Things fall apart…
That quote that I used for the title of this post is from Yeats’ famous poem “The Second Coming.” It’s one I’ve quoted many times on this blog, because it’s not only a great, great poem, but also because it describes a certain feeling that has come upon me quite a few times since September 11, 2001, when I first felt it resonating and vibrating with the atmosphere around me.
That doesn’t mean things are literally falling apart or that the apocalypse is here. It does reflect a sense of drift in a more chaotic direction and towards a vague (and not-so-vague) sense of extreme unease, a waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…
Indeed.
Which brings us to the news du jour. One of the things that seems to be falling apart is Republican perception about the chances of victory for one Donald Trump, the man the GOP just designated as their standard bearer. If you take a look at the coverage today at Memeorandum you’ll see what I’m talking about: article after article describing the dismay of the GOP at his erratic behavior and the fact that they’re now trying to counsel him at the same time they explore their options for alternatives to him.
It’s a good example of something I’ve said before, which is that the plotting puppet-masters of the GOP aren’t particularly efficient or good at plotting or puppeteering or mastering, or they would have figured out what to do to stop him a long, long time ago. But either they couldn’t agree on an alternative (not Cruz! anyone but Cruz!), and/or they couldn’t execute, and/or they didn’t take it all that seriously until it was too late.
Is it too late now? I think it’s late and getting later, but it’s not too late unless people think it is. I have long said I probably won’t know for sure who I will actually vote for until I’m in that voting booth, and there are still an awful lot of “undecided” voters who might step up for a third candidate if a new one presented him/herself, or who might end up voting for Gary Johnson as the lesser of three evils.
I also want to reiterate something I’ve said before, which is that anyone who is surprised by Donald Trump’s behavior wasn’t paying attention to the man, his behavior during the campaign, his behavior during his life, and/or human nature. I don’t know why anyone would be surprised at him, or why anyone would have thought things would change, except for wishful thinking. With Trump, what you see is what you get, and I see nothing new or different about what he’s been doing lately. So those who supported him before should be able to support him now; no problem.
The GOP had many chances to stop this. Back in the primaries I offered my small voice to encourage the candidates, over and over, to drop out and leave just one or two standing long before Super Tuesday and various points of no return. It didn’t happen, and I didn’t expect it to, because it was an example of the Tragedy of the Commons. If the leaders of the “establishment” had really been able to work some powerful magic behind the scenes, they could have forced Trump out, but they either lacked the power people often ascribe to them, or they lacked the organization or the will. They could have drummed him out of the party early on when it became clear he was a threat to the party, but they didn’t; they thought he’d disappear and fade away, and they didn’t want to alienate his many voters. They could have rebelled even at the Convention, but his vote total was too large and they lacked the courage (and the foresight, in my opinion) to defy his voters.
So here we are.
Several people have pointed out that what Trump is doesn’t matter—he’s better than Hillary, and that’s all that counts. I’ve long said that both of the nominees are terrible, but they each presents different forms of terribleness and it’s not always easy to know which one is worse and which would be worse for the country and the world. As I wrote earlier today:
People who will stick with Trump no matter what because they believe anything is better than Hillary don’t need to pay attention [to what’s been going on with him lately], but what they do need to pay attention to is how other people will view things, and what such behavior tells them about who Trump is and what to expect of him were he to become president. It says something about his character and judgment.
At some point, is there anything he could do to seem worse than Hillary? For example (and this is my own personal fear) the more off-the-wall and erratic he seems mentally and character-wise, the more people will fear having him in charge of nuclear weapons. That fear may transcend all fear of Hillary for a lot of people.
Among those of my friends who are Democrats and yet don’t like Hillary and were originally looking for a GOP alternative to her, fear is the emotion they voice most often about Trump. As he does things and says things that make him seem more and more like a loose cannon and/or ignorant of the basics of international politics, that fear is increased rather than assuaged—and that “things fall apart” feeling is heightened.
My daily reaction to both of these candidates is, “Oh, for God’s sake, now what?”
“Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian Roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.
Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.” Thomas Sowell
he’s better than Hillary, and that’s all that counts
Yup!
Hillary Rodham Clinton: A Study of Corruption and Deceit
No contest.
Neo:
“there are still an awful lot of “undecided” voters who might step up for a third candidate if a new one presented him/herself”
I think a lot of #Never… voters would switch over to a Center 3rd option, too.
GB is right. But who knows? Maybe a miracle will happen and “Mr. Right” (or Ms. Right) will emerge.
Maybe Trump will throw in the towel in frustration or be toppled like King Kong. But who could step up and have a chance? The Establishment GOP treated Cruz worse than they’ve treated Trump.
I’m still getting emails from Carly. Hmmm…
With 538 website now having a Clinton victory at 70% and GOP rumors of a replacement, we are so screwed. No way a latecomer can win. We might as well resign to a social justice SCOTUS, the loss of the first and second Amendments. Or out and out civil war. It’s just too depressing.
“I have long said I probably won’t know for sure who I will actually vote for until I’m in that voting booth”- Neo. Who also has said a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote, or words to that effect.
So here we have Neo, undecided between Hillary and Trump. Despite Hillary’s record of corruption (the Clinton Foundation grew by $57 million while she was SOS), her record of non-achievement of anything of national value EVER. Her effort to get single-payer govt healthcare in 1993. And the list goes on. I have only mentioned her corruption.
So Trump’s off-the-cuff words are worse than a private Hillary email server that we know violated national security, has surely been hacked, and has also been expunged by her of incriminating documents.
Because Trump’s words (not actions) inspire fear among Neo’s Democratic friends who might have voted GOP. Sure they would. Fear of being in charge of nuclear weapons? Uh-huh, just like the crap the Dems pulled on Goldwater.
You are really really going to enjoy the SCOTUS decisions for the rest of your life. And the announced intent of doubling of the capital gains tax rate (the only way to make money earn money in this era), plus a huuge increase in the Death Tax so my kids won’t get any of my money, though some unaccomplished fatherless kids of color somewhere will.
You asked for it, you got it: Hillary.
At this point, my hopes lie with Julian Assange’s coming Wikileaks revelations.
Bluster is just bluster, but evil is Evil.
As to G.B.’s comments, with Russian Roulette (Trump) one has an 84% chance of NOT getting killed with the first trigger pull, whereas Hillary’s single shotgun trigger pull WILL kill you 100%.
