The “Burn it down!” crowd seems to be getting its wish
I have watched this tragedy unfold for several years now.
By using the word “watched,” don’t think I mean I’m some sort of disinterested, Olympian observer. It has been very difficult, and this year it’s reached a crescendo, although I expect it to go on past this election cycle.
The tragedy I’m talking about is the purposeful whipping up of anger on the right by the right, for the purposes of taking out on the GOP what should be taken out on the Democrats. I’ve written countless posts about what’s happening and why, and countless others on the lies and distortions told by the people doing this. The idea is that the GOP could and should have stopped Obama and are therefore no different (or very marginally different) from the Democrats, and revenge must be taken on the former in order to purge the GOP and/or destroy it in order that a newer, brighter conservative movement could grow and take its rightful place as leaders, somehow convincing the greater voting public of its superiority to the Democrats, who after years in power would be proven to be failures.
Or something like that. I was never part of the movement—in fact, I actively opposed it and tried to correct its distortions with the facts—so I might not be stating the goals with perfect exactness. But I sure read a great deal of what was written by those who were part of the movement, and that’s what I saw, especially beginning in 2012 with the nomination of Mitt Romney, who seemed to them just one in a long line of worthless RINOs for whom they would no longer vote.
Now, of course, most of this group (perhaps all?) either support Trump wholeheartedly and have from the start, or support him merely as a tool to destroy the GOP, or both. They have been among the most vocal people singing Trump’s praises, and bullying and insulting and threatening others who won’t get in line. Who are they? Some are understandably disgruntled people on the right. Some are formerly apolitical people (or people who had become completely disillusioned) who have been energized by Trump. Some are white supremacists who see Trump as a way to power for them. Some are leftists toying with the right and successfully manipulating it, bent on its destruction. I believe that the first and second groups are by far the largest of the four, but the third and fourth groups are not infinitesimal and have been players in this who cannot be discounted.
Let me add right now that no one of the destructive “burn it down, watch the flames” sort remains among the regular commenters on this blog, although several Trump supporters do remain. The others have either left of their own accord or were banned by me without public fanfare. If I had not done that, this blog would have gone the way of many others and become some sort of Breitbart satellite.
Now that exactly what the rest of us predicted would happen has happened—Trump’s star is falling, the Democrats have trotted out the damaging stuff they have on him with much more to come before they’re finished, and it has been revealed (just as we said) that Trump was the one they were waiting for all along because he was the easiest to beat—I’ve noticed the anger coming out in the “Burn it Down!” (sometimes known as “Let it Burn!”) folks. You can see this rage on display rather prominently in the comments section of quite a few blogs. One of them I regularly frequent is Ace’s, which is hardly the only one or even the most rabid one, but it’s one I happen to read.
The chatter goes something like this: time to destroy Paul Ryan! The GOPe didn’t do what we wanted [see this, however]. They didn’t stop a single Democratic agenda [see this, however]. They never repealed Obamacare, even [see this, however]. They are the Dems-lite. Destroy them. Trump will get them after he’s elected. I’m enjoying this; such fun! Break out a beer and watch the festivities.
At the same time, the same people are saying that everyone on the right must vote for Donald Trump, because Hillary is worse, and she will (just as one example) get to appoint SCOTUS justices.
Hey, if you destroy the GOP lead in Congress, how would even a President Trump get his SCOTUS nominees approved? Or get any legislation passed? Or is he magical, doesn’t need legislation, and can just wave his kingly hand (Maine’s governor seems to think so)?
This has all been going on for years among the “Burn it down” crowd, which I see as mostly a bunch of nihilistic, angry infants. They have finally found their champion in the miraculous Trump—ironically, the biggest RINO of them all, who used to praise Hillary and Nancy Pelosi to the skies.
Ah, but it feels so good to be warmed by the “burn it down” flames. Especially when your candidate is looking weak. Polls, you say? When Trump was in front during the primaries, polls were golden. But ever since his nomination—funny thing, the polls have gone crooked. Not to be trusted. You’ll see. You’ll see. He’s really on top.
And the movement doesn’t need the likes of that traitor Paul Ryan, or a Republican Congress. Once Trump is inaugurated, that will be the moment when we begin to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; that will be the moment when the rise of the oceans begins to slow and our planet begins to heal; that will be the moment when we end a war and secure our nation and restore our image as the last, best hope on Earth…
Oops, wrong speech.
What’s someone like Ryan, or Cruz or Rubio, to do? Trump throws the entire GOP and all its elected officials into an insoluble quandary. Fail to support him and you’re accused of really being a Hillary-loving liberal at heart, showing your true colors at last. Support him and you’ve compromised nearly every principle you have. There’s no good way out, unless you want to go into the private sector.
As it is, we are now on track not only for the Hillary Clinton presidency I predicted back in December of 2012, but for Hillary Clinton plus a Democratic Senate and a relatively close House. Ah, that’ll show those GOPe RINOs!
Agree that a civil war within the GOP is counter productive. I think the frustration comes from the sentiment that when someone like Ben Sasse becomes a Never Trumper, he helps Hillary win. And then it is Katie bar the door with Hillary in charge.
Sasse grew up about 30 miles from Omaha but went to Ivy League schools. I don’t get his abandoning his team. Trust me, this is a Nebraska thing. Never abandon the Cornhusker footballers. Once a Husker, always a Husker.
The thing I find so horrible about this Billy Bush tape is that the party of immorality (Monica et al. in the WH) is turning moral values voters (see, Utah) against Trump in order to put the criminal Clintons back in the WH.
Podesta and Mook are laughing their asses off.
And, dear neo, this thing isn’t over. I turned the Cubs game off in the eighth. Big mistake. Cubs won in the ninth.
“The thing I find so horrible about this Billy Bush tape is that the party of immorality (Monica et al. in the WH) is turning moral values voters (see, Utah) against Trump . . . .” [Cornhead @ 2:34]
No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American
publicvoter.Also, for all of the anguish inherent in Neo’s post (and there’s no discounting that she may well be correct), the funny thing is that when “black swans” appear, they do so without expectation because, by definition, they are not predictable. In the words of one eminent American philosopher: “It ain’t over ’till it’s over.”
@Cornhead – quite prosecuting the case already. trump lost. It was Sasse’s fault, nor did he contribute significantly to it.
We are better off figuring out the non-existent plan B.
That is what we are left with – picking up the pieces once trump leaves the scene.
Trump was already in poor shape with Utah voters. His poll numbers among Mormons are lower than would be expected. I suspect that Trump’s attacks against Romney (in which he basically attacked Romney over his faith) have something to do with Trump’s lower numbers. Criticizing Romney on policy would have been one thing. But Trump went after Romney’s faith, and Mormons in general don’t like that sort of thing.
Oh, and oddly, a few times recently in the comments over at Ace’s blog, I’ve noticed a commenter who passes himself as pro-Trump and rabidly anti-Mormon. I don’t know whether it’s someone who actually believes that, or a troll trying to drive a deeper wedge between Trump and the Latter-Day Saints.
As for Neo’s post –
There’s no war quite so bitter as a fratricidal war. And that appears to be what we have here. I’m not a burn it down person. I’m still convinced that my home state of California can eventually be salvaged (though that might have to wait until after the state goes bankrupt and a lot of the residents relocate to Texas). So I’m not about to endorse burning down the Federal Government. And there’s also the fact that 99.999% of the time, doing that sort of thing just sets the stage for a Napoleon or a Caesar. The Burn It Down folks always seem to forget that little detail.
As for Trump, yeah, I’ll probably vote for him because it’s a vote against Hillary. But every last issue that he’s had is something that his supporters were warned against in the primary. It’s not like anyone should have been blindsided by this nonsense. His actual supporters have no one but themselves to blame for this fiasco.
Whoops… It wasn’t Sasse’s fault.
If not Olympian, a Gulliverian observer then?:
He, at least, could piss on the fire to put it out.
Some can’t grasp the numbers, Trump couldn’t win even if Ben Sasse was full on with him. It’s Trump, not Sasse or whichever scapegoat of the day.
Focus, the House and Senate is where you have to maintain an opposition to Hillary. Trump is done, even if he is now “unchained.” The question is how much damage will Trump do to republicans in Congress?
This game is far from over. Both sides have plenty left.
We just learned that John Podesta and Jen Palmeri hate Catholics. Good to know!
I view this contest like a baseball, football or basketball game. Many games are won at the end. Spirit and enthusiasm count.
I want to thank you for the “private bannings”, Neo. I am down to your site and Ace at this point. I read a couple other people but do not read the comments at all for the very reason you decided to ban people. I could never consider that worth my time or attention. Besides your excellent posts and varied subject matter, you do a great job of maintaining respect in the forum.
” “It ain’t over ’till it’s over.”” – T
True. trump has surprised many of us with his ability to defy political gravity, as it were.
At this point, though, it will have to be something MUCH more dramatic and drastic to move people off of clinton, than has appeared so far – say, if she was on tape saying something equally as awful and, importantly, dismissive of voters in any sense.
Just to correct the record in a minor, personal sense (as I think I qualify as “long time commenter”, if relatively infrequent at times).
I’ve remarked a couple of times in the past year – and perhaps more over the years – that I’ve long been a “let it burn” person neo. And at one point I believe I commented that (since Walker had dropped out) whether it was Cruz (my 2nd choice after Gov. Walker …only 2nd, as I thought Cruz had no chance at all of being a finalist) or Trump, I didn’t see how I wouldn’t “win”, no matter if either lost in the General.
I’ve long predicted (since around 2001 or so), that the GOP was headed for a Whig Moment (I believe it was in an early AOSHQ thread in maybe ’04, when I thought – incorrectly – I’d actually coined the term lol).
But my LONG history of anti-discrimination, my Ethiopian foster son, my family history, my Latino ex-wife, would all put the lie to anyone, ever, of making the case of me of being some closet white supremacist symp’ (given that I’m about +/- ¼ Native American …and unlike Warren, that’s not some made-up, obscure family story, and my NA ancestry is both patri- and matri-lineal).
I’ve [rationally] speculated and argued a course correction (i.e., in American unary electoral political culture) is a necessary one to save the American Experiment from the continued devolution of power from the middle class to an Establishment political elite centered on the Beltway – an aristocracy in all but name – since I see little practical difference in the politics and cultural destructiveness of either party in inevitable outcome (the GOPe because they’re culturally and legislatively ineffectual and the Dem’s because they’re actively destructive and globalist, at the federal level) in even the mid-term.
Certainly nothing has recently changed my mind about that. At all. Au contraire.
So …I have rational reasons for thinking we need something like a Jacksonian “Revolution” (post the Whig Moment) …or contra “need”, that one is inevitable …and it’s not all angst and anger, smoke and mirrors.
I suspect there’s a few others here too.
Interesting times, these.
NOTE: Someone is going to say – again, to me – in ominous tones something along the lines of “be careful what you wish for” or “you won’t like what you wish for” …as if I couldn’t possibly understand the possible consequences.
Patronizing BS. I’m well aware of possible outcomes, and the historical contexts. I can read too, peeps.
I wonder if it never occurs to people warning such, if they don’t see that the Constitution itself was “a consequence”. (Along with a crap load of other American historical events.)
…it’s not always Robespierre and The Terror. Or the Civil War.
Once, at least, it resulted in America.
The “moral high ground”? There is no more moral high ground for our politicians. That was totally relinquished when women voted for Bill Clintons second term. Women said we don’t care … HE’s still our man.
Voting for Hillary Clinton at this point is no different. She is the most NON-transparent corrupt politician that has run for office recent history. You have the same thing going on with her we don’t care … SHE’s still our whatever we are allowed to call her. Not sure what the proper term would be according to the left … ze?
