’s really not.

10. Perhaps the W.Va. primary isn’t quite as simple as it appears?

    “Ominous signs for ‘presumptive nominee’ Hillary in West Virginia primary results

    “West Virginia Democrat voters delivered a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton, whom the media all but universally proclaim the inevitable Democrat nominee. Not only did Bernie Sanders easily defeat her by over 15 points, but 12.7% of Democrats refused to vote for either Sanders or Clinton (both of whom buy into the “global warming” fraud’s war on coal). But they did bother to show up at the polls to cast protest votes for others, including write-ins.

    But what has really gotten the media excited is the results of exit polling that show that about a third of Democrats would vote for Trump in November.”

    In 2012, Romney got 62.30% to Obama’s 35.54% in W. Virginia

11. This discussion assumes that such polling is accurate. I think that assumption is questionable (not incorrect) given the recent polling history of the primaries.

12. To me, character and temperament are very important. In nearly every Presidency there is a crisis that arises, unforseen, that will need sound judgement. We have to trust that the elected official will do the right thing. 3AM phone calls come to mind.

13. @ Roman – and…we have the answers to that. If Hillary gets a 3am phone call she will do whatever protects herself most. If Trump gets a 3am call he will change his mind from what he said yesterday.

14. “I have practically reached this extreme point with Trump myself. I have stated before that I do think he loves America, but that’s about it for his principles. And even his love of America is a principle he can interpret in a very flexible manner in terms of how he will act.” [Neo]

    I agree. We should just keep in mind that Trump is a successful businessman by any standard. A distinct possibility is that a President Trump would see himself as doing America’s business, and do so with some success. What is the alternative; a President Hillary that sees this country as loot to be plundered for her own personal gain? We have already seen that in The Clinton Monologues, Act I: I’ll Take the Dishes, and Act II:The Clinton Global Initiative. Do we really want to sit through Act III: Mine, Mine, It’s All Mine.?

    If all else fails, we need to remember that: 1) the next president will probably nominate three SCOTUS Justices; 2) that Hillary has already declared war on the coal industry and on the Second Amendment; 3) she has already indicated her willingness to ignore the separation of powers through executive orders.

    AS I’ve written here in past threads: Hillary has already declared that, as a working the American citizen, I am the enemy.

15. Geoffrey – I can’t access the page. What’s the gist of it?

16. “In West Virginia, much of Hillary Clinton’s support comes from those whose loyalty to the Democratic Party is akin to church membership. No matter what she says, no matter what Trump says, they would never vote for a Republican – even one who’s really not.” [Cornflour @3:13]

    And that still has not stopped the state from turning Republican in the presidential elections. Furthermore, WV now has a Republican House and Senate for the first time in 88 years. IMO if Hillary is banking on religious fervor, she’s in the wrong pew.

17. There is only one principle I trust trump to be true to: the donald. And like Oldflyer, I have doubts about his loyalty to America. I am not suggesting djt hates America like bho. I am suggesting he has no clue when it comes to the traditional values of our founding as a republic. That makes him a member of the majority of our fellow citizens and the illegal alien horde.

    All who consider themselves real conservatives IMO must distance themselves from djt.( I was disappointed by Perry’s decision to jump on the trump bandwagon.) I will go to the county offices the moment djt is crowned clown nominee and switch my registration to independent. There is no way that I will vote for the donald as I view him more dangerous than the shrew queen.

18. Nick,

    Sorry, try this link it should work. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/11/trump-derangement-syndrome/

19. “There is no way that I will vote for the donald as I view him more dangerous than the shrew queen.” parker

    Well, it had to happen sooner or later. We’ve finally found a point upon which we fundamentally disagree.

    I have no doubt that Marxism is worse than a demagogue backed by the rule of the mob. Mobs are not permanent, nor are demagogues but there is no light at the end of the 1984 tunnel.

    But whether you are in the right or I my friend, we are going to need all the luck we can wish each other, for no plan survives contact with the enemy. Improvise, Adapt and Overcome.

20. GB,

    I clicked your link. I am tired of hearing those of us who will not vote for djt are deranged. I could make the reverse argument with plenty of evidence as to why djt will damage the gop down ticket and is no less a danger than hrc. The argument that not voting for djt throws the election to hrc has already passed us by. The voters who have made djt the presumptive nominee have cast those irretrievable votes.

    How about a friendly wager that djt can not crest 100 votes in the electoral college? 😉

21. “There is only one principle I trust trump to be true to: the donald. And like Oldflyer, I have doubts about his loyalty to America.” – parker
    Y’all beat me to it, as this was my thought when reading. To add…

    What we think of as “America” and what Trump thinks are probably two very different things.

    We look at it as a set of ideas / ideals, even if imperfectly implemented, grounded in a founding set of principles.

    Trump probably views it as an extension of his personal property and/or more like a board game environment where the “rules” and institutions are more a mechanism for him to leverage for personal gain over all others.

    I’m with parker – Trump is waaay more dangerous than Clinton.

    I’d rather we take four more years on a (predictable) path towards “Europeanization” than take a chance on someone who has no grounding in a governing philosophy, who twirls (not just turns) on a dime on policy, and whose approach and demeanor more than hints at Authoritarianism.

    Folks keep justifying him on the grounds of his business “success” and how he has to be “unpredictable”, as part of his “strategy” to “negotiate” good terms for “America First”.

