Comments

Criticizing Trump — 81 Comments

1. I cling to a slim hope that the GOP brain trust, who must be in near panic mode, have a plan.

   One of the reasons that the hope remains slim is that I simply cannot think of a viable alternative at this point. I don’t mean someone who would potentially be a better President; I mean someone who could come in and brush Trump aside, then beat Hillary.

   Then there is the question of whether they can agree on any plan.

   It is really a shame that Scott Walker pulled out so early. If he had fought through and achieved some national stature, I could seem him in the role. Now, it seems that all of the possible super stars in the original field are damaged. I suppose that Kasich might be resurrected; even though Neo faults him for staying in so long. I wonder if the establishment could be desperate enough to back Cruz?

   Many of us wait with bated breath.

2. “those who criticize Trump feel that there is still time to avoid a certain disaster with him, whether he wins or loses–and they think it virtually certain that he will lose.”

   As I’ve stated before, I expect an elected Trump to be at least somewhat disastrous. I’m certain that Hillary will be disastrous across the board.

   I see no third alternative candidate with the needed bipartisan appeal, name recognition and Presidential qualities to be a viable candidate.

   Nor do I see a reasonable expectation that such a disparate collection of the dissatisfied could coalesce around a third party candidate. Sander’s supporters, the dissatisfied on the left are even more opposed to conservatives than they are to Hillary’s corrupt crony allies. We are a nation not just divided but balkanized.

   I’m not convinced that Trump will lose, as I think the disgust is much deeper than polls show. I’m convinced that every Islamist attack increases Trump’s support but it’s like a volcano building under ground toward eruption. It will be ironic justice if Islam is responsible for Trump’s election.

3. Neither 1 nor 2 seem likely to win the general. Thus, we have the binary choice.
   It’s possible that either of them could be the origin of a new movement for the next or next-but-one elections.

4. Richard Aubrey:

   I linked to an article that said that they could throw the general to the House.

   I also believe, based on polls and my own (admittedly small sample) questioning of friends, that an alternative candidate has a chance—and not a .00001% chance, either, but something quite a bit bigger than that) of wining the whole thing.

   You and I disagree. But my point in this piece was to describe some of the reasoning used by many people who don’t want to vote for Trump and are seeking an alternative. They are not convinced it would not work. They are trying their best to stop Hillary, and they think this way has a decent chance and that Trump will not win. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they are not shrugging at the possibility of a Hillary victory. They think the Trump candidacy is facilitating a Hillary victory.

   This year is different—really different. All bets are off on this.

5. Given the current structure of the American electoral, basically two-relevant-party system, I don’t see how anyone rationally argues that the actual choice isn’t …still …a binary choice.

   I’m willing to entertain a valid and pertinent observational and commonsensical data point argument against that almost-an-axiom in American politics.

   …and like neo, I think that this year – for the first time in some 150+ years – there’s a faint possibility.

   But so far at least, I see nothing that would lead me to believe in the actual existence of such; to this point, as argument it is categorized at best as bagatelle, and as probability, pure chimera.

   Just sayin’.

6. We can debate all we want and it is neo’s blog but I am a practical man. It is a binary choice. And the Dem is a plain criminal who will sell out her country in a heartbeat.

   Maybe Neo’s bog isn’t the forum but there has to be a concerted effort to get blue collar Dems and independents to vote Trump. We can’t allow Hillary to win.

   The MSM isn’t going to vet Hillary. WaPo and NYT probably have 50 people working to dig dirt on Trump. But we get nothing on Hillary. I could take five Creighton undergrads and do a substantive story daily against Hillary. For example, what was her role in Venezuela?

   Part of the genius of the Clinton bribery business plan was that the money comes from lots of foreigners. Tough to break through with that crew. Not a whole lot of First Amendment tradition outside the US.

7. …I see you (@neo) responded while I was typing.

   Hmm. Let me seeeee ….

   Nope. No matter.

   I remain ensconced …and that even “…something quite a bit bigger than …a .00001% chance” is still more chimera than bagatelle lol.

8. I’ve been surprised at the number of people in the comments section who suggest it’s wrong at this point to criticize Trump, because all it does is help Hillary.

   Or you could say it’s wrong at this point to criticize Hillary, because all it does is help Trump.

   Either way, it’s a thoughtless argument.

   It’s only a binary choice because we accept that it is. As for Trump or Hillary. I will have nothing to do with either of them.

9. brdavis9:

   I actually believe a decent (not perfect, but decent) alternative Trump candidate, if nominated by the GOP, has a better chance of beating Hillary than Trump does.

   I hope that’s clear. I don’t think either thing is likely. I think the chances of Trump or that alternative candidate winning are small, but I think the alternative candidate’s chances are better than Trump’s.

   I think that if Trump had not entered the race, that someone like Walker or Rubio or Cruz had an excellent chance of beating Hillary. But that chance is gone.

   Plenty of people disagree with me, I’m sure of that, and that’s fine. But that’s the way I see it at the moment. My opinion on this could change.