I agree with Sharon. I have stopped reading many blogs and rarely look at comments on others. It’s great to have a forum where thinking people can discuss.
OMT, wh
at if Trump had responded to Ryan by saying that he understood the situation that many candidates are in, that he wants them to win so they can come together after the election to solve the real
problems of the country?
Another thing: What if a media person would ave pointed out that the rappers Obama celebrates at the WH say much worse things about women and that they have more influence on young men than Donald will ever have. Make the Dems defend their effects on the culture.
Expat –
The response to targeting Obama’s rapper pals would have been to point out that the rappers (and Obama) aren’t running for president. That’s the exact same tactic that has been adopted with regards to Bill Clinton.
“Once, at least, it resulted in America.” – brdavis
And, in that fabulous example, at the helm was a trump clone (in style and in philosophy) and a bunch of opportunistic politicians and media leaders falling in behind.
“Once, at least, it resulted in America.”
Quite so, brdavis9. However, what was a happy circumstance for those colonists (they had the necessary equipment!), is no longer so for our times. And there, I regret to think, is where we must founder.
The GOP did it to themselves. They ignored or fought against the Tea Party folks. This should have been a wake-up call, but Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
I expect many who vote Repub will support and vote for local/state candidates, but will ignore the GOP when donations are requested.
Sam L:
Yours is exactly the sort of blanket, incorrect, sweeping and misleading statement I’m talking about.
“The GOP” did no such thing. Some individuals did, some didn’t. Read the links I provided, too, about what the GOP Congress did do.
brdavis9:
Well, you may be a “let it burn” type, but you’re my “let it burn” type 🙂 .
In other words, I don’t think you’re the sort of commenter I’m talking about. Maybe I haven’t described it well, but you use reason and are not nihilistic in essence. They are.
Note, by the way, that you describe yourself as “let it burn” rather than “burn it down.” It may seem a small difference, but I think it’s significant.
I don’t think anything you’ve ever said has given me the urge to ban you.
His poll numbers among Mormons are lower than would be expected.
Not really a surprise to me, considering that Ted Cruz won the Utah caucus vote back in March handily at 69.2%, with John Kasich getting 16.8% and Trump 14.0.
Sam L., you make a good point. That describes me and my husband. We went to a “Tea Party” gathering at the Reagan Library, early on. Impromptu, grass-roots, salt-of-the-earth citizens of America. We only went to one. As hard-working citizens paying more than our “fair share” of taxes thanks to the confiscatory framework that makes up our city, state and federal structure, we didn’t have the time and energy to devote to that desire to “rediscover” the Constitution. For years now when the RNC would call with their donation pitch, they would get an earful. Pretty much stopped calling now. But the expensive mailings still arrive. What a waste of a tree.
expat:
That would require a greatness of spirit that Trump has yet to demonstrate.
junior,
That’s wy I said the media (not Hannity types, though) should ask the question. I don’t want it to be a campaign issue, but it sure would be nice if some ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN types started looking at our cultural problems.
What if a media person would ave pointed out that the rappers Obama celebrates at the WH say much worse things about women and that they have more influence on young men than Donald will ever have. Make the Dems defend their effects on the culture.
Tricky thing to do. Remember when now-disgraced Bill Cosby decried rap music/hip-hop culture?
“True. trump has surprised many of us with his ability to defy political gravity, as it were.
At this point, though, it will have to be something MUCH more dramatic and drastic . . . than has appeared so far . . . .” [Big Maq @ 2:59]
I agree on both counts.
Trump doesn’t think beyond his next tweet. He is impulsive, vindictive, crass, and knows less than a 4th grader about just about everything. IMO he never wanted to be POTUS. Now he wants to burn down down ticket gop candidates. I think I know why, but I’ll keep my tinfoil hat signals to myself.
Cornhead,
With all respect, those responsible are not djt critics. Coveniently, he and his supporters have plenty of excuses ready for his failure. I hope you do not want to be in the company of those who abhor mirrors. BTW, an election is not a super long baseball game. There will be no home run in the bottom of the 17th. And, djt is no black swan, this was just his biggest con.
Interesting baseball analogy used above. It’s not a good fit because there is no time limit in baseball.
It’s more like a football game. It’s the fourth quarter and Trump is down 21 points. Can he come back? Sure. I make no predictions. but the clock is ticking.
Regarding the earlier comments about Sasse. I fervently hope he and people like him are the future of the Republican party. I’ll rejoin the GOP if they are. I’m not counting on it, though.
If the future of the Republican party is more spineless/nihilistic jerks like McConnell, most of the current congress, aided and abetted by the principle-free ratings hogs of the Hannitys and Limbaughs and Ingrahams and Coulters, and shadowed by the brutal white-supremacists/anti semitic/brutal alt-right thugs, count me out. And that’s what I figure it will probably be so there you have it.
Cornhead – also, I didn’t understand this: Trust me, this is a Nebraska thing. Never abandon the Cornhusker footballers. Once a Husker, always a Husker.
My family is from the western panhandle. Little town called Potter Ne. It really hurts that you are metaphorically saying Cornhuskers = Trump. What the hey?
“the party of immorality (Monica et al. in the WH) is turning moral values voters (see, Utah) against Trump in order to put the criminal Clintons back in the WH.”
Um, the GOP is now the party of immorality.
I tend to be an issues voter, not a personality voter, so I have not had a problem supporting Trump in the general election. Like I told an acquaintance in 2012 who refused to vote for Romney because of Romney’s “silly religious beliefs”, I’m not voting for a pastor, but for a president. And although I thought many of the other Republican candidates would be better than Trump, any of them–including him–is better than what we have now and better than Clinton.
I remember when you first started predicting the GOP civil war, and I didn’t see it as likely as you did. I was wrong. What I did not count on was the “burn it down” attitude of the #NeverTrumpers. When National Review came out with its big anti-Trump issue, I remember thinking, “you guys are painting yourself into a corner. What if he’s the nominee?”
Well, Trump became the nominee, and a large portion of the #NeverTrump brigade continued to fight him as they did in the primaries. Yes, I can share their disappointment, but they ignored the realistic view that you often have the world that exists, and not the world that you wish would be. So they would rather destroy the GOP than back someone they personally don’t like.
I don’t think the #NeverTrumpers were that numerous, just as I don’t think the “burn it down” types were that numerous. Although the latter did have some points concerning the GOP congress, there were enough counter-arguments out there to keep their influence down.
Although both groups were fairly small, both groups are also vocal. However, the #NeverTrumpers tend to be Big Names with Big Soapboxes–although, frankly, fairly insular. By adopting the Democrat talking points and going on the attack against the nominee–or even endorsing Clinton!–they also effectively amplified and provided ammunition to the “burn it down” types by acting just as the “burners” said they would. (And my hat’s off to RNC chairman Reince Priebus for not acting that way.)
Trump shares part of the blame as well, of course: he is far from a perfect team player. The fact is, both the #NeverTrumpers and the “burn it down anti-RINO types” (n.b.: I don’t like the term RINO) have some valid points. Neither have gotten what they want–even where “what they want” is common to both sides.
Anyway, I think that most of those who’ve been disappointed with GOP actions (the vast “anti-RINO” bloc as opposed to the formerly-few “burn it down” types) have proven over the years that they are willing to support the “best available” candidate, although it has arguably been getting harder.
On the other hand, what the #NeverTrumpers have shown is that they will choose not to do so. That, more than anything else, is helping to “burn it down.”
“Um, the GOP is now the party of immorality.”
Not when it comes to the issue of abortion. The womb should be the safest place on earth, but we’ve made it a killing field (and for the sake of clarity let’s just consider 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions.) Government is meant to protect the weakest and most helpless member of a society. There is no question, speaking in generalities, which party recognizes the immorality of this grave evil. I can only imagine what this looks like in God’s eyes. I’m sure his economy is different than any here on earth.
It occurs to me that every single thing that’s being talked about now will be meaningless in a month. Grudges will be nursed, sure. We’ll all be Monday morning quarterbacks. But binary choices and endorsements will all become a blur. States will be painted red or blue. Black swans will be banded and re-released into the wild. A year and a half from now, we’ll be talking about the next Tea Party or Occupy or Alt-Right or whatever, and it’ll be pretty obvious in retrospect that the movement had been brewing for a while. The context of the debate will change. It’s the fundamental principles that will matter, the tides you can barely detect under the waves.
I guess the question is, “Burn what down?” If the GOP is burned down, will whatever remains be better, worse, or the same as, in the view of the burners, the unscorched GOP?
If immigration is your thing….a good many squishes in the GOP and that’s when they’re campaigning. If they win, how much squishier will they be? Very likely, indistinguishable from dems.
Pick your primary issue and see what the GOP is doing with it. Like the dems?
If you disagree, what is left to do?
Or, perhaps you think the republicans are scaredy-cats. Afraid a government shut down will cost them votes. If you want something done which will cause the dems to shut things down and blame the repubs and the repubs quail….what’s left to do?
So I think the burners are the folks who can’t see anything left to do with the current repubs. Are they right?
I recall people voting for Perot to teach the repubs a lesson. We got Clinton and…nobody learned anything.
CBI,
I’m neverTrump. What you don’t understand is that people like me (well, I guess I can’t speak for others) desperately want to save the party. Trump represents a hostile takeover of the GOP by a decidedly non-conservative and brutal alt-right contingent. In other words, this isn’t just a “distaste for the candidate”. I still can’t believe Trump got nominated. What a huge mistake in a long line of mistakes by the stupid party.
“What I did not count on was the “burn it down” attitude of the #NeverTrumpers. When National Review came out with its big anti-Trump issue, I remember thinking, “you guys are painting yourself into a corner. What if he’s the nominee?”
I was never prouder of NRO than when they published that issue. And, by the way, they are coming out of this election looking awful prescient.
Trump is the one actively working to unelect down-ballot Republicans. In what Universe is this something the GOP nominee should get a pass on?
I’ve been a Republican since 1984 and proudly and happily voted for Ronald Reagan in that election and have voted R ever since. But I can’t be part of a GOP that looks like Trump, Bannon, the crazy, racist governor of Maine (LaPage I think is the name) and about 1,000 other horribles.
“And my hat’s off to RNC chairman Reince Priebus for not acting that way.”
Reince needs to never hold a political job again. He is one of the main culprits in what has happened.
This isn’t NeverTrump’s fault. It’s Trumps fault, and the fault of all those who have supported him.
CBI,
When his own staff and family couldn’t get Trump to do debate prep, what makes you think Trump migt pay attention to anyone else, even if they had lots of knowledge about an issue.
All I want from Trump is to bring the media to heel, and make them realize that they don’t have the power to make the USA and all its politicians dance to their tune.
Nothing is more important than stopping the Inner Party before their takeover is final… even if it already is too late.
Bill–I was a NR reader since college (age 18…now 57). I watched the results of the 2000 election at their online site (having given up on TV news prior to that). In the last couple years, I stopped visiting their site altogether. These are the people that encouraged us to vote for the party candidate…until now. I do understand that you want to “save the Party”. I wrote that in a comment just after Trump became the nominee; that the way I see it is, those who refuse to vote for Trump, want to “save the Party”, while many of us willing to vote for Trump, want to “save the country”. The Dems to me have always been party over country voters. In my opinion, that’s what we have now too. And with a likely Hillary win, we’ll get to see if indeed the party could be saved, or for that matter, the country.
Sharon
I agree with you on the evil of abortion. What have Republicans done at the national level at least to abolish it?
I used to hope and trust that electing a Republican would help in that area. But the most change on the abortion front has been because of technology – people now know what’s in there and they know it’s alive.
