The Trump candidacy has been a learning experience, hasn’t it?
A while back, commenter “Bill” had this to say:
One of the jarring things for me during this awful year is that I’m beginning to understand what it’s like to be a man without a party. I always was right along with everyone else on the conservative side in past elections ”“ all the same wishful thinking, all the same demonization of the other, all the same reference to polls being wrong, all of that.
…[T]his election has afforded me the ability to better see clearly all the ways we spin when we think we’re not.
Yes, there’s certainly been a lot of jumping on bandwagons and spreading the meme-love around.
Many months ago, I had bookmarked this very similar comment at The Other McCain, with the thought that I might write a post about it:
I am grateful to Donald Trump for running. He cured me of the naive idea I held that “my side” was full of people who were different than the foolish, hero worshipping Obama supporters. That “my side” was about principles and ideas, not a man. They are not…They do not object to the tyranny, but only to the tyrant they do not like. It is a very good thing to know, and now we must all be grownups and deal with the difficult reality before us.
Having come from the other side, I think I always knew that these tendencies were present to a certain extent on both sides. Having been both an insider (of sorts) and an oursider vis a vis both parties, I have no vested interest in idealizing either one.
And yet I think I did, just a bit. Or maybe I idealized Americans as a whole. Or maybe Americans have changed in the years since I formed my opinions about the nature of this country and its people.
The 2012 campaign and election—and then again, even more strongly, this 2016 one—drove home (if it needed any more driving home) the enormous extent of many Americans’ susceptibility to propaganda, their inability (or unwillingness) to think for themselves, their propensity for following not just the lead of others but the thoughts of others on the same side as they. I’m not able to compare numbers between left and right on this. But I observe the same sad vulnerabilities in people on each side, and the numbers involved on each side are not small.
It is a human trait and a human failing, not a party one.
Remember all those sayings about how the left runs on emotion, exploits emotion, uses emotion and channels it? Well, so does the right—or rather, so can the right if a candidate chooses to work that way and appeal to that aspect of people.
The purpose of this post is not to say that Trump’s appeal is solely emotional and all the others appeal to the rational. Far from it. Human beings are ruled by their heads, hearts, and guts, and we all have all three for a reason. People have a different balance among the three, and there are different kinds of people with different systems predominating in each camp. The very best candidates appeal on all three levels (Ronald Reagan,anyone?). But let’s explode once and for all the myth of the solely rational right and the solely emotional left.
I just listened to Rush Limbaugh while driving at lunch. I rarely listen to Rush anymore since he bent his style to not offend Trump fans. He was working (carefully) the “rigged” system meme. He noted that people he socialized with all wondered why are the polls against Trump while he continues to fill rallies (and that Hillary cant fill a junior high gym). Rush knows better how celebrity works, but developed this argument that there are more trump supporters than are counted.
Conservative talk radio always showed the faction of true conspiracy followers and strongman voters. The worst were screened out but the rest were always there. It’s only natural, especially for those who do not pay close attention to politics or have little experience with working in that world. The strongman can just say “you’re fired!”. If you’ve never understood that civil servants can’t easily be fired or how much political capital it took for Reagan to fire the air traffic controllers, you entirely believe Trump’s promise to shake things up.
The thing I notice now is how may people that otherwise are not in this camp are shading their thoughts in that way. This is the natural result of hating Hillary so much you have to find any excuse to support Trump. Again this was common in the 1930’s for guys like Huey Long, Mussolini and that other guy.
Yep. It’s the personal compromises this cycle that have been most illuminating. I’ve never heard anything like it since “Who goes Nazi?”
http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
“The 2012 campaign and election–and then again, even more strongly, this 2016 one–drove home (if it needed any more driving home) the enormous extent of many Americans’ susceptibility to propaganda, their inability (or unwillingness) to think for themselves, their propensity for following not just the lead of others but the thoughts of others on the same side as they.” So discouraging, and so true.
” . . . the polls [are] against Trump while he continues to fill rallies”: In the 2008 primaries, Obama had massive rallies in New York as well as in other states that he lost by big margins.
Now here’s a thought via Instapundit:
While I don’t think of Romney as a leader (didn’t think so in 2012 either), I think he would be an excellent manager to get this country back on track.
Just when one thinks this election could not get any stranger . . . .
Just when one thinks the defeatism could not get any stranger….
I was as shocked as anybody when Trump started rolling up those victories. All our beautiful theorizing gone to waste! But, you know, intellectuals make pretty bad politicians generally and sometimes “the people” know things viscerally that turn out to be the right thing all along. So maybe, just maybe, we have something to learn from Trump voters. Just sayin’.
And before Donald Trump, there was . . . Sarah Palin.
Back when I was first frequenting this blog, I noted in a comment that I saw similarities between the unbelievable celebrity/messiah worship of Obama, and that of Sarah Palin. (Similarities, not identity.)
While I’m normally in tune with the overall drift of both landlord** and denizens of this blog, I caught minor hell for what I wrote about Gov. Palin. I wasn’t hateful, and I credited her abilities as governor. At the same time, I felt then (and feel now) that while she had proved herself to be an able governor who was willing to take on the big bad guys, she wasn’t ready for prime time on a national scale. After the 2008 election, I felt that if she wanted to be a force for the good guys, she needed to bone up in areas where she (frankly) needed to come up to speed. I turned out to be very disappointed that she showed no interest in doing this (that I could discern, anyway).
But I digress . . .
I caught minor hell for what I wrote about Gov. Palin, and I was reminded of that when I read neo’s post, particularly the phrase, “their propensity for following not just the lead of others but the thoughts of others on the same side as they.”
One commenter in particular — who shall remain unnamed, since s/he no longer comments here and is not here to defend him/herself — was pretty relentless in criticizing my position. This was someone who just wouldn’t let the issue go, even after we’d gone around and around a bit, long past when it was time to agree to disagree. S/he would not relent! (We weren’t disagreeing on issues or on world view, only on my take on Gov. Palin and on how “our” people were vociferously defending her practically as though she was without flaw. And I very much was on Gov. Palin’s side with respect to how she was being trashed by (erstwhile) friend and foe alike.) And this was a commenter whose contributions on a variety of topics I had really, really appreciated before this particular incident.
Yes, as neo writes, “People have a different balance among the three [‘their heads, hearts, and guts’], and there are different kinds of people with different systems predominating in each camp.” I think we long-timers had a foretaste of that right here, eight years ago, with regard to Gov. Palin.
— — —
** Actually, I would never describe neo’s thought process as a “drift”. It is acutely focused and incisive. I hope and trust that readers of this comment get the drift of what I’m trying to say when I use the word “drift” here [smile].
“Just when one thinks the” denial “could not get any stranger….”
There fixed it for you.
I use my guts to judge the quality of a candidate’s character. I give both candidates a grade of F—. I can overlook minor differences between my ideas and those of a candidate, but poor character is a deal breaker when it comes to my vote.
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. Politics are downstream of culture … culture is a function of activism.
The general will of We The People is a function of activism.
If you would have American political culture animated chiefly, even platonically, by the “principles and ideas” you prefer, then you need to earn that culture by winning the social dominance in the arena necessary to institute and then enforce it.
Remember, the Founding Fathers didn’t win the social dominance they needed to transform America by convincing their fellow American “conservatives” who remained British loyalists through genteel discussion of “principles and ideas”.
Not sure the left is seen as solely rational. Many are coldly calculating, although perhaps those who follow them are hauled around by their emotions and ready-made memes.
Perhaps those who follow on the right are emotional about traditional issues whose legitimacy had been…traditional and was now under attack. To oppose the attack would probably come under the title of “emotional”. But that, I submit, is different from being swayed by harsh words about “banksters” whose crimes nobody can explain.
Fundamentally, we are all led by emotion because we “like” what it is we’re after, even if it’s a position of power and influence and crooked money. Or sticking it to the banksters or the rednecks or the liberals or…..
That said, I suspect this election is different because a certain, probably significant, portion of Trump’s support is “anybody but Hillary”. So we’re not about to pony up a couple of hundred bucks for a signed copy of “The Art of The Deal” to put under our pillow.
We look forward, should Trump be elected, to watching his every move and trying to contain his effervescence.
An October 14-17 Bloomberg poll asked Republicans who should be the face of their party nationally if Trump loses; 24 percent said Donald Trump and 71 percent picked Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan and John Kasich.
That 24 percent is quite low and seems to indicate that the number of Republicans who are drawn to the fringe may be a core number of people who have always been that way. Pat Buchanan, for example, pulled in primary votes in the 20 percent-plus range in Republican primaries in the 1990s.
“Remember, the Founding Fathers didn’t win the social dominance they needed to transform America by convincing their fellow American ‘conservatives’ who remained British loyalists through genteel discussion of ‘principles and ideas’.” [Eric @ 4:01]
And the sad corollary embodied in Eric’s post is that those who simply wish to be left alone to live their lives will, without activism, eventually be controlled by those who wish to control other peoples’ lives.
NeverTrump folks are right that Trump and the crudely Left-mimicking character of the Trump phenomenon are anathematic.
