Trump: the GOP’s huge mistake? [BUMPED UP]
[BUMPED UP. Newer posts are right below it.]
Commenter “Bill” writes:
The GOP needs to be chastened and sober up and get with the real business of trying to salvage conservative principles and philosophy and stand up against leftism.
And it needs to quit whining and telling us the sky’s falling and we’re all going to die if we don’t vote for a man who is too unstable to be President.
(Trump,. by the way, was rage-tweeting from 3:20am on last night about a former Miss Universe, her sex tape, etc. This needs to be over. It needs to be over now. The GOP made a huge mistake.)
It’s really that last sentence (“The GOP made a huge mistake”) that caught my attention. But let’s start with the fist one: “The GOP needs to be chastened and sober up and get with the real business of trying to salvage conservative principles and philosophy and stand up against leftism.”
Now as far as I’m concerned, that would be nice. I consider myself somewhere between conservative and libertarian, and I’ve never identified as a Republican although I’ve voted Republican since 2004. But although I agree with the sentiment in that first sentence as far as what I’d like to happen in terms of the fight against leftism, I think it leaves out an important element, which is that the GOP has not been a conservative party nor has it held itself out to be one, except in contrast to the left and the Democrats.
I would wager that nearly every Republican in Congress is more conservative than nearly every Democrat in Congress, for instance. But is every Republican a conservative? Not by a long shot. And is this the result (as so many in the blogosphere and the talk show circuit seem to think, although I don’t think “Bill” is among that group) of some sort of wholesale betrayal by the GOP? I don’t think so, although of course there are individuals who at times have been guilty of that.
It’s a huge topic, one that’s been discussed before many times on this blog (see this and this, just to take two examples). For the purposes of this post, let’s just say I’ve made a case for my point, although I’m sure that vast numbers of you disagree.
There is a Conservative Party, when last I checked. It is their business to “to salvage conservative principles and philosophy.” It is the GOP’s business to salvage (or even articulate, if they can) Republican principles, which sometimes overlap with conservative principles and sometimes do not, but are usually principles more conservative than those of Democrats. And it is the business of both conservatives and Republicans to “stand up against leftism.” That’s not always been done by either, but is often done, although it hasn’t been successful in recent years except sporadically.
How has it been successful? Mainly by blocking a number of initiatives that would have passed easily with a Democratic Congress (I’ve chronicled many of them during the Obama administration; not going to recap here). If you as a conservative would have liked the GOP to have done more and hung tougher (and I certainly would have), you need to do three main things: (a) be realistic about what they could have done and why they didn’t do it, rather than reflexively demonizing them for not fulfilling your wishes (b) do your level best to elect more conservative Republicans to offices across the land; and (c) have a conservative equivalent of the Gramscian march throughout the institutions.
Those two latter tasks are not the business of the Republican Party as an institution; it’s the business of conservatives. I have noticed during the years I’ve been immersed in the conservative blogosphere that conservatives have long had a tendency to overestimate their influence and underestimate their own need for activism and time commitment. The left certainly has been patient, but I have noticed a marked lack of patience on the part of many conservatives. Quite a few of them seem to think they are so obviously correct that only sabotage by enemies could stop the triumph of conservatism and its magical spread throughout the land.
Now let’s get to Bill’s second sentence: “And [the GOP] needs to quit whining and telling us the sky’s falling and we’re all going to die if we don’t vote for a man who is too unstable to be President.”
Well, what else can the GOP do if it wants to win the presidency? That’s really the only (Trump) card it has. So it is forced to play it. And let me add that Trump supporters who go around from blog to blog catastrophizing and insulting those who don’t jump on board are not going to persuade many people that they are correct. Whether you are right or wrong about the catastrophizing I cannot say, but I can say that insults don’t usually persuade; instead, they get people’s dander up.
Now, Bill’s final sentence: “The GOP made a huge mistake.” Actually, I think the GOP made several huge mistakes this campaign year. Let’s take them in order.
The first might be to have let Trump run as a Republican in the first place. The Party has the right to define itself and to exclude those who don’t conform to its message, and Trump could arguably have been excluded (I think; I’m not 100% sure what the procedure would have been to have excluded him, or even if there is such a procedure). Of course, had they done that, Trump might (accent on the “might”) have run third-party. And if so, he might have handed Hillary the election. But that probably would have been better than his handing Hillary the election as a Republican, which appears to be what is on course to happen.
You see that this is not simple. Once Trump threw his hat in the ring, the GOP was in a bind with no easy decisions.
The second error was that once Trump was in and was obviously drawing a lot of support, the GOP should have tried its level best to coalesce behind a single alternative candidate and to squeeze the others out, and that person should not have been Jeb Bush. I think that was clear almost from the start; it was clear to me, and it should have been clear to them. I believe that person should/could/might have been Rubio, because the GOP hated Cruz almost as much as it hated Trump.
But there was no coalescing, either because they lacked the will or lacked the power or lacked the organization or lacked the cohesiveness. It didn’t happen.
Another mistake was an older one: allowing open primaries. And in addition, if the GOP had wanted to control things better, it should have put in place a superdelegate system like the Democrats have. You may not have approved (I doubt you or I would have approved). But it most definitely would have been a way to control things, and I think it highly ironic that the GOP has been excoriated for being undemocratic (small “d”) and yet it’s the GOP whose primary system is far more democratic than that of the Democrats (large “D”).
A later mistake may have been to not block Trump at the convention. I think that by that time much of the GOP was shellshocked and surrendering to its fate, hoping for the best but fearing the worst. Also, by that time Ted Cruz was really the only alternative, and he was considered nearly as unacceptable (or more unacceptable) than Trump, and perhaps as unelectable. Plus, the GOP was afraid—and rightly so—of losing the Trump voters if it blocked Trump’s nomination once he had won the requisite number of delegates..
Some would say a later mistake was the endorsement of Trump on the part of many GOP leaders. By this time, though, I think they were in a terrible bind, where no course was good and all were bad.
But I don’t think “the GOP” made a mistake in choosing Trump, for the simple reason that I don’t think the party chose Trump. I think a lot of Republican voters (and some unspecified number of crossover Democrats and Independents) made a mistake in choosing him, but they were never a majority and they do not constitute “the GOP.”
In addition, they made the mistake for different reasons. Some early Trump supporters backed him because they really like Trump and think he’ll be a great president and will beat Hillary. I think that’s a mistake on all those scores, and that he not only wouldn’t be a great president but that he won’t get the chance to be president because he will lose. Perhaps I’m wrong, and if they’re right on all scores that would be fine with me.
Some early Trump supporters, however, never thought any of those things. They saw him as a vehicle for the destruction of the Republican Party and were well aware that his nomination would facilitate the election of the highly unpopular Hillary. They didn’t care because their priorities were different. I think they will get their wish, but I find them reprehensible and I believe they are facilitating the very thing they profess to hate, the left.
And some early Trump supporters (a small group, but nevertheless a dangerous one) believed Trump would be their tool to power and influence. They are the white supremacist wing of the alt-right. Needless to say, I find them abominable.
[NOTE: This post is by no means a critique of Bill’s remarks. It’s a riff on them.]
Trump is what you got. One can whine all day long about it, but if Trump loses, that is it for the Republican Party. As soon as Clinton has a fifth vote on Scotus, she will implement Obama executive orders on illegal immigrants, and most likely stop enforcement at the border altogether. By the time 2020 rolls around, she will probably have given citizenship to enough of the illegal immigrants to ensure Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina are reliably blue, with Georgia and eventually Texas not far behind.
This threat is existential for the Republican Party and the conservatives who claim to be its members; and, yes, it would have been nice if they had realized this before Trump had the nomination in sight, but that changes nothing.
Yancey Ward:
One can “whine” about it?
Whining is what babies do about trivial matters. Characterizing Trump opponents on the right as “whiners” is profoundly trivializing, condescending, and turns off everyone except those who don’t already agree with you.
Quit whining about their whining. Does that make you inclined to go along with me?
What’s more, you are operating from a basic assumption that may be false. It is this statement of yours: “if Trump loses, that is it for the Republican Party.” Those who disagree with you believe one (or perhaps two) of three things (not all three, because the first two and the third are mutually exclusive):
(1) Whether Trump wins or loses the GOP will continue.
(2) Trump’s loss will be better for the GOP’s continuation than his win.
(3) Win or lose for Trump, the GOP is already finished.
You don’t know and they don’t know. None of us knows. It’s not just that we don’t know, it’s that we have hardly a clue—and that includes you. You may be right, they may be right, but to state what you state as though it’s an obvious tautology is just not so.
A bit off topic, but an update on my mathematical fit to the 538 probability data. As I was chasitized a week or so ago for stating the data was a linear function, I also predicted that would change. Well, it did yesterday. The data is now best fit with a second order polynomial; ie the curve is starting to bend. It still predicts a Trump victory at 58%. However, given the data trend since the debate Monday, I expect that to go even lower.
The original linear trend had the two candidates at 50% tomorrow. Now that’s pushed out to October 12.
Of course all this depends on how much one trusts the 538 data. I’m using their information as I think it’s interesting how they run basically a Monte Carlo simulation based on the polling data.
Physics guy – thanks for the update. I took you to task, but I do find your continued analysis interesting. Your latest one fits what I think (Trump has a good chance of winning but the debate hurt him)
Neo – I won’t argue with anything you said – I’m just thrilled to be featured in a post! And you don’t have to put “Bill” in scare-quotes. It’s my real name
I hope it’s OK – I want to quote part of Jonah Goldberg’s latest G-File, which is an answer to Yancy’s post above. It is not yet on the web but will be, usually, in a few days so I don’t have a link.
Emphasis mine.
I think Jonah nailed it.
No, Neo, it doesn’t help me to see it as nothing but whining. I just can’t wrap my mind around people who are basically surrendering to Clinton because they don’t like the candidate the primary voters selected.
If the party had dumped Trump before the convention, I would be making the exact same point to previous Trump supporters in the Republican Party who would be unhappy about that.
The choice is binary- either Trump wins, or the Republican Party is shut out on the national level going forward. The demographic trends within the citizenry were bad enough, and helped Obama win in 2012 despite him being just about the weakest incumbent since Jimmy Carter. Add 5-10 million new voters that vote 25/75 for Republicans (at best!), and it is game over for getting the presidency, and with the courts, the House will be lost for good in 2020 at the latest.
The Democrats decided in 2010 to quick trying to reach their goals legitimately- all they need is the presidency and the Supreme Court. The rest is irrelevant now.
There are certain characteristics the hard core trump fans share with djt. I will leave for them decide which ones.
I have found the gop frustrating, in particular those in the leadership. They disappoint, prevaricate, and often lack conviction. They were so intent on nominating Jeb, and if not Jeb another moderate insider. They turned a blind eye towards djt’s antics as 2016 rolled in because they feared a confirmed, often uncompromising, conservative. Now they have a kick me sign on their backs.
I have long followed WFB’s advice to support the most conservative candidate. I have been a volunteer for many years on the ground in Iowa doing the grunt work. I will continue to do so.
BTW, another great essay hostess.
Yancey – as my previous comment suggests, what’s the point of winning if you lose your soul?
By soul, I mean what was the soul of the GOP, which was (for the most part) conservatism. If Trump wins, I believe that’s lost. I didn’t quote it, but Goldberg makes a good point about SCOTUS, which many people think is the primary reasons for voting for him. I’ll quote it below:
Yancey Ward:
Whether or not you can wrap your mind around it, to call it “whining” (a habit of many many Trump supporters, and one they share with the left, I might add) is juvenile, meaningless, insulting, and counterproductive.
Bill,
The problem with Goldberg’s reasoning is that he thinks Clinton will be a failure and replaced in 2020 with an authentic conservative. He is wrong- he simply isn’t seeing the danger right there in front of him- it won’t matter if Clinton is viewed as a failure on the right and some independents- her loyal voter base will be significantly enhanced by the time she runs for reelection in 2020, which, unless she dies, she will be doing.
The only thing that stopped Obama from implementing executive amnesty full bore was that he was afraid of a case reaching the Court before getting a majority. Clinton no longer has to fear this, and will be able proceed immediately, and will do exactly that if she wins.
The Republican Party is already in a position where its candidate has to win by 1% or more in the national vote just to have better than a 50% chance to win the electoral college. That margin for error that the Democrats hold is growing. Executive amnesty will make it nearly impossible for a Republican candidate of any stripe to win the presidency.
It always comes down to the voters.
The main task of rebuilding is to point out where they went wrong so it doesn’t happen again. That should also not include browbeating by the establishment, but you know it will.
They’re dishonest opportunists. That’s what they do.
Neo,
I simply can’t take serious any argument from any Republican that basically is conceding this election to Clinton. I know calling it whining is hurting them, but if that is what it takes to wake them up to the danger, then that is what I am going continue to do. The only other option I have is to lie and say I understand why they are voting for Johnson, and if Clinton wins that they bear no responsibility for that, and for what comes after.
Yancey Ward Says:
…because they don’t like the candidate the primary voters selected.
This is a veiled appeal to popularity.
Trump also never got a majority. Apologists will declare it’s because of the number of candidates, but there’s no way to prove that for sure.
The primary system selected the wrong candidate because the voters were wrong about Trump.
Yancey Ward:
I happen to think that 2012 was the year the death knell tolled for the Republican Party and also for conservatism as we know it. Trump is merely the symptom, another nail in the coffin. If one of the others had been nominated (particularly Cruz) and won, I would have revised my opinion. But the “burn it down” and the “I hate the GOPe” crowd has prevailed, and it has burned.
2012 was the real last chance, IMHO. And it was lost.
So I actually see Trump as being (a) unable to win, and the worst candidate possible in that regard; (b) not conservative and not even Republican; (c) damaging the reputation and chances of the GOP still further, if such a thing be possible.
And that’s true whatever happens with immigration. As I’ve said many times, I could be wrong, but that’s the way I see it.
Note this. And note the date on it.
I am not saying all is lost forever. But I think maybe forever, and certainly for quite some time. I’m not sanguine about that.
Bill,
Goldberg’s scenario regarding Trump trading dem votes for infrastructure for a more liberal SCOTUS nomination(s) is plausible and may eventuate.
Goldberg’s assertion that we can survive 4-8 more years of a lawless democrat administration fails to explain how 25 million new “undocumented” democrats will NOT eventuate. Since all the dems want it and most of the GOPe wants it… ignoring that factor, which would prevent regaining the Presidency in the future is intellectual bankruptcy.
I and Yancey are not saying their won’t be any conservatives or a Republican party after Hillary, we’re saying that politically, we’ll be impotent.
“Executive amnesty will make it nearly impossible for a Republican candidate of any stripe to win the presidency.”
You’re right, because the only thing the GOP (at least the Trumpian wing of the GOP) has ever said to anyone not from this country is “We hate you”. And we wonder why they don’t vote Republican.
There’s a winning strategy for the future.
I happen to believe that conservative principles are compelling, that the vision of personal responsibility, limited government, and freedom is a good, no, a great vision. I’ve known people from former Soviet states – they tend to be very conservative because they’ve seen the alternative.
You don’t think someone coming from Venezuela might be interested in listening to a different vision of governance from the smothering socialism/strong-man statism they’ve been used to?
I’ve left the GOP because the party has decided that white-supremacist messages and memes, isolationism, and authoritarian statism (all embodied in their reality-TV celebrity nominee) is a good message. We’re not hearing much about constitutionalism or freedom from the Donald, are we?
At this point I’ve got no where to go, but I can’t go back to the GOP until at least it’s been purged of its Trumpism, if that ever happens.
Yancey Ward:
No, I didn’t say calling them whining was “hurting them.”
I said it was “profoundly trivializing, condescending, and turns off everyone except those who don’t already agree with you.” I also said it was “juvenile, meaningless, insulting, and counterproductive.”
By all means, keep doing it if you like. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s all those things.
And the LAST thing it does is wake anyone up to the danger that you believe you see so clearly and would like to alert them to.
And others are saying you will be impotent with Trump.
The argument that conservatives should vote for a Leftist named Donald Trump in order to defeat a Leftist named Hillary Clinton doesn’t hold up.
If you run a Leftist New York Democrat (Donald Trump) against a Leftist New York Democrat (Hillary Clinton), I guarantee you that a Leftist New York Democrat will win every time.
As for your assertion that we are selling our soul, that has validity if we excuse or support unconstitutional actions by Trump after his election. As neo pointed out, no one knows what he would do or be, so we can’t be held responsible for what he hasn’t done yet and may not do.
But let’s say he turns out to be as bad as you fear. What was the alternative? Another path that inexorably led to liberty’s death. In which case, at this point, what other rational basis is there for choosing than in looking at the probabilities for survival and renewal in the aftermath?
If the past is father to the present, which is mother to the future, then the only objective criteria for evaluation in the ‘now’ is the historical record in comparing the fascist alt-r to leftist collectives. I.E., Castro VS Pinochet.
Clearly you disagree, don’t tell me that I’m wrong, show me where I err.