I personally believe the church will need to lead the way in changing hearts on this subject. I still won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate. I don’t, by the way, believe Trump is really pro-life. The man defends Planned Parenthood for crying out loud.
In a normal election year I vote reliably Republican largely because of this issue. This year I am going to write-in McMullin/Finn. Here’s their stance on life
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/life
Trump’s long, wanton sexual history points to him as someone who has actually been part of the coarsening of our culture and he expressed not that long ago his support for partial birth abortion.
Plus, he’s actively working to lose the Senate for the GOP so good luck getting those SCOTUS appointments.
I know McMullin won’t win. But I’m hoping that enough people vote third party so that a true conservative third party can be created and have a chance in a cycle or two.
Tatterdemalian:
“All I want from Trump is to bring the media to heel”
How is he going to do that?
Parker
Obama won the Omaha Electoral College vote in ’08. Historic. Huge lines at the polls. I’ve seen that same enthusiasm at Trump rallies.
Bill:
I know Potter-Dix. My point is that Sasse is on the GOP team and it speaks poorly of him to undercut his team’s QB. It’s a loyalty thing especially in light of the fact that we are playing a “hated” rival. But if this rival wins, the whole league gets burned down and our team never wins again. Stakes are much higher than the Floyd of Rosedale trophy.
Bill–I would bet my last dollar that if California was not a Democrat-run state, the pregnancy counseling center (completely privately funded) that we have poured tens of thousands of our personal dollars into, would not (as of 2 weeks ago) be REQUIRED TO REFER FOR ABORTIONS IN 13 LANGUAGES or be closed down. As it is right now, my husband and I will not be supporting that entity. We will be looking into funding a legal enterprise that will fight these laws that are in flagrant opposition to our religious and moral values. This is what the Democrat party (everyone of them) is about and supports–totalitarian rule.
“Most GOP Senators Defecting from Trump Backed Amnesty Push”
“Pro-‘Gang of Eight’ Republicans disproportionately bailing on their party’s nominee”
Illegal immigration is a litmus test because if amnesty and a path to citizenship pass, its over. It will attract millions more.
“Ethnic cleansing? California town now less than 10 percent white”
Note: I spent some time in Santa Ana 20+ years ago, it was just an ordinary California city.
[my emphasis]
To paraphrase: It’s not ‘race’ that’s the problem. It’s the culture, stupid.
“What’s someone like Ryan, or Cruz or Rubio, to do? Trump throws the entire GOP and all its elected officials into an insoluble quandary. Fail to support him and you’re accused of really being a Hillary-loving liberal at heart, showing your true colors at last. Support him and you’ve compromised nearly every principle you have. There’s no good way out, unless you want to go into the private sector.” neo
It’s not support for Trump that’s the determining metric. It’s voting on the issues as if they give a damn what happens to the remaining bastion of liberty in the world. Business as usual by Congress is just a slow slide into the collective.
Bill-Every judge on Trump’s list is pro-life. You can count on the exact opposite from Hillary. Here is a link that fleshes out the subject.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/08/abortion_where_do_donald_trump.html#3
” I think that most of those who’ve been disappointed with GOP actions (the vast “anti-RINO” bloc as opposed to the formerly-few “burn it down” types) have proven over the years that they are willing to support the “best available” candidate, although it has arguably been getting harder.
On the other hand, what the #NeverTrumpers have shown is that they will choose not to do so. That, more than anything else, is helping to “burn it down.”” – CBI
You even have the idea wrong. It is to vote for “the most electable conservative”. Something I think coulter repeated many times.
Unfortunately, trump is very far from conservative. Many of us had serious doubts about his electability to begin with, but several didn’t want to believe the polls all the way through the primaries, and fell into blind love with trump.
Fine. We are here now. trump will lose.
What do you want to do about it?
What I want to do is figure out what that plan B is?
Do you want to help?
Or do you want to get mired down in the blame game?
I don’t, by the way, believe Trump is really pro-life. The man defends Planned Parenthood for crying out loud.
This.
“Bill-Every judge on Trump’s list is pro-life. “
I understand. And I understand your obvious passion and sacrifices for life. I don’t know what to say other than it’s incredibly unfortunate that the GOP passed up 16 other candidates to get to the one that (finally) was completely unfit for office, at least in the opinion of people like me.
This is the first time that’s every happened to me. I have always been (relatively) enthusiastic for the candidate. Very enthusiastic for Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and Romney. Less so for Dole and McCain.
This time they nominated a guy I literally can’t vote for. My reasons are many (I’ve stated them over and over in this space). The big ones:
– He is a transparent liar. He almost seems to lie just for the fun of it. That’s why the “list” isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The fact that he’s never shown much interest in strengthening the chances of downballot GOPers tells me that to hope in his judge choices is not a good bet.
I know HRC is going to nominate bad judges. That’s why this is such a depressing election season. But I simply can’t vote for someone who lies as much as Trump does.
– He’s a cruel bully, as opposed to someone who is just strategically tough (that can be a good thing). I think he’s a sociopath. Sociopaths should never be given the power of their own military, executive branch, and nuclear arsenal.
– He lied about being a Christian. You’re a Christian, right? He lost me the moment he said “no one reads the Bible as much as me”. You can convince me of a lot of things, but I’m not going to be the mark for a spiritual conman. Ever.
I could go on but these are my objections on more the personal/spiritual level. I’m not that picky, really, but Trump is just beyond the pale.
I wasn’t surprised at all by the revelations on Friday, and have a lot of disdain for all the Republicans pulling the “shocked” face over this. This is who this man is. This is what he does. I don’t want him to have power.
@Sharon – With trump you are trading a great many other things for the possibility of that one good thing. And, you are putting faith into a man who has shown himself to be mutable on virtually everything, rendering that possibility rather low.
I believe from comments you have made elsewhere that in your good heart you know this to be true.
Focusing and convincing others around you that voting GOP down ticket is probably going to be more productive, especially for your GOP Senatorial candidate (if on the ballot) – critical helping meet this goal of possibly blocking clinton’s worst picks.
Ann-He has composed a list of pro-life judges. Even as a Catholic, I think the state should allow very early term abortions, after all it’s the state not the church we are talking about. So as much as I detest Planned Parenthood and all they stand for, they have a right to offer their services, just not in the immoral framework of our present time. This nation elected a man twice that openly stated it was above his pay grade to determine if a live baby born of a botched abortion should be helped. I can’t think of a single point that more explicitly expresses the Democrat party.
— He lied about being a Christian. You’re a Christian, right? He lost me the moment he said “no one reads the Bible as much as me”. You can convince me of a lot of things, but I’m not going to be the mark for a spiritual conman. Ever.
————————-
The attacks on Romney that I mentioned above were along these lines. Instead of attacking Romney’s views or opinions, he tried to advance the claim that Romney wasn’t a faithful member of the LDS Church. This was right after the bit that you mention where he’d tried to play up his own supposed faithfulness.
It was also right before the Utah Primary, and I suspect it accounts in part for his poor showing there.
Big Maq-In my heart I am decidedly in favor of gambling on the structure of the government that our Founders have given us. A rogue Trump might be stopped. Any rogue Democrat most emphatically will not be, and I have the last 8 years to prove that to be true. That is what animates my vote and nothing else.
I’m a long time reader and sometimes commentor.
Neo, we get it. You don’t like Trump. He was not my first (…or second, or third) choice either. But like it or not, today, he is the only real alternative to Hillary Clinton. And right now, today, I would vote for a bent trashcan before I would vote for *any* democrat. (Why? Because a bent trashcan would sit there and do nothing. And that is leagues better than what democrats do.)
Anyway, I was wondering why your blog had become somewhat of an anti-Trump echo chamber. Now I know.
Okay. Trump is a bad person.
So…. Hillary.
Pick one.
trump has effectively lost. Lets talk about plan B.
Roy:
Decide whatever you want.
I got rid of some of the most troll-like and hateful Trump supporters, so this blog would remain a forum for discussion rather than juvenile name-calling.
In addition, some of them left of their own free will.
What remains is plenty of Trump supporters and plenty who don’t support him. No echo chamber here. Everyone is welcome who can actually discuss things in a civil manner, and make cogent points. Trolls? Unwelcome.
“Okay. Trump is a bad person.
So…. Hillary.
Pick one.”
Yes this what you have left after all is said and done.
For myself I’m pretty sure (almost positive) of what direction Hillary will take the country. I don’t like that direction.
I’m not sure what direction Trump will take us but I’m ready to roll the dice. I’m thinking it has to be at least marginally better than what Hillary would do. If only the Supreme court appointments would be better than nothing versus Hillarys appoimtments.
He may turn out to be the most corrupt president ever but I know Hillary would be if elected.
Just wonderful, we get the binary choice, trump MIGHT be better argument. There are serious flaws in that argument, so Okay.
But, what are you going to do when he loses, folks?
How anyone (except the trumpian horde) believes Trump would keep any of his promises IF elected strikes me as the most wishful of all wishful thinking. There is no basis to believe him on any issue except his continued support for PP. However, it is doubtful to say the least that he will have the opportunity to disappoint.
Cornhead,
If you are basing your optimism on the celebrity rally crowds, well seems a dubious proposition to me. But I have been known to be wrong.
“You even have the idea wrong. It is to vote for “the most electable conservative”. Something I think coulter repeated many times.
“Unfortunately, trump is very far from conservative. ” — Big Maq
Really? The issues on the donaldjtrump.com website, which means it is what he is putting out as his thoughtful, studied position. Not off-the-cuff, but policy.
– Completely repeal Obamacare, including the individual mandate.
– Legalize the sale of health insurance across state lines.
– Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premiums.
– Allow all to have HSAs with carryover and inheritance.
– Nominate justices that will abide by the rule of law.
– Empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves.
– National right to carry (concealed handguns)
– Oppose firearms and magazine bans
– Moratorium on non-safety federal regulations
– Require agency and department heads to identify harmful regulations for removal.
The above is not all-inclusive, of course, and there are positions he has that I would not call “conservative”. But they put him reasonably within the “conservative” zone, in my opinion.
These are not necessarily positions he used to have, nor, as with any other official, is there any guarantee that he’ll be able to implement them or that he won’t change. But, absent mind-reading, I think that the written position papers give reasonable insight to his policies.
Check out the website and, perhaps, reconsider.
“It’s voting on the issues as if they give a damn what happens to the remaining bastion of liberty in the world. Business as usual by Congress is just a slow slide” – GB
Well what are we going to do to make sure it is not business as usual in Congress after trump loses?
We definitely agree that we need the GOP to change what they are doing in Congress.
On the other hand too many on our side expect the the GOP to operate like a ruling majority in a parliament when they have the House, even though the US has two other bodies that have vetos.
How do we get to a solution on border security, if folks decry even participating in the act of negotiating? The cries will be especially loud after trump. How do we work through all that?
These are just some of the plan B questions we need to focus on.
@CBI – You want to re-litigate trump, but it is over.
Read parker’s comment above yours.
You are free to believe his website and ignore all the rest.
Many just cannot.
As before, I recommend taking a positive approach, and just wait to see what the actual results are in the election a few weeks from now. After that is the time for analysis, and even then, it is most important to learn the right lessons (instead of something like going for amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2013 after the 2012 election. Just ask Marco Rubio).
Let’s not forget just how crooked the Clintons are. Around 2003-2004, they had their associate Sandy Berger remove and destroy classified documents related to the 9-11 attacks. And ten years later, Hillary is lying about her e-mail server, and hiding the evidence. These people are gangsters.
I’m assuming you are not a congressman or senator like myself.
“These are just some of the plan B questions we need to focus on.”