NeverHillary folks are right that the bottom line is GOP and conservatives must compete well enough to defeat the Democrat-front Left across the spectrum of participatory politics, not limited to electoral politics.
The obvious solution is NeverTrump folks need to compete well enough to defeat the Democrat-front Left, along with its Trump-front alt-Right mimickers, and thus obviate the Trump phenomenon.
No matter how obviously the left goosesteps on down the long march road, appropriates cultural institutions, flouts the law without consequence, burns the books and subverts the language, somehow it’s always the deplorable Republicans who are Hitler’s true heirs, even to other Republicans. What happened in this election is that desperate people saw what worked so spectacularly well for the left with Obama and tried to make it work for the right with their own messiah figure. Obviously the “alt right” has some annoying creepy tribalist people but they don’t have anything in the same universe of power as the annoying, creepy, tribalist people of the left. Also, I think the alt right glommed on to Trump and not the other way around. Trump manufactured genuine enthusiasm on his own. There’s an authenticity to Trump that you can understand – if you try – attracted people to him as a candidate. It’s gross and vulgar (like our a lot of our culture including the left) and it’s also unusual and outside the usual GOP drone next in line loser throwaway vote candidate. I did not support him in the primary but I get why people got enthused about him early, and it’s not because of some Nazi strongman dream.
I learned a few things. The first is that the primaries are deeply personal and hands on. I met all of them but Jeb. It was also very responsive to the will of the voters. Quaint the night the ballots were counted by hand at TJ high school in CB.
Hillary’s campaign was a production. No personal interaction with the voters. She never took a question. Just the Queen showing her face to the serfs as little as possible.
As to the general election, the media is lazy, dishonest and corrupt. Way beyond belief. Nothing on the issues. Just Trump is a racist, dangerous, misogynistic creep. Name calling and horse race stuff combined with speculation. Nothing on the issues. His speeches on substance are ignored. Hillary’s corruption is ignored. The last 90 days have been a sham except for the third debate. Somehow the media must pay. They rigged this election by their editing and omissions.
“…the enormous extent of many Americans’ susceptibility to propaganda, their inability (or unwillingness) to think for themselves…”
Could it possibly be that many do indeed “think for themselves” and have observed the same facts but simply disagree with you?
——————
I don’t hate Democrats. I don’t hate Hillary. I just disagree with their world view. And right now, the GOP, in general, is more in line with my opinions and political philosophy.
Donald Trump was not my first choice. He wasn’t even my second or third choice. However, he gained the GOP candidacy by perfectly legal and normal means. And because he and Hillary are the only real choices right now, and I do *NOT* want Hillary in the White House, I will vote for the Donald.
I know one thing for certain. Win or lose, I will be heartily glad when this election is over so all of my favorite blogs can get back to normal.
Ann – the 4 listed as the choices of the 71% vary so much in their politics that it explains why Trump was able to get the nomination. Republicans were so split and mad at each other they were unable to get together on on one or even two, and this enabled a small minority to choose the nominee. This was because too many republicans were disappointed in the ones in power. Any victory of almost any size would have served to unite them but none came even after being given both houses of congress. It may or may not have been justified but that’s the way it was.
Trump wasn’t chosen by the party but the party caused his nomination.
Roy –
Good luck with the whole “getting back to normal” thing. My suspicion is that based on who wins, certain blog comment sections are going to be filled with either crowing, or playing the blame game. Admittedly there’s always a certain amount of that after every election. But I suspect that there’s going to be a lot more of that on the right this time around.
DirtyJobsGuy Says:
October 24th, 2016 at 2:57 pm
I have NO idea where the notion that “Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers” got started — because he sure did NOT fire anyone.
As civil servants he couldn’t.
They fired themselves by violating Federal law.
They’d signed a no-strike clause in their union contract, to boot.
Yes, the strike was officially a wildcat strike… most unusual.
Reagan gave the ATC the legally permissible grace to come back to work, 72 hours.
MANY did return to work. And that was that. No punishment or retribution occurred.
As the head of a union local, himself, Reagan hated, hated, hated, wildcat strikes.
You’
I think the right has difficulties in keeping their voting coalition together. Some people, like me, oppose programs and legislation that a large majority of the American people have come to support.
For example, I don’t think that Social Security was or is a good idea. I would prefer that government stay of retirement programs. Similarly, I don’t think Medicare was or is a good idea. I prefer free market health care.
But I do realize that I am among a tiny minority of people who feel this way. So, I would hesitate to support a Republican primary candidate who promised to repeal Social Security. I would worry that if such a candidate were to win a Republican primary, it would represent an automatic victory for the Democrats.
I also am skeptical about anti-discrimination law. I think businesses should be able to hire who they want, no who the government thinks they should hire. I think businesses should be able to choose who they serve, not who the government says they should serve. While I personally would not refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, I am not enthusiastic about forcing a religious person to bake a cake under threat of a fine. Similarly, I don’t want to force a business to hire someone of a “group” simply because the government thinks people of this “group” have been historically victimized by discrimination.
But since I know that I am in the minority on this issue and because I know that most of the people who might agree with me on this issue might be guilty of bigotry, I am not sure that I want “my candidate” to openly announce that he or she supports repealing anti-discrimination laws.
My sense, however, is that many voters do not think of politics in this way. They simply vote for the candidate they agree with. When Trump mentioned “Mexicans” and “rapists” and “drugs” in the same sentence, they might not have immediately thought, “Gosh, he might not be able to win the general election with that kind of rhetoric.” Instead, many might have thought, “Here’s a guy who just says what is on his mind, damn the consequences. Let those establishment Republicans pee in their pants if they want.”
For someone like me who holds views held by a tiny minority of people, victories are few and far between. I no longer blame squishy, moderate, establishment Republicans for the fact that victories are achieved so rarely. I simply accept that most people don’t hold the near-libertarian views that I hold.
No amount of charisma in a candidate can change this.
You’ll find that a common position to very union head in this nation.
Wildcat strikes RUIN the negotiating power of union management.
It’s no longer possible to guarantee labor peace.
Isn’t it possible that people support Trump not because of emotion or longing for a tyrant, but because he pledged to support policies they care about? Policies the other 16 candidates didn’t have much to say about? So much of what I read tends to imply that support for Trump is some sort of personality disorder.
“let’s explode once and for all the myth of the solely rational right and the solely emotional left.”
Fair enough. As long as we remember that those on the Left deny fundamental aspects of both human nature and of the external reality in which they exist. There are valid reasons why many on the right have come to accept that those that embrace liberalism/leftism are, to varying degrees… mentally dysfunctional.
IMO, Ann is probably correct in her 24% percentage.
“Somehow the media must pay.” Cornhead
Oh, they’re going to eventually pay all right but at the cost of the innocent paying along with them. Hell is an equal opportunity oppressor.
Conrad –
Chances are that more than one other candidate did express support for the policy in question, but was never heard as a result of the media’s focus on Trump. Our hostess has pointed out at least a few such instances, iirc.
” He noted that people he socialized with all wondered why are the polls against Trump while he continues to fill rallies (and that Hillary cant fill a junior high gym). Rush knows better how celebrity works, but developed this argument that there are more trump supporters than are counted. “ – DirtyJG
Heard it described as a “rock tour” vs a “political campaign”.
The MSM selected Trump for the GOP.
No-one else.
They drowned all non-Trump candidates with the cone of silence.
After Ted’s victory in Iowa, he could scarcely get air time.
This was an orchestrated cone of silence. It was not something that just happened by chance.
&&&
Though he’s FAR from my ideals… I’m warming to Trump.
His prepared remarks have been excellent.
I expect that — ever the man to staff things out — Trump will use this mode while in office.
He’s absolutely no Winston Churchill, that’s for sure.
I also can’t miss the fact that critiques of Hillary are based on substance, on emails, on her legacy of action.
Yet, the dominant mode of Trump’s critique is pure ad hominem. He is massively miss-quoted with consistency. His remarks are always placed out of context. When sarcastic, the Press spins sarcasm as rogue commentary.
The sluts whining about Trump’s sexual behavior have ZERO credibility. We have to expect that such women will pop up every four years with every GOP candidate.
Locker room banter occurs across all social ranks. The entire episode is nothing but character assassination — entirely playing to emotions. It can’t possibly be an indication of unfitness for the presidency.
If you want foul talk — grab the old LBJ tapes. And they weren’t even ‘banter.’ Lyndon just had a potty mouth. One SS man related to me that being around him was ugly, like being in boot camp with sex starved, sex obsessed teens.
I’ve repeatedly brought up Robert Cialdini.
He spells out in his text exactly how one can totally manipulate human beings — and how IQ, reason, logic are no defense.
The manipulation occurs BEFORE any conversation even begins. It’s not in the conversation.
The reason that the polls are being manipulated is pure Cialdini.
Just about everyone is conditioned into believing that — at least collectively — they must be pretty correct — certainly within a few percentage points of perfection.
But, Podesta’s emails and Cialdini’s tome indicated that this assumption is wholly invalid.
Cialdini provides the rationale.
Podesta is the mechanic.
The emails are a smoking gun.