    If he is that flexible as to not have any boundaries, then how can anyone know what the outcome is going to be – good or bad? How can they even begin to measure it?

    Of course, many of the “establishment” (e.g. Perry, Jindal, etc) are folding under the pressure. Probably a mix of self interest, some misguided hope they can somehow influence him, some loyalty to party come h*ll or high water, and/or some notion that Trump really cannot be as bad as Clinton.

    Yes there can be someone worse than another Dem in the White House. Folks need to stop kidding themselves.

    This is one election I just DON’T want the satisfaction of saying “I told you so!”

22. ‘available candidates were worse than anything America has ever offered.’

    that’s because they can’t get away with as much in America…yet.

    ‘Hillary would actually be pretty good by Latin American standards.’

    If she was actually running in Latin America she would be a lot worse.

    As the US descends to Latin American levels, economically and politically our candidates will get worse.

    and worse.

23. T: “We have already seen that in The Clinton Monologues, Act I: I’ll Take the Dishes, and Act II: The Clinton Global Initiative. Do we really want to sit through Act III: Mine, Mine, It’s All Mine.?” 🙂

    So true! Wish I had said it.

24. @Steve D – I’ll repeat it here…

    Trump’s analogue is the Kirchner regime in Argentina, or worse, a high potential for sudden decline, or for catastrophic conflict, given the global scale the US involves, and Trump’s petulance and penchant for extreme or erratic positions (for “negotiating”, of course).

    Clinton is on the path to Europe. We can debate about which country, as to how corrupt she is within that framework.

25. Suggestion:

    Draw up a short wish list of presidential candidates that suit you and you believe could hold their own against the presumptive GOP and Democratic candidates in the general election. Sketch out a campaign narrative that distinguishes your candidates from the GOP an Democrats. Formulate a 6 month practical matrix to spin up a 3rd party campaign from ground level to the general election in November. Identify needs and pencil in solutions.

    In other words, sketch an outline and begin to fill in details that bring into focus on how to make the impossible possible.

    Hurry up, because if anti-Trump, anti-Clinton dissidents from the GOP and Democrats are going to make an honest attempt, there’s no time to wait. They need to organize and move with a purpose and seize the initiative, now. The plan doesn’t need to be perfect to start with. It can’t be. There just needs to be enough structure to begin rolling the ball in the right direction.

26. Geoffrey:

    Why do you assume the Trump mob will be less restrained than Hillarie’s true believers. I don’t assume that at all. Trump appears to be less grounded to any principle other that his own self interest, and venality. He has no record at all in public service, none what so ever. Hillary has a passing familiarity with the working of governments, state, federal, and in the executive branch. It is almost all bad but it is a record,

    Donald has none and is proud of his inexperience. Arrogance and perverse inconsitency writ yuge. No thank you.

27. Eric,

    What you propose is impossible before the ballot deadlines. I see only one long shot; enough of the TDS on the right bite their tongues and vote libertarian or reform and those on the left with THS vote for the greens. The issue is to deny hrc 270. (No need to worry about denying djt 270.) Its all an extremely long shot… 5000 feet. Best I have ever put in the bullseye was 600 yards….. but I am willing to try.

    Better to lose an election than to vote away principles in a trainwreck election.

28. parker,

    If you’re agreeable to straight up odds, I’ll take that bet😃

    BigMaq,

    Just 2 more Leftist SCOTUS appointments will ensure that the effect of a democrat President extends far beyond 4 years of greater European drift. Add in 4 more years of unlimited illegal immigrants and massive Muslim hijrah migration and your future vote will only be a meaningless gesture.

    Trump may appt. 2 more Kennedys to the Court. He will govern as a social liberal. But in 2020, your vote is still likely to have meaning. Trump has a mob behind him. Hillary has a dedicated, ideology organization behind her, that can literally see the finish line ahead.

29. wow, i’m amazed at the attitudes round these parts! yall would rather have an evil, criminal, leftist shrew over an unknown businessman? smh

    i’m not sure what to think of the don but i sure know what i think of the hil. in no way could i vote for or let my non-vote be a vote for her. i guess if you live in the liberal states it may not matter but still…

    i’m with geoffrey…those supreme court nominees are important.

    Look at the amounts we’re spending on healthcare, social security & medicare; double digit insurance hikes. hrc wants to move further left on this and utterly destroy the US. at least the don understands business and has mentioned that the medical monopolies need to be destroyed in order to fix this.

    i know he’s not perfect but everyone knows what you’re getting in hrc so i’m just in shock of the pathetic attitudes and lack of foresight here. sorry just had to say it

30. The Left’s main trick is hijacking organizations. So when Democrats successfully hijack the Republican party, now that the Leftists are replacing white Democrat blue collars with Mexicans and Islamic rapists, do people now see what’s going on?

    Look to the Leftist alliance. It doesn’t matter who is in tactical power, when the strategy and logistics are controlled by evil.

31. parker:
    “What you propose is impossible before the ballot deadlines.”

    That’s the spirit. Like I said, identify needs and pencil in solutions towards making the impossible possible. So you IDed need one: pin down the ballot filing deadlines and requirements.

    According to https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates, as of right now, the task is feasible.

    But the cushion is slim and shrinking. The nation-wide practical campaign needs to be spun up to speed and underway ASAP. The operation calls for activist agility.

    The only filing deadline that’s passed so far is Texas (May 9), so that state would require a contingency write-in campaign.