Geoffrey: You are saying that there will still be a Republican party after Hillary but that it will be impotent, but I think that Goldberg and others are saying that there won’t be a Republican party if Trump wins. So the choice is between no Republican party and an impotent one.
This post is an accurate description of the catastrophe that is still unfolding. Especially insightful of the selfish motives of some players also of the no-win predicaments of many GOPers who had reasonably good intentions. I feel a bit self satisfied in picking Rubio early on as the best candidate. And I did that while being very strong on strict immigration control. I knew it wasn’t the only thing. Now, I especially appreciate Rubio’s well informed, coherent positions on national security threats.
I just donated $200 to you. Treat yourself to something you enjoy. More power to you!
If the past is father to the present, which is mother to the future, then the only objective criteria for evaluation in the ‘now’ is the historical record in comparing the fascist alt-r to leftist collectives. I.E., Castro VS Pinochet.
The correct analogy is not Castro vs Pinochet or Allende vs Pinochet.
It’s Hugo Chavez (Donald Trump) versus Daniel Ortega (Hillary Clinton).
The choice is between Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s financial donor (Donald Trump). That’s really no choice at all.
Good analysis. I would just add that Trump had all the name recognition and just got so much momentum going early that a lot of people in later primaries voted for him just because people like to vote for the winner. (Plus the evil elites scheduled them close together so there wouldn’t be a long divisive fight, ha, ha!)
I agree with you on open primaries– but I think that’s set by state election law, isn’t it? The party does have control over the order of states, though. I say–if your state mandates open primaries, you go to the end of the line.
I am really interested in what will happen to the GOP after the election. It won’t be the same party, win or lose.
OM,
As I admit above and have previously admitted before, that may well eventuate. If impotence lies upon either path and one or the other will manifest, then the question becomes which is more likely to be survivable? I choose Pinochet, you Castro. Good luck with that choice.
Spiral,
Both Castro and Pinochet are considered tyrants but ideologically they are not equivalent. The Pinochets demand our obediance and the fruits of your labor. The Castros demand that and our soul and mind. “How many fingers do you see Picard?”
Both Castro and Pinochet are considered tyrants but ideologically they are not equivalent.
Yes, but both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Left-Wing Democrats.
So, the Castro vs Pinochet analogy isn’t the correct analogy. A better analogy is a choice between Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega.
Or a choice between Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.
I’m not choosing Castro or Caesar-lite. Speaking of Castro, Donald has some spaining to do about his casinos and Cuba, eh Lucy? 🙂
Why should anyone care if a go-along to get-along party of good losers, survives?
What’s the point? Logrolling, horsetrading? A diminishing portion of government issue crumbs from the ruling party’s tables for those deluded and scammed loser party constituents back home? That would be those loser party constituents who imagine their elected representatives actually do fight for freedom, instead of concentrating on a nice sinecure for themselves, the chief dhimmis, and tame men.
If that is so, if that is the ossified monstrosity the current system has become, then maybe it does need to be allowed to die.
In some sense, the choice is between a mentally stable socialist, Hillary Clinton, and a mentally unstable socialist, Donald Trump. That’s a tough choice, I admit.
“I think that Goldberg and others are saying that there won’t be a Republican party if Trump wins.” London Trader
Money talks, the GOPe isn’t going anywhere. They’ll change their rhetoric but their actions based in self-interest will remain. Conservatives will remain as well and if the Republican party goes the way of the Whig party, where’s the loss? What are conservatives fighting to retain… other than pretense?
“It’s Hugo Chavez (Donald Trump) versus Daniel Ortega (Hillary Clinton).” Spiral
Pardon my french but bullpucky. Trump is not a Chavez, he’s far too invested in capitalism. His prior funding of Hillary and the dems was a cynical example of ‘doing business’ but he’s even more an advocate of ‘enlightened self-interest’. Any half aware capitalist has to see that ‘the collectivists will let the capitalists sell them the rope with which they will hang them’… the corporatists supporting Hillary are “feeding the crocodile”.
“I am really interested in what will happen to the GOP after the election. It won’t be the same party, win or lose.” roc scssrs
That’s certainly possible but I wouldn’t count out the GOPe ability to come back quite yet. Pence would be Trump’s successor and I suspect he’s the Bush to Reagan followup. His religious views aside, he’s much more ‘status quo’ establishment than Trump.
Why should anyone care if a go-along to get-along party of good losers, survives?
The Republican party will survive. The question is whether it will be a statist-Trumpist party or a free-trade, free market party.
If we can defeat Trump, there’s a chance conservatives can retake the party in 2020. We won’t win every battle. But at least we will be able to engage the battle.
If Trump wins, the Republican party will be a clone of the Democrat party. Against entitlement reform, in favor of government confiscation of private property (eminent domain), higher taxes (import tariffs) and massive infrastructure spending.
His prior funding of Hillary and the dems was a cynical example of ‘doing business’ but he’s even more an advocate of ‘enlightened self-interest’.
But Donald Trump did more than simply write a check to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2007-2008. Trump gave an interview in which he praised Hillary Clinton, saying that she does a great job.
Trump also said that the economy does better under Democrats than under Republicans.
Trump has also said that socialized medicine works well in Scotland and in Canada.
It’s a contest between two socialists. Whether you choose to vote for the sane socialist (Hillary) or the insane socialist (Trump) is entirely up to you.
The Republican party is neither conservative nor republican, hasn’t been in at least 30 years, just slightly less to the left than the other party.
No, no no, you don’t understand. See, Trump is too dangerous to risk, because he might try to get away with what Clinton is sure to get away with and be enabled to do by the Demos.
If he tries to get away with the leftist totalitarian things which Clinton will certainly get away with, it will be because he will get the cooperation of Republicans. This is because they are all too cowardly to stand up to their own party leadership as it morphs Stalinist; as Cruz and Rand Paul have so often demonstrated.
And if he tries to install a fascist regime, well you can count on the fact that he will have the full cooperation of Democrats who will support him in his Cesarian ambitions because he is actually a closet totalitarian leftist and Democrat … or will buy them off or something.
But be sure that whether he swings extreme left or extreme right, which he will surely do, he will have the cooperation of everyone because all of our elected officials are cowards, and we better get used to the fact that we have been electing Princeps for years now anyway; and a good conservative will recognize it and always cast his vote for the most competent dictator, and not for the obvious liar who says he is in favor of the rule of law.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
If we must have a socialist as President from January 2017 through January 2021, let’s make sure that the President is of the other political party, one we can oppose and are not responsible for.
Spiral Says:
September 30th, 2016 at 4:46 pm
I don’t know what a Trumpist Party is or how Trump will mold it to his will, but when it comes to holding trade partner’s feet to the agreement fire, I don’t see that as crypto-fascism.
Ok. You sound like a reasonable guy. Seriously. And since I know Maq has no idea as to how he will reach his vision of a bright and shining future, I’ll ask you instead: What’s your plan for winning battles in 2012, after 16 years of unbroken leftist constitutional and legal subversion?
Do you have an idea as to what this chance to win battles looks like in real life, and what battles exactly we are talking about?
Seriously, if you have any kind of realistic game plan at all in mind, I’d like to hear about it.
That’s 2020, obviously
Spiral,
“a free-trade, free market party”
In your dreams. There aren’t nearly enough Americans who would actually embrace the inherent risk of a free market economy.
“If we can defeat Trump, there’s a chance conservatives can retake the party in 2020.”
That’s possible, unfortunately 25 million “undocumented” new democrats will make that conservative party… a party of political eunuchs.
“If Trump wins, the Republican party will be a clone of the Democrat party.”
News flash! The GOPe is already “a clone of the Democrat party” demonstrated by being against entitlement reform, in favor of government confiscation of private property (eminent domain), consistently in favor of higher taxes (whatever it takes) and literally loves massive infrastructure spending. (Pork)
Trump is certainly a liberal on social issues nor is he a fiscal conservative but he is not a socialist willing to drive the country to bankruptcy in service of an ideology that rejects reality. And, declaring Hillary Clinton to be “a sane socialist” speaks volumes.
OM,
Early on I thought, based upon his past and his outrageous behavoir during the campaign including today, that he was a saboteur. I still can not believe he actually wants to be POTUS.
Yes, there is a disturbance in the farce. If you start selling the phrase on a bumper sticker I will buy one.
Me too! Great line. No sarc intended.
I feel like we’re having the same argument over and over again.
GB/DNW – do you think there’s any risk of Trump being so unstable that he truly does end up doing things that are going to be very destructive that even HRC wouldn’t do?
I think, for instance, the possibility of him scaring the world economy into a crash is very high. And that’s only the first of many Trumpossibilities.
This question is kind of rhetorical. I don’t expect to sway you. But I feel we’re talking past each other. Your argument is we have a choice between probably bad and definitely bad. If that’s the case, most wise people (in binary choice-land) will pick probably bad.
I see it as definitely bad versus bat-crazy, or the definitely bad they own and will be blamed for versus the definitely bad and possibly crazy that I own and will be blamed for. Or slow developing cancer with a chance of chemo versus jumping out of a plane with a parachute that was packed by a toddler.
In other words, all our presuppositions are different.
Turns out Trump was right about his microphone. The Presidential Debate Commission admitted it was altered to amplify sounds of wavelengths outside of Trump’s vocal range, among other things making his breathing sound like noisy sniffling.
Ok. You sound like a reasonable guy. Seriously. And since I know Maq has no idea as to how he will reach his vision of a bright and shining future, I’ll ask you instead: What’s your plan for winning battles in 2012, after 16 years of unbroken leftist constitutional and legal subversion?
First off, I think that if Trump is elected, Trump will push the United States towards economic ruin. I think Hillary will do the same.
So, we have a choice between moving in the wrong direction under Trump or under Hillary. At least under Hillary, the Republican party won’t be responsible for the economic disaster. If Trump is President, then the economic disaster will be pinned on “conservatives,” even though Trump is a Leftist, not a conservative.
As for the plan for recovery after 8 years of Obama and 4 years of Hillary Clinton (that’s 12 years, not 16 years, by my count), the plan is to tell the American people that the reason why they are suffering from high inflation and high unemployment is because the Democrats have chosen to centralize power. The Republicans should run on a platform of de-centralization of power.
Is this plan guaranteed to work? Not at all. It all depends on whether the American people decide to vote for a change, which depends on how disillusioned the American people are by 2020.
Trump is basically a Leftist Democrat at heart. He donated money to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign because Trump agrees with the Left wing of the Democrat party.
That’s why Trump had not problem praising Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan in 2009. That’s why Trump had no problem praising socialized medicine in the 1st GOP Presidential debate in 2015.
That’s why Trump donated money to Harry Reid in 2010 and donated money to Terry McAuliffe in 2013.
We need to realize that we lost this election in May, when Trump clinched the GOP nomination. This election in November is just going to determine which Left wing New York Democrat is president.
Bill wrote: I see it as definitely bad versus bat-crazy, or the definitely bad they own and will be blamed for versus the definitely bad and possibly crazy that I own and will be blamed for.
This is exactly correct. Conservatives are being asked to support a Left wing nut case named Donald Trump in order to prevent a somewhat sane Left winger named Hillary Clinton from becoming President.
But conservatives will be held responsible for Trump. Conservatives will not be held responsible for Hillary. On that basis, conservatives are better off if Hillary wins.
It will be a disaster either way. But there’s a better chance of recovery if the disaster occurs under Hillary.
Sure anything can happen that is not self-contradictory. But unless you are just interested in stacking negatives, let’s look at it in terms of possible very serious trade-offs instead of a ream of unmitigated negatives.
So let’s consider that possibility, but in the context of what is already going on right now, and as an element of the price of reestablishing the rule of law.
In the present context, we already know that there are signs of serious weakness in the international economy,(including the decades long distortions and manipulations resulting from the toleration of energy cartels) ; and that we cannot even trust the superficial growth or employment figures we get from the Feds to tell us anything fundamental about how the average private sector American is faring or likely to fare in the future.
We also know that our international political and trade partners are cheating, to our detriment.
We may also guess that as long as what remains of the American middle class is laid on the altar of international relations and subsidies, that “the world economy” may well be less jittery and more reassured.
So, assuming your freedom can be bought back, but at the price of some pain to you, and very much to the rest of the world, can you state at what point your own freedom and your recovery of it, became less important than the welfare and fate of subsidized others?
Now you may say that if we rock the boat we all will be surely killed.
On the other hand, what measure of disturbance would you tolerate in order to get the rule of law and constitutional and honest governance back?
Let’s moot an unrealistic and in Johnson’s words ‘inflammatory” scenario, just to highlight the question.
If it were told to you by a Divine source that you could have your freedom and honest constitutional government back almost immediately, but only at the cost of deporting virtually all illegal aliens, peaceably, but to their great emotional pain and economic discomfort – and that the choice was yours to freely make without prejudice either way – would you do it?
Or, as per this artificially structured hypothetical, would preserving their present welfare and inclusion be more important to you than regaining your lost freedoms?
“As for the plan for recovery after 8 years of Obama and 4 years of Hillary Clinton (that’s 12 years, not 16 years, by my count) …”
That is of course the correct count if she loses a second term.
My year entry typo and botched edit of a now missing “or” clause, made nonsense of any calculation.
Bill, 5:46 pm — “[D]o you think there’s any risk of Trump being so unstable that he truly does end up doing things that are going to be very destructive that even HRC wouldn’t do?”
He’s a bull in a china shop. I have no idea what he might or might not do. (With Hillary! at least, we have an awfully darn good idea of what she’ll do [see “Obama, Barack, 2009-2017”)], and it’s very distasteful to my taste. That’s an extreme understatement, by the way.) Trump, on another hand, is a crapshoot, also very distasteful.
Hillary! knows exactly what she’s doing, something I find very frightening. Trump, like the china shop bull, has no idea what he’s doing — but is convinced he does. Also very frightening.
Bill,
Yes, evidently we are talking past each other. Both trying to lead the other’s horse to where we believe there to be water. Time will tell the tale.
Parker and GB:
Glad you liked it. This blind squirrel found the accord after all.
Not in the bumper sticker business. Run with it.
The avoidance of risk is a guarantee of failure.
“The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.” Edmund Burke
“It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win.” John Paul Jones
“You don’t concentrate on risks. You concentrate on results. No risk is too great to prevent the necessary job from getting done.” Chuck Yeager
Preserving liberty (as best we can) is a ‘necessary’ job. We cannot know what Trump will do or be but we do know that Hillary intends to continue to advance the fundamental ‘transformation’ of liberty…
[NOTE: This post is by no means a critique of Bill’s remarks. It’s a riff on them.]
And the band filled in with the chorus.
A great essay and discussion, but before wading into the weeds, here’s another good essay on the existential choice that lies before us.
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/after-the-republic/
DNW: You asked
“If it were told to you by a Divine source that you could have your freedom and honest constitutional government back almost immediately, but only at the cost of deporting virtually all illegal aliens, peaceably, but to their great emotional pain and economic discomfort — and that the choice was yours to freely make without prejudice either way — would you do it?”
You and I have sparred on this site a number of time and so I think I owe you an answer to this question, with some caveats I will offer at the end.
Would I do it?
Short answer – no.
Longer answer: Hopefully you will believe me when I say this – I am against illegal immigration. However, you’ve asked me if I would agree to cause 11MM+ people great economic pain and personal distress (and, let’s face it, some of them would die) under the unrealistic and draconian scenario you presented. No, no I wouldn’t do that.
I hope I haven’t destroyed my conservative credentials (I may have to answer “Tango Hotel Foxtrot” or whatever today;s code is to notherbob2’s query to get back in good graces). But since when is illegal immigration the main litmus test? I’ve written enough about the mistakes I think the GOP is making in this area.
But here’s my bottom line: I am a Christian first and foremost. I am not a nationalist, especially not in the way the new GOP defines it.
“you could have your freedom and honest constitutional government back”
I am free to vote, to worship where and how I please, to raise my family, to have the career I choose, to go to school, to speak my mind on blogs and in public, to do all sorts of things without government intervention. I’m pretty sure you are too.
Would I like less government intervention? Well, sure, I’m a conservative. But I feel pretty darn free right now. I’d like to maintain my freedoms and add to them. But I am not ready to go into a Darwinian state to get there.
Do I want honest constitutional government back? Yes. Yes x 1,000,000. But I don’t know how deporting 11 million people gets me that. If Trump becomes president and is able to actually deport 11 million people, we still won’t have honest constitutional government.
We’ll only get that by voting in people who believe in honest, constitutional government. If Trump is elected, which party in 2020 or 2024 do you believe is going to raise that standard high?
Answer – neither.
We’re defining our country’s problems very differently. My main concern is the heart of our culture. Politics is downstream of that. Trump is a symptom of, not a cause (and certainly not an answer to) our problems
If Trump were a conservative instead of a Leftist, that would force conservatives to deal with the choice of a mentally unstable conservative versus a Leftist named Hillary Clinton.