Hillary is committing fresh felonies — as a part of her campaign !
She really learned a lot from Watergate.
I don’t doubt Trump benefitted enormously from his celebrity and inordinate media attention. But if any other candidate supported Trump’s signature issues (immigration enforcement, suspicion of free trade at any cost, and less military adventurism) I must have missed it. (For what it’s worth I voted for Cruz.)
It seems to me that what’s happening here has a lot of parallels to what’s happening in Europe. As Mark Steyn says, when respectable politicians rule certain subjects out of bounds, the people will look to un-respectable ones. In such an instance I find it hard to blame the people, or to accuse them of being susceptible to propaganda or looking for a strongman.
Spiral,
I agree with you about entitlements, sooner or later costs get out of control and either benefits must be greatly reduced or the program collapses. As far as anti-discrimination laws are concerned, I agree with you for the most part. We all discriminate when it comes to people we wish to associate with.
But, as you note a vast majority of voters have no desire to reform entitlements, and being against anti-discrimination laws is to pin on a button stating one is a racist, sexist, homophobe.
“Conservative talk radio always showed the faction of true conspiracy followers and strongman voters. … It’s only natural, especially for those who do not pay close attention to politics or have little experience with working in that world. The strongman can just say “you’re fired!”.” – DirtyJG
Astute point. Having been involved, it quickly becomes rather evident just how hard it is to get things you want done, done, even amongst people you agree with.
There just aren’t “simple answers” to everything, as the devil is always in the details, where we will find the impacts and consequences, often completely unintended.
Nice phrases like “Just Enforce the Law!” have great appeal on the surface, but if one digs into the howzitdones there are all kinds of practical issues to deal with.
Conrad O’Connor Says:
Isn’t it possible that people support Trump not because of emotion or longing for a tyrant, but because he pledged to support policies they care about?
No, it’s not. Because Trump betrayed even his signature issue numerous times, with nary a murmur from supporters.
Pence was former open-borders. Trump endorsed McCain. Big beautiful door in the wall, etc.
Trump was an instrument of revenge that made supporters feel good that they were sticking it to the GOPe.
Obviously the “alt right” has some annoying creepy tribalist people but they don’t have anything in the same universe of power as the annoying, creepy, tribalist people of the left.
A matter of a lack of time, not intent. The minority of fanatics will always come to rule over the moderate majority, because frankly, the moderate majority are weaklings and aren’t even going to volunteer to do the work.
While the Alternative Right is composed of 3 sections: the internet sub communities, the betrayed Republican Tea Party reformers, and former/current Democrats/Demons looking for more power. Their chances of defeating the Leftist alliance and Islamic Jihad is not as optimistic as many of their champions believe, but it is far better than the record for the GOP E or previous Republican Presidents or leaders.
For the Leftist alliance to be destroyed or defeated, the GOP must be purged and cleansed. For Islamic Jihad to be destroyed or defeated, the Leftist alliance must be wiped from the face of this earth.
I trust people can figure out how to connect those dots.
They rigged this election by their editing and omissions.
Are people naive enough here to think they haven’t been rigging American elections since the beginning?
Recall how many Founding Fathers owned how many local printing presses and newspapers.
I should add that I learned that many Americans are fed up with the illegal alien invasion and the fact that America constantly gets screwed by the rest of the world.
I’m not sure I’ve learned much of anything which will influence my behavior in the future. I am deeply disappointed by a number of talkers on the right whom I used to admire but that information is trivial.
“For what it’s worth I voted for Cruz.”
This is a serious question, not a loaded question.
Just about every Trump voter (I didn’t use the word Supporter) voted for Cruz.
Trump won the nomination. Did any of you vote for him in the primary?
Nearly everyone (except for maybe Art and Yankee) seems to feel like they have to make sure we know they aren’t a true Trump supporter, but are voting for him because of reasons that (believe it or not) I understand (even though I am not voting for him).
An interesting aspect of October before a big election – I live in a red state (that’s moving toward a swing state) and I have yet to see either a Trump or Hillary sign in the neighborhoods I drive through.
Such a weird election. Can we agree that the biggest issue this election is that our Primary season is broken?
If I had any sway I’d introduce a constitutional amendment that prohibited major election activities (state primaries, mainly, as I think most other restrictions would violate the first Amendment and I don’t want to do that) any earlier than 6 months before the election.
My learning experience was during the 2012 US Senate race in my current home state of Indiana.
US Senator, Republican Richard Lugar was running for reelection. Lugar was challenged in the Republican primary by Richard Murdock, who was allied with the Tea Party.
I was not adamantly opposed to Lugar but Lugar did cast some votes that I did not appreciate, primarily his vote for Obama’s US Supreme Court nominees. However, these nominees would have been confirmed with or without Lugar’s votes.
I voted for Richard Murdock in the primary. My wife, who is much less political than I am, voted for Lugar, noting that the Republican governor at the time, Mitch Daniels, endorsed Lugar.
Since Indiana is normally a reliable Republican state and since in 2010 Republican Dan Coats enjoyed an easy election victory in his US Senate race, I thought Murdock had his US Senate race in the bag.
But during a debate with Democrat nominee Joe Donnelly, Murdock was asked a question about his opposition to abortion even in cases where the woman was raped. Murdock’s answer mentioned that God had a plan even for those born under terrible circumstances. But it was interpreted (or perhaps deliberately misinterpreted) as Murdock believing that rape is part of God’s plan for some women and children.
Murdock lost the Senate race to Democrat Joe Donnelly.
At this time, I read a column by Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review. Ponnuru mentioned that only 8 percent of the public (based on opinion polls) support banning abortion in cases of rape. Paul Ryan has held to this position, but Ryan is careful about expressing his position publicly, knowing that it could be a vote loser.
Some in the GOP reacted to Murdock’s loss of the Senate race by deciding that the GOP needs to junk it’s pro-life stance because it’s costing it too many elections. Others argued that Murdock simply failed to finesse the issue properly as well as someone like Paul Ryan.
The reason why I am a little angry with those who voted for Trump in the Republican primary this year is because I believe they were voting for someone who was [a] less electable than most of the other 17 candidates and [b] less conservative than the other 17 candidates.
We ended up with a candidate who supports a Canadian style single payer health care system but who shoots his mouth off reckless and offends nearly everyone, from prisoners of war to women to Mexican-Americans to parents of fallen soldiers.
So, not only do I disagree with Trump primary voters on issues such as socialized medicine, entitlement reform and free trade (NAFTA and TPP), I also think that these voters lack proper judgement. They lack the ability to determine which candidates are ready for prime time and which are easy kill for the Democrat attack machine.
New Florida Poll Shows Major Landslide
CBS Florida: Question 25
If there was no voter fraud who do you think would win this year? Hillary 31% / Trump 69%
Early Voting In Florida Shows Trump Winning Election By Landslide
Florida Shocker: Republicans Winning By 120,000 Votes In Early Voting. Trump the FIRST Republican EVER to win early votes in FL!
it is what it is, waiting to see how or if others report
The MSM selected Trump for the GOP.
Helped mightily by Trump’s well-established celebrity status that was greatly enhanced by his very successful show, The Apprentice. Which actually makes him a member of the MSM, come to think of it. Irony doesn’t begin to cover it.
Trump won the nomination. Did any of you vote for him in the primary?
As I’ve said before, Trum has 3 pillars of support and the reason for his Primary victories are because of open primaries or just former Democrats voting him in.
Btw, given Demoncrat corruption, they don’t necessarily need “open primaries” to do so. I never underestimate the power of the Left, even if others love doing so since they think the Left=mindless zombies they always see online.
Bill:
I suspect, extrapolating from my (admittedly limited) first-hand experience, that a lot of Trump primary voters are not the types to comment on political blogs or even follow politics much at all. They also are suspicious of pollsters and the media. Exhibit A would be my mother, who as far as I knew was entirely apolitical, until she announced one day she was volunteering for Trump. That leaves it to us reluctant Trump supporters to offer what defense we can.
Defeatism. Dead-Enders. Conspiracy sellers. True Believers. Hillary touters. Quite a collection at this point.
Van:
Where do you fit into this collection, above the fray?
I’ll be up front and tell you that I did not vote for Trump in the Kentucky primary. However, by the time it got around to me, only my third choice was available – Ted Cruz, and that’s who I voted for. (For what it’s worth, my number one was Scott Walker and my number 2 was Ben Carson.)
Regardless of what you think of him, one of the factors in Donald Trumps candidacy is the behavior of the Republican Congress from 2014 till now. The *perception* of a lot of folks out here in fly-over country is that we gave them a major win back in 2014 and they essentially did *NOTHING*.
(If I could sit down and have a conversation with Mitch McConnell, I would tell him that he, personally, is responsible for Donald Trump. …and I voted for Mitch!)
People are pissed! Or at least enough of them are that Trump’s primary show convinced them that he was the only chance to actually stop the Obama-Clinton-leftist juggernaut. (…or at least slow it down.)
I, personally, don’t think that’s true, but the fact is that the 2016 primary is now past history. There’s no way to turn back the clock and get a do-over. So Trump it is.