We are voters. We vote for the candidate of choice. With exception of some bitching and moaning … the plan B is in the elected officials hands … not ours the voter. Granted voters may sway some support one way or another but in the end the elected official will make the call for any plan BCDE … not the voter.
CBI Says:
“Really? The issues on the donaldjtrump.com website, which means it is what he is putting out as his thoughtful, studied position. Not off-the-cuff, but policy.”
Really? Have you ever seen him interviewed where he’s asked about “his thoughtful, studied position(s).”? He displays godawful ignorance of his own supposed positions, as if somebody else wrote them and he never even read them. What he does say about these positions usually contradicts what’s on his website.
Demographics dominates ALL.
With HRC, and WIDE OPEN BORDERS — the jig is up.
I know what it’s like to live in a one-party state.
It’ll be a new experience for most who live in ‘fly-over’ country.
Hillary’s voting block is hugely composed of LIV who vote factionally — ethnically.
Hence, policy issues count for naught.
Without a doubt, Putin & Coy have read all of HRC’s emails.
This is the best explanation for Putin’s ramp up of nuclear preparedness.
Hillary is a gun-slinger. PERIOD.
Egypt
Iraq
Libya
Syria
plus
Ukraine.
The Russians place the onus for most of these events more upon HRC than they do Barry Soetoro. (!)
%%%
I note that this or that poll shows HRC in the lead. But when you look under the hood, the polls are so biased ( their demographics & their authors ) one can only conclude that the race is a dead heat — even now — with Trump again pulling away.
The Wikileaks material, Danney Williiams, on and on it goes.
Whereas the locker-room chit-chat doesn’t cause men OR women to change their votes. It just doesn’t.
In this regard, Scott Adams is correct.
Trump’s rallies ARE a ‘tell.’
And now that sex talk is competing with criminal rape… emotions are on the boil.
Emotions DO change votes.
@CBI — You want to re-litigate trump, but it is over.
Read parker’s comment above yours.
You are free to believe his website and ignore all the rest.
Many just cannot.
–Big Maq
@Big Maq: Yes, I read had parker’s comment.
Someone once pointed out that a mind is a very difficult thing to change. Having made up one’s mind that Trump is totally false, there is absolutely no way that it can change.
Trump strikes me as more akin to someone who didn’t really have much in the way of political beliefs–a “low information voter” even–who pretty much believed whatever the media told him. The past few years I’ve seen an arc of change in his beliefs. One thing against him, IMO, is that he is too new and not as well grounded as I’d like. On the other hand, he gives evidence of having changed his mind on several topics–and in a good direction.
I don’t discount the difficulties of that change, either, nor overestimate its depth. But it is there.
Back to Neo’s original point. If as so many seem to wish, the Republican party is destroyed, just how long do those folks think that it would take to build a viable alternative to the Democrat Left, and how much damage would ensue in the mean time? In fact, I wonder if anyone can point me to an example throughout history in which an act of complete destruction of an institution in hopes that a better one will spring from the ashes has worked as hoped? Don’t use the United States because it does not qualify by any measure.
My response when reading the “burn it down” mantra over the years–and especially over the past year–has varied between cringing and cursing emphatically.
Often I have wished that I could see some of the people who write such tripe anonymously. How do they live their own lives? Do they actually build anything; or do they just tear down? With them, is it always my way or the highway? Do they sit among the ashes and revel in what they have wrought?
Somehow I doubt it.
Strangely, I have never heard anyone speak like that in person; only anonymously on the internet–or on talk radio. They hide behind anonymity, or a remote microphone, but they do irreparable damage.
“trump has effectively lost. Lets talk about plan B.”
Funny guy. And I thought he had no sense of humor …
Jack:
Article V Convention of States, for a start. Or just sit back and vote for Trump.
???
I mean, I knew there were some erudite and sometimes imposing folk here, spread across a wide spectrum, but …really?
2 kewl.
CBI:
You write:
Actually, Trump has a very long political history. He’s not just been opining on politics quite publicly for many decades, but he’s been contemplating a presidential run for many decades—and talking about it, too. In fact this is hardly his first presidential run; he has run before.
I wrote at some length about Trump’s political history here. If he is in fact a low information voter, he has no excuse whatsoever for being so. The presidency is not an entry-level job for those who are unaware and who haven’t thought deeply about such matters, although plenty of people seem to think that’s just fine.
What’s more, Trump has never followed the media line blindly. If you look back at some of his earlier views, you can see that—for example, he was a big birther starting in 2011 (one of many years when he was seriously considering a presidential run in the next election cycle). Hardly an MSM lemming.
In addition, you write that he’s changed his mind. Yes, but as I pointed out a while back (can’t find the post now), he is rarely able and/or willing to explain the reasoning behind his mind change, and he often then contradicts himself and walks back what he is saying now. He injects plausible deniability into almost everything he says; that’s why I’ve said that with Trump, everything is mutable.
Funny thing, Trump is down 6 to 11 points in national polls. Burnt toast, put a fork in the orange turkey, Ha Ha Ha!
To B or not Plan B that was the question. 😉
Here’s laughin at ya!
🙂 😉
Well here’s the thing. If the burn it down crowd are not real Republicans, then there is nothing they can do to burn the Republican Party down, is there. Since losing with the execrable McCain and with the personally admirable Romney, did not seem to destroy the party.
So, just how are these outsiders going to burn Precious down?
And certainly, the conservative of sensitive nature and community feeling will not abandon his beloved party just because it lost one more in a series of elections?
Nothing’s changed in Mr. Sensitive’s his view. The country is the same as it ever was after 8 years of Obama, and will be the same as it ever was after four or eight more years of Hillary. Just as it was in the days of Reagan.
All that is required is a really neat education program; one tailored to convince those clients of the Demo party that freedom and risk and respecting the property and lives of others, are a better bet for them than is life as beneficiaries of a government managed income redistribution program.
Those bigots who imagine that by enforcing the laws we ever have a hope of instilling respect for the laws, are entirely deluded and cruel and un-American.
The Republican party has a great future before it.
There is so much to discuss, that the Republican hot stove league will be kept busy for years and years arguing how to salvage this or that right or liberty, as one after another disappears down the drain, as they have over the last four.
Who could ask for more?
If Putin isn’t the one that burns it down, that is.
Yeah, she came, she saw, and – drum roll – we died. Hilarious!
… or is it Hillaryous
“Trump is down 6 to 11 points in national polls. Burnt toast, put a fork in the orange turkey, Ha Ha Ha! ”
Good! There’s a table reserved for you and Bill and Maq at the local McDonalds. You’ll fit right in and can plan your comeback there. Free coffee refills, so I hear.
Do you serve the fries there? If so their standards have dropped to the minimal level. No wonder you are due to be replaced by a robot. Keep smiling. 🙂
DNW:
Isn’t the answer to your question obvious? And hasn’t it been answered many times?
However, I’ll give it a go. This is how it would be accomplished:
The nomination of Donald Trump—which I believe would not have occurred without the activism of the “burn it down” crowd, both as voters and even more importantly as propagandists on blogs and social media, both to promote Trump and in lying to LIVs in order to smear the other more viable candiates—will lead to the election of Hillary Clinton. As many here have said, the election of Clinton will lead to the entry of millions of new liberal-simpatico immigrants from various third-world countries, and also the naturalization and ultimate voter status of many millions more. In addition, it will empower the social justice warriors, make the Supreme Court liberal, and many other things that will harm the cause of conservatism for the foreseeable future. And this will all happen when there were quite a few other GOP candidates who would have beaten Clinton (some quite handily) and prevented that.
Trump’s nomination, and the way he has conducted himself, is also very likely to cause the GOP to lose the Senate and perhaps even the House. This will increase the power of the Democrats and President H. Clinton rather than acting as a check on it.
Hey, if the most dire speculations of some on the right—that Hillary is Stalinesque—are true, then there may be even more draconian things in store for people on the right.
In addition, the need to either ally with the abominable Trump or go against him means that GOP members of Congress are in a terrible bind that hurts them either way. They may end up making choices that make them look like the racist, misogynistic, etc. etc. people that the MSM and the left has been saying for years that they are. Now it will seem very very true to a lot of people, making the GOP or voting for the GOP even more unattractive to those people. The GOP has been discredited in this election by the terrible choices facing them because of the Trump candidacy.
And the “burn it down” crowd is exulting in it. “Pass the popcorn!” they say.
How very entertaining.
DNW:
Hey, what have you got against McDonald’s?
Are you McDonaldsist?
Big Maq,
There’s nothing we can ‘do’ to make Congress more responsive. It isn’t a case of their not listening. They’re perfectly aware of our concerns. Cruz, Lee and Sessions have been screaming it from the rafters for years. Rulers do not listen to the ruled.
There is no viable plan B. That’s what I’ve been trying to explain. Not that we can’t brain storm and organize and give it all we’ve got. It just won’t matter because in a representative democracy, majority rules and demographics (25 million new democrats) and human nature (liberal denial) trump any plan B we might devise. Add in the MSM propaganda machine, which will damn well blame you, me, Christians, the rich and, the irredeemably deplorable… and any plan B is doomed to be stillborn because the LIVs will buy it lock, stock and barrel.
If you’re right that the election is already over, then America, at least as we knew her, is over too. It may take time for the fat lady to part the curtains but she’s warming up in the wings.
Not to worry though, it will happen gradually enough that just like the proverbial frog, you won’t really feel anything until its too late. After all, why mess with what’s been working so well? Hint: always leave them with a mental escape route, denial is the edifice upon which tyranny lays its foundations.
On the morning of Nov. 9th, a slight majority of Americans will wake up with a sigh of relief, having dodged the Trumpian bullet and instead elected the reasonable, child loving Hillary.
And America will have chosen her fate; “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Events are demonstrating that the founders were wildly over optimistic about human nature. In general and with few exceptions, people are what their culture makes of them and our culture started to expire with the election of William Jefferson Clinton. The “coup de gré¢ce” was a majority of Americans dismissing tawdry, adulterous oral sex in the oval office. An utterly reliable indication of a society’s moral bankruptcy.
Yeah. I am always out-competed by burger-needier moms and senile citizens crowding the queues, when I want a quick coffee and cheeseburger.
Neo … you gotta have a talk with the women of this country. I cannot believe what I see there.
I mean all the women I know are serious healthy food partisans; trim, fit, and … well you know the drill.
But stop for a coffee at McDonalds and entirely unsuspected horizons open up. Vast … horizons …
OM got off his leash again, I see.
Neo:
Some are leftists toying with the right and successfully manipulating it, bent on its destruction.
I think you may be underestimating how many and how effective they are, especially on the internet where they can remain anonymous. Some of the wiki emails indicate there has been infiltration at the journalist level (which we always suspected) and from campaign headquarters.
Many years ago I was involved in trying to prevent a local recall of county supervisors. We set up a committee and welcomed everyone who we naively assumed would be on our side. Boy were we wrong. The method they used was to make outlandish charges and write letters to the editor in our name, and even help publish a “telling the truth” newsletter that made it seem we were all right-wing kooks. They tarnished the reputation of the 3 women supervisors by subterfuge of the worst kind and succeeded in getting them recalled. By the time we realized who they were it was too late. Years later we learned that our co-chair of the committee, an attorney, had spent a sabbatical in East Germany during his university years studying sociology. His wife went on to run for state Assembly as a liberal Democrat of course.
The point is, even a small group can make a big difference when their whole goal is to undermine and subvert.
” … will lead to the election of Hillary Clinton. As many here have said, the election of Clinton will lead to the entry of millions of new liberal-simpatico immigrants from various third-world countries, and also the naturalization and ultimate voter status of many millions more. In addition, it will empower the social justice warriors, make the Supreme Court liberal, and many other things that will harm the cause of conservatism for the foreseeable future. And this will all happen when there were quite a few other GOP candidates who would have beaten Clinton (some quite handily) and prevented that.