Frog,
A big Stop sign is Trump’s “off-the-cuff words” on national security matters, which is the chief duty area with vested powers for the President, regularly track with Russian propaganda.
A litmus test that disqualifies Trump is, regarding President Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom – ie, the epochal exercise of American leadership for the current era – Trump’s position is based on blatant legal and factual error that, again, accords with Russian propaganda.
Of course, Clinton is also disqualified by the OIF litmus test since she ‘evolved’ about her 2002 Senate vote by blatantly misrepresenting the AUMF instruction and OIF’s legal-factual basis, opposed the OIF Surge, and was party to Obama’s contravening of the Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq.
I’ve never understood what Yeats meant by mere anarchy. It’s like he needed a word there and just dumped that one in. It doesn’t make sense to me.
first step, don’t read memeorandum, it’s the cistern of the journolist most of the time, you mind most of the accounts are unattributed, anonymous, they hide the la times tracking poll and other positive indicators,
you do recall the journolist don’t you, think they just closed up shop, they have probably just expanded,
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-daybreak-poll-methodology-20160714-snap-story.html
as with that witchhunt re iraq,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/top-lawyer-facing-criminal-inquiry-over-bribes-paid-to-iraqis-br/
like the gitmo detainee whitewash,
snopercod:
I think it’s ironic—“oh, it’s just anarchy, not complete collapse.”
miguel cervantes:
Of course Memeorandum has its biases, like anyplace, but for the most part I’ve found them useful for showing the trends of what’s being talked about around the MSM AND the blogosphere, and it gives you some of both sides of the political spectrum (I don’t expect a perfect balance).
I don’t know what you mean by “unattributed anonymous.” Most of the links at Memeorandum are to articles and blog posts where the source is very clear.
Snopercod:
“Mere” in this poetic sense means “total”, re: Jacques referring to “mere oblivion” in his famous “Seven ages of Man” speech.
the supposed trepidations with manafort, man has dealt with savimbi and marcos, he doesn’t frighten easily, it’s almost entirely about demotivating the opposition, and putting clinton kaine in obscure settings, the latter spoke yesterday nearby,
‘it was sound and fury signifying nothing.’
Frog:
I have not said a third party vote is a wasted vote. My opinion is that it’s only a wasted vote if it’s the consensus that it’s a wasted vote—see this from early June on this blog:
That was my opinion two months ago, and it’s my opinion now. I’m not voting for Hillary. In the present post I wrote:
Any time I’ve indicated that a third-party candidate won’t win (and at present I think a third-party candidate will not win) I think I’ve also indicated it’s because people believe a third-party candidate won’t win, and therefore those inclined to think such a candidate would be better than the other 2 alternatives are shying away from voting for the candidate. That makes sense, too, at present, and is part of the dilemma and quandary for people who think both Trump and Clinton are dangerous (in different ways).
Many of Trump’s words AND actions throughout his life inspire the perception that he is a loose cannon. He is. He also appears to be ignorant of some of the basics of international affairs and defense, and he’s had a year to get up to speed on them. If you’re not frightened by him, that’s your business, but it is reasonable to be. He could actually do more damage on the world stage than Hillary, and that’s saying a lot.
You are consumed with rage at people who don’t see it your way, and you will blame those people forever if Hillary is elected and does disastrous things (which SHE WILL, if elected). What you don’t see and will never credit is what Trump might have done that is even more disastrous. You will always imagine that the Trump Road Not Taken would have been better, but that is the problem—it is not at all clear that it would have been better, and it could have been worse, whether you acknowledge that or not.
Your contempt for those who disagree with you is very very clear, however.
Frog:
Trump is not Russian Roulette unless he and you are playing it with a hand grenade; you wind up fragging the bystanders.
Frog; Geoffrey Britain:
Oh, and thanks for that shotgun quote from Sowell. I plan to write a post on that quote tomorrow, and why I don’t think it’s the right analogy.
I wish it were the right analogy, though, because then the decision would be a lot easier and it would be to vote for Trump.
OM:
See my comment above this one.
Snopercod,
In this sense, mere means undiluted.
The line I always think of, and more often these days is the one about those full of passionate intensity. I see the western world submerging into listlessness and ennui, and I see no chance of it abating.
I never knew that about “mere.” Thanks!
physicsguy:
A latecomer could win because the electorate is desperately unhappy, on both sides. They are hungry for an alternative. With a three-way split, a latecomer could win, but if we think the latecomer can’t, it won’t happen.
Also, a latecomer must be chosen, supported, and step up to the plate. It’s a longshot. Trump’s and Hillary’s most loyal voters would stay with each of them, but I believe there may be more than a third of the voters who would go for the alternative to both.
I see three possible results:
1. Decades of a progessive, “living Constitution” Supreme Court majority.
2. Possiblity of decent Supreme Court nominees.
3. Wave of third party virtue signalling ushering in number one.
All other issues are secondary to a court that would disembowl the founding charter.
Uffdaphil:
Oh, so you think that the issue of Trump’s possibly itchy nuclear trigger finger, which I cited as a fear held by a lot of people (because he is seen as a pugnacious loose cannon) is secondary to SCOTUS appointments?
I should make clear that I would support a third party candidate if someone inspiring were running and gaining rapid support towards a realistic chance.. The thirds now likely to be on the ballot are the same old fringers we see every cycle and will be thrilled to lose with double the votes of the last election.
here’s the problem, they really like jeb, they split their money with marco, and some with kasich, but never cruz, singer kept endorsers away from him.
Neo:
I consider the nuke button fear to be a scarecrow ala Goldwater. It helps people to accept a totalitarian future as preferable to the wasteland.
As Krauthammer said, to win, all the Dems (and the MSM) need to do is continue to hammer Trump’s unfitness for office. Not a stretch at all:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438628/krauthammers-take-trumps-mistakes-are-reflection-who-he
Another aspect of “Trump: The Road Not Taken” which concerns me is how do we put this country back together again, should he win.
Between Trump’s numerous defects, a media hoppped-up on steroids to destroy him, and the increasingly dangerous post-2016 world, it’s not hard to imagine a failed Trump administration, to put it mildly.
By then the Republican Party will be the Trump Party. I have no idea what promises Trump might actually keep as President but I am certain he will wreak his vengeance on any conservative voices who oppposed him and do his best to purge them.