    Keep in mind with this exercise that the proximate campaign is simultaneously the process to establish a long-term competitive social activist movement beyond whatever the outcome is of the proximate campaign.

32. C Says:

    You assume much about Donald that is positive. Without much history to back it up.

    I assume much about both Hillary and Donald with basis in past actions and inaction (Trump has been supportive of non-progressive causes for decades). I won’t vote for either.

    Others love his slogans about immigration but conveniently ignore his walk backs, touch backs, and “clarifications.” Some people pay attention to what he says and what he has done to guess what he might do in the future. Trump? – no thank you.

33. The never-Trump non-voters might keep in mind:

    Hillary is an irreversible step.

    Carter’s Iranian folly has proved irreversible.

    In the fullness of time, Barry’s follies will prove irreversible.

    We just don’t know which ones, yet.

    America — institutionally — is DESIGNED to survive// handle a Donald Trump presidency.

    It has proven it is vulnerable to Clinton-0bama Progressivism.

    We are witnessing the contrast between ideologues and a pragmatist.

    The KEY trait of Donald’s decision tree is pragmatism.

    He has never proved to be ideologically fixated.

    From this we have a player who points in every compass direction.

    You can consider that a poison — or a blessing.

    &&&&

    What we all KNOW to be true:

    Hillary has a Will-to-Power index that’s off the charts.

    She has a fantastic sense of entitlement.

    She has no shame, no barriers, is NOT a self-limiting person.

    She has an axe to grind — against “the Patriarchy.” (normality)

    She is an ill suppressed lesbian, alcoholic, and rageaholic.

    She has a proven track record of horrific judgment — a ‘Col. Klink’ of policy — any policy.

    She is ‘owned’ by more dictators than any other nominee, ever.

    Especially, the Beijing crowd… the Saudi crowd… the ‘stans… she’ll end up being the ambassador for every nation BUT America.

    Merkel ought to be proof WRT the intrinsic wisdom of a female CEO. She’s racially destroying European society — worse than Hitler — but with the best of intents.

    ( An astounding nadir – previously deemed quite impossible to plumb. )

    ( Population replacement — is still population replacement, … playing God and Lucifer with DNA ‘selection’ … with bullets, gas or hijrah.)

    ( Hijrah — anti-Jewishism carried to the utmost. Merkel and Hitler — joined by arrogance — track into the same ‘solution.’ )

    ( It’s worth noting that NOTHING causes either True Believer to alter course — even as calamity unfolds. )

    Yes, it’s not an automatic thing. Thatchers are rare beasts, indeed.

    There is NO WAY that Hillary will stop the hijrah from bouncing to America.

    She’s made her bed — and knows who lies in it.

34. I always find taking a break from the news to be helpful. Let’s stick to the basics. If you don’t like the Obama administration, then Hillary as President would just be a continuation of that. If you didn’t like the Bill Clinton Presidency, then Hillary would be that all over again, but worse (more corruption, and none of the economic growth or relatively quiet world in the 1990s).

    I look forward to voting for Trump in November. The alternative, whether Clinton or Sanders, is far worse. And considering where I live, such a vote might be enough to turn a blue state red.

35. Blert:

    Boil it all down Trump will do whatever seems like a good idea at the time, essentially no core principles.

    Do you think he will resist the entrenched progressive (and worse) interests in the Federal and State governments, in the media, in the NGOs? Nope, he will go along and pivot to attack the evil conservatives, more popular that way.

    Most of those things “we” know about Hillary apply to Trump as well, exceptions being sexual behavior and overt political philosophy.

    The “key decision tree” of Donald is “whatever works for Donald.” Lipstick on a pig, Donald is still porcine, you can’t wish that away. But he’s your pig now so that’s different.

    He has fought against (Mr midnight tweet, and king of insult and almost slander), wait for it, republicans.

    The

36. I blame John Denver: I can’t listen to “Country Roads” without thinking “damn the coal industry who are they to mess up “almost heaven”.

37. If I were to talk myself into a Trump vote, I might be able to convince myself that a Trump presidency would produce a Congress with full-throated support for rolling back executive power.

    Regrettably, it would be more likely to increase executive power, but shift it downwards to the unaccountable bureaucracy.

38. OM Says:
    May 12th, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Blert:

    Boil it all down Trump will do whatever seems like a good idea at the time, essentially no core principles.

    This is known as pragmatism. Donald is a Liberal Democrat in the sense of Scoop Jackson — running under the GOP banner.

    He’s not MY pick.

    I’m a realist.

    I deal with the cards as dealt.

    Do you think he will resist the entrenched progressive (and worse) interests in the Federal and State governments, in the media, in the NGOs? Nope, he will go along and pivot to attack the evil conservatives, more popular that way.

    This contention goes entirely against the campaign mode that Donald has been mouthing off. He’s already got his targets — and they are the SJW set. It’s in the nature of the office that a president can only vector (pivot?) towards a handful of priorities. Carter tried to work the full priorities ‘stack’ and found himself scheduling tennis times for the White House courts.

    Most of those things “we” know about Hillary apply to Trump as well, exceptions being sexual behavior and overt political philosophy.

    This is way over the top. Donald may be a naughty boy — but he’s never been pursued by the FBI. Suing citizens in civil court is the legally approved way of ‘street fighting.’

    It’s as common as dust in the real estate and construction industries. It just is.

    EVERY real estate mogul has a track record that reads like Trumps. You’re kidding yourself to think otherwise.