10. You know. I’m beginning to see a pattern in the way we’re using the word “choice”.

    Some of us use choice in the moral sense. (Perfectly okay with that btw: soldier on than.)

    Some of us use choice in the more technically politically relevant sense. (Moi, lol.)

    They’re not the same word. They don’t mean the same thing. At all. Context, you know.

    The result is we end up talking past each other.

    I think morally Trump is a poor choice (better than Hillary by a bit, but still).

    I think in the politically relevant sense, Trump remains baked in the cake (as it were). In the politically relevant usage of “choice”, it is Trump or Hillary and choose wisely QED.

    I’d add – purely in the political relevant technical sense – choosing unicorns isn’t …wise. At this point in the cycle. Given what exists.

    And at that, I think I’ve arrived at the “it’s pointless to debate the capacity of pins in re: dancing angels” point though, so I do believe I’ll take my dance card and abandon the floor.

11. @neo.

    Yep.

    …entirely agree (I would tho’: not a Trumpster, just a depressingly clear-headed objective rationalist …and long since having observed and extrapolated the historical threads: the elites despise us, it was inevitable we should despise them right back in “concrete” fashion).

    In so many ways, I’ve hated this cycle.

    “Interesting times”.

    I’m past the Whig Moment btw. Now I’m pretty sure we’re in a significant Jacksonian Event.

    It is what it is tho’. {spits …see, I can spit too}.

    Aargh!

    …I’m rambling. Worse than usual lol. Sorry.

12. there has to be a concerted effort to get blue collar Dems and independents to vote Trump

    Major problem, though, is that Trump comes across as mercurial, bombastic, often incoherent, etc., while Hillary is working very hard to project calmness, steadiness, reasonableness, etc. Instinctively, most people are going to opt for the latter.

13. There’s plenty to criticize Donald Trump for – but he IS the Republican nominee for President. He got more votes than most of his primary rivals, and toward the end of the primary season, was getting over half the vote in a still-split field. I’m not a Trump supporter; I favored Ted Cruz. But here’s why I’ll vote for Trump in the general election.

    I’m a single-issue voter. My issue is gun control; I’m against it. Hillary demands more gun control, and Trump supports gun rights. It’s an easy decision.

    I don’t like Trump on Kelo or on eminent domain. I don’t like Trump on crony capitalism. I’d agree that Trump isn’t a “real conservative”. But I don’t care. Hillary would be far worse on ANY of these, and Trump is saying the right things about guns.

    I probably won’t replace my “Romney 2012” or my “Cruz 2016” bumper stickers – but I’ll probably vote for him. (Not that it matters; I live in California. If my vote might swing California from Hillary to Trump, then the election will be long since over by the time the California polls close because Trump will have won by a landslide everywhere east of here.)

14. neo @ 3:17,

    I for one do not doubt the sincerity of most who currently (some will change) refuse to vote for Trump. I understand the reasoning but think it fatally flawed. My perception that a refusal to vote for Trump (in a swing state) is effectively a vote ‘for’ Hillary does not rest upon whether that person is sincere.

    I too think that a good 3rd party candidate would do better than in most years but in my judgement, they would not win the race with so many committed to Hillary & Trump and throwing the race into the House is a throw of the dice. At best it would result in a RINO and that is simply a slightly slower March to the Collective.

    A Trump candidacy may well facilitate a Hillary victory but those are the cards that the electorate has dealt us.

    We may or may not recover from a Pres. Trump. We will not recover from a Pres. Hillary. Given the forces in support of her, the momentum they have after Obama and how very close we are to having it all slip away.

15. “no character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false.”” from “Alexander Hamilton” by Ron Chernow

16. Whoever said Trump had “upright character?” No need for false attacks on DJT. He provides all the ammunition for factual attacks. A gift to the Democrats. To vote for DJT you have to ignore so much out of fear of HRC.

17. OM,

    None here are ignoring Trump’s flaws. Ignoring Hillary’s desire to be an agent for a Left who would happily shut down this blog, subject us to IRS harassment and finally insist that we eagerly agree that 2+2=5… none of which are imagined fears, takes some real willful blindness. Enjoy your denial while ye may.

18. Those, like Ken Mitchell, who believe djt will not go wobbley on the 2nd, are IMO, whistling past the grave yard. He has a history on the 2nd, and it is progressive. I am a lifetime NRA member who is deeply disappointed that the NRA leadership has endorsed the donald. Right after the Orlando terror attack he announced, just like a progressive, that he was ready to do away with due process to deny citizens a fundamental right if they are on a secret list.

    Sounds just like bho and hrc to me.

    No thanks, not voting for the donald. The Shrew Queen can be opposed virgorously. Trump at the head of the ticket can not win. He needs to replaced at the convention. Better to lose than choose immolation.

19. “The Shrew Queen can be opposed virgorously. Better to lose than choose immolation.” parker

    To state that, “he can not win” (which may be true) is to make certain an uncertainty, just as much as does saying he will win.