Republicans will have shown themselves to be a mob willing to sell out their principles and the Constitution for a mean-spirited, narcissistic strong man who can club their enemies to the ground.
After that our future will be the Binary Choice of the Fascist Left versus the Fascist Right for a long time.
Uffdaphil:
You may consider it to be that, but it’s nothing like that.
I was around back then and I remember Goldwater. The worst thing the guy ever said was “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Otherwise he was a man who’d held public office for many years, was sane, reasonable, calm, and relatively predictable as a personality and as a possible president. He had a coherent and well-thought-out and clearly expressed, consistent philosophy of government. The nuclear hype about him was indeed a scare tactic—and even then, it worked.
Trump is really a loose cannon, untested, inconsistent, impulsive, and seemingly even a bit unbalanced, with no political track record except a wild careening from position to position as the spirit moves him, who has shown ignorance about foreign affairs and a willingness to shoot from the hip. He has spoken about nuclear weapons in ways that show ignorance and seem to indicate a sort of wildman attitude, as well. What he would actually do is unknown, but it’s not the least bit strange that people would be reluctant to give him the power to launch weapons. And it’s nothing like Goldwater; nothing.
A third party does not have to win the election to stop Hillary and Trump. All they have to do is to win enough states so no one has a majority of the Electoral College. Then
“In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner.”
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/
I did not know the part about the top three contenders. So it would have to be one of Trump, Hillary, or say Gary Johnson.
Also, which session of the House gets to vote? I think it would be the current House members.
As an aside, if you look at trumper websites, which I did for a few seconds until they scared the hell out of me, they are already starting their conspiracy theories. Trump is feeding into their craziness by insisting that the election is “rigged.”
Sen. Sanders was always on script. Didn’t make any major gaffes. Was 100% sincere in what he said. He believed all that he spoke.
HE was the most frightening candidate. Had he been nominated and then elected the USA would have been following the same path to ruin Venezuela has taken. And Russia took before. And Cambodia. And North Korea. And China before they became Communist in name only.
Yet you actually think that the Donald is worse for the country.
Fascinating.
No matter who the politician is, they cannot redeem the transgressions of Americans on this continent. This was a nation under God, a specific god, and now that the grace and protection has been dispelled or removed, this nation is no longer exceptional. It is no longer protected. It is now, as susceptible to attack and collapse as any other nation created by man.
By destroying the contract of individuals to the Constitution, humans in the USA have shut off the conduit to divine power, for large sections of the USA, DC included.
If evil exists, so does its opposite. Even if H Rod Damn Clinton falls to ash, the evil of the Leftist alliance will still be here with you, by your side, in your neighbors, and your fellow countrymen/voters.
The USA has survived many Presidents before. The reason why the US won’t survive the next few Presidents isn’t because of which party they belong to. The US won’t survive because the people are decadent, corrupt, viceful, murderous, slothful, and worshiping idols and hero kings.
Nations survive under bad leaders all the time. They don’t survive when the population turns evil. Evil is amazing, don’t you know. Even fighting evil, shedding blood, hating enemies, will contaminate whomever fights evil. Evil corrupts and hijacks what exists, instead of creating, yet that alone is a power most generals would dream of having.
If this election is not rigged and that is an arguable premise, it certainly will be in every future Presidential election, should Clinton be elected. She’s promised to seek amnesty for illegals in her first 100 days. No doubt Ryan, et al are salivating at the prospect.
Never have so many, so eagerly thrown away their and their descendent’s liberties.
Ymarsakar,
I’m seeking clarification in asking, if resisting evil contaminates whomever resists evil, then how does good triumph?
Bob_CA:
If the election is thrown into the House, it is the incoming Congress that will be voting to break the deadlock.
@ Yancey Ward
THANK YOU! All these years I have thought that the only definition of “mere” was insignificant, but when you forced me to drag out my Webster’s New World Dictionary it also says: “Mere: having no admixture : pure”. A mystery solved!
I had decided for Trump but then…
I just don’t know if I can stand by that since he is ignorant of policy so often and his stands on NATO and well, he is so erratic. And he has no record.
But then… I consider that he does have some good ideas that are in line with GOP principles more or less and he is against bringing in Muslim refugees unless they are vetted (and they will not be). So that’s a big deal.
But then…
I honestly don’t see how we can get anyone besides Trump for the GOP without angering his tried and true supporters, who are many. It would be unfair. I agree that the GOP blew it by not having more people bow out earlier. But we have what we have.
Sometimes I think I will just vote for Trump as a kind of protest and let’s see where the chips fall. But I also live in California where Hillary will surely win so I am not a “tie-breaker”. Now, if Hillary can’t pull California she is done.
This is just a horrible choice to make.
Bob_CA:
While the House selects the new President when the Electoral College cannot obtain a majority, it is the Senate that selects the Vice President from the top two Electoral College vote-getters. And if the House cannot make a choice by inauguration day (January 20th), the Vice President chosen by the Senate becomes the acting President until the House can make a choice.
Currently that would look to be either Pence or Kaine (probably our best two options).
Neo @ 6:28pm
Trump is a “might”; he might do stupid or impulsive things but the Congress will jump all over him.
Hillary is a “will”; she will do many bad things. There is no doubt of it. Her House and Senate chums will support her 100%, all the way.
That is the key difference.
Maybe versus surely.
It does anger me that people do not see this.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
August 3rd, 2016 at 7:41 pm
Ymarsakar,
I’m seeking clarification in asking, if resisting evil contaminates whomever resists evil, then how does good triumph?
The contamination can be resisted, or it may not matter in the end.
Human beings are only as strong as the weakest link. If a person’s entire family falls into rage and terror and depression, it is very likely that person will fall with them, having lost their support chain, moral and emotional. So contamination spreads just like emotion and disease does, via contact. Right now, it is manageable, because Americans are “civilized”, whatever that means now. But soon people will become “Uncivilized” when the mask comes off. Push humans far enough, and the animal/lizard comes out. And it’s not civilized.
The assassination of police and LEOs in Dallas, is merely a sign. Vengeance breeds death and killings, killings breed more vengeance. Even Leftists and ignorant independent idiots should know about the Cycle of Violence now. The Left stokes the flames with gasoline and nitro, yes, but the sparks and embers were always there, when a people have become this corrupt, this weak, this decadent, and this arrogant to believe their Next Messiah is a Lightbringer of a politician. What else could a US President do if that is so? If the US President can do anything, then humans will do Anything to Acquire it, including destroying their fellow “countrymen” via rape and ethnic cleansing. Well they can always hire Muslims to do that.