But that’s not the choice we have been given this year. We are being asked to choose between a mentally unstable Leftist named Donald Trump and a moderately stable Leftists named Hillary Clinton.
To this Trump supporters say, Trump only donated to all of those Leftist causes because he’s a businessman. Trump is really a conservative.
But a conservative doesn’t go on Fox Business Channel in 2009 and praise President Obama’s economic stimulus plan. A conservative doesn’t show up to the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015 and claim that socialized medicine works well in Scotland and in Canada.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
September 30th, 2016 at 6:57 pm
Bill,
Yes, evidently we are talking past each other. Both trying to lead the other’s horse to where we believe there to be water. Time will tell the tale.
* * *
I am sooooo borrowing that line.
I’ll put it on my bumper sticker next to this one:
OM Says:
September 30th, 2016 at 4:59 pm
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
I’m a latecomer to the Trump camp. He forced me to see the political map from a different point of view.
He represents a great many people who are fed up with the PC mindset, in particular as it applies to illegal immigration, which along with trade, is what got him the nomination, won fair and square.
If Clinton is put into office she will probably further Obama’s executive orders, which essentially are opening the borders, by contriving to grant citizenship to several million new voters who will for the first few generations vote left of center.
However unconservative you find the current crop of Republicans I suspect you will find a bunch of Reid/Pelosi replacements even less acceptable.
Also if Clinton is elected many if not most of the 8-10 thousand direct appointees Obama made will remain in place working towards a better progressive America.
Trump, IMO, can be counted on to do a few basic things:
– reverse Obama’s executive orders particularly on illegal immigrants. Probably anyone with a criminal background will be removed. Refugees will not have a free ticket to cross our borders. As a bonus he will probably stop the DOJ and EPA from their excesses. If he prosecutes Hillary for national security breaches, well, I will be delighted.
– replace those 8-10 thousand Obama appointees with people more or less conservative leaning but certainly not Democrats.
– appoint conservative leaning judges to the Supreme Court.
That’s enough to get my vote.
If the thread here isn’t long enough for you, try this one:
http://amgreatness.com/2016/09/28/conservatives-for-trump-a-symposium-featuring-writers-and-scholars-for-trump/
“When 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence they declared their “reliance upon divine Providence” and pledged to each their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Today, 125 scholars and writers have pledged to support Donald Trump for president. While we too rely upon divine Providence today, it is because of those risks taken by those men that we live in a republic where declaring support for a candidate does not imperil life or limb. But fortunes and sacred honor are always at stake, rarely more so than in a contentious election that will decide the future of this republic. We believe the stakes are high and that all Americans must stand up and be counted.
When scholars and academics offer public support to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton they risk nothing. It is expected and applauded. Not so, for supporters of Donald Trump. Today we host a symposium of leading conservative writers and scholars who have declared their support for Donald J. Trump for president. All of them are part of Scholars & Writers for Trump. Here, they explain why. These men and women are known for their intellectual and political achievements, but we selected them for their experience and, most of all, for their wisdom.”
There follows a short statement from som of them.
DNW@620,
Yes I would, but despite your ‘moot’ clause, it is not possible in the short term. It can be done in the long term if there is the will. Does djt really give a damn? I think not.
Spiral Says:
September 30th, 2016 at 4:39 pm
In some sense, the choice is between a mentally stable socialist, Hillary Clinton, and a mentally unstable socialist, Donald Trump. That’s a tough choice, I admit.
* * *
I don’t think the words “mentally stable” mean what you think they mean.
London Trader Says:
September 30th, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Geoffrey: You are saying that there will still be a Republican party after Hillary but that it will be impotent, but I think that Goldberg and others are saying that there won’t be a Republican party if Trump wins. So the choice is between no Republican party and an impotent one.
* * *
A distinction without a difference?
I’ve long thought open primaries are political suicide. It seems obvious to me. I suppose that they are hoping for crossover last-minute converts, but that’s both amazingly naive and staggeringly stupid.
Perhaps I’m optimistic to think that such is more the “fool” than the “knave”, though.
I’ve long thought open primaries are political suicide. It seems obvious to me.
There is a misunderstanding regarding how the open primaries impacted the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
Trump did not win the nomination due to open primaries.
For example, Arizona and Florida had closed primaries where only registered Republicans could vote and Trump won those primaries.
In Wisconsin they held an open primary and Cruz crushed Trump in Wisconsin.
Also, neither the Republican National Committee nor the Republican Party decides on whether to have open or closed primaries. Here’s why…….
Many states, about half, simply allow people to register to vote but do not ask them if they are a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian or a Green. In those states, one is either registered to vote or not registered to vote.
When it comes time to hold a primary in one of those states, the primary will be an open primary because there is no way the state government holding the election can sort out the Republicans from the Independents and Democrats.
In the other half of the states, when one registers to vote, one checks a box, “Republican,” “Democrat,” “Libertarian,” “Decline To State.”
In that case, when a primary is held, it is possible for the state to hold a closed primary if it chooses to.
Regarding Trump, we have to remember that despite his recent effort to pretend that he is a conservative, Trump is at heart a New York Leftist.
Some say that the reason why Trump donated to Hillary Clinton in the 2007-2008 cycle was out of “enlightened self-interest.”
But there are many conservative businessmen who believe in enlightened self-interest who have never donated one thin dime to people like Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Terry McAuliffe.
Conservative businessmen usually don’t give interviews on the Fox Business Channel praising President Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus plan. Nor do they show up at a Republican Presidential debate in 2015 and say that socialized medicine works well in Scotland and Canada.
Also, in 2013 when Donald Trump donated to Terry McAuliffe’s campaign to become Governor of Virginia, McAuliffe was not holding political office at the time. McAuliffe’s Republican opponent was the conservative Ken Cuccinelli. That Trump is at heart a Leftist is the only explanation as to why Trump would prefer McAuliffe to Cuccinelli.
Similarly, when Donald Trump said in an interview that he thinks that the economy performs better when Democrats are in office than when Republicans are in office, that indicates Trump’s Leftism.
Trump’s Leftism was also on display after Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats won the majority in the US House of Representatives. Trump praised Pelosi and endorsed impeaching President George W. Bush.
If you look at Trump’s entire history, you realize that Trump is a Leftist, not a conservative.
So, if we are destined to have a Leftist president after this election, it would be better if that person was a Democrat, so that the blame for its failure does not fall on conservative Republicans.
Very well stated, neo-neocon, and, I believe, 100% accurate.
I sum up the arguing positions as HRC is the devil they know, and Trum is the danger they do not know in exact details.
Although Spiral makes a persuasive argument concerning Trum’s Leftism. It is Trum’s allies that have gotten him to where he is. Politics is full of betrayal, lowered and raised expectations, as well as dashed hopes. In many ways, as with Hussein, it’s even a Divine Comedy. Which is to say, a comedy about human souls falling to hell or rising to heaven.
If humans want to transform their soul into something better and unshackled by Lucifer’s chains of death and slavery, first thing they can do is not to get involved with DC, the capital of evil, in any shape whatsoever. Although that’s perhaps too high a bar to jump. Back a few years ago, before the State Department’s proof of having sabotaged Iraq and aided HRC in selling the US out to foreign bidders, people were saying that State were full of good guys and girls, because after all, their family and associates worked in state. They got really personally pissed and affronted that I would call State “corrupt” or “evil” or “bunch of traitors”, although all of that would turn out to be true, whether they liked it or not. It just demonstrates that people will create their own reality, no matter the cost and no matter how much self deception they have to engage in. That’s human nature for you all to observe.
As for open primaries, the Left manipulates elections in a number of fashions, using the ingenius device of the Art of Propaganda. The point isn’t to get Trum to win, because as it was gamed out, that wasn’t HRC’s initial strategy. The point was to use Trum as a stalking horse to befuddle, confuse, and harass the Republican candidates, get them attacking each other. You know, how the media usually plays tricks on Republicans. Except Clinton can do them one better, by having an Republican pull the manipulation strings of puppetry for her. There’s usually a few of those in Congress too, but they tend to be rare and they sell to the highest bidder. Open primaries didn’t have to make Trum win, only just keep him in the primaries long enough for sabotage and wreckage to occur. After all, if you keep some black mad dog like Hussein in charge of the US, sooner or later Your Cities Will Burn. Create Crisis, and never let it go to waste, so said Alinsky’s dedication to Lucifer.
If one believes in the existence of evil, believing in the existence of God or Lucifer, is a pretty easy step after that one. Although not automatic, due to human deception and confusion.
As for mentally unstable, if you are a Leftist you are already 1. evil and 2. slightly unstable at least.
The choice is binary- either Trump wins, or the Republican Party is shut out on the national level going forward.
The Republican party with Trum as President, will be controlled by the Alternative Right. That means Yancey will be working for them, not the other way around.
The thing about Might Makes Right type organizations, like Hussein’s OFA or his Messiah lunacy and atheist/Deus Ex machina creations, is that giving them power just makes them more sure in their pride and arrogance. Which is a kind of test by God, to see if the people on this continent are crazy and evil enough to reject God in favor of Lucifer’s promised power and dominion over humans. God may already know what’s in people’s hearts, but in order to exact an appropriate punishment, one should let people carry out their actions. Since even to humans, attempted murder and rape has less punishment than the successful versions. Although historically, people have probably not made much of a difference.
Since evil is going to bring down this continent as I discovered since around 2007 being late as it was, I started looking up previous prophecies, contracts, covenants, and various things related to Saving a people from themselves. As I found with the white nationalist slave lords of the South circa 1830, there were all kinds of secrets and hidden away truths which I had discovered, many of which were forbidden to Leftists, conservatives, or Southerners to learn about or debate.
It’s also an interesting coincidence to me that as I was researching the roots of the American South’s obsession with slavery that led to them starting Civil War 1 to spread slavery to the entire continent by controlling the federal government using slaves as an additional Vote Boost, that the Alt Right comes popping out, with a handle on power for once in a hundred years after the Left/Democrats ditched economic and political support of the KKK. Used to be the KKK could lynch or hang or harass any black or Republican, and get away with it. They had Waco police helping them out as well. If they got caught, Senators like Robert KKK Byrd would just find a way for them to go unpunished, much as HRC or Black Panthers under Holder. So it is curious to me that as I’m digging through the secrets of the past which humans have tried to cover up, that a relevant modern political thorn crops up that has the same genealogy.
Perhaps the right word isn’t curious or coincidence, but destiny and fate.
Only a righteous and moral people can sustain the United States Republic, a government of the people, for the people, to protect their God given rights from other humans who intend on taking them away and placing the people of God under the rule of Lucifer (Alinsky’s Lord, quite literally, plus Mohammed’s lord). An unrighteous people who use blood magic to sacrifice millions of human children to Bhaal, on this continent, is going to get wiped out the way of Soddom/Gomorrah or the Aztecs/Mayans/Incans. Or the Native Indians even.
What’s convenient about this kind of fate is that it isn’t open to human interpretation, since it isn’t even caused by humans. Humans contribute to their own self destruction, but they can stop at any time. Except they don’t want to. Or rather, Lucifer controls their hearts so well that the slaves think they are free to “want” to stop or begin something which was never their choice to begin with. The only choice of a human soul was first, which side they were going to serve.
It is perhaps to be expected that people are arguing based on the current political and social trends. But people should try to see the forest and the time stream in the future tense, once in awhile, to predict things ahead of the modern political bandwagon effect or crowd of mob pushing towards one trend.
Ymarsakar Says:
As for mentally unstable, if you are a Leftist you are already 1. evil and 2. slightly unstable at least.
If one is a Leftist and/or a supporter of socialized medicine (like Trump), one must be misinformed at the very least. It doesn’t mean you are crazy. It just means you have not spent enough time looking at the reality of Leftism versus the promise of Leftism.
But most Leftists I am familiar with do not think that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy because they read it in the Enquirer.
Most Leftists would not spend time in a 90 minute presidential debate complaining about Rosie O’Donnell.
But Trump not only Leftist; Trump is borderline crazy too.
It reminds me of discussions that people had during the Cold War about the Soviet Union’s leadership. They were bad people with nuclear weapons. But they weren’t completely crazy and that’s why there was no nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union.
That’s the difference between Trump and Clinton. Clinton is a Leftist. Trump is nuts and a Leftist. Both will be bad for America. But Trump might get us all killed.
Spiral says:
Trump is nuts and…might get us all killed.
I’ve written basically the same a number of times. Yet deep down I don’t really believe it, or don’t want to believe it. I think a better way to describe him is a man who is emotionally unstable, not clinically psychotic, a man who is not in control of his emotions, easily baited, stunted at the adolescent level, and insecure.
However, that could still get us all killed. He’s a big risk.
Spiral:
Light up that long long straw man; a house of cards doesn’t take much of a push (just state the obvious) to knock down.
Tatterdemalian Says:
Turns out Trump was right about his microphone. The Presidential Debate Commission admitted it was altered to amplify sounds of wavelengths outside of Trump’s vocal range, among other things making his breathing sound like noisy sniffling.
Ahhhhh.
So that’s why he didn’t mention the illegal email server, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, selling State Department access, or who actually caused the crash of 2008.
It was his microphone.
“’ll put it on my bumper sticker next to this one …”
If you just like it fine. If you think you will be the first on the block, well, Google it first.
Tesh Says:
I’ve long thought open primaries are political suicide. It seems obvious to me. I suppose that they are hoping for crossover last-minute converts, but that’s both amazingly naive and staggeringly stupid.
They (the GOPe) are not hoping for that. They keep the primaries open because otherwise they would get more conservative candidates, because the base is more conservative than the establishment is.
That’s the same reason I predict nothing will change in the GOP’s nomination procedure, despite the obvious calamity of the current cycle. The establishment likes things just as they are.
Open primaries are a state decision. In blue states they favor the Democrats. Washington state has an open primary with the top two vote getters going on to the general election.. Some of our state offices are being contested by two Democrats because no Republican got enough votes to be in the top two.
The Democrats in Washington state also use the ploy of voting for weak Republican candidates to face one of their strong candidates in the general.
A truly bad system, if you want to maintain the two (or more) party system.
I would like to see all primaries be by party registration only, and have the campaign from January through April when all states would hold their primaries on the same day. That would put all states on a somewhat even footing in the primary process and eliminate the ability of candidates to front load their campaigns to the early states. I know, it could never work because it eliminates the opportunities for graft and chicanery.
Matt_SE:
Ah, the old “evil puppeteers of the GOP” argument. The poor conservatives, at their mercy!
Actually, if you study election law, setting primary rules is complicated and not necessarily under party control. See this, which indicates that the states set the open/closed rules. I haven’t spent a ton of time researching this, but my guess is that neither have you. I believe that sometimes parties are allowed to modify the rules, but I don’t know how many states allow this.
At any rate, I doubt it’s the evil RINO puppetmasters who are responsible. A much much better (and much more reliable and effective) way to do that would be to do what the Democrats do (and which worked to eliminate the more extreme left Sanders this year), and have a superdelegate system that kept the party in control.
Actually, if you study election law, setting primary rules is complicated and not necessarily under party control. See this, which indicates that the states set the open/closed rules.
In my state of Indiana, when someone registers to vote, they do not ask, “For which party?”
Therefore, all primaries held in the state of Indiana are open primaries.
In the state of California, when someone registers to vote, one must check a box indicating which party one will be registered under or one can check the box that says “Decline to State.”
Therefore, California can choose to close its presidential primary to those registered Republican.
People who say that the RNC should make all primaries closed are asking for the impossible.
The Other Chuck: “I’ve written basically the same a number of times. Yet deep down I don’t really believe it, or don’t want to believe it. I think a better way to describe him is a man who is emotionally unstable, not clinically psychotic, a man who is not in control of his emotions, easily baited, stunted at the adolescent level, and insecure.”
Trump is an aggressive New York businessman. I’m not a new Yorker but have known quite a few. They tend to be aggressive and outspoken. New York is a competitive place, You either compete or get run over. He has been successful by speaking his mind and being tough on his competitors. He has never been exposed to political ideology except in a superficial way. (“I get my ideas from the shows.”) Unlike Reagan he has not been in the world of ideas and ideology. He is a pragmatist. He says things that are conflicting because he can see where he might do one thing under certain circumstances and something else under other circumstances. He will always sound bad to those who are steeped in ideology and want their candidates to be able to speak articulately about that ideology The difference between Trump and Rudy Giuliani is that Rudy had a mentor who taught him discipline of speech and action. Giuliani has been a friend of Trump’s for over 30 years and vouches for him. In fact, if Rudy had worked as hard during his own campaign in 2000, as he has for Trump, he might have been the nominee. Trump ha surrounded himself with some impressive people – Giuliani, Ben Carson, Christy, Stephen Moore, David Malpass, General Flynn, and others that, if he listens to them, could help him accomplish some conservative things.