    His quick dismissal of due process is a concern but since it is not a position based in principle, he might change his mind, whereas Hillary’s position based in ideological dogma is not open to persuasion, no matter how logical, reasoned or fact based the counter argument.

    Immolation is what The Shrew Queen has planned for us. How well has the ‘vigorous opposition’ to Obama worked?

20. (Neo is up to her God-Given Constitutional Right to silently block and censor my posts again, hence the name change.)

    The naivety of some of you is mind-boggling.

    You’re want to stiff the primary voters at the convention and put up another candidate, OR go the third party route in the time left against a CRIME FAMILY with essentially unlimited foreign money?

    And you think that you stand any chance of winning then? Do you honesty believe that in a social media universe where 99% of the social media wizards and ALL of the actual online media tycoons will be behind Hillary that this is a smart idea? Let alone the boots on the ground logistical advantages the Democrats have in getting out the vote (both alive and DEAD), and probably (alas to say) in ensuring strategic precinct counts get tilted when they can get away with it.

    And comes the hour, comes the man. There is precisely *one* candidate who, because of his carefully crafted public persona, can do an end-run around the media gatekeepers — online and traditional — and should be able to inspire enough ordinary people to vote to stand a chance of beating the Clintons’ dead voters and SEIU droids.

    And you want to replace him with some Milquetoast chosen by the Wiser Heads in some back room?

    Are you people insane?

    Sorry, but I will *not* be subtle about this.

21. Oh… and I forgot all the Big Data mavens too. None of them work for our side.

    The deck is stacked against us so much that it’s almost comical.

    And yet you worry about Trump because he’s a demagogue? — Precisely the only key that now fits the lock for our side.

    Bumpy road yes.

    But it beats whistling past the graveyard and going into that Not Good Clinton Night knowing in your hearts what cowardly pathetic losers you are. Better to have at least rolled the dice and tried one last time.

22. GB:

    You say “none of us here are ignoring Trump’s flaws.” Not sure how you know what everyone else thinks about DJT. Some commenters want to hear no criticism of DJT, you on the other hand voice some criticisms, stated with tepid conviction, but seem to feel that Caesar-Lite is the only alternative to HRC. You have your own set of blinders and whistle you own tune.

23. GB,

    No, to say he can not win does not make certain and uncertainty. Its stating how I see the road ahead. A jihadi mass murder a month from now until October will not push enough independents, hispanics, blacks, or homosexuals to flock to the donald’s ever shifting bombast. His bombast pushes in exactly the opposite direction. The msm will see to that.

    As far as vigorous opposition is concerned, I will admit it has been a dry desert for the most part; but after 8 years of the boy king one can hope for a change if hrc is crowned. IMO, the donald as head of the ticket will be an immolation down ticket, that alone makes me never the donald.

24. RebY
    You can always go to Trumpbart or GatewayPundit. There are lots of your kind in the roster of commenters there. I don’t give either (or Drudge) any clicks, they are dead to me.

    GB may say I’m blind for not frequenting those Trumpophilic fonts of wisdom.

25. OM,

    I can only know what people are thinking who comment here. It is they, who[m?] we speak of. My perception is not that they don’t want to hear criticism of Trump but that they object to a clear reversal of priorities. It’s all about how bad Trump is and would be with little said by them about the certainty of the Left’s agenda, which Hillary seeks to serve and cavalier dismissal of how late the hour.

    I’ll let others decide whether my criticism of Trump is ‘tepid’. Just out of curiosity, in your view are all criticisms of Trump tepid, if they don’t result in outright rejection of Trump?

    I do NOT “feel” that Trump’s Caesar is the only alternative to HRC’s Lenin, I logically deduce that to be the case. In support of that assertion, I have repeatedly advanced a coherent rationale in support of that contention.

    ‘Blinders’ imply willful blindness. Please indicate where I have disputed any negative about Trump, other than the assertion that nuclear war is certain, if he’s elected. In fact, I’ve repeatedly accepted as a given all or nearly all of the criticism’s of Trump. So, I would suggest that the only blinders at play here are those you hold of my position.

26. Some of these comments recall the attitude that stuck Germans between National Socialists and Communists while a 3rd option was still viable in that activist game.

    Neo:
    “this year really is different, and that there is enough bipartisan support for a potential alternative to both candidates that either a third-party candidate or a non-Trump GOP replacement has a fighting chance and would not be acting merely as a spoiler.”

    There’s also the critical matter that a viiable position to salvage the country from the social activist movements fronted by both party candidates very likely depends upon displaced conservatives on one side and displaced liberals on the other side establishing a competitive social activist movement within the window of the 2016 general election.

27. Kathryn Steinle – Build The Wall
    San Bernadino – Ban the Muslims
    Trump University case – Disbar the Mexican /S
    Orlando – Ban more Muslims (?) and talk sense to the NRA

    3 or 4 involve DJT jumping onto a horrific event, responding with a dubious juvenile “solution,” but mostly promoting DJT. But DJT has shown by his response to Orlando that self promotion trumps defending the Second Amendment.