Back to your question of resisting evil without becoming evil. That’s hard to say. General Lee was not resisting evil, in fact he was fighting for a war started by the slave lords which he detested. Yet honor can cling to a man, even if freedom does not.
Making enemies submit without fighting or killing them, is also a high skill level, achieved by almost nobody.
The 1st AD Christian viewpoint of converting enemies into allies, is also workable. If white can become black in Go, then good can become evil in humans. The other way around is true too. Unfortunately, usually evil has to be killed in humans first, before the innocent or the weak can be brought up. So conversion is not the primary tool of fighting evil, more like a bonus that takes time.
Dying a good death so that all the cowards around you watching you die resisting evil, can also work. Although the Christian martyrs are physically dead, they believed in a spiritual life of eternal perfection which necessitated their physical discomforts. That’s more of a Ghandi method though, not necessarily going to win the Pharoahs or Emperors over. A soul may be saved, but battles cannot be won by dying first before the enemy.
I’m sure there’s all kinds of other ways I haven’t thought of. But the Alt Right’s susceptibility to the poison of evil is greater than they know, because they adopt too many of the Left’s antics and behavior. They are emulating the Left because the Left has been the only ones winning this war of good vs evil. That is not a good role model, however, for the long term strategic environment. The reason the Left uses Alinsky tactics is because it works. The reason why the Alt Right uses Alinsky tactics, is because it works against the Left.
Culturally and ideologically, the Alt Right is incompatible with the Leftist alliance, by nature of upbringing and adult beliefs. A lot of them also need the internet untaxed to make money, too. So they can emulate the Left’s evil, up to a point. And that point involves their logistics, the seat of their power. Which aren’t elections or voters. Things are a little bit stranger online.
Speaking from personal experience, a lot of the things I was taught and which I also taught myself, from hand to hand involved learning from criminals or serial killers. Learning their mentality, their methodology, allowed me to counter or hunt them. However, the problem with that is that a person who can flip the switch to sociopath mode, or killing mode, has to flip the switch back to live in civilization. If the switch doesn’t ever flip back cause you’re broken, then you got a problem. Sociopaths and psychopaths are broken like that, they have a switch which allows them to do things normal humans conditioned to society, cannot do. They just can’t ever turn it off. Not will not do, cannot as a result of their social conditioning for normal humans.
In order to hunt serial killers down, kill mass murderers more efficiently than the murderers kill the masses, one has to become better at using the tool of violence than enemies of humanity or the ones using evil as their power.
It’s first a mental switch, not a “have you killed anyone switch”. The first one is training and preparation, and the second one is merely boasting or having a kill counter like taking ears as trophies.
The US military’s code of professionalism, loyalty to civilians, and ROE conduct, has proven that soldiers are not always the bloodthirsty, crazy, child killing, rapists that humans might think they are. Discipline can allow a person to use violence or to kill, even if that is not their will but the will of their country or superior officer, without falling to the temptations of power megalomania or evil.
Guilt is a valuable thing for humans. Once we lose it, it becomes very easy to become an enemy of humanity. However, even for trained soldiers, guilt and PTSD is a thing. For a person that kills of their own will, not because of their orders, they can come to like it or justify it to the point where they stop feeling guilt.
Civilians are susceptible to this, in an ethnic conflict. The lack of training makes them easier prey or targets, but that lack of training also means that those who finally decide to kill, won’t be convinced by “discipline” to stop either.
Further reference materials can be found in Grossman’s On Killing or Rory Miller’s Meditations on Violence. They were very useful source materials, although I had come to my own conclusions from other experiences.
Here is a contrarian view:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148413098031/clinton-takes-the-persuasion-lead
As amazing as this sounds, I watched a video clip of Dr. Drew explaining to CNN’s Don Lemon that Trump does NOT show signs of insanity or dangerous narcissism. Indeed, as Dr. Drew explained, some healthy narcissism is probably helpful for leaders because they want to be seen as successful. (I have said the same in this blog post, and also this one, which are totally worth another look.)
Is the amazing part of this story that Dr. Drew thinks Trump is probably sane?
No.
The amazing part is that Team Clinton’s persuasion is now so powerful that the question of Trump’s sanity seemed like a legitimate question for the press.
Okay, okay, I know you don’t think the press is legitimate, and CNN is clearly favoring Clinton. But even under those conditions you still need events in the real world to support your pro-Clinton narrative. And apparently CNN thought it had that justification. They had cover from all the pro-Clinton pundits who are saying Trump is mentally unbalanced (with different language).
Keep in mind that Trump has run an empire for decades, raised several great kids, doesn’t drink or do drugs, and has no known history of mental issues. And as I have explained, the craziest stuff Trump does is mostly (but not always) compatible with good persuasion technique as we know it.
The stuff Trump does that isn’t part of persuasion technique, and still looks crazy to you, is something unfamiliar in the political realm: honesty and politically-incorrect humor.
…
In related news, Trump’s comment on Mrs. Khan’s silence at the Democratic convention made the country go nuts for a week. On the surface, it looked like a terrible week for Trump, as team Clinton successfully framed his comment about Islam and gender into something about their son, which it wasn’t. In the long run, you’ll forget Trump’s insult. But you will never forget the optics of Mrs. Khan deferring to her husband on stage. Short term, Trump got slaughtered on that issue. Long term, Trump has enough credibility with veterans that it won’t matter any more than the McCain joke did.
But you won’t forget the visual of the Khans on stage, and the husband looking in charge. That will stick with you. It was a gutsy persuasion play from Trump, but we will never know if it worked. My best guess is that the whole situation is just a bump in a long road.
–
That last part could go on the Khan posts, but it’s all related anyway.
Frog:
Yes, I understand the argument: Trump “might” (as in Russian roulette); Hillary “will” (as in the shotgun that is fully loaded).
I get it.
I don’t think it’s the correct analogy, however, for this situation. That’s why I don’t buy it as applicable. Tune in tomorrow for a post explaining further.
liberty wolf:
Yes, awful terrible choices, whiplash-inducing.
Horrible, horrible.
You are actually fortunate to live in California and have your vote “not matter,” relatively speaking, although as a matter of conscience it matters to you, of course.
Trump did an interview a month or so ago on Fox News Sunday. In it, he declared that he didn’t have a problem with nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. I believe I gave you my view on that.