College educated Republicans who are steeped in conservative ideology will never find Trump satisfactory. And for that reason, (the Republicans not uniting behind their candidate) Hillary will be our next President. Geoffrey Britain’s argument about an open border and a liberal SCOTUS being the end of the Republican party as a viable political entity is probably correct. The immigrants, both legal and illegal from south of the border are most likely to be socialist/communist minded. A liberal SCOTUS can blunt the Second Amendment, make AGW the center of a ruinous energy policy, and many, many more despicable rulings. With a solid majority of Democrat voters the progressives will have their way for a long time.
Trump was the “omnibus” candidate known coast to coast. In terms of familiarity he’s in the same league as Ike and Reagan and has the same ability to transcend regional divides.
It’s still not tin foil hat crazy to suggest that Trump may well be a cruise missile goaded into launching by the battleship Clinton. It’s the only way such a wretched and deplorable candidate such as Hillary could be elected.
J.J.:
What you write sounds superficially plausible, but I don’t buy it. I’ve seen many people write essentially the same thing, and each time it sounds wrong to me.
The reason is that many of Trump’s supporters are college-educated or more. I know some of these people. And many of his detractors are high school or less, and working class. Yes, the trends are in the directions of less income and less education for Trump supporters. But it’s not that cut and dried or that black and white at all. Look up the demographics of his support.
Saying the reason people don’t “get” Trump is that, essentially, they are intellectual snobs and don’t like straight shooters or straight talkers or essentially pragmatic people is a tremendous oversimplication and just plain wrong, although there is of course a strain in which intellectual snobbery is predominant. But there are way way too many other reasons for being against Trump.
I’m not an intellectual snob, and as evidence of this I could point to many of my posts championing Sarah Palin in the past (not recently; I think she’s changed in the last few years and gone off the deep end). Nor do I buy intellectual claptrap for the sake of intellectual claptrap.
Trump is a con man, and that transcends questions of vocabulary or style or intellect. He’s a lliar (ditto). He is ignorant about a ton of things and does not care to right that. He is abusive (and no, not all New York businessmen have been insulting people on Twitter since as long as Twitter has existed). He is a narcissist, a philanderer, a publicity hound, and profoundly (not just verbally) contradictory in his positions and whatever principles he might have.
I’m from New York City. I’m quite familiar with New York style. Trump is a New Yorker. But he’s also sui generis, in both bad and good ways.
Saying that those who oppose him are basically clueless intellectual snobs and that’s why they oppose him reminds me of those who call Obama’s opponents racists. Some are, just as some of Trump’s opponents are intellectual snobs. But not all of them, and IMHO not most of them. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose each person. Plenty.
Also, he has some good advisors and plenty of bad ones. He doesn’t seem to be listening to the good ones right now, and I see no reason to trust him to do so in the future.
What’s more, here’s the “stab in the back” meme that I am certain will be fully developed in the wake of the probable Trump loss: “And for that reason, (the Republicans not uniting behind their candidate) Hillary will be our next President.”
No. Those who voted for Trump in the primaries did so with full knowledge that the majority of Republicans couldn’t stand him. They knew he already had sky-high, historic-level unfavorables. They voted for him anyway, and their argument was that Trump would win because of his appeal to crossover voters in usually-blue or purple states.
That was their calculation. So far he’s had some of that crossover appeal but still not enough. The vast majority of Republicans and even conservatives have swallowed their pride and their principles and said they’ll vote for him. But Trump supporters will blame the few holdouts? That’s absurd and yet inevitable. If Trump loses, the people who voted for him in the primaries should blame themselves, but I won’t be sitting on a hot stove till they do.
Well, we are finally getting somewhere,
Bill responds:
Like I said, now we are getting somewhere. There are some lawful hypothetical things which you are unwilling to do in order to get back the freedom you once had, and restore the rule of law.
Couple of responses.
1. You needn’t worry about my validating your conservative bona fides. “Conservative” can mean any number of things, including a fondness for the status quo, and I am not a conservative in the Heritage Foundation sense anyway. I may be personally conservative, but I don’t really give a damn what eff-ups do to themselves if they can be kept at arms length.
2. I did not specify that some would die; just that some would experience hardship. However we do know that some Americans die because of the system we have in place allows the illegals to remain.
We know that Americans die because of illegals.
This isn’t a club, Bill. There is nothing to join and no acceptance or validation to seek. You can comment here as long as the host allows it. I have nothing to do with it.
Because illegal immigration is the nexus of several strands of our social unraveling and political descent.
The lapsing rule of law and its non-enforcement, the administrative subversion of the law, its unequal application and exemption, the political subversion involved, the security and integrity of our political system issues, are all (drumroll) elements constituting the grounds for estimating whether the present social game is still worth the candle: given the bad company and gleefully subversive morals of some of the players, and the relative indifference of others to that nonchalant badness.
What, after all is the point of having laws, if they are not obeyed, or tolerating blatant cheats and liars in your circle of associates? What is the point of maintaining such a charade with such associates?
I have never been a nationalist either; though I feel absolutely no obligation to make myself available to any foreigner looking for a nesting spot in my home.
What you are I suspect, is not a Christian, but an altruist. Because a Christian do-gooder can do good all day long without demanding that the laws that justify the existence of the polity in the first place, go unenforced.
I am not free to buy or not buy medical insurance withoutn government penalty. And I once was only a couple years ago. In fact the price of that insurance has gone up many-fold as a result of the Federal mandate which took away that freedom.
I am not free as my ancestors were, to provide for their futures without government interference, and inclusion in a program of “social insurance” (i.e., redistributive intervention), not free even to grow ordinary food crops for personal use if the government wishes to restrict production.
In fact the lingering freedoms you advert to (education choice for example), are freedoms that have only been kept at the price of extreme and sustained political efforts made to maintain them; since if the left had its way, you would not be able to go to the school of your choice, and you would not, (and will not if the FCC has its way) be able to freely speak your mind on the Internet.
You cannot even keep your own money during the course of a year and pay the taxes at the end, Bill.
You are not really free, Bill; you are just permitted. Not saying that you are not comfortable. I am saying that you don’t have the same economic and life liberties Americans had just a generation and two ago.
One thing we don’t have is the draft. And that is due to Republicans; no thanks to Democrats who want to use it to enforce solidarity. An attempt to bring it back would I think be a very good justification for open social war.
What you like is your comforts and privileges, and it seems to me, acceptance. And that is natural. It is just that you have no real interest in insisting on rights as traditionally grounded, I think.
Otiose Says:
“He represents a great many people who are fed up with the PC mindset, in particular as it applies to illegal immigration, which along with trade, is what got him the nomination, won fair and square.”
Pardon me while I throw up.
I would not be nearly as disgusted as I am by the blowhard if he had won it “fair and square.” As I’ve expressed here before, he finally took down Cruz, a good and honorable man, with a 24/7, six month long, dirty, foul campaign of childish insults, dishonest smears, distortions and character assassination not only against him but also his family, rivaled only by what the Marxists have done to Palin and her family. In all that time Cruz refrained from attacking Trump until he announced his withdrawal.
He said vile, defamatory things about Carson when he had the temerity to gain in the polls, and to a lesser degree, Rubio and Fiorina as well.
It’s one thing to get that kind of treatment from the Marxist party; it’s what they do, but not from someone supposedly on your own team.
Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but I still believe honor, integrity, honesty, ethics and principles still mean something. Trump has none of those attributes.
Despite the thread wherein your readers volunteered information regarding people they knew who voted for Trump as a first choice ( I knew of none) I still cannot figure out their reasoning, or grasp their moral or even political profile.
A TV “reality show” bigmouth, casino owner, and tabloid celebrity. And these people actually and consciously voted for him knowing the political stakes.
And now, trying to focus strictly on certainties versus probabilities, I find myself, along with Cruz and many others defending the barely defensible in the face of the intolerable.
Maybe this country should break up. We don’t want the same things out of life, and are not in any way one people ideologically or morally.
Better to part than to coerce.
Do you think that that really worked to convince anyone who was even minimally informed, to change their opinion of Cruz? It’s hard for me to feature.
Who among the worthies (a profile) voting in the Republican primaries would have changed their minds as a result of that nonsense? It’s a sincere question.
My own theory is that the only type who would are the same “I lean Republican” morons who voted for Obama because they thought Romney was too hoity-toity, or privileged, or clever or handsome/manly for his own good, as compared with them and their lives.
As I may have said before, a man I never would have believed it of admitted to me that he had voted for Obama, because of Romney’s “47%” comment.
With an electorate with mind-sets like that …
“Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but I still believe honor, integrity, honesty, ethics and principles still mean something. ”
They do both “spiritually” and practically, if you can manage to live among people who generally accept the same belief.
If they don’t, then you’re merely maintaining your self-respect and building credits toward the next life, if there is one.
May the farce be with you, in this life and the next.
People who say that the RNC should make all primaries closed are asking for the impossible.
It’s not particularly going to matter either way, since the Leftist alliance can cook up the books better, if they can merely forge or bypass the voter registrations.
What the RNC should have done is make every vote actually count, meaning suppress Leftist and Democrat funded voter fraud, which included fraud and manipulation of primaries. If general elections can be stolen, it’s not so hard for them to do it in a few primary areas.
DNW:
I know a few of these people. They are intelligent, well-educated, rather wealthy, moral, religious even. I would say that in my opinion the two most salient characteristics in their case that drove them towards support for Trump early on were (a) they tend to be very involved politically; and (b) they are very angry at the GOPe.
I have no idea whether they are typical. My guess is that they are not.
In one turn of phrase, the Christian Gospel may be said to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.
Bill is certainly feeling comfortable, as mentioned by another, but I think many people in the US are not so comfortable and are hankering for some comfort, or to afflict others with their own curse, either way.
DNW,
One thing I hate abut the blogosphere is I’m pretty sure in real life we could go get a beverage and have a good talk and agree on a whole lot of things.
I answered your question because I respect your opinion but also knowing that I was going to be patronized and I was. We’ve all had this happen – instead of responding, start reading minds. “Bill’s just comfortable and wants to subvert immigration law”
I meant every word about immigration. But I’m not willing to “subvert” laws. I wish every immigration law we have was enforced 100% when it comes to preventing people from entering illegally. But you weren’t asking me about that. You asked me what to do with 11MM people already here, who’ve been here for years, have children who are American citizens, etc.
It’s a problem. But it’s also propaganda. Every political movement has a devil. In 1930s Germany it was the Jews. In 2016 GOP land it’s immigrants and refugees (with a good dose of anti-semitism just for old times sake)
I can’t politely express what I think of that, or of all the white Republicans here shrugging their shoulders at another black person gunned down in the street because they “made somebody nervous”.
Have fun with your party. For those evangelicals out there supporting the con man, shame on you. Idolatry is alive and well.
Hopefully he’ll lose and lose big. .
DNW to Bill: “If it were told to you by a Divine source that you could have your freedom and honest constitutional government back almost immediately, but only at the cost of deporting virtually all illegal aliens, peaceably, but to their great emotional pain and economic discomfort — and that the choice was yours to freely make without prejudice either way — would you do it?
I’m not convinced that a President Trump would attempt to depart the 11 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. And even if Trump did attempt to deport them all, it is extremely unlikely that Trump would be successful.
Also, even if a President Trump were to deport 11 million illegal aliens, this would not solve the major problems facing the Untied States.
Trump has said that he opposes attempting to solve the major problem facing the United States, which is entitlement spending, spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Trump recently mentioned that he wants to expand Medicaid. Also, it’s important to remember that in the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015, Trump said that socialized medicine works “incredibly well.”
So, if Trump is elected, it isn’t going to be much different than if Hillary Clinton is elected. Trump said during the primaries that we have to cut deals with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. This means, very likely, more Left wingers on the US Supreme Court. Trump criticized Antonin Scalia’s views on affirmative action in December 2015.
The smart move for conservatives is to hope that Trump is defeated and hope that Republican primary voters don’t repeat the mistake of nominating a supporter of socialized medicine in 2010.
. . . . the mistake of nominating a supporter of socialized medicine in 2020.
Bill,
Before I left the office this weekend (can’t get off the phone) I wanted to check one last time for a response; and now I see that you have placed one up.
And that you are unsettled by what your first reading probably led you to believe I wrote.
I don’t want this, and very much appreciate your staking out your position so plainly. So I’ll try and respond in a way that will not leave you feeling as if you were patronized – because you weren’t.
Bill, you are neither quoting me at all, nor paraphrasing me accurately.
My remark(s) about your comfort level was made well after the immigration quote appeared; and instead followed much later and directly upon my quoting your text as to your feeling good [pretty darn free] about the rights you still retain.
I did not use that term in connection with illegal immigration, and such a use would in fact make no sense at all. This is as opposed to the real context wherein we were assessing the possession of rights versus one’s feelings about having them. A text search proves the point.
I really wish you had not fabricated that phrase and offered it up as a quote.
I was proposing a hypothetical; one wherein I stipulated that the personal circumstances were known, the actions legal, the moral equation in equilibrium, the realization strenuous but not fatal, and the result a successful return of the rule of law and constitutional government.
It was a price you said, you were unwilling to pay. And I thanked you for your honesty.
Foreigners (Jews in your example) were not massing at the border of Weimar Germany, and then gaining illegal entry through the programmatic complicity of the Republic’s elected officials, who had determined that the law and the integrity of the borders meant less to them than pursuing subversive political ends.
But that is what is at issue in this country; not declaring some 1% scapegoat population an enemy of the national socialist order. We have a kind of national socialism with Obamacare, which was brought about 100% by Democrats if you want to make historical comparisons with some soundness.
And if you are looking for large numbers of people hostile to Jews and Zionism, look to the collectivists and the left both nationalist and internationalist, not to the right.
Thus the devil here is the collapse of the law; and the hell is life in an increasingly lawless polity which no longer counts for what once did in the way of securing law or liberty. This as we see, being the deliberate aim of a political party which seeks to undermine and alter the very predicate assumptions of the polity’s foundation.
Now, you acknowledged that the rule of law had been subverted in this country.
And you were asked a very simple question which intentionally involved significant alternatives: i.e., weighing your possible emotional commitments against the preservation of a meaningful constitutional polity.
You made your choice on what you state as a Christian allegiance greater than your allegiance to the rule of law.
I suggested that it was not so much Christianity which motivated you, as altruism; as you could be as Christian as you wanted, and still not be complicit in pulling the republic down. Heck, you could give every cent you have to Mexico, or do social work there, or start a business there and employ millions of Mexican citizens, and no one in the U.S. would try stop you. Because your actions would not be undermining our law, and making our sociopolitical agreements here worse than useless.
I think if you reflect on that statement, you will find that no one here suggested that a black person being gunned down because because he “made somebody nervous” was a matter of indifference.
Even I, pitiless anarcho-libertarian that I largely am, stated outright and repeatedly that the latest killing was a bad thing; but that given the particular characteristics of the parties involved, a not unexpected thing.
You may have some demographic information on Trump supporters that I do not. I have only visited an Evangelical church once or twice, and that was 30 years ago because of a woman I was seeing. My information on Catholics suggests that about 60 percent of them are so far left that they will revolt against their own Church if buggery is not treated as sacramental.
By the way, I have gathered from what you appear to have been insinuating for a week or more now, you are “black”.
If I had been patronizing you Bill, I would not have responded as I did.
Think about that for a bit …
Neo: “Saying that those who oppose him are basically clueless intellectual snobs and that’s why they oppose him reminds me of those who call Obama’s opponents racists.”
I didn’t say they are clueless intellectual slobs. I said they want a candidate who can talk with coherence about conservative issues. I happen to be one of those people. I get angry at Trump for not being better. I want a better candidate. I never supported Trump during the primaries. However, once he became the candidate, I began to look at the people who enthusiastically support him to see why they supported him. I don’t agree with them, but I do understand them. I also began too look for positive reasons to support him. I admit that, at this point, (A choice between HRC and the Donald) his negatives are galling, but my distaste for what Hillary is and represents for the future far, far outweighs my dislike of Trump.
It’s maddening that we are confronted by two such flawed candidates. That Hillary can orate in slick clichés and seem quite civil is quite deceptive. Her history of dishonesty, mendaciousness, vindictiveness, entitlement mentality, incompetence, and more are all out there to see for anyone who does some research. Trump needs to get Secret Service agents Gary Byrne and Ronald Kessler to tell some stories about the way Hillary abused Secret Service personnel and White House staff.
“Good morning, ma’am,’ a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.
‘F– off,’ she replied.” What a shrew she is.
I’m convinced that, unless the polls are wrong, the election is essentially over. Hillary is going to be the next President. I’m not going to blame anyone for the loss. I’ll be too busy working to secure my future in the uncertain world that lies ahead. More ammo, more silver coins, more non-perishable food, more time spent looking for ways to protect me and mine from what’s to come.
The reports of the death of the Republican Party are greatly exaggerated. (To borrow a line from Mark Twain.)
In 2010, the Republicans gained control of the House, and more state legislative seats than they had held since 1928. In 2014, Republicans recaptured control of the Senate.
(It is nearly certain that, despite Trump’s middle school misbehavior, that Republicans will hold the House. Right now, the odds are against them holding the Senate — about 60-40, last I checked — but they are almost certain to make gains in 2018.)