    Every last one of them has the temperament of a honey badger// wolverine.

    This aspect has been laid bare during the Trump campaign.

    If either of these two animals is news to you, go to YouTube and spool up some wildlife videos WRT either. You’ll laugh and chuckle — and run out either as a house pet.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Trump does not cause fear for a lifetime.

    Hillary DOES.

    Repeatedly.

    It’s better to elect a ‘loose canon’ pragmatist with a pretty strong track record of success than a fanatical ideologue with zero successes and MUCH bitterness.

    The so-called bankruptcies of Donald Trump were business re-organizations that were wrapped up in the usual, legally approved way. The counter-parties during those travails were Big Money Wall Street players — NOT little guy contractors, nor the employees in the buildings.

    The reorganizations turned entirely on the financing — which the projects couldn’t bear when the economy turned sour.

    All of the other players — at that time — in that industry — also lost their shirts. No-one wails on about Merv Griffen.

    Yes, another billionaire that lost his knickers doing what Trump was doing.

    Granted, Trump was not my candidate. But the nomination is no longer in doubt. It is what it is.

39. As I wrote earlier, The Clinton Monologues: Act III: Mine! Mine! It’s All Mine!

    From Instapundit (Mark Tapscott @ 10:35 am, boldface mine):

    Blockquote cite=””>
    BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON GOT AT LEAST $100 MILLION FROM MIDDLE EAST SHEIKS: The Clintons have done something that has never before been done by any U.S. political figures — Using speaking fees, business partnerships, foundation grants and who knows what else made possible by public service to make themselves fabulously wealthy, without apparent regard for who suffered the consequences.

    Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group pored over countless public documents and connected the dots to tell an incredible — and previously unreported — story that raises a multitude of disturbing new questions about a second Clinton presidency. Like how would the American people ever know with any certainty that a decision by President Hillary Clinton was made to advance the best interests of the U.S. or to make the Clintons even richer?

    The link to the Pollock article:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/

40. Blert,

    Great comment @ 11:04 above.

    You are, of course, correct about lawsuits being monied-level street fighting, and also about the bankruptcies. Somehow, bankruptcy has this cloud of failure and shame hanging over it, when, in fact, it’s jiust another business tool. Most people don’t realize that there are two tupes of bankruptcy; reorganization is one, liquidation is the other. Most bankruptcy proceedings are the former since that is the first stage, and you are correct. It primarily affects the players (owners, contractors, financiers) of a real estate project.

    By contrast, GM went bankrupt and no one seems to hold it against them.

41. OM,

    Am I correct, in that you reject the proposition that, Trump is an unusually accurate prognosticator?

    As, how could he when, as a man with “essentially no core principles” he operates according to “whatever seems like a good idea at the time”…

    So, based in your own analysis, upon what basis did he reach his take-no-prisoners stands on illegal immigration, Muslim migration, and bad trade treaties leading to the massive loss in manufacturing jobs?

    Given that he’s a man who lives in the moment… since by definition, a man whose opinion twists with the wind can never be decisive about anything.

    I guess where I’m going with this is that Trump’s actions and behavior indicate a man of deeper complexity than just a man whose opinions are motivated strictly out of self-aggrandizement.

42. @Geoffrey B and Yankee – the problem is that it is blind faith that Trump is “better” than Clinton.

    To assume that Trump would appoint any justices that would be “better” than Clinton’s is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever!

    Trump supporters keep on pointing to Clinton and saying Trump would be “better” only because we know what Clinton is about and don’t like that. That is not an argument.

    Our whole complaint comes down to Trump’s incoherence on policy, and ability to chameleon-like change positions from one moment to the next. The guy is all over the map, and just this week is watering down some of his prior major “promises”.

    It is chaos! We have absolutely NO assurance that he will hold to even 10% of what we think is important for a POTUS candidate who is to represent “us”, other than he is running under “our” (former?) team’s banner… GOP.

    Then throw in his petulance over small issues, his history of abusing the legal and political system for personal gain (yes, Clinton has her corruption, but this is about Trump), and his not so veiled allusions to threats or violence to get his way, all assuredly point to Authoritarianism.

    And, THAT is the deal breaker.

    Referring to Trump and his “mob” just reinforces that last point.

    Make no mistake. Absolutely don’t want Clinton, but the GOP and American flags doesn’t cover what is hidden underneath with Trump at the head.

    With all this having passed, it is hard to see how Trump could change all that with any credibility.

    As parker said, our only choice now is to attempt to deny both the 270 electoral colleges to win. And, try to keep at least the House filled with majority GOP.

    Though, I do read about the possibility of the delegates bound to Trump pull a no-show the first couple rounds to open the later votes to unbounded delegates. Dirty politics, but it might keep it out of Trump’s hands.

    Wouldn’t be good for the party long term, but doubt there is much left if it is Trump anyway.

43. ” the problem is that it is blind faith that Trump is “better” than Clinton.

    [snip]

    . . .but the GOP and American flags doesn’t cover what is hidden underneath with Trump at the head. [Big Maq @ 11:26]

    This may be true. I have written before that all of this opining is just conjecture until/if Trump is sworn in on Jan 20th. However . . . and this is a BIG however . . . with Trump at the very least we have unkown possibilities. With Clinton we already know from her history what we will get and how it will work. As I wrote earlier, she has already declared my, the working American citizen and Republicans the enemy.