Now, he’s asking people why he can’t use nukes on Rakka, or a similar target.
Of course, his deeply childish, irresponsible supporters online think this is great stuff. They’re about to find out how fringe-like their little group is.
It’s like he’s trying to throw the race.
The nuclear button meme is overblown, but so many people are uninformed that it works. Anyone that knows what the procedures are for the U.S. to launch a nuclear attack would be more concerned about whether Obama would actually do his duty if the U.S. is attacked, as opposed to Trump. There are too many safeguards in the nuclear attack system for any President to start a nuclear war either intentionally or accidently.
Because Trump speaks in streams of consciousness, uses New York vernacular (vice diplospeak), likes to act like an alpha male (or what he perceives an alpha male acts like), and has long been unafraid of the MSM; people think he is insane or at least unbalanced. I don’t like his mannerisms either but I don’t think him to be insane. My fear about him would be the same I have of Obama. When the time came, would he do his duty?
Nuclear weapons by their very nature are defensive weapons. The state of the technology is such that any nation that uses them offensively knows they will be essentially wiped out. There are enough nukes constantly deployed aboard subs to ensure that. It’s not called Mutually Assured Destruction for nothing. What we must worry about now is not a nuclear attack from a major nation like China or Russia but from a shadowy terrorist group. Who do we destroy when attacked by a terror group? There may be plans in place for such a scenario, but the Obama administration gives no indication of having thought about this. They haven’t shown much indication that they have thought much about how to protect the homeland from Islamic terror other than what they inherited from Bush. And, unfortunately, they have actually weakened that. Weakness invites aggression and that is what we are seeing now. We would see more of the same under a Clinton Presidency.
@ Frog
The only people responsible for a Trump defeat will be:
1) Trump, for being an unhinged asshole and
2) You, for thinking respectable voters would find him acceptable. But then, you and the alt-right probably spit on the idea of “respectability.”
You should’ve thought about all this before you let the clown out of the box. I hope you get the chance in 2020 to correct your mistakes.
I have been tending towards a write-in for the ballot: Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser evil?
More seriously, I’m with Neo, I probably won’t decide until the last minute. I have decided that I will not vote for Hillary.
@ snopercod:
Maybe Yeats was implying that something worse was following anarchy, like hell. Compared to that, anarchy would seem “mere,” indeed.
Ymarsakar Says:
August 3rd, 2016 at 7:36 pm
The USA has survived many Presidents before. The reason why the US won’t survive the next few Presidents isn’t because of which party they belong to. The US won’t survive because the people are decadent, corrupt, viceful, murderous, slothful, and worshiping idols and hero kings.
Nations survive under bad leaders all the time. They don’t survive when the population turns evil. Evil is amazing, don’t you know. Even fighting evil, shedding blood, hating enemies, will contaminate whomever fights evil. Evil corrupts and hijacks what exists, instead of creating, yet that alone is a power most generals would dream of having.
* * *
This (and subsequent discussion) leads to the question: are we actually in one of the “non-survivable evil” eras; if so, is it going to be the FINAL one?
J.J.:
I have been busily researching the question of how nuclear weapons are launched. I used to think exactly what you are saying—many safeguards, etc. But I discovered I was wrong about safeguards if a president gives the order. There are not many safeguards against that.
I will be writing a post on it at some point in the not-too-distant future. What I found out is quite disturbing and not at all reassuring re Trump or anyone, but particularly someone impulsive like Trump.
Ymarsakar Says:
August 3rd, 2016 at 10:05 pm
Geoffrey Britain Says:
August 3rd, 2016 at 7:41 pm
Ymarsakar,
I’m seeking clarification in asking, if resisting evil contaminates whomever resists evil, then how does good triumph?
The contamination can be resisted, or it may not matter in the end.
Human beings are only as strong as the weakest link. If a person’s entire family falls into rage and terror and depression, it is very likely that person will fall with them, having lost their support chain, moral and emotional. So contamination spreads just like emotion and disease does, via contact. Right now, it is manageable, because Americans are “civilized”, whatever that means now. But soon people will become “Uncivilized” when the mask comes off. Push humans far enough, and the animal/lizard comes out. And it’s not civilized.
The assassination of police and LEOs in Dallas, is merely a sign. Vengeance breeds death and killings, killings breed more vengeance. Even Leftists and ignorant independent idiots should know about the Cycle of Violence now. The Left stokes the flames with gasoline and nitro, yes, but the sparks and embers were always there, when a people have become this corrupt, this weak, this decadent, and this arrogant to believe their Next Messiah is a Lightbringer of a politician.
* * *
Not just in America; look at what #BLM is up to elsewhere:
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/08/03/france-men-shout-allahu-akbar-firebomb-transit-bus/
“That’s not surprising, of course. Black Lives Matter is active in the UK and held a protests in London in early July. There have been BLM protests in Berlin and Amsterdam as well, mounted just after the deaths of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge and Philando Castile near St. Paul. Given the origin of BLM in well-funded, highly organized groups linked to the George Soros Radicals’ ATM-N-Quik-Mart, we should expect to see it appear in the cities of Europe as well as the United States.
And the firebomb attackers in Saint-Denis are certainly likely to be Muslims of African descent, and to holler “Allahu akbar” while torching a bus, for that if for no other reason. But the connections of radical Islamists with the BLM movement per se are also well-documented, including a special affinity between BLM and anti-Israel “Palestinian” groups (see here and here as well).
The whole set of circumstances makes clear that Europe is coming under concentrated fire now, not only from ISIS and other Salafi terror groups, but from highly – centrally – organized radical-left groups with their roots planted firmly in the West.”
Matt_SE:
It may seem hard to believe, but Frog was not an early Trump supporter. He has only became exceedingly pro-Trump since Trump won the primaries, and only because of Frog’s extreme anti-Hillary position.
@ miguel cervantes:
Journolist didn’t make Trump say the ridiculous things he did. That was all Trump.
Now, we finally see the media’s strategy: to set easily-avoidable traps for Trump, then goad him into saying stupid things.
The man has no filter on his brain, so it’s child’s play making him seem stupid or unhinged. Isn’t that why so many of his supporters like him?
It’s turning out that *some* level of filtering is necessary. But hey, at least you got the candidate you wanted, right?
Repost of my comment at Bookwormroom:
“Trump would be held in check on his excesses, Hillary wouldn’t.”