    Willful blindness and denial indeed to ignore that pattern of behavior.

28. parker,

    Again, you may well be correct.

    “after 8 years of the boy king one can hope for a change if hrc is crowned”

    As I’m sure you know, hope is a prayer, not a strategy. Sometimes prayers are answered as we would wish. Concerns about down ticket are moot because the American public has proven itself incapable of self discipline, common sense and moral restraint.

    “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites…in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.

    Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. [which is why we find ourselves between Trump’s authoritarianism and Hillary’s totalitarianism]

    It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Edmund Burke

29. GB:

    Your answer to Trump’s flaws is Hillary is worse than anything Donald could do. Pretty big assumption weighing the venality of both. You are dug in.

    I’d rather not share my foxhole with someone as unreliable as DJT.

30. OM,

    Accusing others of willful blindness is rich.

    Building the wall is necessary. Banning Muslim migration is necessary. The judge in the TU case is almost certainly biased and that he should have recused himself before the case prelims started is obvious. Orlando is more proof in support of Trump’s position. Yet you, in order to support an untenable argument, make it about Trump.

31. OM,

    1984 will be far worse than you can imagine. That you can’t see that not to be an assumption is sad. The Left has, since Marx made clear where they would take us. If Caesar was in your foxhole, he’d help defend it out of self-interest but the instant you turn your back on Lenin, it will be the last of you.

32. Abraham Lincoln said, affirmed by Justice Jackson, that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact”.

    This same principle is affirmed by Just War Doctrine and its fruits, the Geneva Conventions, which hold that if one party violates the agreements then the other party is no longer bound, morally, ethically or de jure, by the agreements.

    In other words, existential matters take precedence over codes of morality.

    This, then, is the essence of the arguments advanced by those who say support Trump no matter.

    Franklin Roosevelt famously said, in the matter of a South American strongman, that “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch”.

33. Some of you would go do well to go read the Diplomad blog. Jewish guy who has lived in the real world and seen how the sausage is made.

    Well worth reading.

34. GB:

    “RA RA RA Trump wise man, say wise things, it be great!”

    Trump discovers immigration after the murder of Kathryn Steinle.

    Trump discovers Islamic terrorism after San Bernadino, goes 9/11 truther, slams US military personnel in Iraq as corrupt war profiteers.

    Trump slams an American jurist as “Mexican” and reveals what, stupidity and bigotry. Remember when JFK couldn’t be trusted to be president because he was Catholic.

    Trump’s position on the Second Amendment and “talking to the NRA” after Orlando. You missed that one?

    Maybe you blinked and didn’t have your eyes closed.

    I question your judgement. You forgot to accuse me of slander.

35. Roy Lofquist:

    Bingo.

    In times of moderate stress, the Constitution is a flaming sword and protector our rights.

    In degenerate, treason-ridden times such as now, it is a solace for the weak-minded pettifoggers and cowards… the “but.. but… but” crowd. And for the terminally naive.

36. RebY

    Do you prefer rule 303 or 22LR?

37. All:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/hitler-learns-the-journal-of-american-greatness-has-shut-down.php

    Intellectual defense of Trumpism on the internet folds. “Oh, the humanity!”

38. OM: There is much rather pointless debate about this, but perhaps Title 9 (sic) has a message in it.

39. I think digesting this post at NRO Trump’s Appeal to the Radical Middle Is a Wake-Up Call to Conservatives might add a certain depth to everyone’s cogitational processes.

    I haven’t been overly pleased with NRO for many months now, but this article differed in its general tone …it was thought provoking, instead of merely provoking.

    And I, at least, walked away with a better attitude after the read. And have been mulling it over since last night.

    It has seemed to put some of our disagreements in perspective.

    …and I’m beginning to suspect I’m more Jacksonian than I realized. Who knew.

    Well, granted it may be more progression than revelation (no doubt a few of you will change that to regression lol).

    Worth a read at least. (For both NRO choir members, and those who’ve perhaps grown uncomfortable with their extraordinary loss of, umm, composure shall we say.)

40. actually he is part of the american interest, a much more avowedly nationalist journal,

41. “HRC’s Lenin … Hillary’s desire to be an agent for a Left who would happily shut down this blog, subject us to IRS harassment and finally insist that we eagerly agree that 2+2=5… none of which are imagined fears …
    We may or may not recover from a Pres. Trump. We will not recover from a Pres. Hillary.” – GB

    GB, please tell us what you think will realistically happen in the next four years with Clinton.

    Shutting down this blog… I think not.

    Jump into Leninism… I think not (not as I understand it – a leftward continuation is not equivalent).

    Just what can we not recover from?

    Keep in mind, you are certain that Trump would be an Autocrat – with all its implications for our future political life and freedoms, that we need to weigh Clinton against.

42. davisbr,

    Thank you. That’s now bookmarked in one of my “special” folders.

    I draw a distinction between Constitutional conservatives and Declaration of Independence conservatives. the Declarationists being closer to the Jacksonians as opposed to the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians.