What really pisses ME off are all of these so-called conservatives in the GOP who would rather have Hillary in office than Trump. Yeah, I’m talking about Ryan and the whole Bush family. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and you don’t have to “support” him, but high-profile Republicans should never speak ill of their own parties candidate. As far as I am concerned, it’s sour grapes because they didn’t get their way. Well Boo Hoo. I hope every slap-dab one of them gets thrown out of office on the next election go-around.
Roy
Some people are party first, party always.
Others are country over party.
I think I understand the anger. Howevet, I believe Trump was the wrong answer, and I think that if Hillary wins the main reason won’t be people who withdrew from him but rather Trump himself.
The GOP needs women, minorities and young people to win. I can’t imaging a worse candidate than Trump to accomplish this.
Maybe I’m wrong and maybe he’ll win. Who knows. Lines are long here in Texas for early voting (they were crazy long for the primarise too. He lost to Cruz then).I don’t know what all this means.
“Primarise” = primaries.
the common reasoning used to justify despotism as if the despots do not suffer the same slings and arrows or conditions.
the whole progressive movement and fabian movement and others are built on the idea that the people that have been leading themselves cant lead themselves and all have perfectly logical reasons why…
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn
“[It is a] happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on him by the wicked acts of his tyrant.” –Thomas Jefferson to M. de Marbois, 1817
“[The] voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism.” –Thomas Jefferson to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809
“The full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. The idea… has been carried by us more or less into all our legislative and executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods… My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816
but on the flipside your ideas sound a lot like the classics of ubermenchen – for anyone other than sociopaths the will to power needs justification to sit right in the minds the offensive as not offense
The “fundamental faith” of the aristocracy, then, is that “society” exists for them, for their sake, so that all the lesser types who serve them in society exist “only as the foundation and scaffolding on which a choice type of being is able to raise itself to its higher task and to a higher state of being…”
those lesser types are so messed up they could never order their lives and make the right choices…
[Nietzsche thought we were slipping back down the evolutionary slope to the “last man,” something a bit above the bovine, and the only thing that could drive upwards, was a great conflict.]
Such arguments were also used to prevent blacks from voting, immigrants and others from being accepted as citizens…
Nobody’s Fools: The Rational Audience as First
Amendment Ideal
If we the people are incapable of rationally choosing our collective fates, then democracy is doomed to failure.
i guess lawyers would assert what lawyers are taught, just as doctors do as they do, and programmers do as they do – but is it really that way or philosophical?
oh yee of little faith to make the rational leap.
Updike’s ‘This I Believe’ Essay
I also believe, instinctively, if not very cogently, in the American political experiment, which I take to be, at bottom, a matter of trusting the citizens to know their own minds and best interests. “To govern with the consent of the governed”: this spells the ideal. And though the implementation will inevitably be approximate and debatable, and though a totalitarian or technocratic government can obtain some swift successes, in the end, only a democracy can enlist a people’s energies on a sustained and renewable basis. To guarantee the individual maximum freedom within a social frame of minimal laws ensures – if not happiness – its hopeful pursuit.
Bill, I get it. I really do.
Trump might not be the right answer, but Hillary is well and truly the *wrong* answer.
Speaking of “country over party”, if Jim Webb had become the Democrat nominee, I might have changed my opinion. Unfortunately, a conservative Democrat doesn’t last as long as a snow flake on a hot griddle these days.
A great book on the subject is Robin Koerner’s “If you can keep it”. It’s amazing how much we think “our side” is on our side, how much identity politics shapes our perceptions of what we think they think.
An interesting observation from Wayne Allyn Root FWIW:
An observation, no more, no less. We shall see in two weeks.
Link:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/24/why-im-still-betting-big-on-donald-trump-to-win.html
M J T – When Sarah Palin came along, Noemie Emery wrote a column that probably annoyed almost everyone.
She said that neither Palin nor Obama were ready for prime time.
Since I had come to the same opinion, independently, I was delighted by the column.
(I do think that Palin is, or was, more capable of learning from experience than Obama.)
From the post: “Or maybe I idealized Americans as a whole.”
Yeah. I really don’t think it’s accurate to say I idealized them, exactly, because my expectations of people at large are not all that high to begin with. But it does seem that more than I would have expected are worse than I would have expected.
“(I do think that Palin is, or was, more capable of learning from experience than Obama.)” [Jim Miller @ 11:57]
Well, when one is a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better foreign policy advisor than his foreign policy advisors, and a better economist than his economists, what is there to learn other than the fact that the public just doesn’t recognize his brilliance?
There is a fundamental fact about American politics that many conservatives should face: There are more Democrats than Republicans. (It’s about 34-28, last I looked.)
That Democratic advantage implies that, if Republicans want to win national elections, they need unity more than the Democrats do. (I was a little surprised in 2012, when Obama did not reach out more, to try for a larger victory, but I knew that he probably didn’t need to.)
Karl Rove and George W. Bush showed one way to achieve that unity in 2000 and 2004.
Smart conservatives, conservatives who will take time to think about those successes (and the successes of Boehner and company in 2010), can learn from them.
Bill:
You might want to take a look at this thread entitled “Do you know any early Trump supporters?”
Ann – You may like the suggestion I made when Trump was looking for a running mate: I suggested he be honest and pick Les Moonves.
Okay, I was joking — partly.
Matt_SE Says:
October 24th, 2016 at 3:00 pm
Yep. It’s the personal compromises this cycle that have been most illuminating. I’ve never heard anything like it since “Who goes Nazi?”
http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
* * *
That was an interesting article, and the temptation is to agree with the author’s facile analysis, but it is not exactly a controlled experiment.
A lot of otherwise very nice people “went Nazi” — but by her criteria, Schindler should also have been one of them
(some may consider him an ambiguous case, but there is no doubt that he saved many Jews, whatever his reasons).
For those who fear that words to describe this election will begin to fail them, some options are available here:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49652/10-old-fashioned-swears-spice-your-cussin
(the best ones are in the comments)
Matt_SE,
Who goes Nazi? There many reasons, but for many who jump on the death squad bandwagon it is their failure to recognize there are somethings worse than death. In extreme circumstances where resistance will with 100% certainty result in death it is always best to choose resistance.
OM,
Vanderluen is not worth the calories it takes to respond to his/her/gender neutral comments. Vanderluen is not interested in discussion, only one line gotcha snideness. Now, I must stop and eat a few potato chips to recover the calories I wasted commenting on your comments addressed to Vanderleun.
Je suis fatigue.
Ann Says:
October 24th, 2016 at 4:08 pm
According to the article cited by Ann (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-20/poll-shows-republicans-less-committed-to-trump):
So, I think the 24% figure for Trump is not low. If the poll is accurate, it reflects two things: the splits in the Republican party that was also obvious during the primaries, and Pence has made a very good impression on a lot of Republicans.
By the way, just what is “fringe” about Trump besides the clumsy way he expresses himself and his penchant for sabotaging his own campaign?
Roy wrote:
Regardless of what you think of him, one of the factors in Donald Trumps candidacy is the behavior of the Republican Congress from 2014 till now. The *perception* of a lot of folks out here in fly-over country is that we gave them a major win back in 2014 and they essentially did *NOTHING*.
(If I could sit down and have a conversation with Mitch McConnell, I would tell him that he, personally, is responsible for Donald Trump. …and I voted for Mitch!)
People are pissed! Or at least enough of them are that Trump’s primary show convinced them that he was the only chance to actually stop the Obama-Clinton-leftist juggernaut. (…or at least slow it down.)
I do not fault the Republican Congress at all. As a result of the 2014 election, the Republicans obtained a 54 to 46 seat majority in the US Senate and a 242 to 193 seat majority in the US House of Representatives.
President Obama retains his veto pen and the majorities obtained by the Republicans are not veto-proof, two-thirds majorities.
This is what the Republicans discovered back in 1995-1996, after the GOP won the Congress in the 1994 elections. They tried to get their agenda passed despite the vetoes of President Clinton and they lost the battle for public opinion. Clinton got reelected.
McConnell and Ryan decided it would be better to first elect a Republican president and then attempt to enact the Republican agenda.
But the talk radio Republican crowd, relying on hysteria and paranoia, accused every Republican unwilling to shut down the government over this or that issue to be a sell out.
Also, many ideas Republicans care about do not have the support of the American people.
I mentioned in a comment above about how I would like to see either a phase out or a significant reform of Medicare and Social Security. But the Democrats are very good at attacking Republicans on those issues. I mentioned also that I am not a fan of anti-discrimination laws governing privately owned businesses. But, again, the Democrats are good at attacking anyone who even shows the slightest tolerance for discrimination in business.
So, I think McConnell and Ryan were correct. The Republican primary voters, especially those who got angry with the Republicans in Congress, were incorrect.
But the hooligans won the primary and now Republicans will likely lose the US Senate and the White House. So, those who were mad at McConnell and Ryan before will have 4 more years to be mad.
It would be better if Republican voters were rational, not emotional. But ratings on talk radio depend on tweaking peoples’ emotions, painting pictures of Republican betrayal. So, here we are.