That’s the theory, but is it true?
Personally, I suspect that either Trump is part of the GOPe, or an ally of convenience. While he’s getting the headlines, I note that the Chamber of Commerce (i.e. the GOPe) just knocked off Heulskamp in Kansas. His replacement is a squish funded by Big Agribusiness and out-of-state money. Why a squish is preferable to someone who fought his own establishment is not a question Trump supporters ask, and you won’t find any tears for Huelskamp online. After all, they managed to execute the mental contortions to praise Pence as VP; a man with a track record of open-borders and free-trading.
In order for Trump to NOT be held in check, only one thing is necessary: for 34 GOP Senators to never vote to convict in an impeachment trial. This is a fact, because it’s been Obama’s trump card (heh) for the last 8 years.
Trump’s supporters will continue to support him even if he shoots someone on 5th avenue, as Trump himself said. From what I’ve seen, he’s probably right. If these supporters form a bloc to support Trump loyalist Senators, then these 34 might be impervious to ouster.
In such a case, who’s going to hold Trump in check? The press?
Neither Trump nor his supporters give a damn about the press.
The GOPe?
He’ll be doing their bidding, because make no mistake: this corrupt deal would be a two-way street. Things will be asked of Trump, and things will be given to him.
The GOP voters?
A large portion support the establishment, and a large portion support Trump. As long as the betrayal isn’t too obvious, they can continue to excuse broken promises. They would have to, because otherwise they would be the rubes everyone told them they are (ironically, this thinking would confirm that they’re rubes).
I note in closing that Trump’s continued attacks on Cruz are, IMO, meant to continue marginalizing the true conservatives. The only people who have ever stood up to the establishment.
Maybe this is a fantasy. Maybe I’m wrong. But the idea that Trump would automatically be held in check is not a given.
J.J. Says:
“Nuclear weapons by their very nature are defensive weapons.”
Nuclear weapons are defensive because that’s how they’ve been used until now. There is nothing inherently defensive about them, and two examples show this:
1) Some people wonder if the Iranians aren’t trying to fulfill the apocalyptic return of the 11th Imam, using nukes. If they take this idea seriously, then their nukes will not be used defensively.
2) If Trump gets involved in Syria, and decides that taking Rakka with conventional troops would be too costly, he might use nukes instead. That would also not be a defensive use.
The idea that nukes are defensive depends on the other side being able to retaliate AND both sides being rational. One side concern is whether the international community will sanction any nation using them in war.
If any of those conditions are violated, then there’s no reason at all why they can’t be used offensively.
I agree with J.J. with regards to the “nuclear button”.
There are too many safeguards and personnel to go through for a “stream of consciousness” use of nuclear weapons.
But I would contend that having a president who is seen as shooting from the hip, seen as unpredictable, seen as volatile would be a benefit from a foreign relations stand point with potential and/or actual enemies.
Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program because of Bush the Younger’s overthrow of Saddam. Unfortunately BO and HC did not seen the value of a defanged Qaddafi but wanted him defenestrated.
This was an unintended consequence of the Iraq War but a demonstration of the uses of fear of military force against an opponent without the use of that force.
Si vis pacem, para bellum would be in order here but there must also be the appearance of a willingness to use force.
@ neo-neocon, Re: Frog:
Then I guess I’m guilty of jumping to conclusions/impugning motives too. It’s hard to be dispassionate when rhetoric is being slung at every corner. And I really, really don’t like Trump as a person. His online supporters are almost as bad.
@Cycle Cyril:
Trump said he doesn’t have a problem with nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. That’s not him shooting his mouth off or impulsively pushing “the button,” it’s a policy position.
It also fits in with his isolationist worldview. He’ll be unwilling to intervene even when it’s justified. Even when the amount of pressure might be minimal.
To put it bluntly, this is the most monstrously irresponsible policy position I’ve ever heard of, one that is virtually guaranteed to start a nuclear war in the ME.
Your assurances to the contrary aren’t reassuring.
“2. Possiblity of decent Supreme Court nominees.” – Uffdaphil
Saw this and gotta say that this ignores way too much to even be within a moon shot of a summation of trump.
The ONLY possibility in that direction is the Scalia replacement, and only then because it is one of the few things that specific that trump has committed to paper.
However, if the GOP lose the Senate majority (strong possibility – some betting sites predict they will), then what?
Will trump fight it, or do a deal with the Dems? Given how he is not beholding to the GOP or conservatives, we ought to put our money on “do a deal”, after all, isn’t he the consummate dealer?
Beyond that one seat, if others come available over the next four years, if we go by his pre-campaign statements, we ought to have every expectation that it is going to be Dem friendly picks.
To weight “possible decent SCOTUS nominees” as the overriding summary of benefits with trump is to colossally over value that probability, over all the other range of probable outcomes, and just does not recognize the other risks on trump (which seem to have higher odds).
What seems a “better case” scenario (that is within the range of probable), is trump follows through on his leftist tendencies, despite the label he runs under, and in his frustration with Congress at “not getting things done”, he pushes/bullies through several major (as in Obamacare size) initiatives via executive action, setting broad new precedent in exercise of power in the Oval Office, surpassing by wide margin the extended limits Obama set.
Then, 2020 sees a radical Dem (e.g. Bill de Blasio) take office – in response to the huge disappointment trump turns out to actually be, and to the taint trump brings to the GOP brand – and uses the virtual free rein that the office now carries, to accelerate a leftist agenda.
The trouble is, there is not much upside with trump and there are are far too many paths that are looking probable that may well put our country well past the worst probable range case with clinton.
Rather than show contempt for a third party choice, better to concentrate on what the reality of trump is.
If the goal is stopping a leftist agenda, be it SCOTUS picks or other, trump is an extremely poor choice – he probably accelerates it, as much or more than clinton.
At this point, I’ve decided that I can’t know what will happen or what the best course is. Gonna have to throw myself on God’s mercy and trust that things will work out for the best.
Re my previous comment, I did not mean to liken Trump’s character to Goldwater, but rather that the nuke scare is being used unfairly as the daisy ad was by LBJ.
Trump untested? As one of the top gladiators in the arena of NYC property development, I’d say he has demonstrated prowess where a truly unhunged, reckless person would have failed. A crass boorish infantile style has worked for him for a long time, but when in 40+ years of great personal power has Trump employed physical violence against perceived enemies? Are there even rumors that he hires hitmen to take them out? Then why think him any more likely than any other president with a temper to order mass killings out of anger? Hillary is said to have world class rages, and much as she disgusts me, I don’t think that bears on her likelyhood to push the button.