    So, as I see it, we have the following choice: a 50/50 chance that Trump will be somewhat acceptable ( a “Scoop Jackson Democrat” would be a welcome solution given the other options) or a 100% chance to vote for our republic’s doom with Hillary. I, writing personally,can not understand how anyone would refuse to opt for that unknown over certain disaster.

44. correction:

    “. . . she has already declared my . . .”

    should be

    “. . . she has already declared me . . .”

45. BIg Maq,

    You would save the party and lose the nation. You are so focused upon saving the tree, that you would lose the forest.

    “the problem is that it is blind faith that Trump is “better” than Clinton.”

    There is no doubt that Trump’s ‘authoritarianism’ is better than Hillary’s ideology. If necessary, Caesar can be overthrown. There is no light at the end of the 1984 tunnel that Hillary leads to…

    Trump will govern as a social liberal. He MAY not be serious about illegal immigration and Muslim migration. He probably can’t do much about bad trade deals, much less restoring America’s manufacturing base. He will at the least, make mistakes in foreign policy.

    ALL of that is far better than what will occur under Hillary. Hillary will not get us into any wars, she will surrender the nation without a fight. Not directly but effectively.

    Neither Putin nor the Chicoms actually want a fight with America. Putin will never welcome one and the Chicoms are not ready. When they are, we’d better have a military capable of stopping them or prepare to learn mandarin in the world they will dominate. Chinese culture has always been dedicated to the proposition that might makes right.

46. Watched the Movie Dead Zone with Christopher Walken and Martin Sheen, again the other day. While watching Greg Stillson stump for votes, I couldn’t help thinking I was watching the Trump campaign in operation.

    The choice we have for president (unless the cranky old socialist upsets Hillary) is between two liberal thugocrats. The only real difference between them is that Hillary is a straight-up power-monger, while Trump laces his megalomania with more than a healthy dose of narcissism. There is no practical difference between them, and we will arrive at the same destination, regardless of who is driving the bus. I would vote for the lesser of two evils if there were any, but there is not, only two candidates who have based every decision on what would be good for themselves, with not one iota of consideration for anyone else, or fealty to any principle.

47. blert:

    America – institutionally – is DESIGNED to survive// handle a Donald Trump presidency.

    It has proven it is vulnerable to Clinton-0bama Progressivism.

    We are witnessing the contrast between ideologues and a pragmatist.

    Activists are both. As Neo has reported, Obama has been pragmatic throughout his political career, too.

    There’s more than 1 kind of “Progressivism”.

    Excerpt:

    Right now, conservatives and Republicans are furiously speculating, What does a Trump presidency portend, while rationalizing themselves into supporting Trump versus #NeverHillary. As both salesmen like Trump and activists like VoxDay understand, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

    The answer to their furious speculation is, a Trump presidency portends the rise of the alt-Right in the cultural, political zeitgeist.

    With all the mystery about the Trump agenda, what’s clear is Trump’s alliance and, more significantly, his reliance on the alt-Right creative engine of the Trump phenomenon.

    If the alt-Right social activist movement elevates Trump to the Presidency, which assumes a concurrent accelerated alt-Right encroachment of the GOP, he will continue to rely on the alt-Right to advance the Trump agenda like the Obama presidency has relied on the Left social activist movement that took over the Democrats and was responsible for Obama’s rise. So, while the agenda for a Trump presidency is murky yet, what’s clear is that it will be negotiated with the alt-Right.

    Neo has posted about the Trump-alt-Right eventuality, too.

    http://neoneocon.com/2016/04/14/who-are-the-alt-right-and-what-do-they-want/

    “No one will get the alt-right activists back into the fold–if they were even in the fold in the first place (I don’t think most of them were). They are gone for good. They’re not interested in joining, anyway; they’re interested in taking over and then imposing their will on the others. That’s a huge part of what this election has become. A vote for Trump is a vote for the alt-right, whether Trump knows it or not.”

    Like blert said, Trump is pragmatic – he knows.

48. Big Maq:
    “As parker said, our only choice now is to attempt to deny both the 270 electoral colleges to win.”

    See my responses to parker. The window is still open but it’s closing fast.

    Big Maq:
    “And, try to keep at least the House filled with majority GOP.”

    That’s not a reliable solution – the GOP is being co-opted.

49. “There is no practical difference between them [Trump and Clinton] , and we will arrive at the same destination, regardless of who is driving the bus.” [Bob@12:25]

    I absolutely disagree with this.

50. Just saw the Donald after his meeting with Ryan and Senate Re[ublicans walking back his position on Muslim admissions to the US. Was reminded of Groucho Marx “These are my principals – if you don’t like them I have others.”

51. T:

    Where do you get 50/50? I think it’s more like 1/50.

    And there’s also a chance Trump will be worse.

    If it was 50/50, and no chance of worse, the choice would be easier. But it’s not.

52. @T – Sorry, but when I hear or read something along the lines that “a 50/50 chance that Trump will be somewhat acceptable”, it totally unconvincing as a reason to go with Trump.

    That is a hope, not a reason.

    From the evidence, he is proving completely unacceptable to many of us. That is the point!

    The very possibility (50%?) that he could be Authoritarian, as he gives indications of, alone, is far and away worse than four more years of “Europeanization” under Clinton.

    I don’t want either, so will look to alternatives to prevent both.
    .

    @Eric – agree that the GOP could be co-opted down ticket, especially when we see GOP leadership acquiesce so easily. In an earlier comment, I mentioned that it we ought to be wary and selective down-ticket.