    The Declaration was the aspiration, the Constitution the nuts and bolts to make it happen.

    Most people are familiar with the first part of the Declaration but just glance at the grievances.

    A closer examination reveals that much of the Constitution was written to address the grievances. The Federalist Papers are rife with references to those grievances.

    The motivation of the latter day Jacksonians are driven by the grievances and their applicability to today.

43. right, you could take that argument with nakoulay basselay, but visiting hours are limited, david bossie might have a word, if not for scalia, he might have been sued out of existence, ask mike ledeen how it felt being grilled by sidney blumenthal,

44. Cervantes: My bad. Thanks for the correction.

    Still bothers me that our side needs to dress itself up in appeals to the Founding Fathers when we’ve allowed the other side to mess with the very nature of Truth and History.

    It’s time for some Scotch-Irish Backwoods Fighting. We can go back to the Academy when it’s done.

45. Big Maq:

    Per Mark Steyn and Co.: The Process is the Punishmentâ„¢.

    There are more ways to establish and implement Tyranny than are dreamed of in your Philosophy, BM.

    Please quit the whistling and start the imaginating.

46. BM:

    Never done a single thing online in your life that cannot be creatively misconstrued into a felony or an ostracising, job-destroying, humiliating calamity for you?

    Congratulations. Your name is Chelsea Clinton and you have been born and bred and raised to rule in a test tube.

    For the rest of us, we’re all their bitches. Just ask Chief Justice Roberts next time you bump into him at the Elks or Kiwanis.

    We already live in a Panopticon Tyranny. If you don’t feel tyrannised yet, it’s just because at the current stage you’re simply not important enough and/or imaginitive enough. Deal with that.

    But don’t worry… sooner than later you will become important enough as the tentacles reach further downward as the machine learning algorithms improve.

    Now who do you want reading the reports every morning?

47. OM,

    There’s a limit to how far denial can take you. Evidently you’re determined to explore that limit. Good luck with that.

    I’ve never disputed Trump’s contradictions and opportunism. He’s certainly not my choice, he’s just the only one we have.

    Fortunately, reality will provide me the feedback to determine the veracity of my judgement. Your trust in it and opinion of it are not needed.

    I only accuse another of slander when they earn it. It’s been a while since you’ve done so but since you’ve never shown the class, to show the slightest embarrassment over being called on it, I’m confident that it’s just a matter of time till you resort to it again.

48. GB:

    I’m truly not hurt. You keep insisting that you know the only two outcomes. Oh, I keep forgetting my place. Mr. GB ESQ? Your definition of slander has a sliding scale, so it doesn’t mean much. So sad.

49. Big Maq,

    Essentially permanent liberal/leftist SCOTUS entrenched.

    SCOTUS rules in support of 9th court’s ruling that there is no 2nd amendment right to conceal a firearm. Extends to open carry as well, eliminating the right to self-defense outside the home.

    Illegal immigration doubles. Path to citizenship established. Resulting in permanent one party political rule. George Bush last Republican President.

    Muslim migrants tripled. European style no-go zones start to emerge. Majority of American Muslims support Sharia law. Israel’s reality becomes ours. ISIS gets nukes.

    TPP starts to erode national sovereignty. Congress, SCOTUS and Constitution bypassed and superseded by treaty obligations.

    Hate speech laws enacted.

    Military fully ruled by political correctness. Trains to confront right-wing extremist domestic terrorists.

    Leftist indoctrination extends into pre-schools.

    Reparations to non-whites for white privilege.

    That’s just off the top of my head.

    The thing to remember about the left is that as it approaches the tipping point, ‘progress’ isn’t additive, it becomes a logarithmic progression.

50. Mr. GB:

    This is called a clue about Donald

    http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/06/18/trump-doubles-support-democrat-filibuster-subject-fly-buy/

    As the low class sometime say “Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time.”

51. OM,

    I’m unsurprised at your not being hurt, since I’ve never offered offense.

    No, until persuaded otherwise by demonstrated fact, only two outcomes present themselves as viable.

    I’ve been entirely consistent in my criteria for slander. Nice try, if typically dishonest. BTW, that’s just an easily demonstrated objective observation.

52. There’s a lot of begging the question going on. Yes, we’re in a terrible situation. But the idea that a politician as abysmal as HRC is going to be able to (I suppose through her masterful, hypnotic and crowd-mesmerizing cackle) sway the masses in our slightly center-left country to shut down opposition media, put us all in re-education camps, and re-write the constitution, seems, to me, to be extremely speculative and not in the least a possibility.

    Trump is the more dangerous. I don’t want either of them to win but he’s the ending of any chance of limited government, a reduction in the power of the executive, etc. She will be as bad as he will be (although not as CRAZY as he is/will be), she will be LESS persuasive than the President we currently have, less able to push through an agenda, and will – unless Trump causes a loss of both the house and the senate, which is a likelihood- face at least an opposition that is Trump-free (in other words, she’ll face, most likely, at least a few true conservatives in congress. He’s not a conservative, btw).