Yep. After I left the Left on account of its irrationality, authoritarianism, and viciousness, I thought I had found a decent home on the right. Maybe that home was a fixer-upper, but it would do. But now I see it’s infested with the same termites and rot.
I have more sympathy with the right. I understand eight years Of Obamaism have eaten away at the country’s moral and financial foundations leaving millions in trouble. The Trump movement was born of that desperation. Unfortunately Trump was such a flawed candidate, Trump and his movement have guaranteed the continuation of that decline.
Nonetheless, I was shocked how easily people on the right shucked their conservative principles for Trump.
People who claim to care about SCOTUS are punishing the “do nothing” GOP congress that has stood against President Obama’s choice to replace Scalia, refusing to even open up the process. A Dem senate would have already confirmed Scalia’s successor.
So they nominate a guy who has sky-high negatives, and who actively campaigns against the GOP congress, but who speaks to their anger – anger that has been stoked for years by “conservative” talking heads. If polls are to be believed, the guy they nominated is going to lose big and may take the Congress with him, handing all the power to their most hated enemy, HRC. Other things he will take down with him – the GOPs moral standing as the party of family values – the very values many of the people who nominated him feel are under attack by the very party his nomination (if polls are true) has ensured will be in power for at least 4 more years.
This doesn’t make any sense to me.
I’m a little surprised and disappointed about this thread not noting a very significant fact about how “Big gov’t supporters” who are “anti-abortion” vote.
Today, most of them vote Rep. They desire big gov’t programs and a safety net, but understand that the Dem Party does NOT want them, even tho they agree on higher taxes (on the rich!) and more safety net.
Trump is the first post-Roe v Wade Rep to be “anti-abortion” yet fairly positive about “big gov’t”.
“What is conservative” is one key question; but the election question is “Who is a Republican”, along with “and why?”.
As an ex-Libertarian (that’s Big L, ran for office in CA a couple of times, went to conventions, etc.) now Rep, it is clear that the Republican brand is “in play”. And the GOPe “low taxes” (for the rich!), yet little or no gov’t help for the middle classes while Bush supported a Trillion bailout for Big Banks — the normal working anti-abortion folk of the Reps don’t have much reason to support the GOPe.
Yes, this could have been a year for Carly (#1) or Ted (#2), but the GOPe hated and still hates Ted even more than Trump. They’re embarrassed by Trump’s vulgarity, and might even hate some, many, or most of his supporters.
Ted was ready with his ground game, his religion, his honest Conservatism — but he was not an exciting orator/ entertainer. He’ll be back, hopefully after learning a bit more about how to be more “likeable”.
For those who want to like Trump, he does seem genuine, authentic. Vulgar, but real.
Oh well, I’m ready for him to lose — I already voted for him from Slovakia; I really hope hope hope that Hillary loses.
Oh yeah, a huge number of Reps have no enthusiasm for voting for a “spineless loser”, like the excellent person Romney is. It’s clear to all that Trump is fighting — ya, a loose cannon, even firing into his own foot, but at least firing.
We ARE in a “cultural Civil War”.
Recall Lincoln’s key quote about Grant: “He fights.”
Reps can NOT win if we don’t fight.
“ya, a loose cannon, even firing into his own foot, but at least firing.”
A soldier who fires at himself and his own army isn’t going to win anything. This is not a virtue.
This election was supposed to be a slam-dunk for a Republican Presidential nominee. Which is why some 16 or so declared their candidacy.
They were all so convinced that they themselves would be the subject of adoring biographies that a ‘Television Star’ was able to win the nomination.
Perhaps some of them could have shelved their egos for a moment and thought of the good of their party or their country.
Nope. Didn’t happen.
They all were dreaming of walking down the exit stairs of Air Force One while ‘Hail to the Chief’ was being played by the Marine Corps Band.
And now it looks like at least four years of HRC IS about to happen.
“The MSM selected Trump for the GOP.
No-one else.
They drowned all non-Trump candidates with the cone of silence.”
And:
“…the reason for his Primary victories are because of open primaries or just former Democrats voting him in….”
Are y’all saying what I think you’re saying?….
It has indeed been a learning experience.
Last fall I was moving and took a month or so off from a blog where I was a contributor. When I returned I was shocked to find that there was such a high level of enthusiasm for Trump among some of my “conservative” friends. I wrote a post on the subject, asking my fellow bloggers to answer one simple question: ‘Does principled conservatism matter?” The Trump supporters evaded that question, and that was when it really hit me that these were not the people I thought they were. I can’t really fault myself though, because for the 3 years or so that I blogged there all these people talked about was restoring the Constitution and conservative values. A rift developed between the Trump supporters and Cruz supporters (of which I was one) when the Trump camp took great exception to any unflattering truths being written about Trump. That was it for those of us in the Cruz camp. Not wanting to blog where the truth was off limits, we went our separate ways and that’s how it will remain. At this point in time and with no good alternative, I don’t blame anyone for reluctantly supporting Trump. But I can’t relate to “conservatives” who actually thought Trump was a good idea.
The argument has been made that Trump supporters are no different from Obama supporters in their failure to see the tyrannical tendencies in their preferred candidates. I disagree to a degree – and offer myself as an example.
I was not a Trump supporter during the primaries. I considered him a demagogue – and I still do. I am supporting him because the alternative, probably the most thoroughly corrupt and criminal president in our history, is too awful to contemplate. Four to eight years of a Hillary presidency will damage the country far more than a Trump presidency is likely to. The primary reason is that Trump will have an extremely adversarial press to keep him in check. Hillary will have no such restriction upon her. In addition, Trump will have strong opposition from both parties in Congress. Hillary will have an emboldened Democrat congressional core, capable of working their will against a weak and demoralized Republican group, regardless of who is in the majority. The result: Hillary will have extraordinary power. Trump would have severe restraints placed upon him.
I, as many other Trump supporters, have made the calculation that Trump is the better choice by far for our republic. Four to eight more years of Obama-like policies would be catastrophic.
CW
Just saw Laura Ingraham on TV. She is, IMO, Trump’s most effective advocate. One argument she made was: Would you rather have crude or corrupt?
“One argument she made was: Would you rather have crude or corrupt?”
I think the evidence that Trump is not corrupt is extremely shaky. http://fortune.com/2016/08/24/donald-trump-campaign/
Lots of other evidence beyond that one link that he is making money off his own campaign.
The “But Hillary has done far worse” argument is an apples/oranges comparison – he’s never had the power or influence she’s had.
A misnomer of the truly pro-Trump crowd (people like Ingraham) is that anti-Trump people are just offended by his crudity. Like the only issue is he makes off-color remarks.
Neither he nor HRC are fit for the presidency.
I have to say, though, that Hillary’s corruption is a huge problem. In a just country with a true rule of law and equal justice under that law, she would be in jail.
That’s one more reason why this election season has been so incredibly frustrating. This was a winnable election. To be in a position where you can’t in good conscience vote for either major party candidate is not fun.
Residents of at least two cities in Texas are complaining that they voted for Donald Trump only to see the voting machine switch their ballot to Hillary Clinton.
“Multiple reports on my Facebook, Periscope, Snapchat, and Twitter from my friends in Texas, and all of them had their vote switched to Clinton automatically,” one post on The Donald Reddit is headlined.
A good person to ask about reports of vote rigging in Texas would be Texas Director of Elections Keith Ingram, but given that he ran away from our reporters — that might prove to be difficult
In 2012 the Obama Administration granted temporary legal status to close to 750,000 illegal immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.Now they are going door-to-door campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.
They are also focusing well beyond the presidential campaign. The illegal immigrant activists featured in the Post article were also working on behalf of Democrat LuAnn Bennett, who is locked in a tight race against incumbent Republican Barbara Comstock.
As Democrats scream at the top of their lungs about Russia trying to interfere with the American election it’s ironic to see them actively working with non-citizens to alter the results of that very same election.
Dear Cornhead
I posed the ‘crude or corrupt’ question myself long before today on another blog.
The question for today, based upon this post, is not whether we choose crude or corrupt, but how did we get to a place where these were our only options.
@Sprial – your 5:30 a.m. comment is a fair assessment.
Folks imagine the representatives with powers that they don’t have to exercise. Part of this expectation is built up by “conservative” media. Part of it is campaign hyperbole. Part of it is either lack of experience or lack of knowledge.
I do think the GOP have long executed poorly on strategy and communication, the latter being critical given the bent of the MSM – but this is from a “business” point of view.
Still, winning the game requires the full package, and that starts with bringing the public on side.
We got here because the republican party is about 1/3 strong conservative (almost libertarian), 1/3 moderate conservative (establishment) and 1/3 populist who only look for a popular candidate.
When the moderate conservative candidates lost they refused to join the strong conservatives to beat the populist. They were afraid a strong conservative might win and stop their gravy train in DC. They thought the populist had no chance of winning which suited them just fine because the democrat would at least continue business as usual (crony capitalism.)
So here we are. Are we going to let the corrupt establishment continue calling the tune or are we going to take back our country?