Those victories had important policy consequences all over the nation. For example, after the 2010 election Republicans vetoed any new significant expansions of the federal government. For example, here in Washington state, Republicans control the state senate. With the help of two dissident Democrats, they have essentially written the state budgets in recent years.
The losses in the states will have serious, long-term effects on the Democrats. To use a baseball analogy, it’s as if they lost half the players on their farm teams.
Neither the checks on Obama and company, nor the gains in many states, will make people like talk show host Rush Magoo happy. They aren’t dramatic enough; few will get excited over a claim that Republicans in DC reduced the damage from Obama, or that Republicans in many states have done worthwhile things.
But both the checks, and the gains in the states, are important, and should be recognized as such by serious people.
(I’ve been calling him Rush Magoo, ever since he failed to recognize a RINO — Donald Trump — when one actually came along.)
DNW Says:
“Do you think that that really worked to convince anyone who was even minimally informed, to change their opinion of Cruz? It’s hard for me to feature.”
As a matter of fact, I do – in fact, a whole lot of them.
You obviously didn’t spend many months on the comments section of Trumpbart (nee: Breitbart), during the period last year when it was being subjected to a successful hostile takeover by the alt-right.
Many of the posts back then were about the primary, and in the beginning, there were only a small number of commenters that obviously hated Cruz, all with comments totaling 50,000 – 125,000, numbers unheard of there, and all with private disqus profiles to hide their past comments, pushing all the anti-Cruz smears, falsehoods and distortions – the birther BS, the NWO/TPP/2010 campaign loan crap, lies about his father and wife. They even contended Cruz was pro-amnesty, just another GOPe RINO.
Slowly the antipathy towards him built, and soon his defenders were far outnumbered by his detractors. I couldn’t begin to tell you how many of the comments started out with “I was a big Cruz fan, until I learned about…”, citing the same birther BS, the NWO/TPP/2010 campaign loan crap, lies about his father and wife, followed by cites/links to Alex Jones (conspiracy nut), conservativetreehouse (another alt-right site), “quotes” taken out of context, distortions of the truth and more. There were a ton of similar comments.
Geoffrey Britain did a great job of totally demolishing 5 of these spurious lies about Cruz a long time ago. Citing his analysis to these switchers did no good whatsoever. Trump and the alt-right had destroyed Cruz’ credibility with a large swath of his former supporters.
Before the blowhard even entered the primary, Cruz was a Tea Party favorite. Six months later, even many Texas Tea Partiers had turned against, based on the Big Lies told over and over by Trump and his cult members.
DNW Says:
“Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but I still believe honor, integrity, honesty, ethics and principles still mean something. ”
They do both “spiritually” and practically, if you can manage to live among people who generally accept the same belief.
If they don’t, then you’re merely maintaining your self-respect and building credits toward the next life, if there is one.
It’s one thing to fight against an unprincipled, amoral, dishonest known enemy like the Marxist Party, but we allowed someone just like them to barge into our tent and take over. I may just be naive, but I kinda thought I was “among people who generally accept the same belief” (more or less).
If I’m wrong, I’ve been wasting this life holding myself to those standards, because I don’t believe there is a next life.
More ammo, more silver coins, more non-perishable food, more time spent looking for ways to protect me and mine from what’s to come.
Which is something I have talked about and recommended others do, for some time now, while people went on about elections every single seasonal cycle, right on the clock.
Before the blowhard even entered the primary, Cruz was a Tea Party favorite. Six months later, even many Texas Tea Partiers had turned against, based on the Big Lies told over and over by Trump and his cult members.
People are weak. They deserve the evil they vote for. Many americans could have had “racial healing” and lack of corruption in DC with the help of Romney or Sarah Palin. Not like they looked like they knew that as they were voting.
Of course none of that matters all that much to me, since the Leftist alliance’s millions of fake votes were still unaccounted for. Even if everyone’s votes did count, it still wouldn’t have countered that.
Do you believe majorities should rule, in a democracy?
Big question, I know, but I asked it to remind all of you of some simple arithmetic.
If we divide the electorate into the three usual groups: liberals, moderates, and conservatives, we see that none of the three has a majority by itself. So, a governing coalition has to include majorities from at least two of the groups.
Except for a few process issues, there are only two plausible coalitions, center-right and center-left. With the emphasis on center in both cases.
(People who like more abstract arguments may want to look at the Wikipedia article on the “Median Voter Theorem”.)
Activists hate that arithmetic — but if you believe in majority rule, you should accept it — and if you are in the minority, work to change the views of your fellow citizen.
(I have been fascinated for years by the similarities between activists on the left and right, in many countries. Corbynistas in Britain, for instance, have attitudes and beliefs that are mirror images, in many ways, of the attitudes and beliefs of many Republican activists.)
DNW, in reading your last comment I can see you are sincerely arguing your point, and, as I said before, I can respect that. I apologize for reacting defensively.
Also, for what it’s worth, I’m white. But I have some black friends and I’ve been listening to more people who have lived the AA experience in our country and it has colored my reactions to our racial issues.
“Trump is at heart a New York Leftist.” Spiral
Evidently you disagree that there is any difference between a ‘scoop’ Jackson, D.P. Moynihan and Jack Kennedy liberal and a leftist. None of them would differ with Trump on the social issues but all would defend the country. Whereas, leftists want to destroy America and erect AmeriKa in its place. That you fail to discern the difference is mind boggling.
“I am free to vote, to worship where and how I please, to raise my family, to have the career I choose, to go to school, to speak my mind on blogs and in public, to do all sorts of things without government intervention. Bill
The left will continue to allow your freedom to vote, it simply won’t count among the sea of socialists being imported. So too with your worship as long as its not discriminatory of course and they will decide what is discriminatory. As for raising your family, when your grandchildren misbehave, don’t swat them on the tush in public, or you’ll be having a short meeting with Children’s social services.
And you’re aware of the UN gaining control of the internet? Prepare to say good bye to expressing your soon to be declared hate speech opinions. Here and in public. As treaties supersede constitutional provisions… or are you counting on Ryan and McConnell to stand for hate speech?
“I still believe honor, integrity, honesty, ethics and principles still mean something. Trump has none of those attributes.” geokstr
Agreed. Enjoy them while ye may. Here’s what you’re evidently ignoring; Trump is indifferent to them as long as they don’t interfere with him. Whereas, Hillary sees them as antiquated impediments to her brave new world. I’m afraid depending on timing that either you or your progeny (assuming you’ve been able to infect them with such retrograde sentiments) are going to have to spend some time in a re-education camp.
“How many fingers do you see, Picard?”
GB:
“…..Trump is indifferent to them as long as they don’t interfere with him. Whereas, Hillary sees them as antiquated impediments to her brave new world.”
Interesting thought process. Which is better the gulag or the concentration/death camp?
Anecdotal evidence from survivors quoted by Neo pointed to a better outcome for visitors to the gulag. But let’s not get bogged down in history when there is a future hyperbole to posit as a consequence of non-Trump.
Which re-education camp will be better, alt-right or far left? Inconceivable choices?
OM,
We’re agreed that Trump is not an ideologue? That the alt-r has no coherent ideology either? The worst being mainly identified with anarchy and racist tribalism?
Non-ideological fascists like Pinochet and Franco didn’t have gulag or concentration/death camps. That’s the purview of the left. History… so inconvenient.
The anecdotal evidence from survivors quoted by neo pointed to a better outcome for visitors to the gulag… when compared to the Nazis.
Sorry, Neo, I agree with Yancey…the SCOTUS is the key to Hillary’s Pandora Box.
As long as a fascist is non-ideological we’re golden. 🙂
As long as Trump is not inconvenienced by your freedom, you are golden too.
Don’t be concerned about the alt-right they are just “jv” anarchists/racists/fascists?
People just disappeared under Pinochet, kind of like “Nacht und Nebel” or so I understand. Oh history.
If I’m wrong, I’ve been wasting this life holding myself to those standards, because I don’t believe there is a next life.
About that topic, I was thinking about what would happen to humans used to self delusion, who become pure energy like a spirit. They would in essence have made their own heaven or hell as a result of their evil or good on Earth. If light can’t break the laws of physics, then a spirit entity can’t break the divine laws of justice and the payments of evil either.
Evidently you disagree that there is any difference between a ‘scoop’ Jackson, D.P. Moynihan and Jack Kennedy liberal and a leftist. None of them would differ with Trump on the social issues but all would defend the country. Whereas, leftists want to destroy America and erect AmeriKa in its place. That you fail to discern the difference is mind boggling.
The last time I saw political power mingled with white racial nationalism, was back in the Democrat 1830s. A civil war soon started where the Democrats weren’t “defending their country” so much as creating justifications for their Scott/Irish auxiliaries to fight somebody else based on the justification that they were getting invaded. The true reason for the secession of the various Southern Confederate states is listed in their Documents of Secession, anyone can read them.
Geoffrey Britain,
Evidently you disagree that there is any difference between a ‘scoop’ Jackson, D.P. Moynihan and Jack Kennedy liberal and a leftist. None of them would differ with Trump on the social issues but all would defend the country. Whereas, leftists want to destroy America and erect AmeriKa in its place. That you fail to discern the difference is mind boggling.
I believe that you and I disagree as to what motivates Trump. Scoop Jackson was a military hawk and an internationalist. Trump is presenting himself as an ultra-isolationist.
Trump has not defended the country in many instances. When asked about Putin’s killing of journalists, Trump says that the US does the same thing. When asked about Erdogan’s restriction of civil liberties in Turkey, Trump says that the US is in no position to judge other countries.
I believe that Trump would drive the United States off of a cliff even though his name is not Hillary Clinton.
The argument that many pro-Trump people are making is that a President Hillary Clinton would be bad for the country.
True. Very true.
But then when I look at Trump I think that a President Trump would be very bad for the country.
If we are destined to elect a president who will be bad for the country, I would rather the Democrats be responsible for this result so that we, the Republicans and conservatives, can be in a position to recover.
Trumpism is just warmed over Herbert Hooverism.
Y:
The last time I saw political power mingled with white racial nationalism, was back in the Democrat 1830s.
In this country you could also look at the Wilson years as a mild carry over, as well as the Jim Crow South including the Dixiecrats like George Wallace and that old Klan leader Robert Byrd. Europe and Germany are another matter…
There is one bit of general misfortune that might derail even a Clinton power grab. A recession is likely, likely a severe one. Illegal immigration slows in a recession, because the unfortunates are coming for jobs, not political power. If we hold the Congress, and put our collective boots in their backsides, they will not vote the money for largess to subsidize the squatters. These eight years of slow or sometimes negative growth have seen a great many illegals returning south. Also, Trump, if he wins, will still face the same bad fundamentals in the economy. Soetero has played so many games with the stats, we hardly even know where or how we are, but the situation is not good. I am not so sure that his promised actions will boost the economy, either. This is why he may well have trouble holding both hice of the Congress in two years.
Yes, Hellary must be opposed in every way possible, to keep a neutral Court. The Dems have been packing lower courts for decades, and blocking any feeble efforts by Republicans to move the needle back the other way. What every commenter above has said, is perfectly true that the Dems have figured out that the way around a hostile majority of citizens is to control the Court and the White House. It is as wicked as it is clever. We desperately need to see this for what it is, and shout it out everywhere.
OM,
In pointing out the difference between the Castro’s and the Pinochet’s, I have made it clear that they are both tyrants. When one or the other is certain, calculating the odds of society surviving one over the other is all that is left. In purposely misinterpreting my obvious meaning and motivation, you distance yourself from that reality, at the cost of sacrificing your intellectual honesty.
Spiral,
“I believe that you and I disagree as to what motivates Trump.”
Quite possibly. I have only speculations and guesses about him.
“I believe that Trump would drive the United States off of a cliff even though his name is not Hillary Clinton.”
Entirely possible. But possible and certain are entirely different things. And all any of us have is speculations, regardless of which side we come down on.
“If we are destined to elect a president who will be bad for the country, I would rather the Democrats be responsible for this result so that we, the Republicans and conservatives, can be in a position to recover.”
I used to think that too. neo persuaded me otherwise. You might reflect upon the implications of Obama having maintained a 50%+ approval rating in his final year in office… especially as it applies to your assumption that a strong majority of the public would assign responsibility to Hillary’s administration, when things get bad, as they must.
Michael Adams,
“Hellary must be opposed in every way possible, to keep a neutral Court.”
We can certainly count on Ryan and McConnell to insist upon it! Oh, wait…
Geoffrey:
You cited Franco and Pinochet this time, you have talked about Castro and Pinochet other times.
“Non-ideological fascists like Pinochet and Franco didn’t have gulag or concentration/death camps.”
The slams about intellectual honesty, reality, etc. get tiresome.
We disagree about how to view history and risks for the future. 🙂
Spiral,
Both chemotherapy and cancer are bad for the patient.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
I used to think that too. neo persuaded me otherwise. You might reflect upon the implications of Obama having maintained a 50%+ approval rating in his final year in office… especially as it applies to your assumption that a strong majority of the public would assign responsibility to Hillary’s administration, when things get bad, as they must.
When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, he was reasonably popular. But when inflation went up, instead of down, when lines started forming at the gasoline station, when other problems became noticeable, Carter’s popularity declined.
Not only that, in 1980 the Republican primary voters had the good sense to nominate an internationalist conservative Republican named Ronald Reagan.
The situation we face in 2016 if different. There are no long lines at gasoline stations. Inflation is not 13 percent. Interest rates are not 21 percent.
Also, the Republican party made the mistake of nominating a 21st century version of Herbert Hoover in the name of Donald Trump.
Not only that, but Trump has used his wealth to bankroll people like US Senator Harry Reid and US Senator Chuck Schumer, the people who have worked to prevent the federal courts from confirming conservative judges during the George W Bush presidency. Trump himself criticized Antonin Scalia as recently as December 2015.
Trump says he supports the Left wing interpretation of the Takings clause in the 5th Amendment (Eminent Domain). Trump also agrees with the Democrats on the 1st Amendment, that we need to revise it so that it is easier to hush up media outlets that criticized people like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
On that basis, we are actually better off if Clinton is elected. Then, conservatives can attempt to retrieve the Republican party from the clutches of the Trumpian Leftists. Then in 2018 and 2020 the conservatives/Republicans can offer themselves as an alternative to the failed policies of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, assuming that the failures of such policies become more noticeable to non-ideological people.
Not only that, but Trump has used his wealth to bankroll people like US Senator Harry Reid and US Senator Chuck Schumer, the people who have worked to prevent the federal courts from confirming conservative judges during the George W Bush presidency. Trump himself criticized Antonin Scalia as recently as December 2015.
Let me revise this a bit and elaborate, since the ideological balance on the US Supreme Court is considered a key reason offered by some as to why conservatives should support Trump over Clinton.
When George W. Bush became president in January 2001, the US Senate was equally divided between the parties, consisting of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats.
In May 2001, Jim Jeffords, a Vermont Republican US Senator, announced that he would become an Independent and caucus with the Democrats. This essentially handed the US Senate majority to the Democrats.
The leaders of the Senate Democrats at the time were Tom Daschle (South Dakota) and Harry Reid (Nevada). Other Democrat members of the US Senate at that time were Hillary Clinton (New York) and John Kerry (Massachusetts).
From May 2001 through January 2003, the Senate Democrats prevented any of Bush’s conservative nominees for the US Federal Court of Appeals from receiving an up or down vote on the floor of the US Senate. The Democrat dominated judiciary committee would either refuse to hold hearings for some of these nominees or would defeat the in committee on a party line vote.
In the 2002 midterm elections, the Republicans gained control over the US Senate, with a 51 to 49 seat majority. It appeared as though Bush’s conservative judicial nominees would finally be confirmed.
However, this was not to be. The Senate Democrats began filibustering these nominees. Since the Republicans had only 51 Senators, not 60, the Republicans were unable to break these filibusters.
Then there began a discussion among Republican US Senators of using the “nuclear option” or “constitutional option” of ignoring the 60 vote requirement for ending debate on judicial nominees. Little happened until the 2004 elections, when the Republicans gained a net of 4 seat and obtained a 55 to 45 majority in the US Senate.
In 2005, the Republican Senate leadership threatened to use the “nuclear option” or “constitutional option” to get conservative nominees confirmed to the US federal court of appeals by essentially ignoring the 60 vote requirement for ending debate. Eventually, a compromise was reached: some conservative nominees were confirmed while others were not.
Two vacancies appeared on the US Supreme Court when Sandra Day O’Conner retired and William Rehnquist passed away. The threat of the “nuclear option” prevented the Democrats from effectively filibustering the nominations of Roberts and Alito to the US Supreme Court.
However, among those Democrats who did vote against ending debate on Roberts and Alito were Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
These four Democrat US Senators have something in common: all have received campaign financial support from Donald Trump. The most recent example of Donald Trump’s donation to Harry Reid’s 2010 US Senate campaign.