    We’re in a center-left country. Trump is pushing it further left, by the way, doing more for the left-wing than HRC has ever dreamed of doing. I know plenty of GOP voters, reliable GOP voters, who have left the party because of him. It sucks that he’s the nominee. But our center-left country is not going to welcome re-education camps and the shutting down of opposition and the destruction of the constitutional order under the uninspiring leadership of HRC. Under Trump, who everyone, even his supporters here, understands to be extremely unpredictable, all bets are off.

    I’m not going to take that bet.

53. OM,

    Yes, that is distressing. I’ve said many times (did you miss them all?) that I expect Trump to be disastrous, which pales next to Hillary’s catastrophic.

54. Mr. GB

    Distressing –

    “Just a flesh wound from Sir Donald. Come back and fight…..”

    (not the exact dialog from Monty Python and the Holy Grail – the Black Knight sequence).

55. davisbr:

    That NRO article you linked, about Jacksonians, was puzzling to me because I cannot understand how the existence of this huge group who differ with mainstream Republicans could have been news to anyone. They’ve been very numerous and very vocal around the blogosphere for many many years, and it was pretty clear that all they needed was someone like Trump to coalesce around.

56. Bill,

    It is not Hillary’s cackle to be feared, it is the massive network of highly organized, fanatically ideological forces aligned behind her that should be feared because they are as opposed to liberty as any before them.

    Nor is it that Hillary will shut down opposition voices on the internet/media, open re-education camps etc. It is that she will enable, through the forces aligned behind her, further preparations for when that can be implemented. She’ll do so because the Left can’t be secure otherwise.

    Nor is that hyperbolic speculation.

    The early preparations have already being made and undoubtedly continue. 1.7 billion illegal hollow point ammo purchased by the feds in just one year. 2700 light duty tanks purchase. Army manuals for domestic internment re-education camps. Class lectures to N.G. troops on domestic terrorists with Catholics(!) labeled so, for God’s sake. What do you think all of that is for, if not preparation for extreme domestic unrest?

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph, how much clearer does the handwriting on the wall have to be? Do yourself a favor, look up “normalcy bias”.

    Again, Hillary doesn’t do that, she simply continues the groundwork for it to happen.

57. I have a question, a simple question that the trumpian horde and the reluctant trumpers never address. The question is what about the down ticket if djt is the rotting head of the gop fish?

    Crickets, crickets, and more crickets. Oh but wait, the trumpian horde wants to destroy the gop in the name of popullsm. A mob is the way to go to defeat the Alinsky mob. I get it you want heads to roll off the guillotine and you care less in which direction heads roll. But gop candidates down ticket will abandon and disavow the donald come August if they hold a slim hope of being elected or reelected . Less than 100 electoral college votes and GB owes me a case of beer. I remain confident I will win a case of Toppling Goliath.

58. I confess, I confess!

    I’ve never watched ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’! Gasp! I always assumed it to be an example of stoned hippy silliness and I passed through my dope smoking days long before it. Lately, I’ve begun to entertain second thoughts, precipitated by seeing the ‘brave sir robin’ skit on youtube. Let the appaled cultural derision begin.

59. I’ll pay up and with a grin. After all, good beer is good to find. 😉

    And, I just addressed the down ticket issue. I’d only add that, provided that we can dominate the GOP with Eric’s social conservative activist movement, it has some residual value.

60. GB@12:13,

    Ok, where will you make your last stand, assuming your dire hrc prediction. Me and mine are prepared. You and your’s are welcome if each of you come with a 30 caliber rifle, at least 2000 rounds of ammo, and a minimum of two years of food per person. 😉 and I am not joking.

    parker and company are well ahead of that curve. 😉

61. The Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians debate the Constitution. The Jacksonians fight our wars.

62. Roy,

    A bit simple diagnosis. Populism versus forethought. No attention to unintended consequences versus a respectful fear of unintended consequences. I think your course of action leads to mob rule and blood of innocents spilled on the ground. I am not against spilling blood btw.

63. Roy:

    Maybe nowadays. Not so when the draft existed. At least for those who didn’t dodge it or have medical deferments.

64. Parker,

    Not my diagnosis. Type “jacksonians fight our wars” into Google. Enclosed in quotations it yields no results, but the phrase without quotes: About 3,060,000 results (0.67 seconds).

    Although the the population has shifted somewhat the Jacksonians have traditionally been of Scots-Irish descent centered in the Appalachians and the southeast.

    Andrew Jackson “was born near the end of the colonial era, somewhere near the then-unmarked border between North and South Carolina, into a recently immigrated Scots-Irish farming family of relatively modest means.”

    Throughout our history that region has contributed a disproportionately large component of our armed forces.

    The Gadsden Flag (rattlesnake with “Don’t Tread on Me”) “was named after its creator, Christopher Gadsden. He led the Sons of liberty in South Carolina in 1765 and was later made a colonel in the Continental Army.”