    As for the “window is open” – I want a choice, but I cannot bring that choice forward myself (so won’t bother with the pencil and matrix) – that takes someone like Cruz, Sasse, or someone connected to enough people to mount an organization nationally.

    I worry that we might also get to a place where we have too many choices, each independent and uncoordinated (or attacking each other) and create the playing field favorable to someone like Trump (i.e. a repeat of the nomination process).

    I also think it is easier, cleaner, and more powerful for all those opposed to go Libertarian at the national level, to stop both Trump and Clinton vs scrambling to produce a 4th party.

    They have an organization and they can use help and resources from “our side” to mount a more competitive campaign.

53. Neo,

    I, in return, would ask why one thinks the odds are only 1/50?

    I would offer that my 50/50 estimation comes from the fact that Trump operates as a businessman. See most of Eric’s comments above; he and I are on he same page here.

    Trump is running a campaign, campaigns are not governance, and yet people are responding as thought all of Trump’s utterances are definitive policy statements. For example, people are confounded by his “flip-flopping.” Has it ever occurred to anyone that he does this to keep the opposition off-balance?

    As the Rothman article points out (link below), just as the Clintonistas were preparing to attack Trump on his position re: taxes, he changes his position and disarms their attack while having forced them to waste time preparing for the same.

    Also, as an independent businessman myself, I see lesser Trumps in action all the time. I trust a businessman (or woman) to accomplish things much more than I trust a political demagogue and congenital liar (Thanks, Wm. Safire).

    Politicians, and people who have spent their life in government positions, like Obama, Clinton, and their Republican ilk think in terms of the imposition of policy. Their goal is to pass legislation and regulation and then their job is done; they don’t even attend to results, much less agonize over them. By contrast, most business people think in terms of results and see results as a measure of the policy. For example, heard much about “New Coke” lately? This was a failed business policy decision which produced negative results and was abandoned; such is the world of business. Compare that to the successful “workfare” program instituted under Bill Clinton by the Republican Contract for America. It worked to reduce welfare roles and was discontinued under the Obama administration. Results? Screw results? It doesn’t conform to ideological norms.

    If Trump is as pragmatic a businessman as Eric and I seem to believe, then he is able to be influenced. Again this goes to Milton Friedman’s admonition about making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. So the question becomes: Who would influence him? Gingrich, Ryan, Sessions, Cruz?

    Now I’m sure you could counter with your own reasons for believing that the odds are NOT as generous as 50/50,but until January 20, ours are nothing more than conjectures and opinions. I would add that even if you are correct and the chance is only 1/50, that’s still a 2% greater opportunity than a Clinton presidency provides our republic. It may be grasping at straws, but when all one has are straws . . . .

    Rothman Article Link:

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/trump-paralyzed-hilarys-campaign/

54. “From the evidence, he is proving completely unacceptable to many of us. That is the point!” Big Maq

    Of course he’s unacceptable but… that is not THE point. Evidently the more relevant point, that it will be one or the other has yet to register. But denial is the first stage of grief, so it’s certainly understandable. And the point that, at least in a swing state, a failure to vote for Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary-Lenin evidently has yet to register as well.

    Of course Trump will govern as an autocrat.

    There is no good choice. There’s only really bad and certain disaster. “Really bad” may be disastrous as well but only one is certain, the other only probable.

55. During the recent unpleasantness we backed Stalin over Hitler. Not that we thought that Stalin was a good guy (unless you were a useful idiot) but because he was the lessor of two evils at the time.

    Keep looking for the alternative. Lord knows I have.

    When you find the one the does not contain the words ‘CLINTON PRESIDENT SUPREME COURT’ let me know and I will eagerly join the cause.

56. “The very possibility (50%?) that he could be Authoritarian, as he gives indications of, alone, is far and away worse than four more years of “Europeanization” under Clinton.” [Big Maq @ 2:01]

    This is the essence of our disagreement.

57. Michael,

    Succinct and to the point; a great comparison in the use of Stalin. “Recent Unpleasantness”?

58. Michael:
    “During the recent unpleasantness we backed Stalin over Hitler.
    … Keep looking for the alternative. Lord knows I have.”

    The critical gap in your analogy is that we did more than “back” Stalin over Hitler.

    We – in the form of strong-horse American leadership of the free world – constituted a 3rd-way alternative to the national socialists and communist internationalists.

    In other words, according to your historic analogy, to “back” the Trump phenomenon in good conscience requires that dissidents from the Trump GOP and Clinton Democrats must constitute a viable 3rd-way alternative to both factions.

    Otherwise, if the dissidents fall short of engineering their own competitive social activist movement as a viable alternative 3rd center of gravity, then the choices are reduced to subordination or conversion to either the “Stalin” or “Hitler” factions.

59. Big Maq,

    Whatever conservatives and dissident Republicans (and Democrats) will do to spin up a viable 3rd alternative, they need to do it now.

60. Eric,

    I remember well the Ross Perot fiasco of 1992. I was a Peronista; his claim of a “giant sucking sound” has been proven accurate by an $18T national debt. All his 3rd party run did was give Bill Clinton the White House. It did the country no good that he was correct but lost. IMO any 3rd party candidate today will do nothing but repeat this error.

61. T,

    One, if it’s to be done, play to win.

    Two, like I said upthread, keep in mind with this exercise that the proximate campaign is simultaneously the process to establish a long-term competitive social activist movement beyond whatever the outcome is of the proximate campaign.