So, the argument that conservatives should support Donald Trump in order to prevent the US Supreme Court from tilting Left does not hold up, in my view, given the evidence I have described here.
I cannot believe the number of people who are arguing that it would be better to have Hillary elected, because the GOP wouldn’t “own” her and could oppose her administration. The GOP controlled both the houses and did NOTHING to oppose Obama. If Hillary is elected, our country as we know it/would like it will be destroyed beyond repair, and it will be the fault of the eGOP and never Trumpers. She will load the Supreme Court which will be the controlling factor ensuring the doom to our country no matter who might be in the White House or controlling Congress. Everyone is arguing Trump is crazy; no one as successful as he is can be crazy. Their real problem is that Trump is not controllable. The American voter knows our best and only chance is the Trump unknown over the criminal, evil Clinton.
I’m afraid that all of the sincere, reasonable opinions shared here won’t be nearly as important as Trump’s twitter account in the next month. Conservatives and Republicans really need to turn more of their attention to local issues that may resonate with voters and hope that a stronger, more effective base will serve as a check on our next president.
I cannot believe the number of people who are arguing that it would be better to have Hillary elected, because the GOP wouldn’t “own” her and could oppose her administration. The GOP controlled both the houses and did NOTHING to oppose Obama.
Obama nominated Garland to fill the Scalia vacancy on the US Supreme Court.
Senator McConnell and the Republicans in the US Senate have refused to hold hearings on the Garland nomination.
That alone demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.
Everyone is arguing Trump is crazy; no one as successful as he is can be crazy.
When you inherit a fortune from your father, you can be both crazy and wealthy at the same time.
One question is whether Trump is a crazy conservative or a crazy Leftist. Given Trump’s donations to Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, one must conclude that Trump is a crazy Leftist, not a crazy conservative.
Elaine,
Perhaps it will be the fault of Trump, who has been incapable of responding to criticisms from our side. Lots of people have been telling Trump to get up to snuff on issues, but he ignored all of them. Even Gingrich has told him to stop with the tweets. How hard is it to listen to your supporters?
By 2020 HRC will have already packed the SCOTUS. I can understand the angst of the #NeverTrumpers here and am painfully aware that the GOP has nominated the worst candidate possible. However, at this point I’ve basically become a single issue voter and my issue in this election is the Court.
Having said that, I recognize that there’s no guarantee that Trump will keep his word. However, does anyone here have any doubts about what HRC would do?
Spiral, I disagree only with your last point. Trump is a Trumpist. Political philosophy and ideology mean nothing to him. Money and headlines do.
Spiral – you’re quickly becoming my favorite commenter here.
expat: “Trump is a Trumpist. Political philosophy and ideology mean nothing to him. Money and headlines do.”
Well said
On another note – believe it or not, as a neverTrumper I still have a lot of anxiety about SCOTUS. But weighed in the balances I don’t think the risk of giving Trump world-shattering power is worth the small chance he won’t just “deal away” good SCOTUS picks to get other things that benefit him.
GB: You might reflect upon the implications of Obama having maintained a 50%+ approval rating in his final year in office…
You might also reflect on who he’s being compared to. We have the two worst major party candidates in our lifetimes and perhaps in history. Many people are going to be looking longingly at the Obama administration, believe it or not. He’s been keeping a low profile, letting HRC and DJT cr@p on the day’s headlines, and that is why I believe he’s risen in the polls.
Speaking of which, something many neverTrumpers predicted is now starting to happen – the full-bore attack on Trump’s awful character shady past, hypocrisy, etc, coming here in the fall right before the election. The latest being the fact that he may have been such a bad businessman that he lost nearly a billion dollars on casinos 20 years ago and hasn’t paid any income taxes since (that’s just the allegation – I don’t know the truth of it yet but to a lot of people that hardly matters).
Cue the Trumpian pundits, who have jettisoned every principle they ever claimed to hold dear, launching a brilliant line of defense upon the pretext that “taxes are for the little people”
Elaine Samson Says:
The GOP controlled both the houses and did NOTHING to oppose Obama.
And then Trump turned around and endorsed John McCain. You are implicitly arguing that Trump would make things better, when we have clear evidence that he won’t buck the system.
We conservatives warned the Trump supporters that he was the weakest candidate, but they didn’t want to listen.
We said that he was ignorant and had no self-control. We said that his support was a plurality and not a majority.
Trump could still win if he has a good debate, but it’s looking like it’s slipping away again.
The people who nominated Trump brought this on us.
A lot rests on the assumption that Mexicans are a monolithic group of Democrat zombies. I’m not really convinced of that.
“A lot rests on the assumption that Mexicans are a monolithic group of Democrat zombies. I’m not really convinced of that.”
Tom – well said. That’s been my contention for awhile – people freeing screwed up socialist economies or countries run by authoritarian strong-men should be being courted by the GOP. The conservative vision is a great vision – especially for people who have had way more government than they wanted screwing up their lives.
Today’s GOP is pursuing a really dumb and defeatist strategy in this arena. And all the white-nationalist, Pepe the frog memes in the world isn’t going to change that.
Bill: “Cue the Trumpian pundits, who have jettisoned every principle they ever claimed to hold dear, launching a brilliant line of defense upon the pretext that “taxes are for the little people.”
Tax returns are a tool for the progressives to virtue shame conservatives. Conservatives believe in low taxes and in paying as little in tax as the law allows. The progs will always virtue shame anyone who doesn’t pay their “fair share.” (whatever that means) and give at least 10% to charity. (Even though such progs as Bill Clinton and Al Gore were pikers in the charity department.) If the IRS hasn’t charged a candidate with tax evasion, then I don’t care about their tax returns. Compliance with the law is all I care about. Trump’s return is undoubtedly full of deductions for capital losses and depreciation that reduce his taxes. So what? The law (As complex and unfair as it is) is the law.
J.J.
Problem is that Trump hasn’t made the case as you did, why? Does he believe the case you made for anyone else but him? I don’t know either. All he could do was divert to a different issue of Hillary’s emails, so the field of ideas was left undefended again.
The tax issue is another attack on Trumps credibility and business savy.
OT: Here in the conservative half of WA I’ve seen only one (1) Trump yard sign in town, so he has Hillary beat 1-0. But he is tied with a Johnson. No enthusiasm for DJT or HR
J.J. I didn’t say it was illegal. I said it would hurt him. If for no other reason than to challenge the assertion that he’s this awesome businessman (the idea is that he’s lost so much money he hasn’t had to pay taxes).
If any of that’s true (and we don’t yet know that it is) Trump is going to have a hard time controlling his rage because one thing he absolutely can’t stand is when people attack his business. I hope Kelly-Anne has secured his phone or changed the pwd on his twitter acct.
In addition, the internet is forever. I saw a retreat of an older DJT tweet today where he was shaming someone else for not paying taxes.
I realize there’s nothing wrong with paying the minimal tax possible under the law. But there are good reasons, I believe, why Trump has resisted releasing his returns. I think the political (not necessarily legal) impact of them will hurt him. Unless he’s just holding them back the way Obama held back his birth certificate just to Troll his enemies. But I don’t think so.
Everything may be perfectly legal. But if he didn’t realize there might be (even unfair) political consequences to his past business and tax activities that wasn’t very smart.
That would be *retweet*, above
Per his discussion with Christopher Hitchens, Eugene McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/05/peanut_envy.html
He did this despite how odious Reagan was to liberals like himself. The logic was simple and compelling: Carter was a national disgrace. As a liberal at the time, my vote for independent John Anderson was a cop-out. To defeat Carter, it was necessary to vote for the only viable alternative.
By similar logic, we are ethically compelled to vote for Trump this time. No trace of the past eight years of demagogic outrage should be tolerated. To quote from the movie The Revenant, “I ain’t afraid of dying anymore – I done it already.” Whatever horrors Trump might inflict is preferable to what I have endured under Obama.
Whosoever has been complicit in the Obamite scourge must be opposed by the most effect means available.
The best option is to vote for neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton and vote a straight GOP ticket for all offices other than President.
That is what I plan to do this November.
Trump and Clinton are both New York Democrats and neither is acceptable.
I’m almost with that plan, Spiral, but I can’t bring myself to vote for McCain.
“By similar logic, we are ethically compelled to vote for Trump this time.”
Not even a little bit.
OM, glad to know you’re an “East Sider.” Sensible part of the great state of Washington.
I have not seen a sign or bumper sticker for either candidate over here in the People’s Republic of Puget Sound (PROPS). No one wants to admit their allegiance to either candidate.
Then there’s the governor’s race. Now that’s a lovely pair of candidates. Bill Bryant couldn’t carry Dino Rossi’s lunch bucket, but (sigh) he’s head and shoulders above Jay (Mr. carbon tax) Inslee. Can he win? Probably not.
Then there’s Chris Vance versus Tennis Shoe Patty. Patty is the ultimate progressive mediocrity, but the people of PROPS (sorry East Siders) will undoubtedly send her back to D.C.
Well, we can still hope our legislature will stay slightly conservative. I’ll do my part. I’m sure you’ll do yours.
In case anyone has forgotten, Hillary, as a PUBLIC SERVANT, got a guy arrested for SPEECH:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/hillary-clinton-destroyed-nakoula-basseley-nakoulas-life-but-at-least-she-didnt-fat-shame-him/
Ira – HRC is awful. I don’t think too many people here disagree.
The issue with comparing her to Trump is this: he’s never had the power HRC has had. He has, however, displayed over and over that he will go after his enemies with everything he’s got (usually his two favorite weapons – public insults and lawsuits).
I don’t want to see what it’s like when he has his own military, executive branch, IRS, state police, and nuclear arsenal.
Spiral posted:
“Also, the Republican party made the mistake of nominating a 21st century version of Herbert Hoover in the name of Donald Trump.”
Wrong.
You need to research the life of Herbert Hoover before you so casually slime him.
Teh Donald inherited millions of dollars. And it is obvious from his public utterances he is not particularly well-read.
Hoover inherited little. He overcame that economic hardship. Then he studied and worked very hard. Among his many accomplishments before being easily elected President in 1928 (“Who but Hoover?”) was organizing the feeding of millions of starving Europeans after World War I.
Somewhat different than building luxury hotels, golf courses and casinos.
In 1912 Hoover, and his wife, translated the influential 1500’s book on mining ‘De Re Mettalica’ from the Latin.
My guess is, and this is just speculation, that the books ‘authored’. by Donald Trump were the efforts of ‘ghost writers’.
Your lumping them together is simply not accurate and detracts from your analysis. It does not further your argument.
Smear Trump if you want to. An easy target.
Please do not casually sully the reputation of a fine human being just to score a cheap debating point.
“His own”. Really? Have we become we that degraded and contemptible as citizens and as men?
If that represents the true state of affairs we find ourselves in, in this country: a situation wherein the President is just assumed to have that much power unchallenged and by social default, and wherein we find ourselves in the position of hoping to elect a “good king” every 4 years; then, the majority of the people of this country are not even fit to be free, don’t want to be free, and are not worth the price it costs to keep them nominally “free”; and such a country so standing would not be worth preserving.
They are worthless to a regime of liberty as citizens, worthless to the free men as friends, and worthless subversives when taken for allies. But then the current state of lawlessness tolerated and advanced by the Democrat party and its clients in this so-called “nation”, has made that abundantly clear anyway.
May be time for, as the cliche has it, “a paradigm shift”.
Tuvea is right.
I had some time ago framed it as: If a choice between Harding and a Stalin; then, Harding
But Stalin knows how to get things done and is predictable, some would protest …
“My guess is, and this is just speculation, that the books ‘authored’. by Donald Trump were the efforts of ‘ghost writers’. ”
Profiles in Courage …http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sorenson_admits_profiles_in_courage_role/
“J.J. Says:
October 2nd, 2016 at 9:40 pm
OM, glad to know you’re an “East Sider.” Sensible part of the great state of Washington.
I have not seen a sign or bumper sticker for either candidate over here in the People’s Republic of Puget Sound (PROPS). No one wants to admit their allegiance to either candidate.”
Never been north of Northern Ca on the west coast, the image that comes to mind of WA State is people banging bongos in the drizzle. Though having business associates in the eastern part, I know that to be less than totally accurate.
What a long thread! So passionate!
“But it’s already very clear they do not know how to oppose Trump. His hostile takeover of the Republican party demonstrates that.” << from Jonah Goldberg
I see no evidence of a "takeover" of the Republican Party — those running for office, those on central committees.
The Tea Party DID run some candidates — who are the "Trump" candidates? I saw NONE named above, nor have I seen any named anywhere else – not seeing them doesn't mean there are none, but it does mean there is no takeover.
Trump is an unstable egomaniac, but Congress and the (Dem dominated) gov't bureaucracy, which protects Clinton law breaking, will be plenty to reduce the damage that Trump can do.
Carly and other conservatives are working to get conservatives into Congress. That's what all conservatives, both Trump-haters and non-haters should be doing positively. (Maybe even more than long blog posts here???)
Supporting Trump makes it more likely that in 2016, more conservatives get elected than if Clinton wins.
Which is more risky?
One of the most important risk management strategies is called mini-max — minimize the maximum expected loss.
Despite Trump's instability, there is no evidence that he'd threaten nukes more than Clinton.
Obama's running away and causing power vacuums in ME, in Ukraine/CEE, in South China Sea — all are increasing the probability of another small nuke being used. This sort of continues under either Trump or Clinton.
Trump building the Wall and hugely reducing illegal immigration, with a very active deportation of criminals, but more laid back on non-criminal illegals, will be reasonably good for middle and lower class US workers.
Clinton accepting 25 mil more poor anti-capitalist immigrants will make it much harder for any Rep to win in 2020 or later.
Clinton appointing SCOTUS judges WILL be terrible for liberty.
Trump has promised to nominate from a list — since that's an easy promise to keep, I think he will. At worst, less bad than Clinton.
Thanks to repeated Republican failure to get better K-12 schools (vouchers or charters or something actually better), too many voters are so uneducated, especially in history (like of Venezuela), that they support socialism.
For the Republican Party to win elections, it must promote popular policies. The failure of conservatives to make Freedom & self-reliance more admired in the culture, means a winning Party won't adopt non-popular Freedom & self-reliance policies, and conversely a conservative Freedom & self-reliance party won't win. Plus, the Libertarian Party is already there.
Tom G:
How about the dude who tried to primary Ryan in WI? He aligned expressly with DJT.
“California, the land of fruits and nuts.” actually not entirely true. I’ve worked there, lived there, but not in LA or SF. But CA is getting frutier and nuttier all the time, or so it seems from up north, despite DNW.
DNW,
If that represents the true state of affairs we find ourselves in, in this country: a situation wherein the President is just assumed to have that much power unchallenged and by social default, and wherein we find ourselves in the position of hoping to elect a “good king” every 4 years; then, the majority of the people of this country are not even fit to be free
Well, it represents what I believe will be the state of affairs following Obama, regardless of who is elected, as long as we insist on electing our own “strong-man/woman” who will bypass constitutional constraints to get the policies “we” want enacted.
I’ve been dying to hear a Presidential candidate talk about checks and balances, restraint on the executive, etc. We don’t hear that because it’s not popular: Democrats have long applauded Obama’s “If Congress won’t act, I will” pronouncements.
Pretty disappointing this year that the counter so-called “Conservatives” have offered up is a guy who wouldn’t know a check or balance if it hit him in the behonkus and talks as if he’s going to rule unilaterally. “Only I can fix” the problems we have, vote for me and “all your dreams will come true”.
So, yeah, my hope for restored constitutional governance is pretty low. I had hoped this year that we would get a counter to Obama’s unconstitutional governance but I think we’re just going to get more (way more) of the same, regardless of who’s elected.
Then what are you trying to preserve?
Tom G Says:
The Tea Party DID run some candidates – who are the “Trump” candidates?
In Arizona, Kelli Ward was running against McCain and positioned herself FROM THE VERY BEGINNING as a Trump supporter.
In gratitude, Trump endorsed McCain and Ward lost by a few percent.
Your premise (or Jonah Goldberg’s) is flawed: Trump didn’t conduct a hostile takeover. That would be hard and take a long time. The GOPe coopted him because Trump is just as corrupt as they thought he was.
He endorsed McCain in return for GOPe support; in other words, he sold your ass for a pack of smokes.
That doesn’t bode well for his supporters and their aspirations…well, unless what they’re hoping for is the status quo.
Matt_SE:
They don’t care about no stinkin latin. They don’t need no stinkin latin. They just want the guns (power).
DNW:
Then what are you trying to preserve?
Well, I’m not joining in with those counseling despair and capitulation. I am trying to preserve a conservative movement that can counter the left. My concern (stated ad-infinitum in this space) is that Trump is just a statis/liberal with leftist leanings who happens to have an “R” stamped next to his name.
My fear is that if he’s elected, the conservative movement no longer has a viable home and will die.
I expect you disagree with that.
Bill:
What about the fact that Ted Cruz, who did talk about those things and who believes in them, was the last man standing against Trump? That represents a significant number of people who still are in favor of that approach. It just wasn’t significant enough to win against the loud-mouthed celebrity.