Cycle Cyril:
As I said to J.J., I have discovered there are far fewer safeguards than I supposed there were regarding nuclear weapons. In the next week I plan to write a post on that topic.
Uffdaphil:
Trump certainly hires lawyers to take out enemies, relentlessly.
I realize that’s not the same. But his utterances have become more and more reckless and impulsive as this campaign has worn on, and he has either gotten tired or swollen with his own power. The presidency has unimaginable power connected with it, and you don’t want someone who is impulsive.
As for violence, he has advocated and spoken about personal violence over and over during this campaign—this sort of thing. He has encouraged physical violence towards protesters at his rallies and vaguely threatened people he perceives as thwarting or dissing him (see this). He has bragged about blackening a teacher’s eye in second grade (see this for that and other instances of childhood violence).
Now, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the use of nuclear weapons. But you asked about physical violence, and it is there in his history, for what that’s worth. More importantly, I think, is his impulsiveness, lack of judgement in what he says, and cavalier attitude towards nuclear proliferation.
I think Trump is more calculating than impulsive. He is plowing new ground with his anti-PC populist shtick so tries out a lot of different themes to winnow out the ones that draw support. Note how often he says “people say…” And then backtracks if said theme does not catch on. He may be a political naif, but he is a talented executive and great at selling the sizzle.
Lest I appear a true believing Trumpster: If it were not for the SCOTUS nominations, I would probably vote for a forlorn hope candidate. I expect we could eventually recover from four more years of Obama-like constitutional decay under Hillary were it not for the Supremes. And I believe four years of Trump will damage the conservative image. Either way a lot of repair ahead.
There’s an anti-Obama quip along the lines of, “If Obama were set on destroying the US as a world power, what would he do differently than what he’s already done?”
The answer, of course, is “Not much.”
There are times when I start to wonder if the same cannot also be said of Trump, and his effect on organized opposition to the Dems.
@Uffdaphil – if SCOTUS nominations are your only reason for picking trump – please drop the plural and please consider what trump will do if the Dems win majority in the Senate on the Scalia replacement. The hope and prayer strategy hardly balances against the rest of the risk that trump represents. (read my response at 12:11 am above)
@junior – sort of agree on obama, in as much as it is the direction he has moved us in.
Yet, there is a whole lot more he could do / have done if he was truly “set on” (i.e. intentionally) destroying this country.
That seems to get lost in the hyperbole on obama.
Recall that some were arguing with such surety, back in 2008 / 2012 that there’d be (to paraphrase) gulags and a marxist jackboot paradise waiting for us during his term?
Given the behaviors we have observed (this year, especially, with the acquiescence on the right), that may well have been a possibility, IF that was where obama wanted it to go.
obama turned out to be a “9-5 ideologue”. He was the type of person who wanted all the glory, to hang out with the celebrities, to live the good life, but had neither the vision, inclination, nor drive to manage his team to deliver on his ideology. Just one example – his signature legislation, obamacare – it started as a debacle and is still a debacle.
trump is a different story – it is his incompetence in the political arena. He’s only got one pitch in his repertoire, vindictive opinionated braggart salesman. His effect is devastating to opposition to Dems, as he’s subsumed the GOP label / brand, and abandoned most (all?) of the ideas that it stood for. Given the GOP acquiescence, not sure that is easily recovered by 2020, if he loses.
Here is a chance to view a small example to illustrate the rampant hypocrisy of liberal commentators: //newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2016/08/03/obeidallah-goes-berzerk-after-cnn-guest-recalls-khan-ties
How many liberals have you heard say: “If only Trump had begun by recognizing the sorrow of these parents and been respectful of it, then we would not have made such a big deal of this.” No one could be more respectful than this show guest – see how the liberal responds to it. An additional chuckle included is that the “smear” he refers to is a reference to a connection to the Clintons.
@notherbob
We already know the MSM are biased, even to the point that they sometimes manufacture content (the fake pause of silence in Katie Couric’s film about gun control).
Like that is new news. Well, maybe it is to trump, as he seems to have fallen for the trap.
BTW, NB claims the liberal commentator goes “berzerk” – argumentative, yes, berzerk, no. Let’s be honest, the response was to the misdirection the other guy posed.
The topic was about trump’s handling of the situation, not about what connections that may or may not exist between the Khans and clinton, or radical islam that we are fighting, or not properly vetting immigrants, or the policy holes in a particular section of our immigration code. All misdirection.
We are kidding ourselves and cannot see past our own biases.
Having dealt with movie people, lawyers, and real estate guys for many years, I can tell you that there is a certain type who start negotiations with wild exaggerations and/or threats, then as the deal progresses, they get more and more real until finally you get to a reasonable deal that works. If they want to sell a $5 million property, they’ll open with, “This is worth $25 million.” If they want to buy the same property, “This piece of trash, it’s not worth $100,000.” There are movie producers who literally throw things at people. I’m in a suite now with entertainment lawyers. The guy next to me begins most negotiatiations by screaming into the phone, “What the f*uck do you mean sending me this piece of shit!” It doesn’t matter whetehr it’s a good offer or not, that’s just his style.
Watch Trump — first it was, “I’m banning all Muslims from the country until we know what’s going on” Then it was “I’m banning all Muslims from entering the country.” Then it was “I’m banning all people from areas with terrorist activity until we can vett them.”
Same with NATO: first it was, “I don’t think we should defend NATO countries.” Then “NATO is obsolete.” Then “I would only defend them if they pay their fair share.” And so on.
That’s why I hate assholes, I know them so well.
But I also know the difference between an asshole and a criminal.
I’m not a fan of Ron Rosenbaum’s after his constant anti-Tea Party rants during his short tenure at PJ Media, but I do recommend his book, “How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III” on current possiblities of nuclear war.
Even discounting a president with a terrible vindictive streak combined with poor self-control, we are still on a launch-on-warning basis when it comes to nuclear weapons. There is only a twelve-minute window for the President to decide whether to use our nuclear capacity — use it or lose it — in the face of possible attack, which might be the real thing or a flock of geese.
Big Maq says: “We are kidding ourselves and cannot see past our own biases.”