62. Eric,

    I don’t disagree with either point.

    I am not optimistic about conservatives playing to win, however. They simply have not shown the ability or will to do that yet and they will not develop any meaningful ability overnight. The great irony is that the only “Republican” who has shown a willingness to play to win is Trump, who is considered anathema by many vocal conservatives.

    I do, though, agree with Geoffrey Britain that four (or eight) years of a Hillary Clinton administration may well make a conservative vote meaningless in 2020 or beyond. So I see more immediately at stake in this election than just the establishment of a long term conservative social activist campaign.

    Assemble that long term campaign during a Trump administration.

63. Eric,

    “The critical gap in your analogy is that we did more than “back” Stalin over Hitler. We — in the form of strong-horse American leadership of the free world — constituted a 3rd-way alternative to the national socialists and communist internationalists.”

    That’s very true and unfortunately, irrelevant because ‘that ship has sailed’. The current American experiment in representative democracy is over, as surely as Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon signaled the end of the Roman republic.

    This is so because far too few Americans retain allegiance to our founding Constitutional principles, decisively demonstrated by the elections of 2008, 2012 and the ‘choice’ we now face with either another Lenin or another Caesar. Millions are too few to save what is broken, especially as each succeeding generation is more radically leftist than the preceding generation.

    Under Trump, at least the pretense of a Republic will remain, perhaps for decades or even another century, as a figurehead. Under Hillary, it will not last another generation.

    “keep in mind with this exercise that the proximate campaign is simultaneously the process to establish a long-term competitive social activist movement beyond whatever the outcome is of the proximate campaign.”

    The crucifixion of the Tea Party, both by the GOPe and the Left, should be sufficient warning that, once triumphant… the hard core Left, will never allow a “long-term competitive social activist movement” to be born. They will ensure that any future competitive movement is still-born. And, for all intents and purposes, Hillary’s election in 2016 will signal an unstoppable Left.

    However, under Trump a “long-term competitive social activist movement” could conceivably arise and out of it a new American experiment, codified in a new Constitutional convention… if unlikely is possible.

64. Aand yet another opinion at American Spectator.

    I follow Don Surber and while I find this short essay a little too hagiographic, I think it also illustrates sides of Trump that do not come through in the national campaign. Judge for yourself.

    http://spectator.org/the-thinking-mans-guide-to-donald-trump/

65. None of this means I am sure I won’t vote for Trump.

    ***********

    You have to find another way–and perhaps fight for that.

    Trust me neo–you will want to be able to look at yourself in the mirror when all is said and done.

66. T,

    I took a quick perusal of the article and some of his points are questionable, if not disprovable. That is but for one. That being #2, “Displays high integrity and honesty”. Perhaps he does with his associates in the business world but we know he’s not honest, given all the lies about his competitors. Integrity and honesty are inseparable.

67. Many of us share in that dilemma. But for those living in swing states, a refusal to vote for Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary. Nor can any amount of rationalization change that reality.

    ******

    A vote for Trump destroys the opposition party to democrats–perhaps for good. Trump is slightly ahead in the current Quinnipiac polling most likely because Hillary is still in a primary battle–but Republican Senators in yesterday’s Quinnipiac polling are fading away. There is the very likely scenario that Republicans lose the Senate. When that happens who will be there to check Trump’s dreams of building fabulous airports, and train stations like they have in China?

    Trump rules like an FDR democrat, there’s not much evidence to prove he would not–in fact his current flirtation with the minimum wage, and talking points on the debt and printing money weigh the scale towards the FDR scenario.

    Now Hillary—could be like a democrat Nixon. Nixon won in a landslide even though the Watergate break in had been reported on before that vote. Nixon (Hillary) ends up resigning. The Republican party regroups and survives to bring foward a better candidate than Trump in 2020.

68. Me:
    “Formulate a 6 month practical matrix to spin up a 3rd party campaign from ground level to the general election in November. Identify needs and pencil in solutions.”

    Big Maq:
    “I want a choice, but I cannot bring that choice forward myself (so won’t bother with the pencil and matrix) … I also think it is easier, cleaner, and more powerful for all those opposed to go Libertarian at the national level, to stop both Trump and Clinton vs scrambling to produce a 4th party.”

    Keep in mind that the Libertarian Party hasn’t competed as a viable 3rd-party alternative before, either.

    Their leadership should have more ready national infrastructure than a ground-up “4th party” op (which would be jumpstarting with practical experience from the 2-party dissidents), but as they stand right now, not enough for a real competitive 3rd-party run. They would need to scale up.

    Which is to say, like for a “4th party” campaign, the Libertarian Party would also need your “pencil and matrix” help in order to spin up, and possibly even more help in some areas if they need to change their current operational template rather than simply scale up ops.

    Again, the window is open. It’s feasible. But whatever dissidents will do to spin up a viable 3rd-party alternative to the Trump GOP and Clinton Democrats, they need to do it now.

69. I sort of hate to do this–but screw it.

    Hitler loved Germany–to death.

70. a failure to vote for Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary-Lenin evidently has yet to register as well.

    *******

    Or –Trump destroys the Republican party–a lot of his backers hate the Republican party and are voting with that in mind.

    The Opposition Party–the only organized party opposed to Democrats is left unfunctional.

    Trump creates turmoil and chaos–and a power vacuum that is fertile ground for your future Lenin. As you have admitted previously–Hillary is not that yet.