Trump may be a terribly flawed candidate but at least he doesn’t bring the baggage of the corrupt system with him. He may have existed in it and used it to his advantage but he definitely isn’t a member of it. If he is, why would every member of the corrupt system be fighting so hard against him?
Art,
I’ve heard those stories too.
While I know the MSM is biased, I am usually very skeptical of conspiracies that would have to include hundreds of people.
It would take hundreds of people colluding together to fix an American election. That would be a history shaking story that someone, somewhere within the conspiracy would leak and someone, somewhere within the MSM would jump on as a way to launch their career into high orbit.
Also, I’m a programmer. If I was fiddling with electronic voting machines to fix an election, I certainly wouldn’t bother to show the voter the way I changed their vote. I would just do it under the covers and show them “Trump” on the front end.
I’m not saying this isn’t a concern – I hate electronic voting because our government has their thumb in their eye most of the time and so handling the security and program bug aspects of this correctly is suspect to me. It’s a big concern. Why we don’t insist on paper ballots and simple processes is beyond me.
But the lid would not stay on top of a conspiracy this big, with this many people’s fingers on it. It just wouldn’t. Occam’s razor – either people are making up these stories (possibility A) or people actually fat fingered the roller when they voted and noticed it before they submitted (possibility B) are a lot more plausible than The machines’ programming has been tampered with to change your vote AND the programmers involved are keeping quiet about it because they are willing to risk jail and life-ruining defamation due to their far-left proclivities AND they also decided to go the whole way and give the voter a peek at the changed vote before submitting because they want to go to jail.
I don’t buy it.
“If he is, why would every member of the corrupt system be fighting so hard against him?”
I would argue that the GOPe has fallen in line pretty solidly behind Trump.
“…I can’t relate to “conservatives” who actually thought Trump was a good idea.”
I don’t think anyone here thinks Trump is a “good idea”. It’s just that a lot of us think he is a better choice than 4 to 8 years of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Unfortunately, Ted Cruz is not going to be on the ballot on November 8. Neither is Carly, Marko, Ben, or Jeb. It will be Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and several also-ran’s. That’s it. Like it or not, that’s the only choice we have.
Tom G Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 7:22 am
As an ex-Libertarian (that’s Big L, ran for office in CA a couple of times, went to conventions, etc.) now Rep, it is clear that the Republican brand is “in play”. And the GOPe “low taxes” (for the rich!), yet little or no gov’t help for the middle classes while Bush supported a Trillion bailout for Big Banks – the normal working anti-abortion folk of the Reps don’t have much reason to support the GOPe.
I am very libertarian in my views on economics. I support free trade, including NAFTA, CAFTA and the TPP. I would even support unilateral free trade, letting American purchase products from most foreign countries with no import tariff (tax). In my opinion, to be in favor of limited government means being in favor of zero or at least very low import tariffs on goods and services from foreign countries.
I am also for lower income tax rates on individuals and on corporations. Tax cuts for the rich, in my opinion, is good economic policy as was demonstrated by the John F. Kennedy tax cut and the Reagan tax cuts.
But we need to cut spending on Social Security and Medicare.
All of these ideas I am putting forth do not have the support of the majority of the American people. I realize that. Therefore, I am not one to accept the argument made by the talk radio crowd that its the GOP establishment that is preventing us from conservative/libertarian victories. Not at all. The Republican establishment is simply trying to be careful not to get too far out ahead of public opinion.
But the barbarians voted for Trump in the primaries. So, the GOP has the worst of all worlds. Trump offends Mexican-Americans and women. But Trump is at heart a socialist who thinks socialized medicine works “incredibly well” in Scotland and in Canada (as he mentioned in the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015).
So, I have been given the choice of two New York Leftists. I will vote for neither.
I have learned that people like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham either aren’t very politically astute or simply don’t care about advancing the conservative agenda. Or they have just gone insane.
In all past primaries when candidates dropped out they gave their support to one of the remaining candidates of their party. This is the first time I’ve seen candidates of a party throw their support to the opposition party instead of one of their own.
Tom G – That’s fine. Just leave the election to me. I’ll take care of your interests. (s/off)
“McConnell and Ryan decided it would be better to first elect a Republican president and then attempt to enact the Republican agenda.” Spiral
That’s the most positive and plausible but speculative explanation for their behavior. Unfortunately it doesn’t agree with their behavior on key issues. Such as reducing big government, opposing illegal immigration, H1-B Visas, the budget and unvetted Muslim migration.
Yes, the veto pen is an issue as far as passing legislation that Obama opposes. But there is a great difference between impotent opposition and a claimed reluctance that effectively collaborates.
Ryan and McConnell forwarded to Obama an omnibus bill that gave Obama MORE than he asked for, forwarded authorization for greatly increased H1-B Visas, continue to support amnesty with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who, by their very presence… are lawbreakers.
And a GOP ‘leadership’ that forwarded legislation authorizing Obama to bring in four times the amount of “impossible to vett” ‘refugees’ than previously allowed. All while making no effort to place pressure upon M.E. Muslim societies to also accept refugees, which they are NOT.
Given that record, there is no rational way to propose that once Ryan, McConnell and the GOPe have a Republican President, that then they will “get religion”.
But it is an excellent rationalization to offer those such as yourself that desperately wish to excuse their behavior.
CW
Don’t know if you golf, but you have to play the ball where it lies.
@Roy — 10:03 a.m.
Why is it that whenever the subject turns to the lessons learned from this election someone feels the need to remind me that it’s down to Trump or Clinton, as if this wasn’t obvious by now?
I’m not suggesting that anyone here thinks Trump is a good idea. I don’t know enough about the people blogging here to make that assumption. I was talking about what I’ve LEARNED, which is that there is a different mindset between those who are big fans of Trump and those who see him as just the lesser of two evils. I’ve learned that there was not the consensus on conservatism that I had been led to believe. Who I’m voting given what we have in front of us now is an entirely different subject. Sheesh.
@Cornhead
“Don’t know if you golf, but you have to play the ball where it lies.”
No kidding.
I wonder if Neo-Neocon realizes that the subject matter of her post was completely lost on you.
“CW
Don’t know if you golf, but you have to play the ball where it lies.” – Cornhead
And, evidently, that ball is not where trump supporters thinks it lies.
Or, for the ones that did somehow find it, they marked the ball and then put a wiffle ball in its place.
/jk
One lesson learned is that for far too many than I’d imagined team (tribe) politics almost make it irrelevant what the underlying issues are and one’s stand on them.
“One argument she made was: Would you rather have crude or corrupt?”
“I have to say, though, that Hillary’s corruption is a huge problem.” Bill
Corruption is repairable but once it reaches ‘critical mass’… there is no retreat from ideological transformation.
I remain convinced that Hillary’s corruption is not her primary motivation. She views it as first a tool to enable her “progressive” goals and secondly, as simply her due.
And, her progressive goals are simply the prelude to an irreversible slide into a collectivism that differs from communism only in name.
“Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”
Irv Greenberg:
You write: “This is the first time I’ve seen candidates of a party throw their support to the opposition party instead of one of their own.”
Maybe, just maybe, it’s because it’s the first time a party has been hijacked by a candidate from the opposition party, and/or a candidate who attacks members of his own party as much or more (I would submit the answer is “more”) than he attacks members of the supposed opposition party.
Or a candidate whom many consider an unbalanced, unprincipled madman.
You may not agree with these candidates you described, but surely you have noticed that there are some objective reasons why they may be doing what they’re doing.
Her TEMPERMENT is WORSE than TRUMP ever was
but her public image is better than trumps ever was
———————————————————–
“She derives pleasure from lording over other people who cannot do anything about it and who are less powerful than she is,” author Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV’s J. D. Hayworth.
———————————————————–
Air Force Staff Sergeant Eric Bonner:
“One of my last details was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?” According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that f***ing dog away from me.” “Then she turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’”
“Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but Hillary.”
———————————————————–
“Stay the f*** back, stay the f*** away from me!” the then-—First Lady screamed at her Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f***ing do as I say, okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited Access, page 139
———————————————————–
“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f***ing ass over here and grab those bags!” Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page 259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat arose.
[Secret Service Bell Hops?]
———————————————————–
“Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton. “F*** off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16
———————————————————–
“Put this back on the ground!” Hillary Clinton screamed at the pilot of presidential helicopter Marine One. “I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need my sunglasses! We need to go back!” Clinton so abused the chopper’s crew that they christened it Broomstick One.
———————————————————–
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson (Ret.), who carried the “nuclear football” – recalled hearing “volleys of expletives” erupting from Hillary’s mouth. He also lamented “the Nazi-like edge that emerged when she was around.”
———————————————————–
“Where is the goddam f***ing flag? I want the goddam f***ing flag up every f***ing morning at f***ing sunrise,” Hillary snapped at state trooper Larry Patterson at the Arkansas governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991, according to Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, page 246
———————————————————–
“Good morning,” an Arkansas state trooper said to Clinton, according to American Evita
“F*** off!” Hillary told him and his fellow bodyguards. “It’s enough I have to see you s***-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your goddam job and keep your mouth shut.” If this is how Hillary Clinton handles those who have stood ready to take bullets for her, how would she treat 325 million everyday Americans?