First of all, this particular journalist may never have been one of those saying that all Trump had to do was… we have to use what is available and I projected that on him. I believe that a reasonable reader would be able to be aware of that projection and still appreciate my point. You say “misdirection” (technically true) I say “referring to what the speaker believes Mr. Trump had in mind by calling attention to this couple”. We know what the media says he had in mind (if anything). Why do we have to accept that as the be all and the end all of this matter? Does the media have the high ground here after appropriate respect is shown for their sacrifice? Do we have a new group of parent/politicians whose pronouncements cannot be questioned? Cindy Sheehan redux?
@Richard – Bunk.
One does not open negotiations with a position they are not prepared to accept.
“Banning all Muslims” is a non starter legally, diplomatically, politically, and logistically”.
Given this, it, instead, turns into a signal of grand stupidity and ignorance in the offeror, or of perceived extreme gullibility of the audience by that offeror.
The other problem is, what might be “normal” for an industry cannot be assumed to be “normal” for everything else in life.
Having been on negotiating teams on multi-million deals, that kind of banter and extreme positioning would have gotten us thrown out the door, never to come back.
Seriously, if you were selling your house and somebody lowballed you to that extreme and tells you that your house is “a piece of shit”, would you entertain their offer?
The vast majority probably would slam the door on their face, thinking it would be a complete waste of time.
Running for and being president requires knowing that difference.
Big Maq:
I had that happen to me once when I was selling a house quite a few years ago.
We had bought the house in the 70s for around 80K, and were attempting to sell it years later for around 150K, in a market that had more or less doubled in the intervening years. A buyer offered us about 100K, saying “I know that you bought it for only 80K” (as if that mattered), and offering to throw in his BMW. It was ludicrous.
“…It’s true that cynicism is never entirely absent from politics: I won’t soon forget the lupine smile…” — David Frum
Matt_SE: “The idea that nukes are defensive depends on the other side being able to retaliate AND both sides being rational. One side concern is whether the international community will sanction any nation using them in war.”
There are two rogue nations with nukes right now – North Korea and Pakistan. Iran is trying and will eventually have them. Our present position is, and has been almost from the start of the Cold War, to be ready to retaliate if attacked. Pakistan and the Norks do not have a platform to deliver a bomb at any distance. However the Norks could strike China or Japan. Likewise, the Pakis could strike India. What keeps them from doing it? It is the assurance that they will be destroyed.
Our military is under civilian control and the President is the C-in-C. Our nuclear capability and systems are set up on a defensive posture. They are to be used only if we are attacked by another country. The President would be contacted by NORAD informing him of an incoming strike. Our plans are all reactive and defensive. If the president attempted to launch a nuclear attack with no provocation, the military would demand to know why and to what end such an attack was being launched when it is contrary to our entire nuclear policy.
The use of tactical nukes was contemplated back in the days when the USSR had such an enormous force advantage threatening the Fulda Gap – for which see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap
Those days are over, but could return if Russia continues to be aggressively expansive.
The military and civilians in DOD would seriously resist the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the ME unless they were convinced it was the ONLY way to achieve victory. In a desert country like Syria conventional bombing that had minimal ROEs would have a devastating affect on ISIS. A Marine Brigade with full air support and minimal ROEs would make short work of ISIS with acceptable casualty rates. Especially after an all out air assault. Remember OIC? Saddam’s Army was much better equipped and trained than ISIS. It is the ROEs and the slowness of operations that allow outfits like ISIS to get established. You have to get them on the run and keep them on the run, no quarter given. Do they follow the Geneva Conventions or rules of war? No. To treat them like normal enemy is to tie our hands in the service of being “fair.”
I mentioned in my previous comment that our biggest problem is a nuke delivered by a terrorist group. Who do we destroy in that case? Do we nuke Iran, Pakistan, and eastern Syria? The longer we let the Islamic terror problem fester, the more likely it is that they will hit us with a WMD. We have been frittering the time away while they have continued to plot, organize, and spread their evil theology. Will Hillary rebuild the military? Will she take a tougher stance ala ISIS? Does she understand the dangers of a nuclear Iran? Will she be able to make the tough decisions about countering Russia’s aggressiveness? Will she stand up to China? I think we all know the answers to those questions. With Trump there is a chance of doing the right thing. With Hillary, none.
Big Maq — you come on like I’m defending that style. I’m not, just identifying it. And obviously. I’m talking about commercial property, not homes.
If you have been on negotiating teams for multi-million dollar deals and never encountered anyone with that negotiating style, well, lucky you!
@Richard – well, let’s just say I suspect many would walk away thinking it was a “excuse” for trump’s behavior, after reading your comment. May not be your intention.
It wasn’t that we didn’t get heated sometimes and not use some colorful language (always depended on the client – but rarely eff this or that). It was that there wasn’t much room for being as outlandish as you describe. If we had potential clients who were known to be like that, they usually caused themselves a premium, as we had to price in the risk associated with their anticipated behavior.
There were the exceptions (where we really, really wanted the business, “strategically”), and that usually ended up being a bad decision, as then 9x of 10 the people delivering on the contract would get screwed by a mis-priced (and probably poorly written – seems to go hand in hand) contract, while the client would still ask for the world (i.e. well beyond the reasonable).
Not luck. It is the nature of what we do and the clientele. Not to say it was all milk, honey and roses either (to mix idioms).
“A buyer offered us about 100K, saying “I know that you bought it for only 80K” (as if that mattered), and offering to throw in his BMW. It was ludicrous.” – Neo
Yep. Run into all kinds of people who think it is immoral for you to make much if any “profit”. Yet, they’d turn around and argue the opposite vociferously when it is their turn to sell.
Some of our government clients were the worst for this attitude, and some individuals were very open about it.
snopercod, interesting question, so I googled it; this guy says that in this context, “mere” is being used to mean “pure or total”
http://www.shmoop.com/second-coming/stanza-1-summary.html
(I had never heard of that meaning of mere; but then the poem is 100 years old… this online dictionary has “unmixed” as an obsolete meaning of mere, and apparently that’s part of the word’s derivation http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mere)
Sorry for the redundant comment, I should have finished reading the thread first!
It was that there wasn’t much room for being as outlandish as you describe. If we had potential clients who were known to be like that, they usually caused themselves a premium, as we had to price in the risk associated with their anticipated behavior.
Hollywood entertainment big boys, tend to have more leeway. Consider their rapists and child molestors.