Stop! Stop! Stop right there!
I have it on very good authority, or at least from a very self-assured source or two – who comment on this very blog, but whose names, “Bill” and “Maq”, I will not mention – that that will never happen; that instead, the very people at whom you are aiming your exclusivist bigotry, are actually conservative leaning classical liberals in embryo. And all that is needed is a special plan B to execute during the next four to eight years; one which will nourish then with compassion, bathe them in the light of conservative altruism, and grow them into Thomas Jeffersons each and very one.
The sun will definitely shine and spread the rule of law again, Neo. One day. Somewhere. Maybe not here. Maybe you won’t live to see it. But what is that, in comparison to the warm feeling of armchair self-sacrifice …
DNW:
Certainly sounds like you work there, or want to. Probably the polite cheerful personality thing has kept you from that job. Keep trying and keep smiling. Don’t give up, there is useful work for you I’m sure. 🙂
Well, I don’t really see it. Yeah the Republican Party may not win any more elections, and might become even more ineffectual than it has been, but what’s to stop Bill and Maq and OM and the others from caucusing to their little heart’s content?
Nothing at all, unless they are not content to be members of a club most people no longer want to join.
But, really, what effect should that have on men of such elevated principles that they would rather see the republic certainly continue on to legal ruin, rather than risk a vulgar boorish lying blowhard who just might do marginally better.
Especially as he is no better than that Democrat who was ejaculating into the faces of interns in the Oval office, and whose enabling liar wife defended him – except that the vulgar lying boor didn’t actually do in the White House what the other two are known to have really done there.
No, as long as Bill and Maq and OM and a few others are still standing, there will always be a Republican Party .. or England, as the case may be.
DNW:
No one knows what WILL happen. We are all prognosticating based on what we think most likely, and that includes Bill and Big Maq.
However, I was answering a question of yours that has nothing to do with that. You asked:
Ignoring the sarcasm, I was answering the question you posted as to how outsiders could possibly burn the GOP down? I offered a hypothetical (a very plausible one, I believe) that shows exactly how it could happen.
I have no idea why you even asked the question, since you already knew the answer yourself as to how it could happen. Your insinuation, I thought, was that “outsiders” couldn’t do it.
Nor, by the way, are all the “burn it down” folks “outsiders.” The plurality (as I believe I made clear in this post and others) are probably disgruntled people on the right.
Your second question—sort of a statement/question—indicated you didn’t think think the conservative “of sensitive nature and community feeling” (more of the dripping sarcasm) would abandon the party because it lost one more in a series of elections. That seems to me to be a strawman you’re setting up. Who said they would? Not I. The people abandoning the party are those who are not “of sensitive nature and community feeling,” plus those who are not “abandoning” the party in the first place because they never were in it (they just aren’t being wooed by it). Those who used to be in the party and are of “sensitive nature” and who are abandoning it (large number? small number?) will be doing so not because of a lost election (one in a series), it is because with Trump, the party has shown itself to have abandoned the principles that attracted them in the first place and to be standing for things they abhor.
To win elections, the party needed to grow. The “burn it down” people wanted it to shrink. This is a different group from those who felt that Trump’s candidacy would help the party grow and would help win elections.
DNW:
At 8:48 PM you wrote, “rather than risk a vulgar boorish lying blowhard who just might do marginally better.”
I value you as a commenter, but I’m requesting that you pay attention to the very real objections of people to Trump and stop trivializing them. Support Trump all you want, but quit with the strawmen.
Discussion is great. Disagreement is fine. Disagree all you want. But the objections to Trump that have been expressed here are not primarily those of style. Although those things certainly don’t endear him to people (they probably don’t endear him to you, either), that is not the heart of their objection. There are some very serious and troubling things wrong with Trump that are much worse than his vulgarity, boorishness, lies, and hot air.
“Ignoring the sarcasm, I was answering the question you posted as to how outsiders could possibly burn the GOP down? I offered a hypothetical (a very plausible one, I believe) that shows exactly how it could happen.”
LOL Neo … I swear that no sarcasm whatsoever was intended. Not toward you, not even toward those other fellows.
I actually was in a rather elevated mood dashing that response off, and finding the whole thing funny.
Now, I know that many are extremely distressed at what is happening; and the thought of possible social chaos and violence upsets them so much that they are unable to see the rich vein of humor in the situation. But if you think about it for a moment, I am sure that you will see the humor in it too.
Our ancestors laughed at the approaching hordes. We should too. They can only kill you. And if they do, you won’t have to listen to compassionate conservative bleating anymore …
Richard Aubrey wrote:
Okay. Trump is a bad person.
So…. Hillary.
Pick one.
Why do you Trumpettes persist in this line of reasoning? It’s not working. We’ve told you every day for over a year it wouldn’t work, yet you persist. Never anything pro-Trump, just “Hillary Hillary Hillary.” It’s beyond annoying at this point.
Let me explain it to you:
A bullet to the back of the head.
A bullet between the eyes.
Pick one.
Now do you get it?
Okay. Trump is a bad person.
So… Hillary.
Pick one.
Richard A: No, I don’t have to pick one.
Saying that over and over and over again does not make it true or useful.
“… unable to see the rich vein of humor in the situation.”
Hrc as POTUS, the distinct possibility of the Ds regaining a senate majority, and perhaps even in the house. Oh, that certainly may make you chuckle DNW, but many fail to appreciate the humor in what the trumpian horde placated by the rnc has unleashed. Becareful what you desire to burn down. And, how does it feel to be a pro amnesty rino? I ask because you are willing or unwillingly in league with them.
The rnc feared both Cruz, Walker, and Fiorina. They prevaricated and thus djt highjacked the party. But, I forgot, burn it down.
Nate Silver’s forecast has Trump down to 13% chance of winning. That number has been falling steadily since late September.
The nail in the coffin is that while Trump is winning men by 12%, he is losing women by a 33%. Which makes his recent episode of attacking Alicia Machado in late-night tweets all the more idiotic and self-destructive.
This can’t be a mystery to Trump and his advisors. Perhaps I should leave the psychology to neo, but this sure looks like self-sabotage.
Trump is the person who can make the most difference in winning this election, not the relatively few NeverTrump journalists and commenters, but Trump doesn’t seem entirely on his own side or all that motivated to save America.
Seems to me the pro-Trump folks need to take their arguments to the Big Orange Guy.
The Big Orange Guy might sue them. /jk
Trump has been ham-fisted in this election campaign here in the stretch run – it’s almost as if he doesn’t want to win. Does he?
Neo: “Ignoring the sarcasm”
It’s pretty hard to ignore, Neo.
DNW – you can do better. You’ve got things to say, you say them well. Wasted on sarcasm, denied sarcasm, and patronizing.
So, Trump supporters, what is Trump’s road map to victory at thsi point?
He was supposed to mop the floor with Hillary in the debates and failed.
He was supposed to set some big populist wave crashing across the land and win Dem strongholds like New York. That’s didn’t happen.
The only chance I saw was if Hillary was indicted or a huge backlash hit if she wasn’t. But that didn’t happen either.
Other than throwing one’s hands up and exclaiming, “Anything can happen!” Trump looks pretty done.
Geoffrey Britain:
“Events are demonstrating that the founders were wildly over optimistic about human nature.”
No, the founders were activists. Political power that retained in the people was and is harnessed through activism, the power of the people then as now.
The Democrats are activist through the Left.
The Republicans are not activist because conservatives of the Right have eschewed activism.
That’s been the difference.
huxley,,
There was no road map there.
WJC: So Donald can we convince you to throw your hat into the GOP primaries and reek havoc.
DJT: What’s in it for me?
WJC: Underage girls and a big payoff after the election.
DJT: OK, how young and how yuge the payoff?
WJC: 13 and younger and one hundred million.
DJT: I’m in, but I will need you to rig the msm, especially FOX, to go easy until I am the nominee.
WJC: Not a problem, say the word and we are good to go.
DJT: OK, I am in, But I need a fresh new pussy to grab just to tide me over, you know what I mean? Melania’s pussy is smelling stale.
WJC: No problem, I have a reliable source for fresh young pussy.
DJT: Cool.
What’s someone like Ryan, or Cruz or Rubio, to do? Trump throws the entire GOP and all its elected officials into an insoluble quandary.
What are they to do? Get out of the way.
The voters were wrong, but will accept no correction other than hard experience. And they’re gonna get it.
I just hope after the guilt and embarrassment subside that they’ll be willing to continue a serious reform agenda, with someone who we won’t have to sell our souls to back.
junior Says:
Oh, and oddly, a few times recently in the comments over at Ace’s blog, I’ve noticed a commenter who passes himself as pro-Trump and rabidly anti-Mormon. I don’t know whether it’s someone who actually believes that, or a troll trying to drive a deeper wedge between Trump and the Latter-Day Saints.
That’s the thing, junior: with Trump, you never know.
Such a commenter would be banned on most forums if we had a decent candidate, but Trump brings out the worst in everybody.
“DNW — you can do better. … Wasted on sarcasm, denied sarcasm, and patronizing.” – Bill
I thought so too.
Rather than mocking, we’d be better off talking about what next.
Probably needs a cooling off period – maybe by Jan 2, after two holidays with friends and family?
CBI Says:
…I thought many of the other Republican candidates would be better than Trump, any of them—including him—is better than what we have now and better than Clinton.
If Trump’s issues were confined to policy, he might have more support. Alas, we’re now seeing exactly what we were worried about: an assault on our ideology and institutions.
Destroying the GOP is grossly irresponsible because there’s nothing to stop Democrats in the meantime.
That doesn’t seem to bother Trump. He’s not a reformer, he’s an arsonist and we’re all living in the house he’s torching.
Cooling off period? I’d say after Easter, since the inauguration is in January and that is going to be oh so funny, and will require another “cooling off.”
Eric Says:
“Events are demonstrating that the founders were wildly over optimistic about human nature.”
No, the founders were activists.
Trumpkins are activists. Maybe activism isn’t a noble calling.
No, Trumpism is the problem.
The founders were not over-optimistic.
They were well aware that this form of government might not last. They tried to build in as many safeguards as possible, but in the end they knew it was an experiment, and depended on a well-informed and moral electorate.
See this.
And yet the short sighted but excitable would “burn it down” and hope to find something better in the rubble and ashes. Or not find something better, just “better” by them being in charge.
Bill –
Trump has been ham-fisted in this election campaign here in the stretch run — it’s almost as if he doesn’t want to win.
—————
There is some evidence that he never intended to win, or even to get as far as he did.
The circumstantial bit is the fact that he didn’t do anything to prepare for the General Election campaign until after he’d clinched the nomination. In fact, iirc, he went so far as to shut down his state campaign offices immediately following the primaries in those states.
The second is a quote from one of his (former, I think) advisors that appeared in print shortly after he started surging. It basically stated that Trump never had any intention of winning, but had decided to run purely because he thought that having run and lost would give him a better bully pulpit to criticize the policies of whoever did become president.
OM, you have stated exactly what they want and it has nothing to do with restoring freedom. This is where the far left and what claims to be the new, alt-right intersect. As proof here is a link to a video that has been posted at several sites of Susan Sarandon spelling it all out. They, the left, believes that Trump would be the catalyst for a revolution. And they must believe, as I do, that they would have the numbers. What they don’t factor in is the chaos and bloodshed that would follow. Or maybe they do and that is what this is all about, on both sides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYKBBDqQvSw
The Other Chuck Says:
October 12th, 2016 at 8:24 pm
Neo:
Some are leftists toying with the right and successfully manipulating it, bent on its destruction.