    The rattlesnake was chosen because, as an anonymous correspondent in a missive to the Pennsylvania Journal
    said “she never begins an attack, nor once engaged, ever surrenders: she is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. … she never wounds till she is generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.”

    This is an accurate description of the traditional Scots-Irish in early America.

    Alvin York, Sergeant York, the most celebrated hero of WWI was from Pall Mall Tennessee.

    Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier in WWII, “was born into a large sharecropper family in Hunt County, Texas.”

    The US Marines slogan “No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy” is a Jacksonian sentiment.

    I think that actual historical records contrindicate your conclusion that “I think your course of action leads to mob rule and blood of innocents spilled on the ground.”

65. @parker I have a question, a simple question that the Trumpian Horde (edit: I really thought this deserved capitalization …witty, too …and ditto for following) and the Reluctant Trumpers never address. The question is what about the down ticket if DJT (edit: you forgot the PBUH btw) is the rotting head of the GOP fish?

    …as an exotic member of that particular political sub-class, I think I’d like to give that one a shot if GB and yourself don’t mind. (GB certainly don’t need my help. But I’d like to share lol.)

    For one, we pretty much address the dt rather often (well, we acknowledge the possibility of it going either way, and either way …there’s only the four possibilities here, after all).

    Now, it might not be an answer you’ll like (probably won’t), but you did ask. And I do feel your pain (I’ve been force to board several recent trains to destinations I did NOT want to go to, too) …and while acknowledging the near future really does appear a bit unnerving (in other words: the same as always) …but ….

    The answer itself is: Nothin’.

    What’s your point?

    No one knows.

    We’re so far out in La-La Land this election that everyone’s ordinarily sub-par clairvoyant abilities have proven to be even crappier than per the usual.

    Me being one of the not-as-reluctant-as-some T+ group (i.e., you go girl), I’ve basically stopped giving undue significance to baleful prognostications of doom re: the November outcome.

    I’ve even developed a certain Alfred E. Neuman insouciance about over-worrying (and over-thinking) the whole thing, really.

    Too late now.

    It’s going to be what it’s going to be.

    Winter’s comin’.

    Etc.

    Granted, I might have preferred giving Cruz his shot, but I’m not entirely sure the House was ever going to deal him a fair hand (either), so I’m not crying further over that particular spilt milk. (Take that, mixed metaphors!)

    So …personally …I’m going with the let’s-make-a-deal guy with the unsubtle orange ‘do over the marxist obamanite harpy sporting the mustard mao jacket (that off-putting yellowish color just has to be deeply symbolic at some level, amirite).

    Granting the 0.1% possibility of some apocryphal alternate “event” that miraculously unites us all behind some ephemeral Unification Unicorn Candidate, I sincerely hope he pulls it off (a self-rationalized hope based upon his unusual past performance, and a certain suspicion-bordering-on-certainty that we’re seeing an even more than usual crap load of push polls here trying to take the wind out of the sails of the populists). Yeah, that’s just me. I have my reasons (previously stated, not worth revisiting, bla-bla-bla).

    I’m pretty sure the rapidly diminishing and remaining rationally argued divergent antagonism left is primarily between those who think the Butcher of Benghazi is worse, or the Lying POS (not my preferred epithet understand, but still) is worse. I’m good with that: make your case! Convince me!

    (Both groups insist on seeing the other group’s side of what is likely the same coin as being cruelly reality-challenged. Surprise: we’re all reality challenged now …don’t feel over-bad …after all, to be expected really, since we’ve followed Alice through the mirrored contrivance that delineates our own particular expectation of what-hell-will-be-like-for-you bwahaha …Jesus weeps, I’m sure.)

    Which has apparently – and regardless of the November outcome, and however reluctant our personal participation – become the alternate universe reality we have entered upon.

    I’m pretty sure everyone else weighing in on the subject is just trolling (one side or the other). Haters Operatives gotta hate operate.

    ———
    My immediate politics is informed (motivated?) by having watched the rise of a sinecured, self-serving political and economic neo-aristocracy that has apparently determined continued reliance upon the loyalty of their constituency was sketchy at best. And from a deeply sincere desire to see the bastards betraying the Founding Documents be hoisted upon their own petard.

    The Donald is, after all, one their own. There’s a certain justice to that, if it works out for us. (Notice I said “us”.)

    If not now, when? If not us, who?

    In the meantime, I’ve laid in beer and popcorn enough to last until we realize we’re not putting Humpty back together again.

    After that? I’m already old. If worse comes to worst, and the direst predictions prove true, and Lady Liberty calls, I might not have that long anyways in the greater scheme of things, and I’ll gladly answer that particular call generations of patriots before me have @parker.

    Regardless of the damn down ticket.

66. OM,

    You wrote “Maybe nowadays. Not so when the draft existed. At least for those who didn’t dodge it or have medical deferments.”

    As I posted above, “Throughout our history that region has contributed a disproportionately large component of our armed forces.”

    That is applicable to all periods, whether the was a draft or not.