———————————————————–
But dont worry, she has the RIGHT TEMPERMENT comparatively… Trump has NEVER been caught being like that to the “little people”… EVER…
its amazing what the press can do to create a image that the public believes… believes so much that even people who have met them, like me, have no credentials against the medias story to others.
ie. if you know the person, then the person has less veracity, which is why a boss will pay a consultant a lot of money to say the same thing and then believe them.
“. . . [S]urely you have noticed . . .” stands in a manner as in indication that the Trump candidacy has not been a learning experience in many respects. Incorrigibility is as prevalent today as it has ever been. For all the same causes as formerly, one would suspect.
Another lesson learned – I now see how little it will take to push us into totalitarianism.
We still live, by multiple measures, in the freest and most prosperous country. Yet, folks on both sides of the aisle are angry and desperate.
Why?
Even our “poor” are not anything like the poor of the rest of the world. In fact, it is something they aspire to.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america
“the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants”
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/?_r=0
Part of it is that many have been taken into a “victimhood mentality”, excusing themselves by blaming the “rigged” system – two themes the “conservative” media harped on the last several years.
Those same media voices denigrate the “LIV” on the left and how they blindly believe the “victimhood” messages they are being preached to by the dems. If we think that bad for them, why do we indulge?
We can choose to live in that “reality”, hoping for some strongman shortcut to be our “F U” message or “savior” against a hyperbolical leftist purgatory on earth, or take responsibility into our own hands to make the change we want there to be.
Another woman has come forward to accuse Donald Trump of inappropriate conduct, claiming that he offered her $10,000 and access to his jet to come to his penthouse hotel room at a golf event in 2006.
Jessica Drake, an adult film performer for Wicked Pictures, appeared on Saturday with attorney Gloria Allred. She said that she met Trump ten years ago at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Calif.
Donald Trump’s latest sex accuser has launched her own online store to sell adult videos, toys, and sexual equipment. She announced the opening of the store one day before going public with her Trump allegations. Jessica Drake, an adult film actress, appeared with feminist attorney Gloria Allred Saturday at a press conference
is she holding a dildo sale? They use that word in school now while teaching fisting, so its ok now to use… (as is loving fisting)
Geoffrey:
Regarding “critical mass” “progressive goals” “irreversible” march of history to “collectivism that differs from communism only in name,” why are you bothering since FDR had all those things in the late 1940’s save his new (four freedoms) and improved Bill of Rights?
After all, you say you fear, it is irreversible. It is or it isn’t. Sort of one of those binary things. 🙂
The wiki emails are valid. Clintons server used DKIM and you can validate them yourself…
they were NOT doctored…
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) lets an organization take responsibility for a message that is in transit. The organization is a handler of the message, either as its originator or as an intermediary. Their reputation is the basis for evaluating whether to trust the message for further handling, such as delivery. Technically DKIM provides a method for validating a domain name identity that is associated with a message through cryptographic authentication
ERRATA SECURITY
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Turns out that hollyweirds portrayal of how dumb some of the smartest people on the planet working are in terms of how IT works, traps lots of people who think none of this exists or even bother to know what is going on.
How do you verify this is true. There are a zillion ways with various “DKIM verifiers”. I use the popular Thunderbird email reader (from the Mozilla Firefox team). They have an addon designed specifically to verify DKIM.
Downloading the raw email from WikiLeaks and opening in Thunderbird, with the addon, I get the following verification that the email is valid. Specifically, it validates that the HillaryClinton.com sent precisely this content, with this subject, on that date.
“Don’t know if you golf, but you have to play the ball where it lies.” Cornhead
“I wonder if Neo-Neocon realizes that the subject matter of her post was completely lost on you.” CW
Arguably, the subject matter of neo’s post can be reduced to this assertion; “the enormous extent of many Americans’ susceptibility to propaganda, their inability (or unwillingness) to think for themselves, their propensity for following not just the lead of others but the thoughts of others on the same side as they.”
My 94 year old father has railed all my life about the reprehensibility of ‘mental laziness’.
That said, Cornhead’s aphorism is entirely relevant. Regardless of the flawed human nature that led to Trump’s nomination, the ball lies where it does and we must play it as it lies.
Discussion of humanity’s mental laziness will not eliminate even a bit of it. The brutal truth is that many people are not interested in the intellect. Physical activity and emotional pursuits are much more prevalent among the populace. That is the reason why sports and music are much more popular than chess and poetry.
That reality is tolerable in a republic whose foundational pillars rest upon Judeo/Christian values, Greek logic, Roman reason and English precepts of the rights of all. In any other form of governance yet tried, a tyranny that rejects the consent of the governed inevitably arises.
The “inevitability” of the G-March and the “irreversibility” of it all, is not obvious at all.
That is a mindset that drives one to accept what should be unacceptable.
It also, in a contradictory sense, drives one into apathy, as the argument also means that it is unchangeable.
.
Jettison ourselves back a few hundred years and one would think it hopeless that people would have even a modicum of the freedom we now enjoy, given the irreversibility of the monarchies all lived under.
Yet, here we are.
There is NOTHING inevitable or irreversible about what we face.
What makes it so is our acquiescence.
OM Says: To Geoffrey: After all, you say you fear, it is irreversible. It is or it isn’t. Sort of one of those binary things.
no, not really…
the point is the default of keeping society functional and working and not have it go poof, is what makes it irreversable… but if you dont care about the people, society, and civil war, then it may be reversable…
you do know how to use various equipment that may make you valuable to the resistence?
then you better read up on things like spooky, ghostrider, bomblets, new AI drones that automate killing that all sides are using, and more..
we be ignoring the war that is coming even if its just to reset the credits… but alas, we are so far into debt our enemies wont loan us the money to fight…
for the most part he is right, despotism is irreversable… took about 10,000 years to get to the USA experiment… less than 300 to end it, and now, how many years given modern equopment, spying, electronic tags and such that we would wait for a new USA?
wont happen, unless its like heinliens moon colony uprisings… which wont happen as no one is letting us take the ultimate high ground… (The moon).
from there you could use a catapult to destroy earth
and earth would be able to do what?
but dont worry, our fat, feminist, leftist, liberal, mental on meds, children will be able to work the factories to make the stuff the war needs… after we draft all the women who are not fat… they will fight…
the men wont, they are unfit.
we dont have the infrastructure to support factories
we will find our immigrants running for the hills as they are like feminist women, they come into the job for the money, not for the service (so you will see lots o preggers soldies as happend in the gulf war… where 90% of one ship got pregnant, was dichaged, had abortions and stayed retired)
your gonna love whats coming
too bad we never bothered to discuss it.
as its a lot more horrible than clinton or trump can ever be.
“That said, Cornhead’s aphorism is entirely relevant. Regardless of the flawed human nature that led to Trump’s nomination, the ball lies where it does and we must play it as it lies. “ – GB
Well, that analogy is relevant in a general sense, and something of a stretch for an aphorism.
It presumes that a ball lies somewhere and that there is only one way, and one direction to hit the ball.
We might all agree that we need to take reality as it is.
However, we very much disagree on just what that “reality” is.
Is it the hyperbolic “all is lost”, or is it a four year setback of a continued leftward movement towards something more like Canada or the UK?
OM,
Rhetorical question; that FDR was an early advocate of the path that Hillary advocates is relevant to where the Left stands today… exactly how?
Apparently, the progress the Left has made is obviated by FDR’s inability to pack the Supreme Court?
Since it hasn’t happened yet, we cannot be close to it finally happening?
Keep whistling past the graveyard, at least you’ll be happy while you can, regardless of the fact that it makes things worse in the long run?
@ Artfldgr
You might find the links below amusing.
You will have to ignore the traditionalist Catholic context but might nonetheless find the graphic in the link interesting.
It’s a report on the feminization of the polity, and includes what the electoral college result would look like sans women voters.
Then they flip the proposition,
Notably, the women of the upper south and west are something of an exception to the run-of-the-mill peasant collective Kardashian follower type.
My guess is that it is a cultural thing with the women of the South and West; their having a notably more developed sense of personal honor and self-respect than typical of the herd seeking twitter-selfie cohort. If you know such women, you will know what I mean. If you do not, you probably are a sensitive conservative type.
Fuel for the fire.
This all apparently originated with Nate Silver on twitter, as reported by Business Insider; and you can avoid the Catholic traditionalist stuff by clicking on the web page rather than the YouTube video.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-what-the-election-map-would-look-like-if-just-men-voted-on-election-day-2016-10
Funny. People will eventually have to sort themselves out on basic affinity lines. We really do not want the same things. And dreaming that you can teach an appetite for freedom to someone who quails at the cruelty involved in merely enforcing the law – be it male of female – is ultimately pointless.
“The brutal truth is that many people are not interested in the intellect. Physical activity and emotional pursuits are much more prevalent among the populace.” – GB
And what is the answer to that?
Seems very much like the arguments from the left.
People need protection from themselves because they are too stupid, disinterest, or lazy.
It is I, their (would be) ruler, who knows best.