I think you may be underestimating how many and how effective they are, especially on the internet where they can remain anonymous. Some of the wiki emails indicate there has been infiltration at the journalist level (which we always suspected) and from campaign headquarters.
****
The Dems have been using this ploy for a long time, and on every level.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/more-wikileaks-paydirt-democrats-hate-america.php
“Even more outrageous is the email from Sandy Newman, identified as the president of “Voices for Progress,” that demands Roman Catholics give up their beliefs and just become liberal Democrats. John has already noted their disdain for “Thomism” in the following post, but this one is even worse:
There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. . . Even if the idea isn’t crazy, I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or who would plant them. Just wondering . . .
Podesta offers this chilling response: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this.”
There you have it folks, today’s Democratic Party and their respect for “diversity.” Here they admit a deliberate intent to interfere with a private religious institution because it doesn’t conform to the dictates of liberal identity politics.”
And you thought mind-games were just for military spooks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/7563546/Russias-inflatable-decoy-weapons-and-military-hardware-in-pictures.html
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/on-catholics-wikileaks-hits-paydirt.php
“As far as we can tell, there is no particular point to this conversation. Just a little evening dumping on conservative Catholics. It reveals, I think, how most liberals think—the narrow-mindedness, the ignorance, the condescension, the arrogance. There are still some Catholic Democrats, but frankly, I am not sure why.”
And Mormon Democrats and Jewish Democrats, who aren’t paying attention to what their “social justice” party is actually doing.
They listen to the promises, and the speeches, and the good intentions (and many have very good intentions), but the bottom line is this: when you give the government the authority to take goods and labor BY FORCE from one person, no matter how rich, to give* to another person, no matter how deserving, you have opened a breach in the wall of the dam that will lead to a catastrophic flood.
*Taxes are always (ultimately) a forcible seizure of good and labor, but I mean “to give outright,” not to purchase something for necessary government services, although the expansion of “necessary” can have the same effect in the long run.
“How is he going to do that?”
Just by being President Trump. The media won’t be able to abandon all the belief they’ve invested in Obama and Hillary. any more than they can abandon the faith they’ve invested in socialism, with no regard to the latest example of “my perfect brand of Chavismo Socialism has never been tried!” now unfolding in Venezuela.
They would literally die, at the hands of their own useful tools, people they’ve duped into sacrificing everything short of their lives for the sake of their false promises. Their only alternative would be to declare civil war, which at least offers the faint hope of killing off said useful tools before they can turn on them.
Tatterdemalian.
….
….
What?
huxley.
So you don’t have to “pick one”. Fine. But one of the two is going to be POTUS. Your vote might affect the outcome. Your not voting, or your voting for Stein or somebody might affect the outcome, between the two.
So, even staying home is picking one.
Neo will know that forced-choice is unpleasant but likely to find out what one is really thinking.
We have a forced choice. God save us.
“Nate Silver’s forecast has Trump down to 13% chance of winning. That number has been falling steadily since late September.” [Huxley @ 10:47]
“The full results from Sunday night’s debate are in, and Donald Trump has come from behind to take the lead over Hillary Clinton.” [Rasmussen Reports. Link below]
When one sees such extreme assumptions as this from two sources which have been reliable in the past, who’s to know what is accurate and what is the outlier? IMO all this portends is that “it ain’t over ’till it’s over.”
Rasmussen link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13
Not sure where I was unclear. Or maybe you think things that only exist in people’s imaginations can’t drive them to kill?
Re: Rassmussen poll:
See Akin, Todd.
You know Parker, you seem more or less ok as a rule, but even on a good day you come off as pretty shrill and bitter. Gonna protect you and yours this, gonna get that kale crop in that. ‘Cause all those wunnerful Republican Candidates who could have cake walked over Hillary – so the story line goes – were betrayed by … somebody or another. But there in your foothills fastness you will be safe, because by golly, there’s no such thing as satellites and tax records, and that .308 is just as good as a F18 loaded with napalm for a man who knows about such things.
But it’s DNW’s fault cause he is not pious enough …
Well without mediating too long on what you mean by “unwilling”, I suppose that if anyone can be guilty of unwilling complicity, that would per definition include you, since you are obviously “unwilling”, and may even have voted for Reagan who stated this ball rolling – Obamacare and all – with his compromises. So, how does it feel to be fleeing now to your hideaway because you were onjectively, but “unwillingly” complicit in your own family’s ruin?
I voted for Cruz. I was probably the first on record here to categorically and exclusively support him.
That said, I am uncertain that he could have won. And I am after a fair amount of deliberation coming to the considered opinion that almost no Republican who tried to run a standard campaign could have broken through what is now revealed as not merely bias, but planned and coordinated media subversion of the Republican and elevation of the Democrat.
You think that a guy like Walker, with no college degree could have been elected? It would have expanded into questions of character, personality, fitness and all the rest. Every virtue he was perceived as having as a governor would have been translated into the murder and oppression of “our most vulnerable” citizens.
Fioria? Articulate, poised, a woman, and no real experience; and what she had would have been worked as failure. Hell her father would have been used against her.
Get real …
Oh and forget the matter of satellites. My hunting topo maps from the 1950s show wells, apple orchards, and the footpaths leading to tiny cabins. You cannot hide Parker. You have to face them. Better now during an election than later.
You don’t have any place to retreat to. That is what the plans against the Catholic Church are about, what the resettlement of “refugees” in small town America is about, what the tracking of every transaction in excess of $600.00 is about …
We are not at the brink with regard to the rule of law (as opposed to social collapse) we are already over the brink with Obamacare and immigration, plummeting downward, and faced with the choice of making use of whatever hand hold sweeps by, no matter how suspect. Because we know what the result will be otherwise.
But what the hell. Run up that Gadsden flag and wait for the BATF to show up, if that is your preference.
“Neo:
Some are leftists toying with the right and successfully manipulating it, bent on its destruction.
I think you may be underestimating how many and how effective they are, especially on the internet where they can remain anonymous. Some of the wiki emails indicate there has been infiltration at the journalist level (which we always suspected) and from campaign headquarters.” – Other Chuck
A salient observation by you and Neo.
.
Seems to be supported by…
“the theory of how to “disintegrate” an army, by 19th century Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz. You don’t pound the opposing force incessantly. Rather, you operate in short bursts, allowing the army time to regroup, before pounding it again. The fighting forces won’t disperse, but they can’t get their footing either; you continue this strategy until nothing is left.
That’s what I think is happening to Trump, and what I anticipate will happen for the remaining four weeks. The Clintons are masterful manipulators of the media, and I suspect that every three or four days, a new bombshell will drop, each one a bit more powerful than the last. “ – Sean Trende – “Where the Race Stands”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/13/where_the_race_stands_with_26_days_to_go.html
.
And…
“a simple rule is that a 90 percent or higher win probability allows Clinton to run a “some” campaign and forces Trump to run an “and” campaign…. Right now, Clinton’s lead … is safe enough that she can take some hits…. she only needs to get some things right to maintain her lead…
Trump, on the other hand, would have to have an extremely good run of luck and/or series of great strategic moves to catch up to Clinton… One decent debate or a few news cycles breaking his way probably isn’t sufficient to deplete all of Clinton’s lead.” David Byler – “Election Probabilities”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10
/13/election_probabilities_made_clear_132041.html
.
Add to that what we do know of Sen McCaskell’s activities meant to promote a beatable GOP candidate, and it just seems that the GOP (and “conservative” media), once again, have been strategically outplayed.
Would not be surprised to learn (at some future point) that the dems had operatives who were agent provocateurs meant to egg on the discontent in the worst possible terms.
May not all be alt-r activist organizing.
Still, this stuff only works if there is a receptive audience – those for whom “NO MATTER WHAT” is a rallying cry to oppose clinton.
I don’t on an emotional level care who anyone votes for. They make their choice, I make mine, and then I decide on them and their peer-worthiness based on that. Everyone is happy. Or gets all that they are cosmically entitled to, at least.
But what is annoying is the posing of the pious and the pouting of the bitter. To what end? In aid of what?
If they cannot see that the rule of law is failing fast, then it is because its impersonal and impartial administration does not, when it comes down to it, matter to them as much as their sensitivities. So much then for talk of “principles” if principles are imagined as reflective of more than the maundering pronouncements of a subjective idealist.
I think what we have seen here, and what has been very clarifying, is how some “conservatives” are in fact discretionary enforcement guys in law, and communitarian rather than classically liberal, in personal values.
They want to plan what to do in a Hillary Administration future? With who, and what for?
@T – we are right to be cautious in any ONE prognosticator or poll.
That is why an average of polls is probably a better indicator, and perhaps betting odds where actual money exchanges hands.
Right now RCP average has clinton +6 head to head, and +4 in a four way.
This site puts clinton win at between 81% and 90%, per the clinton win payoffs (if I calculated it correctly) …
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
“. . .the considered opinion that almost no Republican who tried to run a standard campaign could have broken through what is now revealed as not merely bias, but planned and coordinated media subversion of the Republican and elevation of the Democrat.” [DNW @ 10:49]
DNW, Well written. This has been my position for quite some time. Neo has repeatedly pointed out that, unlike Walker Fiorina or Cruz, Trump was a significantly more target rich environment. This, of course, is true. But target rich or not, I have come to the conclusion that Trump stands as the best chance to break through the collusion that you comment on above (n.B., IMO this collusion is nothing new, it’s just now coming to light because the media has dropped all pretense of objectivity).
This is not to say that Trump will win this election; he may, he may not. But if an obstreperous candidate like Trump can’t win, IMO no other Republican could have stood a chance against this coordinated fusillade.
Trump began his campaign with charges of a “rigged system,” and each new revelation confirms his charge and tacitly reminds voters that he has been correct about that all along. IMO he should be more adamant about reminding voters: “I keep telling you, folks, this system is rigged and here is more evidence to prove exactly that!”
I have noted on several occasions here that Trump’s campaign has been as much against the media as against Hillary Clinton.
The more interesting thing to me is that as more and more evidence of this DNC/Media coordination becomes public, just how will this play in the remaining days of the election. It would give me no small amount of Schadenfreude
to see, as Glenn Reynolds has frequently pointed out, the Clinton campaign having chosen the form of its own destructor. At the very least, Trump has already proven to be no cakewalk for the DNC (“Why aren’t I fifty points ahead?”).
At any rate, it’s proving to be a very close election. Every vote may prove important.
Biq Maq,
I have mostly given up on polling this election. Everything seems to be such an anomaly, I really do not have the statistical sophistication, nor the time/interest, to try and ferret out their potential accuracy. I’m neither optimistic when they say Trump is in the lead, nor am I depressed when they claim Clinton is.
I will say, however, it is good to remember that, as I understand them, these are mostly not absolute averages. They are weighted averages, and those weights, to the best of my knowledge, always favor the Democrats. I’m not grousing about that. There may be statistical historical reasoning to do so, but this election may be such an anomaly, such a black swan, that such reasoning is invalid.
We shall see on Nov 9th.
“They, the left, believes that Trump would be the catalyst for a revolution.”–The Other Chuck
“The founders were not over-optimistic.