People also glibly say that Cruz would have lost in the general. I don’t think so. Polls showed that he was doing better than Trump was against Hillary. I think he could have pulled it off, because Hillary is that unlikable. We’ll never know, of course. But it’s tragic that we didn’t get to find out.
DNW:
No one has said “But Stalin knows how to get things done and is predictable.” You’re setting up a strawman when you say they have.
What really has happened is that they don’t agree with your premises. They don’t agree that Hillary=Stalin and Trump=Harding.
“What about the fact that Ted Cruz, who did talk about those things and who believes in them, was the last man standing against Trump? That represents a significant number of people who still are in favor of that approach.”
That’s my hope.
For goodness’ sake Neo look at the posting itself, which was addressing Tuvea’s reminder about Hoover.
Yes, of course many would disagree that literally Hillary equates to the Russian Stalin. Hillary has not the power available to her that Stalin had, and Trump has been a bigger deal for most of his lifer than Harding was. There is at present no official ability for Hillary to completely suppress opposition through administratively coercive means; though Democrats have shown a willingness to do so in the IRS targeting scandal.
And although no one would argue that Trump is the literal reincarnation of Harding, this from Wiki is interesting:
The point of the hypothetically framed construction was to illustrate one aspect of the evaluation process relevant to assessing the desirability of risking a relative incompetent as executive, versus a law breaking no moral-limits leftist [which Hillary is known to be] with lots of political experience.
So it is clearly a relative “Harding” versus a relative “Stalin” in the current political context. After all, the country was not at the time of Harding undergoing a revolution in law and society and possibly on the brink of everyday social violence.
Doesn’t seem so difficult to grasp to me.
Ok Bill. Would you like to lay out the strategic pathway to achieving that after 4 to 8 more years of lawlessness?
Many, not just myself, have asked regarding these hopes and expectations for a few details. Maq, was unable to come up with any, and thought the question itself was unreasonable.
If you answered the question, and its impact was buried in all the back and forth, I apologize for neglecting it, and request a link.
Otherwise, feel free to lay out your scheme for getting back a habit of government we have given up for 12 years, or more.
Yes I do.
I don’t see what Trump has to do with Conservatism having a home whether he is in or out of the Chief Executive.
How is Trump going to kill off a Conservatism which seemingly has no vital ability to implement its agenda anyway?
The left is currently on the social warpath, attempting to make certain that traditional Americans don’t even have any social refuges wherein they can regroup unimpeded by the left: The FCC wishes to get involved in what can be said on the Internet, the Civil Rights Commission wishes to narrow religious liberty … http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/?dbid=586
So there buddy, what unassailed and still free mountain fastness are you going to pour out of, in an attempt to regain your lost freedoms?
DNW:
I read your remarks.
What don’t you understand about mine?
I know it’s your analogy (Stalin vs. Harding, although you’ve used other analogies in the past such as Stalin vs. Pinochet).
At no point has anyone, to the best of my knowledge (I don’t read every single comment in all its detail) ever said that “Stalin knows how to get things done and is predictable, some would protest”—even in the metaphoric sense.
Because they disagree with the metaphor. They think the metaphor itself is wrong and dishonest. “Stalin” is not shorthand for European-style welfare state liberalism. It’s not even short hand for Chavez. “Stalin” has a meaning even as a metaphor, which of course is how you used it. And people disagree with it and thinks it’s a misleading over-the-top metaphor that muddies the water. No one is saying that a Stalin or even a “Stalin” is okay because he/she “knows how to get things done and is predictable.” Stalin perpetrated a police state reign of terror and murdered millions of people, and those were his two most salient characteristics. In addition, he didn’t “get things done” (except for helping to win WWII). He tanked the Soviet economy as well, or helped to. If “Stalin” is used as a metaphor, those are the things he stands for.
I hope I made myself completely clear now.
“After all, the country was not at the time of Harding undergoing a revolution in law and society and possibly on the brink of everyday social violence.”
Try reading Coolidge by Amity Schlaes (sic?) for facts regarding Harding/Coolidge and social issues following WW1. Facts are inconvenient things.
“eo-neocon Says:
October 3rd, 2016 at 1:45 pm
Well, if you have an example of my originating or even advancing Pinochet as an example of a preferential alternative in a hypothetical here in the US, I would appreciate your linking to it.
I don not recall that. Although I do recall having commented in such threads where it was done, so it is possible I had a lapse of some kind.
I tried searching your website for such a tag and was unable to come up with anything.
I then Googled “Neoneocon and Pinochet” and found three threads wherein he was discussed. I did not find my name associated with any such a hypothetical proposition.
If you could clear this up, I would appreciate it.
DNW:
I apologize, with the explanation that I had confused your remarks with those of Geoffrey Britain, who comments here often with those analogies.
However, my argument about Stalin as metaphor stands, and would apply to your remarks just as well as it would to his. Yours was a metaphorical comparison of Stalin to Hillary that has been used so often here—and indeed, by Geoffrey Britain, over and over and over—that it has been argued back and forth ad nauseam. When I was arguing with you I was conflating your remarks with his.
Sorry! There are a lot of commenters here, and I don’t always remember the history of every one of them. But this one was clearly GB rather than you, and I certainly recall that at this point. I just was so very used to “Hillary is Stalin” comparisons from him that I confused you with him for the moment, but he is the one who has argued over and over for the “Pinochet” comparison for Trump (also “Franco” at times, if I’m not mistaken).
Why don’t you try reading what was actually written, rather than yapping about what you imagine was stated.
The return to social “normalcy” under Harding, elected in 1920 – two years after the war, and the various disruptions partly attributable to it, partly to progressivism, and party to foreign inspired or originating social agitation and violence – was subsequent to nothing like the extended leftist infiltration into the fabric of the body politic we currently face.
The predicate law, the very notion of constitutional government, was not under assault as a form or government per se, and in the same manner by domestic theorists with bases in electoral politics, as it obviously is now.
If you want to follow me around yelping like a demented little pug mug terrier, try and find some pretexts that will hold up to scrutiny better.
Though my remarks were directed to those who preferred as they imagined, an odious and legally subversive and certainly corrupt administrative competency, to a very uncertain or negligible political competency, there is another, if tenuous, parallel.
I don’t think that it would be over the top to say that amongst Hillary’s most ardent if unreflective supporters, especially among young, politically naive “feminists”, that there is an element of a cult of personality, or at least of a gender inspired loyalty, which discounts plain facts and assigns benign qualities to her that are completely unjustifiable, and which require either discounting facts, or asserting specious tu quoque arguments in justification. This latter, as some of your acquaintances apparently did, or were suspected as having done, in the case of the IRS targeting scandal.
Ok … I have to get to work …
DNW,
You asked me to lay out a path back to constitutional governance. I feel like I’ve done that, but let me try again.
First off – the conservative movement (limited government, freedom, constitutional checks and balances, limited executive) needs a major party home. It can survive election losses, but it won’t survive being a rump party.
Trump is – as far as I am concerned – as much a threat to constitutional governance as Hillary. Just because he has an “R” after his name doesn’t mean we’re not going to continue our slide away from freedom. He will – I expect – try to limit free speech, just as an example. I know all the arguments for him (he’ll appoint better judges, he’ll limit immigration, etc) and I understand and even somewhat sympathize with those arguments. But if he wins I don’t think conservatism will have a home anymore in the Republican party – it will be powered by an alt-right, authoritarian, anti-freedom philosophy. I think that’s clear.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem I’ve seen over the past few administrations is not the bogey-man of immigration. It’s been the increasing power invested in the executive branch. Many people thought Bush was too powerful – he at least got congressional approval for his wars (and UN approval as well). Obama has never bothered (unless I’m forgetting something).
Trump shows absolutely no inclination, and doesn’t even offer lip service to, limiting the power of the executive and letting Congress make the laws. I’m not even sure he understands how our three branches are supposed to work.
So my hope is that he will lose. Here’s why
1. The Republican Party may learn a lesson, fire guys like Reince (please), quit listening to guys like Rudy, Christie, etc, and get back to its more conservative roots. It will have a lot of incentive to be a solid loyal opposition to Hillary. The Republican party has been gaining more and more in state governorships and legislatures, and may be able to hold on to congress. Gridlock will be our friend, and they should fight HRCs agenda tooth and nail. The Scalia seat is a problem, I know, but there are some old and frail leftists on the court, and 2020 should be the goal.
2. In 2018 the Republican party can run against what I expect to be an ineffective/disastrous HRC administration and gain even more in the house and senate.
3. In 2020, hopefully having remembered the horror show that was 2016, the Republicans will nominate a solid conservative with knowledge and respect for Constitutional governance. Someone who can lead, who will be able to speak for conservative values, and pull in cross-over voters hopefully by speaking eloquently and persuasively about why conservatism works.
I realize that many here think I’m a fool for thinking this can happen, or believe that HRC will “magically” have 25MM more voters in 2020 (I don’t see that happening).
But, fool or no, capitulating to the “our strongman is better than their strongman” way of thinking, hoping that somehow Trump will set things up better for a future return to freedom (although Pinochet versus Castro, as GB has oft stated, doesn’t sound like a very good deal to me) is something I am not going to do.
You and I both agree, I believe, that we need to change the direction of our country, and need to bend it more towards freedom, opportunity, limited government. We disagree as to the answer and as to the urgency to win 2016 at all costs (because to me the cost is too, too high with Trump)
He hasn’t read the book. But he knows all.
DNW:
Did you see my comment here?
I find Bill’s scenario compatible with my views. I wouldn’t expect it to persuade those arguing for Trump, but all I am arguing is that my point of view is reasonable — not a slam-dunk proof.
I don’t see how either side can win this argument since there are so many unknowns and so much speculation about the future.
The pro-Trump side reminds me of arguing with John Stewart fans who believe they have the magic killer argument. If only I would see it their way, I would have to agree.
Maybe so. But I don’t see it their way and it’s not because I’m stupid or uninformed. It’s because the world is complex and most disagreements are really about the underlying assumptions which are often not explicit.
neo-neocon Says:
October 3rd, 2016 at 3:58 pm
DNW:
Did you see my comment here?”
I do now.
And I appreciate the clarification and acknowledgement that I was not offering up the Pinochet parallel scenario.
The strain a Stalin metaphor will bear once relatively adjusted for our conditions, and whether it can be worked into a proportionality argument X is to Y as Z is to W, obviously remains a matter of serious disagreement.
You see it one way, I see it another.
But thanks for offering up the fact correction.
Thanks for the response Bill … but that is not a real road map, or strategy; electoral, demographic, or otherwise.
It’s not unfortunately, even the semblance of one.
It is a hopeful prediction of the chagrin everyone is expected to feel after the brick wall is hit; and the expression of a hope that some critical mass of people will then figure out a new direction needs to be taken … and be able and allowed to do it.
DNW: But voting in Trump is some kind of sure thing?
It is a sure thing in only one regard: That Hillary at least will not be given an opportunity to continue her known pattern of constitutional subversion, political malfeasance, and corrupt government dealings.
Nor will she have the opportunity to continue the present administration’s pattern of singling out and attacking private individuals for their lawful political activities using the Internal Revenue Service.
From days of Whitewater, and the White House Travel Office firings and the claims of a vast right-wing conspiracy when her husband’s philandering erupted to stain the entire nation, she has been a known moral quality: virtually all and unrelentingly bad and unprincipled.
Barring and even greater fiasco with Trump than we have thus far witnessed, I agree with Cruz that it is paramount for the sake of the rule of law and some semblance of honest government, that she be stopped.
I would prefer to see us with virtually no administering executive at all, to seeing her in office.
Bill explanation is nearly identical to the one I would have offered.
I would point out that the state of Texas has been impacted by immigration, both legal and illegal, more so than the state of Vermont.
Yet, in Texas all statewide elected officials are Republicans and Republicans have large majorities in both houses of the state legislature and there is no state income tax.
Vermont, not impacted by legal and illegal immigration from Mexico, has been attempting to implement Single Payer socialized health care, the same kind of health care system that Donald Trump said he thinks works “incredibly well” during the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015.
A Trump victory would be a victory for socialism, not for conservatism. The fact that millions of Republican primary voters decided to vote for a Hillary Clinton donor, a John Kerry donor, a Harry Reid donor, does not change this fact.
Just because Trump has an (R) next to his name does not mean that the negative impact of his policies will not be real. The problem is that Trump’s failures will be laid at the feet of “conservative Republicans.”
At least if Hillary wins, the failures of her administration will be laid at the feet of the Democrats.
Some say that Democrats are no longer blamed for the failures of their policies. But this isn’t true. Hillary Clinton is less popular today than Jimmy Carter was in September 1980. Why is she still on a path towards victory in November? Because Republicans made the mistake of nominating Donald Trump, who is even more unpopular than Hillary Clinton.
I think a Hillary Clinton victory will do for the conservative movement what Jimmy Carter’s 1976 victory did for the conservative movement back then.
A Trump victory would be as disabling of the conservative movement as was Herbert Hoover’s victory in 1928. Hoover pursued trade protectionism, a Trump policy goal, and the nation’s economy went to hell in a handbasket.
“Thanks for the response Bill … but that is not a real road map, or strategy; electoral, demographic, or otherwise.
It’s not unfortunately, even the semblance of one.” – DNW
Yep. More of the same.
Asking for an impossible to provide enough details to satisfy the asker question, and when someone gives an honest answer – surprise! – not good enough – and evidently warrants ridicule as “not even a semblance” of what the asker expected.
Yet, somehow, voting trump is a “plan”, because, well, “It is a sure thing in only one regard” not clinton.
DNW has given his positive case wrt trump, but evidently relies on some big assumptions, and ignores much. I hope to respond to it soon, but clients come first.
.
To Bill (especially) and to OM, Matt, parker and to newcomer Spiral, (and others I probably missed in scanning this section) y’all have been making some great points that I think independents would find rather more convincing than the hyperbole in the opposite case – keep it up.
.
There is absolutely something wrong when people are prepared to give up on their claimed principles and “capitulate to the “our strongman is better than their strongman”” argument – after all, that is what the not clinton argument is amounting to, based on what we seen for over a year from trump.
It is one thing to do so with great trepidation. It is quite another to be rather too vociferous and hyperbolized about their opposition to clinton as the most important reason for trump, and barely give recognition in all that about any downside to trump.
So long as we still have a democracy, IDK how one recovers from the credibility hit they take in greatly compromising themselves in supporting such a candidate as trump and then later trying to argue for and persuade others to the principles they claim are superior.
The latest being the fact that he may have been such a bad businessman that he lost nearly a billion dollars on casinos 20 years ago
People like me already told people about that during the primaries, but that’s assuming anyone was paying attention to the Atlantic casino bust. How someone needs to declare bankruptcy with a guaranteed profit house advantage from a casino, I don’t know.
In this country you could also look at the Wilson years as a mild carry over, as well as the Jim Crow South including the Dixiecrats like George Wallace and that old Klan leader Robert Byrd.
From my research, the KKK had several different stages. The first one was when Nathan Bedford Forrest created the KKK as a sort of white cultural aid society, like a Red Cross for the rebuilding of white families, in order to provide mutual aid and support. The Southern slave lords, although they had lost their slaves at the time, took over the KKK and turned it into a death squad full of terrorists, instead. That was stage 2. Stage 3 was sometime after 1900, so Wilson to FDR’s time. Stage 4 is when the Democrats stopped funding and protecting the KKK.
Jim Crow South and all the other various racial cultural artifacts, came directly from the 1830 white supremacist beliefs, which came out to be very similar to the eugenic beliefs of Margaret Sanger. Before Sanger was born, Southern slave lords already shared many of her beliefs, although the aristocrats specialized white nationalism to empower aristocratic families first.
As for Mexicans not being completely under the thumb of Democrats, the blacks in the US were mostly pro Republican before Reconstruction and after Reconstruction. Ever wonder what happened to them to make them now 95% in the pocket of Democrat plantation masters? Live under the Left long enough and you will find out…
Let me try to make a more productive critical comment concerning my take on the “let Hillary have it and fight another day” attitude.
What that “plan” involves in practical terms, and from what I have been able to gather from acceptable imaginary cost/benefit scenarios, is that hunkering down for the next four years and hoping to survive Hillary’s expected assaults on our freedoms and constitutional governance in good enough shape to take advantage of some expected revolution in political attitudes, constitutes the “plan”.
Some plan. Give up for 4 years, and hope it does not turn to eight, and that the enemy doesn’t do such a thorough job that you can never recover.
Why do I say give up? Because have already seen that there is no mention of a plan for resistance to a Hillary administration in place, should she be elected.
And we have seen that when asked regarding the price he would pay for a return of law and constitutional governance, one particularly forthcoming man here (and I appreciate his clarifying forthrightness) said, that per the artificial cost-benefit scenario mooted, the hypothesized hardship involved in repatriating illegal aliens, for example, would in real life outweigh for him the benefit of a return to the rule of law.