    Hillary is a known, Trump is an unknown. An international crisis happens and the voters run back to the known entity.

    GW Battleground polling shows that and so does the pdf of the latest Quinnipiac polling for Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

71. T:
    “Assemble that long term campaign during a Trump administration.”

    Geoffrey Britain:
    “However, under Trump a “long-term competitive social activist movement” could conceivably arise and out of it a new American experiment”

    You’re overlooking the Left-mimicking alt-Right that’s the creative engine of the Trump phenomenon. Their 1st move in usurping the GOP nomination race was to ‘other’ conservatives as “cuckservatives”.

    They’re establishing their Gramscian long march on the social political territory they seized from conservatives. The Left and Left-mimicking alt-Right both know what to do about counter-revolutionaries in their midst. But conservatives pose a more direct threat to the alt-Right due to heritage; for example, the Bolsheviks and the Romanovs. The alt-Right will be more attuned to quashing a conservative (“cuckservative”) activist insurgency than the Left.

72. GB,

    I rarely take a look at the previous day comments… but ok, I will generously give you even odds. The wager is a case of your favorite beer against a case of my favorite beer. One caveat, we meet in Decorah, Iowa so you can buy my case at my favorite brewery. 😉

73. @GB – “And the point that, at least in a swing state, a failure to vote for Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary-Lenin evidently has yet to register as well. “

    Rather smug. Wrong wrong wrong. Here it is again…

    My vote is for a set of ideas. Not looking for purity either – I’d take >50%.

    But Trump is playing games with what he stands for. Negotiating position? Keeping the opposition off balance?

    Does it matter what his “reasons” (all bogus and made up on the fly, AFAIAC)?

    Trump is not anywhere close to 50%, as far as I can tell, and is a LOT closer to a Dem position, and moving more that way on a daily basis.

    But then again, who knows for certain? You can’t.
    .

    You equate Clinton with Lenin, others with Marx, but there is a loooong distance between where we are now and what those guys eventually brought upon humanity.

    Last I seen, no major European country is remotely governed today the way Lenin did, so drop the false comparison.
    .

    “Of course Trump will govern as an autocrat…” AND “There is no doubt that Trump’s ‘authoritarianism’ is better than Hillary’s ideology. If necessary, Caesar can be overthrown.“

    Frightening how you so easily say “of course…”

    As far as “denial is the first stage”, that’s on you and other Trump voters, as you, in fact, think he WILL be an autocrat (others may think there is a good chance he will be), but yet you deny the consequence of that.
    .

    And, great! Now we are supposed to count on our ability to overthrow a Caesar!

    That is ridiculous. If we cannot stop him now, how the h*ll do you think he can be overthrown, when he has the reigns of power?
    .

    And just how does an “autocrat” govern? Merely “Liberal/Democrat”? Autocrats don’t respect boundaries and institutions. So, NO, don’t think it is so blithely explained away as so.

    Without anything else to the contrary provided by Trump in a consistent, coherent, and detailed way, what we see today will likely become “normal” at the governing / policy level.

    Essentially that is… What Trump thinks of that day will become fiat.
    .

    The man gives every indication that he will be chaos for this country, on almost every issue across the board.

    How that can be better than Clinton – the real deal, not the Lenin strawman? Easy, if you under play what an autocrat would be like. But that is only fooling yourself.
    .

    Could Trump be better than he is indicating? Hasn’t he had long enough to prove his case?

    Seems like he is relying on arguments like yours to bring people along.

    It will work for some, but I don’t think an election is something where we should be buying lottery tickets for the presidency.
    .

    “Only one is certain, the other is probable.”

    Strongman leaders almost always end up a disaster for the populous.

    If we inch more towards being like the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, or Canada, even – is that disaster?

    Seems to me we can more easily recover from that than from “Caesar” (as YOU chose to refer to Trump) who potentially threatens the foundations of democracy itself.
    .

    Even if he doesn’t turn autocratic, but, if Trump just continues his bullying ways, it still looks like we end up with chaos, and the consequences will still be huge.

74. The chaos does not remain within CONUS. Trump promises chaos–every where.

75. @Strand – you got it. Folks don’t seem to appreciate the magnitude of risk associated with chaos or erratic behavior at such a focal point of power. The US is just too integral to the world, economically, politically, and militarily.

    We already have a POTUS who shoots from the hip (“Red Line”, “Jayvee Team”). Trump kicks it up about 100 notches – and that is just with what he’s said so far.

76. parker says:

    Better to lose an election than to vote away principles in a trainwreck election.

    —-

    Is it? So here’s what people need to decide for themselves.

    1. Will you vote for someone who you think should be President, regardless of the outcome?

    or

    2. Given that Hillary Clinton is overall worse than Donald Trump, will you vote in a way that causes the least amount of damage to the country?

    I’m not suggesting it’s an easy question, and one that I’m currently struggling with. I was able to hold my nose and vote for McCain, whom I really dislike. I was actually happy to vote for Romney, although he wasn’t my first choice. I am trying to decide if I can justify, and defend, voting for Trump for the sole reason that Clinton is worse.

    While we’ve been using the phrase “the lesser of two evils” in elections for a long time, I think this time around it’s the most applicable it’s ever been.

    So, do I look at my vote from the point of view of policy and principle, or do I look at my vote from a strictly pragmatic reason. The vote on principle has absolutely no effect outside of me. The vote for pragmatism does.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>