They were well aware that this form of government might not last. They tried to build in as many safeguards as possible, but in the end they knew it was an experiment, and depended on a well-informed and moral electorate.”-Neo
After Trump’s nomination, I immediately knew I would vote for him as the Republican nominee (as I’ve voted for every other Republican nominee with whom I’ve had issues) because of my hope that the Constitution will be upheld in ways that it has long been ignored. This has been a rogue government, especially on the Federal level, for years. Somehow the laws that can jail a Dinesh d Souza or Scooter Libby are carried out, but when does this happen with a Democrat? I feel confident that the press and public will watchdog Trump in ways that NO DEMOCRAT will ever be held to account. That is the difference that tips the balance for me. I know any law I break, as tax-paying, faithful, Jane Q Public, will be dredged up and I will be held to account. Not so, the resident illegals in my neighborhood that have changed the landscape and environment in ways I never imagined even 20 years ago. And as for “burn it down”, I feel the same way about that as I do about my son’s owning guns for family protection and 2nd amendment rights (that’s right…the Founders’ understanding that the public ownership of guns is protection FROM THE GOVERNMENT.) It is scary. I know that if they ever used their gun, they could end up in deep trouble. However, as some historian pointed out, the gun is the biggest factor in peasant liberty from oppressors. Interesting, isn’t it? As I examine points of revolution, our own, the French and then the opposite, the Nazi takeover of Germany (which could not have been accomplished without a passive citizenry), I admit conflicting feelings. But I will obey God in his directive, “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous! Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
@DNW – there you go again, making the false strawman case against those of us who judge trump to be beyond the threshold of acceptable (and not by a mere smidgen either).
You choose to see the world one way that makes the “NO MATTER WHAT” opposition to clinton acceptable.
Many of us see that ideas and principles do matter, even if we don’t win this election cycle, as we don’t see that “all is lost” in one cycle.
AND, it DOES matter to us in making a huge compromise against much of what we stand for to back trump only as an effort to stop clinton, neither of whom deserve our support.
AND, there is a real price to be paid for that compromise. You may be so concerned about the “all is lost” scenario that, should it prove false (as we think it will), you (and the rest of us by association) have lost much credibility with convincing those who are persuadable that the left lies and our ideas are superior. They will cynically look at you (and us) as a liar too, merely wanting power over them.
The left couldn’t have asked for a better outcome.
Many of “us” tried to play the left’s game and lost.
” I know any law I break, as tax-paying, faithful, Jane Q Public, will be dredged up and I will be held to account. Not so, the resident illegals in my neighborhood . . . ” [Sharon W @ 11:34]
SharonW,
Victor Davis Hanson addresses and attests to this fact in several essays over the past year.
I don’t think Neo fully grasps the emotion behind the “burn it down” attacks on the GOP. It is not just that “the idea is that the GOP could and should have stopped Obama” so much as a suspicion that they are not even really trying. They get elected on the right slogans, and then go to Washington to acquire power and wealth by being sure not to cross the wrong people.
I don’t necessarily agree that this is a fair assessment, but it is clear to me this is the assessment that fuels the anger. Look at an analogy from the other side. For generations now Democrats have claimed to be the party of the underclasses, particularly of inner city African-Americans. Yet things never get better for them, instead Democrats are to the point that they barely even pretend to care anymore, instead spending their time and effort at Goldman Sachs pep rallies, presumably because that is where, as Willie Sutton (originally) and Hillary Clinton (at the last debate) noted, the money is. And yet they still get 95% of the black vote.
Does anyone doubt that if minorities started exhibiting this same righteous anger at their erstwhile representatives and started firing some of them, it would in the short run benefit Republicans but in the long run start benefitting them?
The anger of flyover country white males has taken things off the rails this year, but instead of condemning the anger I would recommend hoping/praying/searching for a candidate with the adequate skills and temperament to channel it into productive change to a broken system.
@ Maq,
I wish you would stick to quoting what I actually say, rather than placing words I have not said in quotation marks, and then attributing them to me or implying I have said them.
But I have requested this of you several times now, while noting your tendency to do the opposite, and still you persist … while jabbering on about others straw-manning you.
Remarkable.
And in the annual Chapman University Survey of American Fears, the top fear of Americans for the second year in a row is:
– Corruption of government officials (same top fear as 2015) – 60.6%
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/10/12/survey-top-10-things-americans-fear-most/91934874/
This is what I mean when I write of this election being an anomaly. If this survey is correct, how can Trump not win this election since he is running against the most obvious and publicly corrupt individual to ever seek the Presidency?
Yet, with a proven corrupt candidate running against a great message but an incredibly faulty messenger, this election seems to be a nail-biter.
LOL. Someone says regarding the candidates “neither of whom deserve our support.”
“Deserve our support”.
If I voted for those who deserved my support, I would vote for almost no one.
I am not contemplating voting for Trump because he “deserves” my support. How incredibly childish a calculation that would be.
I am voting my classical liberal leaning self-interest and what I take to be the interest of other Americans: those who see a gamble on the preservation of the rule of law and the preservation of a republic now, as better than confirming 12 years of subversion [eight past and four to come], and then hoping for a mysteriously impelled quick and peaceable restoration of some kind another four to eight years down the road from now.
“Deserving of …”
That’s the calculation? What is the sign for a snort and a hoot?
“I wish you would stick to quoting what I actually say, rather than placing words I have not said in quotation marks, and then attributing them to me or implying I have said them.” – DNW
What is your limit in opposing clinton?
IIRC, you never did say when asked.
So, yes, “NO MATTER WHAT” is someone else’s literal words, but would be happy to see you articulate what your limits are to differentiate your position from those who openly claim thus. What is your step too far?
I would love to quote from that answer.
And, what plan B is? And, what are the details behind following the law to deport 11M illegal immigrants?
“I am not contemplating voting for Trump because he “deserves” my support. How incredibly childish a calculation that would be.” – DNW
You mock a summative word used to describe all the factors go into that “calculation”.
Come now. We’ve had enough discussions here that you know some of those factors.
Glen H:
I fully grasp the emotion. I have no idea why you would think I don’t. I’ve certainly written about it enough. I predicted in 2012 that it would end up tearing the party apart.
It’s not just an emotion, either. It’s the stupid and self-destructive conclusions people come to when in the grip of that emotion. I’ve been tracking that for many years, too.
A tragedy.
” It’ the stupid and destructive conclusions people come to when in the grip of that emotion. I’ve been tracking that for many years, too.” [Neo @ 1:59]
Yes, we are emotional and rationalizing rather than intellectual and logical beings. IMO that’s what makes it difficult for most of us as we comment at this site. We try to reason through a position, we reach a conclusion that appears to us as logical, and it still bothers us, or mystifies us that others dissent that path that logical path that we blazed for ourselves.
In truth, again IMO, all of us (myself included), have at the base and the core of our “rational” positions some deep-seated emotional response from which we simply cannot break free.
“that others dissent
that pathfrom that logical path that we blazed for ourselves.”Fixed it. Sorry.
T:
Nailed it. The concept of Spock-like rationality for one’s own position as opposed to the emotional rant of the opposing position does pop up here from time to time.
OM,
That prompts yet another point about this entire election; that it is as viscerally inflammatory as any I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Just what is it about Trump or Clinton that flames our emotions so?
An appropriate response would be to observe that that is a non-sequitur response to my request you stop attributing things I have not said, to me.
Another would be to ask why I should bother to humor you in this matter, inasmuch as you have not given any significant indication whatsoever as to how you intend to recover from 12 to 16 years of Obama-Clinton.
Another might be to suggest that your own limits of toleration, much like Bill’s, are remarkably not exhausted at the point of the subversion of the republic and the destruction of our the rule of law, but rather at some suspected transgression of a nebulous communitarian feel-good “standard”.
But in fact I have made these observations before, and you are still unsatisfied; and wish to interrogate me on what I would not accept, when you have fled that question consistently.
So, I am not sure what you are really asking nor what justification you would have for expecting an answer.
Presumably, you are not interested in hypotheticals of the kind offered by moral psychologists, since you resented my construction of and offering of one to Bill.
But I will give you one anyway … along the lines of the runaway train problem.
I would set limits at the deliberate destruction of Hillary Clinton and her family in order to keep her out of the White House. I would however not feel impelled to rescue her and Bill from car which they had driven into a river and which was sinking, if I knew it would result in her or Kaine in the White House. She and Bill are both notorious if un-indicted criminals, and I would let nature take its course rather than satisfy some altruistic impulse, only to see my own family’s liberty and future wrecked thereby.
As far as your repatriation question goes, as I have pointed out before, the notion that I need provide you a plan, is based on the specious assumption that I come up with a means for legally doing what is already legal and moral and for which there are already protocols in place, in order to accomplish the same thing in a way which no longer offends your legally subversive sensibilities.
The laws were in place. No new plan is necessary. My plan is to stoop subverting and enforce the laws. See?
A polity without laws, is a polity in name only, and one to which no real allegiance can be given, and no social relation trusted.
That is the point to which self-indulgent feel-goodism and dys-civic trade-offs have virtually brought us.
Ignore the double strike: read “stop” for stoop in,
“The laws were in place. No new plan is necessary. My plan is to stoop subverting …”
The other stuff, e.g., an earlier definite article/possessive pronoun doublets , can be ignored.
“In truth, again IMO, all of us (myself included), have at the base and the core of our “rational” positions some deep-seated emotional response from which we simply cannot break free.” – T
Great point.
I’d maybe change it up to say that we are not omniscient – we cannot possibly have all the information.
Therefore, whether we can say it is “deep-seated emotional response” or that it is a judgement call we’ve made with the imperfection that is our brains, we all need to recognize that no single person has a lock on the knowledge, the rational and the logical to have the perfect answer.
It is part of why I came here. There were somewhat logical conversations going on, whereas at many other sites there were loads of insults and mockery.
“As far as your repatriation question goes, as I have pointed out before, the notion that I need provide you a plan, is based on the specious assumption that I come up with a means for legally doing what is already legal and moral and for which there are already protocols in place, in order to accomplish the same thing in a way which no longer offends your legally subversive sensibilities.” – DNW
There are some questions you ought to be able to address. Here are just a sampling off the top of my head…
– What time frame do you think this will occur, be completed?
– Are you simply relying on an e-verify system vs proactive enforcement?
– What do you do with existing non-compliance with the states, counties, cities? What if they persist?
– How much do you think it would cost? Or, rather than being an expert on such costs, what kinds of costly things would this need that would have to be covered in a budget? e.g. do we need to boost CBP personnel?
– Is there anyone who would qualify to stay? Or, is it “no exceptions”? How do you deal with the children born here, and their families?
Gosh, there are plenty of issues to address, that saying essentially “just enforce the laws” doesn’t adequately answer what it is you have in mind. We are left guessing.
You are under no obligation to provide me or anyone a plan.
HOWEVER, Bill gave you a partial response on this question based on some assumptions about what you are talking about, and you mocked him. Yet, you don’t want to provide meaningful details to engage in a meaningful discussion.
This quote demonstrates in part the writing style issue I mentioned elsewhere, btw.
.
“you have not given any significant indication whatsoever as to how you intend to recover from 12 to 16 years of Obama-Clinton”
Well, I have given you an honest response, that I didn’t have anything detailed and that was something you found inadequate.
Now we are in a situation where clinton is very likely to win, not a hypothetical. So, I’d think that we are both here without any great plan on what next, me / Bill /etc with my / our inadequate one, and you and intellectual compatriots with no plan B.
But for voting GOP down ticket, it is time to formulate just what we can do as citizens beyond commenting on blogs.
.
When it comes to your hypothetical bill and hillary in a car sinking in a river, I would attempt a rescue, not out of altruism, but because it is the right thing to do. It would partially be a similar rationale that a defense lawyer has to provide robust representation to their client.
Besides, even if I believed all of the behavior that I’m aware of were criminal and not just unethical, does it even warrant the death penalty? Jail seems more reasonable.
“I would … not feel impelled to rescue her and Bill, … if I knew it would result in her or Kaine in the White House … (and avoid impacting) my own family’s liberty and future wrecked thereby”
So, effectively, you would prospectively find them guilty of something you so believe will happen, and that warrants the death sentence?