    If you really want to check it try “America’s Military Population” http://www.prb.org/source/acf1396.pdf

    It’s about 40 pages of historical statistics of the composition of our armed forces.

67. brdavis9,

    I think this essay by Angelo Codevilla catches the meat of what you wrote:

    http://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/

68. @neo-neocon davisbr:

    That NRO article you linked, about Jacksonians, was puzzling to me because I cannot understand how the existence of this huge group who differ with mainstream Republicans could have been news to anyone. They’ve been very numerous and very vocal around the blogosphere for many many years, and it was pretty clear that all they needed was someone like Trump to coalesce around.

    Yep. Pretty shocking, eh?

    And then they go and usurp the party itself.

    Ouch.

    It was vastly entertaining the more I thought about it (your reply rather increased the yuks quotient: thanks!).

    …my take away here (i.e., the article) is that they are still in denial. Or clueless. Grasping at straws. Your choice.

    At any rate, for an “elite political class”, they’ve proved remarkably (but not unexpectedly, alas) and laughably ineffective.

    I didn’t trust them anyways, but I thought the sticky-fingered bastards were at least politically competent.

    I’ve since been disabused of the notion of their technocratic excellence by the rise of Trump.

    Totally and thoroughly pwned little twerps.

    Useless. No wonder Obama ate their lunch the past eight years.

    Trump if nothing else exposed the rot at the center.

    I read an article somewhere this week where someone observed that it’s a lot easier for the base to replace the elites than it is for the elites to find a new base.

    Yep.

    My natural inclination is to throw in with the Jacksonians politically until the conservatives manage to get the elites to pull their collective heads out of their butts.

    IF they can.

    Which isn’t a foregone conclusion at this point (whether Whig Moment or Jacksonian Event).

    My suspicion is they’re toast in the intermediate term regardless. This cycle or the next. Dead men walking.

    The catch-22 is, if the GOP screws Trump to “save the party”, all those voters leave. Permanently. They’re not coming back. They will find a home …and the GOP becomes a hollowed shell, and eventually a rump party to wherever those voters end up.

    You gotta call some place home. And as I’m comfortable with the Tea Party contingent (they’ll be leaving too) of the hypothetical Jacksonianists, I suspect I’ll find the new party convenient and convivial enough.

    Plus. It will take a while for them to muck it up any worse at least.

    Note: davisbr = brdavis9 but I know you know that (sorry …my damn tablet still defaults to “davisbr” and I always remember to change it right after i press “submit comment”)

69. @Roy Lofquist brdavis9, I think this essay by Angelo Codevilla catches the meat of what you wrote

    Thanks Roy. I briefly skimmed through (and I’ll give it the thorough read it deserves later this morning …at some point, even I have to get some shut-eye lol), and Oh Yeah: definitely a full course there.

    …’preciate it.

70. Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

71. Regarding the Jacksonians and politics. It hasn’t worked out for Jim Webb former senator from VA. He explicitly self identifies as Scots/Irish Jacksonian.

    I think the Scots/Irish are just as susceptible to a con artist as anyone else. Hence the Trump effect. But I’m only 75% S/I, 25% Swede so what could I know?

72. OM,

    Three of my grandparents were born in Sweden. One was born in England but we loved him anyway.

    Jacksonian outlook is a sentiment, not a value judgement. As for being conned, how can you tell? The successful cons, like successful embezzlers, are never identified as such.

73. Roy:

    How do you prove a negative?

74. OM,

    I don’t know how you prove a negative but, in general, I approve of negatives.

75. No one can (in science anyway).

    Not many negatives anymore, all 1s and 0s. But I bet Art has dodged a few negatives in his time.

76. OM,

    Actually you can’t prove any positives either.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

77. Oh? It’s all magic then. Everything we know about the world. All engineering (applied practical science) is just magic. Random chance? Just pure chance that H-bombs and hand grenades work.

    OK. Guess I should have been an English major.

78. OM,

    Maybe you should have been.

    Ask a quantum physicist what’s really going on underneath it all, where God lives, and he’ll tell you they have no idea. They’re just pushing buttons trying to figure out which ones will pop a Coke out of the slot.

79. Roy:

    Are you involved in the sciences or have a degree in mathematics, are you physics guy, or just read can read Wikipedia? And put on airs.

    I did not major in physics or mathematics and didn’t go beyond the Master’s of Science.

    Who is the quantum physicist you asked for your insight?

    “Ask a quantum physicist what’s really going on underneath it all, where God lives, and he’ll tell you they have no idea. They’re just pushing buttons trying to figure out which ones will pop a Coke out of the slot.”

    The wisdom of Roy. It’s just magic with PhD monkeys pushing buttons.

80. https://youtu.be/xdZMXWmlp9g?t=1344

81. But when it came down to the elasticity and resilience of O-ring seals on the space shuttle boosters Feynman didn’t rely on quantum physics to explain or “prove” that temperature “caused” the failure. Did he prove anything with that glass of ice and O-ring water experiment?

    Why not cite all the Feynman Lectures?

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>