So, given that, what lesser measures, in one two three, for instances. might a hopeful conservative authorize as in line with his conscience and scruples?
1. Would (and assuming solid Republican Congressional majorities) such a conservative agree to refuse to appoint any Clinton nominees to the Supreme Court and allow vacancies to build up, unless the nominee were somehow in the Scalia mold?
2. Would such a scrupulous and self-respecting conservative agree to supporting a long term “government shutdown”, if the Administration attempted to get unconstitutional budget items passed by Congress and threatened to veto any clean budgetary bills, unless and until?
3. Would the scrupulous conservative allow all lower court appointments to be blocked by a Republican Congress?
In other words, what practical and perfectly legal resistance would the self-respecting conservative support and see as morally allowable during Hillary’s administration?
My guess, is token, to virtually none.
Are the hopeful conservatives willing to play real hardball, perfectly legal and constitutional hardball resulting in significant social disruption in the meantime to prevent Hillary from worsening the legal situation?
I think we probably know the answer to that already. And that we would be told, that: No, that would be counter productive and hurt the dependent innocent, and that we must in effect grin and bear ever increasing legal oppressions until the innocent dependents realize that their benefits have been extracted from their neighbors at an intolerable cost to our joint freedom and futures. And then the scales will fall from their eyes and they too will embrace freedom over client class status.
Yeah, makes for a nice reassuring story doesn’t it?
The refrain: I wash my hands of this. and Don’t blame me.
Hell of a survival plan boys.
BigMaq:
The Trumpsters who shout the loudest say anyone is better than Hillary as long as his name starts with at T and ends with a P. There is after all no other option or “plan.” Stated simply so you “boys” understand. We must listen to our betters after all. /s
DNW
Some plan. Give up for 4 years, and hope it does not turn to eight, and that the enemy doesn’t do such a thorough job that you can never recover.
If you read my comment above (October 3rd, 2016 at 3:50 pm) there is not one mention of “giving up” and quite a lot mentioned about being a robust, loyal opposition to HRC.
You may not think that possible, or that it’s foolish. That’s fine. Let me ask you this:
If Trump does not win, and HRC is installed as President, what’s your plan? Is there any other plan besides mounting a concerted defense of freedom, limited government, and doing whatever we can do within the law to limit the march of the left?
What else are we supposed to do? Or is it true, as has been strated multiple times here by many, that if on Nov 9 Trump is not president it’s truly over?
You’re going to just give up?
What if the Democrats had felt that way the day after election day, 1988, when Reagan’s heir, Bush 41, was elected? I remember many of them stating they would never have the presidency again.
But they didn’t give up. And lo and behold, they’ve won the popular vote in every election since then save one.
Even if I avidly supported Trump, I’d have to be facing the fact that he might very well lose, no matter how badly I would want him to win. Are you saying there’s no plan B?
I don’t understand all the Trump-supporter doomsday talk. We have the majority of governorships and state legislatures. We have the congress. Leftist activity at the Presidential level has us at nearly 20Bln in debt, with a foreign policy in shambles, and a sluggish economy. The only reason HRC even has a chance this year is because too many “burn it all down” “Conservative” “Republicans” (scare quotes intended) decided to nominate a billionaire (maybe) reality star with a plurality of support and sky-high negatives. We should be winning this election in a walk.
What’s your plan B?
Also, I have to respond to this:
And we have seen that when asked regarding the price he would pay for a return of law and constitutional governance, one particularly forthcoming man here (and I appreciate his clarifying forthrightness) said, that per the artificial cost-benefit scenario mooted, the hypothesized hardship involved in repatriating illegal aliens, for example, would in real life outweigh for him the benefit of a return to the rule of law.
OK, first of all, name me a reasonable plan for repatriating illegal aliens AND their families. What do we do with the children born as American citizens. Send them away (we can’t, that illegal and hence breaks the rule of law we’re supposedly restoring). Send their parents away, and put them in our gloriously wonderful foster care system? This is a recipe for more societal disfunction and crime.
It’s easy to say “send the 11MM back where they came from” – quite another to expect our feckless politicians and our blundering, lumbering bureaucratic system to actually handle the logistics of all that, and navigate the moral and ethical waters involved.
What’s your plan for repatriating all our illegal immigrants?
“What’s your plan B?”
“What’s your plan for repatriating all our illegal immigrants?” – Bill to DNW
Excellent questions. Eagerly awaiting the response.
Plan of the alt-right, try to elect a buffoon who has a bunch of arsonists in his coterie. If buffoon is not elected blame everyone but the buffoon and the coterie, and collect more matches. Since it all has to burn down in the long run. Funny how slash and burn only works if you can keep the fires going.
DNW: You have your assumptions, feelings, priorities and hunches about this. You don’t know for sure any more than we do. Yet we are somewhow beholden to satisfy you by your criteria. Or you will speak disdainfully to us.
I am not at all impressed.
Besides it’s mostly moot anyway because Trump has been a losing candidate from the beginning. Nate Silver has him down once again to 72-28%,
What’s your plan for when Hillary wins, as she most likely will?
Trump will likely lose and not because of me, Bill, and Jonah Goldberg. Trump will lose because he comes across as a stunted child bully who never grew up.
Another reason Trump will lose is that he and many of his supporters seem to lack a single gracious bone in heir bodies when dealing with people who see the world differently.
It’s also important to point out that our Constitutional rights are likely to be assaulted regardless of whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins five weeks from now.
During the debate on September 26th, Donald Trump mentioned that he agrees with Hillary Clinton on the issue of preventing people on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms. This means that Donald Trump supports giving the government the right to extinguish a citizen’s 2nd Amendment rights without any due process protection.
With respect to the 1st Amendment, it’s clear that Trump is every bit opposed to freedom of speech and freedom of the press as Hillary Clinton. When it comes to the 5th Amendment takings clause, eminent domain, Trump has taken a more pro-government confiscation of private property position than Hillary Clinton.
Trump has embraced the trade protectionism of Herbert Hoover and Smoot-Hawley more enthusiastically than has Hillary Clinton.
Regarding the US Supreme Court, it’s hard to have much confidence that Donald Trump will resist pressure from Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, given that Trump is at heart a New York Left wing Democrat, a critic of Antonin Scalia’s views on affirmative action, a person who donated to Harry Reid’s US Senate campaign and also donated to Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer and who said during the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015 that single payer health care works “incredibly well.”
So, I think DNW’s argument would be powerful if any of the other 16 of the original 17 Republican candidates for president had won the GOP presidential nomination. As far as I am aware, none of the 16 non-Trump Republican candidate has ever praised single payer socialized medicine the way Trump has, nor has any of them donated money to Harry Reid’s US Senate campaign.
Enforce the laws on the books, for a start.
Funny.
DNW,
As to your first comment, I agree – let’s enforce the law on the books. Which brought me to my question as to how. There are two things in play here.
1. Enforcing the laws against people entering illegally – relatively speaking, straightforward
2. Deporting people who have been here for awhile illegally – incredibly difficult and complex, for the reasons I stated.
As to your second comment, I don’t know what you mean. Can you please explain?
” “What’s your plan for repatriating all our illegal immigrants?”
Enforce the laws on the books, for a start.” – DNW
On quick check to see if there was a response, and yes … er … no.
Well, there is one, but it doesn’t meet his own standard for a “plan”, and completely ignores the “plan B” question.
Maybe DNW is formulating a better response. One hopes.
@huxley – you belong in that list I made above – apologies for missing your valued input.
Spiral:
“Trump praised Pelosi and endorsed impeaching President George W. Bush”
Contra Pelosi and Trump, the US case versus Saddam is in fact substantiated. Regarding President Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Trump’s position parrots Russian disinformation based on blatant legal and factual error.
The answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?”.
Bill:
“[Bush] at least got congressional approval for his wars (and UN approval as well)”
The answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?”.
EXCERPT (sans links):
Bill:
“Obama has never bothered (unless I’m forgetting something).”
This is a fair criticism of the Libya intervention, but not an action taken without (controversial) precedent.
However, Obama’s counter-terrorism, including anti-ISIS, actions and related actions with Iraq and Afghanistan rest on redundant layers of statutory and Constitutional authority.
Oops. Fix:
This is a fair criticism of the Libya intervention, but it’s not an action taken without (controversial) precedent.
“Funny”?
“Parents” abandoning their babies and children and the like: The idea of being held moral hostage to the illegal acts of others.
Take another step away and I’ll shoot myself, he said.
Ship them to Antarctica. Problem solved. Next. /S
The border is closer.
Problem solved, petulance dispensed with.
Quick check again. Disappointed, but not surprised I guess.
It is rather difficult to square the “not even a semblance of a plan” “criticism” with the responses provided thus far to Bill’s rather insightful questions, as they are no less relevant than the question asked of us about alternatives to voting trump.
Maybe DNW is yet to finalize his D-Day level detail of a plan for each, before he releases it for public consumption. One hopes.
If Trump loses, conservative Trump supporters and conservative Trump opponents will need to reconcile. Or so says Peter Spiliakos of National Review.
I know and respect many Trump supporters in my personal life, and I know several of the authors in the Scholars and Writers for Trump group. I think that they are mistaken, but also that they are genuinely public-spirited. They overrate Trump and underrate the risks of a Trump presidency, but, whoever wins the presidency, the fates of Trump’s principled conservative supporters and of his principled opponents are intertwined – and the sooner both sides recognize this, the better.
Here is a link to the column.
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/440674/print
Here’s another excerpt from the Peter Spiliakos column.
Clinton will be able to do a great deal of harm in four years, but there will exist the potential for a speedy conservative recovery that could undo some of that harm. (I would suggest that it starts with ending the filibuster and increasing the number of Supreme Court justices, but that is an argument for another time.)
BigMaq:
Problems are so easily solved in some minds, or what passes for minds. Not onlys solved but brushed aside into the dustbin of history. Oh to be so wise. 🙂
Spiral, good link. Essentially a recap of this thread with the cogent observation that after November 8th, we pro and anti-Trumpers will all be in the same boat and had better be ready to work together. Wise, that.
@JJ – there are two reconciliations:
One is to rejoin forces against the left – that part will be rather easy in comparison.
The other one is a trust issue. One thing I foresee preventing this reconciliation is if folks hold onto the idea that trump was anything close to a good idea, and it is not just that he loses the election. As Spilakos says, principled critics and principled supporters of trump – principled.
The question is if trump wasn’t supported with great trepidation, can we say we shared principles?
If we are not fighting for the same vision, is there a fight to win?
This would all add up to comedy gold if it were not in fact tragic. The latest:
Bill says,
and Big Maq chimes in with,
and,
So, to Recap, Bill announced that he preferred Hillary in office to Trump; and Maq although voting for neither imagines a blossoming of freedom and the rule of law once again after another 4 to 8 years of Democrat administrative malfeasance and political subversion.
Both were asked to describe just how this rebounding will take place given the known trends, and they refuse to, or cannot say.
Much had also been made by them of the supposed costs to principle involved opposing Hillary.
So, in order to get some idea of what these particular parties would see as an acceptable social cost, a hypothetical was mooted. One commenter was asked if he would would be willing to see the immigration laws enforced (with due stipulations recognizing the hardship, but the morality and legality of it as well) in order to see a return to the rule of law.
And he honestly answered “No”. But then promptly tried to turn the question around by nonsensically asking to know how what he refused to do under the current law were it enforced, could be done in a way which satisfied his sensibilities. Seriously? What is this, a restaurant where you get to order a legal burger, but hold the patty?
To top it off we now have both commenters looking for my action plan “B” if Hillary is in fact elected instead of Trump.
This is just too comical to believe they mean seriously.
I had in fact just earlier addressed such a contingency, and asked if they would agree to any or all of the legal strategies for opposing Clinton should she be elected:
But the guys with no “conservative resurgence” plan at all; with no willingness to enforce the immigration law as it stands; with no willingness to risk Trump, even given the plan many have proposed for limiting his overreach should he attempt it; and who then further ignore a question concerning their potential assent to elements of an alternative resistance strategy laid out for crippling her administration if Hillary should take office and act to form …. demand to know where my “plan B” is if Clinton gets into office.
These men cannot be serious …
All well and good about the unserious “they.” Followed by nothing of substance or specific.
“College educated Republicans who are steeped in conservative ideology will never find Trump satisfactory.”
.
“Saying the reason people don’t “get” Trump is that, essentially, they are intellectual snobs and don’t like straight shooters or straight talkers or essentially pragmatic people is a tremendous oversimplication and just plain wrong … Saying that those who oppose him are basically clueless intellectual snobs and that’s why they oppose him reminds me of those who call Obama’s opponents racists. Some are, just as some of Trump’s opponents are intellectual snobs. But not all of them, and IMHO not most of them. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose each person. Plenty.” – Neo
.
Agree with Neo.
The kind of thinking / attitude reflected in this common alt-r claim / meme is scarily close to this description…
“An anti-intellectual, almost Orwellian atmosphere prevails in Communist China today… reflects (Mao’s) personal conviction that intellectuals … work against the regime at every opportunity.” – Repression of Intellectuals in Communist China, Released Secret 1966 CIA Special Report.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001275005.pdf
@DNW – still no real answer, and plenty of obfuscation and mockery.
Your “plan B” seems just repeat of several questions posed as if that were the “plan”. If we are using your standard to measure against, you fell well short.
And, you’ve not said how and when you will deport the 11M (some claim 30M) people.
“Enforce the laws” is all a nice and high minded statement, but it is not a plan of any sort.
It lacks any serious consideration of just how that would be carried out. Are we talking building up of CBP / ICE forces? Are we talking a gradual decline on peoples own volition (e.g. Romney’s “self deport”)?
Your comments just lack any serious details to really have any credibility.
Mock us all you want, but you are not even living up to your own standards to which you want to measure the rest of us by.
Sadly, I expected better.
If Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump 5 weeks from now, what should conservatives do?
Fight against all Clinton judicial nominees. Here we have a template that we can follow. When Antonin Scalia passed away, Senator McConnell quickly announced that Scalia’s vacancy should not be filled until a new president was elected.
If Clinton is elected, it is likely that she will win less than a majority of the popular vote. Senator McConnell can say, the day after the election, “Hillary Clinton did not receive a mandate from the American voting public to appoint anti-constitutionalist judges. Therefore, we will resist their confirmation.”
I also think that the 1976-1980 time period provides a great blueprint for how conservatives should conduct themselves if Hillary Clinton defeats Trump in November.
I think that just as Jimmy Carter’s 1976 victory over Gerald Ford turned out to be to the advantage of the conservative movement, a Hillary Clinton victory over Trump could also be to the advantage of the conservative movement.
Trump has failure written all over him. Consider Trump’s nearly 1 billion dollar loss on his recently revealed tax return. Trump is simply not prepared to be president. If Trump is elected, he will fail and the conservative movement will suffer the collateral damage. If Hillary Clinton is elected and ends up a failure, we are likely to see a repeat of the 1980 Reagan Revolution, a resurgence of conservatism.
Regarding the US Supreme Court, here is some interesting historical information.
In the midst of Reconstruction, Congress approved a broad reorganization of the federal courts. The Judiciary Act of 1869 increased the size of the Supreme Court, established separate judgeships for the U.S. circuit courts, and included the first provision allowing judges to retire without losing their salary. After a period of six years in which the number of authorized seats on the Supreme Court shifted from nine to ten to seven, the act of 1869 restored the number of justices to nine, the same number of circuits established in 1866.
I see Hillary Clinton defeating Trump 5 weeks from now by about 5 million votes nationwide with Hillary Clinton winning just over 300 electoral votes, more than the 270 required.
But I also think that by January 2021, the Republican will have control over both house of Congress and will have won the White House. This will enable Republicans to do something similar to what the Reconstruction Congress did in 1869, expand the US Supreme Court.
We could expand the court from 9 seats to 11 or 13 or 15 seats, whatever is necessary to give us a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court.
This seems implausible. The odds don’t seem to favor it. But I would argue that the odds of Trump being a failed President are nearly 100 percent, given Trump’s track record.
Big Maq:
I expected the diversion and condescension, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
@OM – I expected even a modicum of consistency.
But, this hits at the point several here are making.
Once one finds trump acceptable as the “only” choice at preserving “conservative” principles in exchange for a “win” (the “sure thing” not clinton, without consideration of probable and potential downside), one has already then effectively bargained them away.
Worse, later on, nobody can trust their argument made in favor of such “conservative” principles, simply because there is no consistency, to say nothing about the hyperbole they oppose (being so sure, as they are, that nothing could be worse), when the reality hits and doesn’t measure up to the hyperbole.
Worst is their argument underwrites the alt-r argument at “preserving “conservative” principles” and MAGA, associating the range of ideas representing conservatism with their “deplorable” (to borrow a phrase) ideas that have nothing to do with conservatism. It allows the alt-r to continue to pollute, following this election, the best political vessel conservatives have (had?) to create the change needed.
It was and is an unnecessary capitulation to a minority who were convinced that it all needs to “burn down”.