I have grave troubles with that kind of thinking, even if I believed you had a case to make of the future.
There are some behaviors and attitudes that themselves lead to “A polity without laws, is a polity in name only, and one to which no real allegiance can be given, and no social relation trusted.”
I suggest that this line of thinking behind this hypothetical is one of them.
DNW,
I rarely read comments from yesterday, but sometimes I do, and you make me laugh. I’m bitter and shrill? I mention protecting my family and there is something wrong with that? Really? OK, that is your POV.
I spend most of my time as the season allows gardening, preserving what we grow, hunting during the allowed seasons, walking our dogs and dogs at the local shelter, cooking, visiting the fire range once a week, and as an aikido instructor 3 times a week. What do you do when you are not being bitter and shrill? 😉
DNW,
I am making basil-parsley pesto with walnuts for dinner; too bad you can’t stop by with a bottle of Malbec.
@T – per your Rasmussen link… came across this article about polls, and why taking an average of polls gets us closer to what reality is…
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/20/upshot/the-error-the-polling-world-rarely-talks-about.html?_r=0
Well, I was expecting an offer of venison back-straps grilled over an alder wood fire.
But … now that you mention it.
I pretty much limit my self to that, unless it’s brush hogging or shooting squirrels off the rear deck.
I have to check a potential timber cut in a few weeks, so I’ll be able to get out of town and inspect the elk caused damage to my wildlife planting plots in the hills.
No aikido, though I rolled the barbells across the floor last week and dusted off the treadmill.
Say “Hi” to Steven Seagal next time you see him.
This beautifully illustrates the problem both you and Bill have with language and definitions – the emotively exaggerated definitional boundaries which you either consciously, or unconsciously construct.
Take, “Death Penalty” for example. You speciously imply some juridical proceeding, (or its existential equivalent) wherein withdrawing from contact with some obnoxious entity is the moral equivalent of a performing the execution of a capital sentence.
This is logically preposterous and indefensible, but a not unexpected consequence of a communitarian moral stance which posits mysterious filaments of secular obligation weaving a web of self-sacrificial (but not reciprocal) duty.
It’s a deracinated Christian religion minus the Gospel’s context and conditioning verses: perfect for establishing an empire of the human termites.
No one in their right mind, assumes that they cannot exercise judgment and take account of the evidence before their very eyes and ears in evaluating whether someone who says that she is going to do more of what has already been done, is sincerely in opposition to one’s own known interests and liberties.
If we took your judicial evidence construct seriously, we would not even have elections, as no man would be considered able to judge the fact situation for himself.
And in fact, we have seen to a significant degree the social fall-out from the assumption of principles such as you employ above: with the rise of the opinion that “experts” should rule, with the attacks on freedom of association, and even with the draw-back in some areas, of the right of self-defense.
Thus the right of personal judgment as to whether to engage or not engage, is transmuted into a crypto-judicial proceeding in which the selecting agent is deemed not competent to judge.
The personal, has perfectly become – under your communitarian assumption set and stance – the political.
Given such attitudes it is no wonder this country is in so much trouble, and that you persist in asking questions to which you have already ruled out the lawful and moral answers.
You are like a kid how demands: ‘Tell me how God can make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift!’
That must be simply off the top of your head, because in each instance you are again asking how to un-subvert the law administratively wherein the problem has been lack of administrative enforcement. That is nonsensical.
The “problems” you mention are only problems which resulted from an unwillingness to preserve the law and the integrity of the polity and the principles of self-government, by honest administration in the first place.
The time frame is irrelevant. You might as well ask how long for a hulled and scuttled boat to sail across the bay. Once the government secures the borders and begins operating lawfully, and regularly, then projections can be made on the rate of progress. We have a congress. There is nothing whatever stopping them from allocating additional funds for certain departments. What a silly “hurdle”.
The anchor baby problem is only a problem if parents would rather abandon their children than keep them. And the Federal Government in the form of the Justice Department – for better or worse – has much experience in dealing with municipalities and individuals who resist not only statutory law, but mere administrative mandates.
Again, your demand for a “plan” to merely enforce the law, is ludicrous; and shows how degraded has become the sense of the rule of law among persons with similar sensibilities to your own.
You seem to be afraid of social chaos and disruption. But it’s your own stance which ensures that when it comes, it will come worse than ever; as social restraint, and [more justifiably] respect for law is lost under the very principles you are implicitly advancing.
If you are a conservative, and I don’t know that you have ever said that you are, it is no wonder that Trumpsters laugh at conservatism.
What in the world are such conservatives, trying to “conserve”? LOL
Certainly not the Republic and the Constitution.
“Take, “Death Penalty” for example. You speciously imply some juridical proceeding, (or its existential equivalent) wherein withdrawing from contact with some obnoxious entity is the moral equivalent of a performing the execution of a capital sentence.” – DNW
I simply am saying that you are, in effect, making a judgement of some future guilt that you claim is deserving of leaving two people to die vs attempting any rescue. You said so yourself.
You are correct that nobody is forced to give aid.
If you don’t know how to swim, or that the water is freezing and so you’d only last 60 seconds before drowning yourself, or that there are already other people who jumped in, or that you are outside of cell tower range and you cannot make a 911 call, all those might be very understandable reasons you will not to provide aid.
BUT, YOU don’t say that at all!
YOU based it on YOUR judgement call on the people. YOUR rationale is based on some future presumption of guilt of a “crime” you personally deem worthy of leaving them to die for. You ARE behaving as judge and jury in YOUR scenario.
You further claim that you are merely “withdrawing contact”. No. That is a dishonest spin to whitewash your ethical choice in YOUR hypothetical scenario.
At least be honest about your choices and your moral stand rather than trying to argue that someone else who sees what you are saying and call that “specious”.
.
“This is logically preposterous and indefensible, but a not unexpected consequence of a communitarian moral stance which posits mysterious filaments of secular obligation weaving a web of self-sacrificial (but not reciprocal) duty.”
Yet another filibuster of obfuscation. Come on. Use plain language that means something. Or, we again are forced to assume a meaning, only for you to say we are “misinterpreting” things.
.
“If we took your judicial evidence construct seriously, we would not even have elections, as no man would be considered able to judge the fact situation for himself. … right of personal judgment as to whether to engage or not engage, is transmuted into a crypto-judicial proceeding in which the selecting agent is deemed not competent to judge.”
Strawman. Again.
Call that “crypto-judicial” (whatever that means) if you will. It is your claimed basis of your choice.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with making a judgement at the election booth.
But, you ought to know that.
.
“The personal, has perfectly become — under your communitarian assumption set and stance — the political.”
More obfuscation.
.
“You are like a kid how demands: ‘Tell me how God can make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift!’”
Made me laugh out loud. Seriously!?
Pot calling the kettle black, methinks.
You really don’t recall asking anyone for their “plan” and scoffing at the answer?
But when asked the same in return it is an offense to oblige?
.
“Given such attitudes it is no wonder this country is in so much trouble”
Kudos to you! On your limits in opposition to clinton, you (maybe) wouldn’t push her car into the river, is what this amounts to.
Or maybe you’d do something relatively passive as take a “road closed” or “detour” sign down, or maybe place a car around a blind curve, after all you “know” that they will cause some great horrid future that you could prevent? IDK. Not clear.
Sorry, but I do find your convoluted thinking (and hyperbolized assumptions about the future) on this rather disturbing and indicative of why we will have problems in reconstituting a conservative movement with even those who claim to be (not so) “reluctant” trump supporters.
“The “problems” you mention are only problems which resulted from an unwillingness to preserve the law and the integrity of the polity and the principles of self-government, by honest administration in the first place.” – DNW
No, there are practicalities in anything that government does.
You won’t even acknowledge cost. If it cost $1T to do, is that acceptable? What do you think are the biggest cost drivers?
You won’t even acknowledge a timeline. If we are saying all 11M illegal immigrants get deported over 100 years, that has very different impacts than say over 2 years. What do you think is a reasonable time frame for meeting that goal?
.
“The anchor baby problem is only a problem if parents would rather abandon their children than keep them. “
Again, massive oversimplification.
In an ideal world, everyone agrees, and we can move forward with such a simple assumption.
But, surely, the existence of sanctuary cities demonstrates this is not so. So, how do you handle the media fallout from this?
And back to time frame. If it is 2 years, what happens if the House and Senate are lost, and 4 years the POTUS if public relations on this is botched? If it is 100 years, then this is moot.
How do you handle lower governments from taking blocking action?
These are but a few of several considerations that you won’t engage in.
We can all scream “Enforce the Laws” but that doesn’t mean there won’t be other consequences to deal with. And it certainly doesn’t represent a way forward on it’s own without a plan to deal with those consequences.
.
“You seem to be afraid of social chaos and disruption.”
On “burning it all down”? D**n rights I am!
Fools, who are not, rarely get what they want out of such situations, and usually end up far worse off.
.
“What in the world are such conservatives, trying to “conserve”?”
So let’s dispatch with the Constitution, with some strong man, in order to “save” the Republic and the Constitution?
That just seems like the surest way to quickly and permanently dispense with both.
You think it an obvious and worthwhile choice, it is neither.
.
Anyway, the fact that you bring these topics up is diversionary, at best, to the questions put to you.
No, the question was, “what in the world are such conservatives trying to ‘conserve’? ”
You seem to be pleased with the status quo – or at least well enough satisfied to tolerate 4 to 8 years more of the same – which is that:
We currently have an Executive which refuses to enforce the immigration laws; State Department employees who refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas; a Secretary of State who maintained an illegal e-mail server on which she discussed classified information; an FBI director who has been rolled by the Administration and has himself subverted the workings of justice through ultra vires procedures and proffers; an Internal Revenue Service which targeted Americans attempting to exercise their Constitutional rights of free association and the statutory privileges regarding non-profit associations available to them, and when the department head when called to account, she is found pleading the 5th Amendment, and on and on.
So again, if you are a so-called, conservative, what exactly is it about this situation that you wish to perpetuate with regard to the rule of law, and trust that electing Hillary will conditionally satisfy?
Something about this plummet into lawlessness leaves you sanguine enough to shrug off another four to eight years of it and the consolidation of precedent and habit which follows as night from day.
You are not most clearly interested in the preservation much less the immediate restoration of the rule of law; nor in the principle of constitutionalism and the lawful exercise of authority, when compared against some other standard of acceptance and inclusion.
So again, since it is not the rule of law you are determined to conserve, what is it?
By the way, to Bill and Maq if you read this …
It occurs to me once again, as it has several times in the recent past with you both, and in the more distant past with others, that part of the problem here, is simply that neither of you have a background in the fundamentals of these issues; and that in part (and aside from the extensive qualifications I deliberately offer) accounts for your finding what I am saying difficult to understand.
You might not have studied the constitution (or more generally constitutionalism) and its development in an academic setting; you might not have had courses in the philosophy of law; you might not have ever really grasped what the essence of constitutionalism, as a form of government, is or implies.
And if this is so, and if your natural preferences are for community values, then it is small wonder that much of what I am arguing is going right past you.
Now this is not to say that by analogy, a German immigrant in 1864 might not have understood the original American Republic and still disdained it in comparison to the idea of a sociopolitical community based on compassion and solidarity and collective “human progress”.
It is merely to say that although this may be possible in your case, I think that the former is more probable, and that you and Bill are intelligent autodidacts in this area, whose own emotional commitments and tastes have shaped their readings in such a way as to de-emphasize certain foundational issues which are now at stake.
They are issues which are in fact invisible to most people in the fog of everyday political conflict, or which seem to matter less, in the face of human “need”.