Funny thing that! Each side proclaims the other side is not capable of making decisions and needs some authority.
Now, GB, you didn’t say that here, but you have argued that it would be a good thing if trump were authoritarian, as that would be something we could “recover” from.
Yet, somehow, we cannot from a G-March, and “all is lost”?
Put that together and one might think you were advocating for “someone” to impose what you think / hope would be your will on others.
@DNW – welcome back…
I think.
😉
Cornhead:
I am really really sick of false binary oppositions, such as “crude or corrupt.” It trivializes (as seems to be typical) the objections to Trump. Yes, the man is crude, but if that were the major objection to him, the choice would be easy. There are far more serious objections to him than that.
I’ve spent a lot of time and many posts explaining the very real and serious objections people have to him, so I won’t bother going into it again here. The “crudity” objection only really matters because it made it easier for the Democrats to attack him.
Geoffrey:
Have you forgotten that he didn’t have to. The court rolled over not long after the attempt of packing and went along with his programs. Memory is a funny thing.
“Is it
the hyperbolic “all is lost”[that we stand at a precipice], or is it a four year setback of a continued leftward movement towards something more like Canada or the UK?” Big MaqYou’ll notice that I only corrected your assessment of my position (hyperbolic). Your need to mischaracterize my position might give you pause for self-reflection or you may ignore it and continue on as if nothing was said. Of course, if you do ignore/discount it, that speaks volumes about a personal motivation of denial.
On the other hand, under a democrat administration we certainly will continue a leftward movement towards a Canadian, UK, EU style society. Among many other issues, you might reflect upon the EU’s ‘little problem’ with its unassailable Muslim population for a preview of what that ‘leftward drift’ foretells…
Wherein IMO you err is in the implicit assumption that after another 4-8 yrs, it will only be a setback.
Given the democrats and GOPe’s support for amnesty, how do you think we will retain the voting leverage to affect future Presidential elections?
Given that future electoral leverage, what evidence is there to dispute that the Left will hardly be satisfied with a Canadian level of governance? Why would they stop there?
Why would the Left be content with leaving America in a position where we could pick ourselves up off the floor?
“He who… makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them. For if you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Back in 2008, when Obama seduced a number of center-right pundits (Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley, David Brooks, Ann Althouse, Peggy Noonan), I concluded that anyone so devoid of decent judgement had forfeited any future consideration. In 2016, when Trump seduced about 40% of the GOP electorate, the same conclusion applies. You’re on your own now guys. You’re shown you, like the left, don’t share any idea or value that is important to any part of the conservative movement. Don’t look to us for anything. Hillary may throw you a few soup bones now and then, but she’s shown the left can win without you and has far more important blocs to buy with tax money. You made your bed and now you’re going to have to lay in it.
Big Maq @11:15,
My bad, I should have qualified my ‘irreversibly’ assertion with “peacefully and legally” irreversible.
“dreaming that you can teach an appetite for freedom to someone who quails at the cruelty involved in merely enforcing the law — be it male of female — is ultimately pointless.” DNW
Therein lies democracy’s quandary.
Big Maq @ 11:33,
The answer to mankind’s preference for the physical and emotional lies in “a republic whose foundational pillars rest upon Judeo/Christian values, Greek logic, Roman reason and English precepts of the rights of all”
“Now, GB, you didn’t say that here, but you have argued that it would be a good thing if trump were authoritarian, as that would be something we could “recover” from.”
I have NEVER argued that Trump’s authoritarianism would be a “good” thing. Once again you mischaracterize my position. I have only asserted that, if we must have one or the other, that the authoritarianism of the fascist is more recoverable for a society than the societal imposition of Marxism. Nor am I ‘inventing’ that rationale, history conclusively demonstrates that to be the case.
I’ve also asserted that I think it unlikely that Trump can act as tyrannically as some fear but if he does make of himself an American Caesar, that an oligarchical tyrant is preferable in the long run to a soul destroying 1984.
You will interpret what I state as you will but when you assert that I have said something that I have not, you go to far. Assumed implications may or may not be accurate but they are not the same thing as unequivocal, clearly stated positions. Do not put words in my mouth.
OM,
No, I haven’t forgotten. FDR’s failure to pack the court led to a much slower march to the collective than otherwise would have been the case.
OM,
Your comment is non-sense (not nonsense) because it contains the fundamental flaw that if it didn’t happen with FDR it won’t/can’t happen now.
70 years after FDR’s death we are much further along in the Gramscian march through the institutions than were in the 1930s, 1940s, and even the 1950s. At that time, the universities were not as infused by the far left as now; at that time we didn’t have a preponderant welfare state as we do now; at that time we didn’t have as many retirees drawing social security vs. workers paying into social security as we did now; at that time we didn’t have as many illegal immigrants nursing at the government teat as we do now ( or even such a recewptive government teat to begin with–you were mostly on your own); at that time we didn’t have a national debt in as great a proportion to our GDP as we do now . . . the list goes on.
You are correct that the claim is binary; that it is reversible or isn’t. You fail to realize that that same binary applied differently 70-80 years ago than it does now. If you driving toward a cliff you only have a choice until you take the plunge. After that it ceases to be binary and becomes a singularity.
Neo – I have one point that I don’t think has been mentioned. If a person is convinced that neither of them would be a good president and is also convinced that Trump has absolutely no chance of winning, then why not vote for Trump just to reduce her victory margin and thus her mandate/ability to do harm?
The closer the election the harder it will be for democrats to claim a mandate. If you really wish to limit the power of the inevitable winner then the only way is to reduce the win margin. If any of you have another way to influence the election in your favor I’d like to hear it.
That’s a generous sentiment .. I think. LOL
But in any event, I just wanted to do a one time drop off a startling factoid which I thought some here- especially Art – would appreciate. It’s something which really does in my estimation highlight the hopelessness of pursuing an affiliation without affinity social program … unless you are a masochist of some kind.
Hillary’s slogan is “We are better together”. It is clear that it’s not better that we are together.
It’s one thing to infer it even if repeatedly, as I have done, another to see it well up in front of you undeniably, like a troop of screaming chimps chorusing in unison in an amphitheater.
Yes, quite a learning experience.
GB:
They (the court) stopped fighting FDR and yet many of his great experiments died. How does that “inevitable” thing work? Not quite the way you say. Now time only goes one way, but other things don’t necessarily go according to plans.
Irv:
Two reasons.
The first is that she could not care less about her victory margin, although the more the merrier, of course. But she cares about power. When she has it, she will use it.
And if the Senate becomes Democrat-controlled (which is likely), that’s even MORE power for her. One vote ahead would be enough in any case, however. She would act as though she had a huge margin no matter what, just as the Democrats did in passing Obamacare.
The second is the desire to discredit and demoralize the Trump forces by as big a margin of defeat as possible, so that nothing like this ever, ever happens again.
That would be the reasoning that comes to mind for me. There may be even more reasons, too.
jvermeer,
Taking your ball and going home is always an option but one that precludes any future affecting of events.
“You’re on your own now guys. You’re shown you, like the left, don’t share any idea or value that is important to any part of the conservative movement. Don’t look to us for anything. Hillary may throw you a few soup bones now and then, but she’s shown the left can win without you”
Since very few here are enthusiastic supporters of Trump, I take it you include the ‘reluctants’ as well.
How is a sincere determination that selecting the lesser of two evils, in order to prevent the greater evil from eventuating… an indication of an absence of conservative ideals?
Regardless of which evil is considered the lesser, how is a refusal to support the lesser evil… NOT effectively support for the greater evil?
Since, at least in swing states, a refusal to vote for Trump takes one potential vote from the Republican nominee? (with the same dynamic applying on the left of course)
The ‘logic’ you support can be reversed, to claim that a refusal to vote for Trump is a betrayal of conservative values, since it supports the election of those who openly, historically and ideologically… oppose conservatism. But in neither case would it be accurate to make that claim. The logic is flawed because the premise does not support the conclusion.
Irv,
The third is – I don’t vote for sexual predators.
I have time for one more link. A commenter astutely remarks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8
What do you do if half of your fellow citizens are cheats and liars and weaklings?
Find new fellowship, or at least narrow it, I suppose …
GB,
Most everyone agrees that the choices are bad. Voting for Trump means getting Trump 2.0 next time. We keep paying the political parties with our votes they’ll keep cranking out these horrible candidates.
Not voting for HRC or Trump is a way of saying “enough”. If enough of us do it. But too many people are locked into binary thinking and to them it’s unthinkable to vote third party.
One big reason why we’re where we are.
OM,
So “try, try, try again until you succeed” does not apply to efforts by the left?
We are not as T elucidates, far further upon the path FDR advocated, than in his day?
The GOPe and democrats do not support amnesty and a path to citizenship for 25 MILLION new ‘undocumented” democrats? That will not inescapably equate to permanent one-party dominance in national elections?
How much further down ‘the river’ of de’nile’ will you proceed? At this point, I’m forced to imagine until reality punches you in the face. Repeatedly.
Oh well, it’s your unalienable right to go to your grave denying reality. But it’s not an unalienable right to dismiss consequence. The real world will have its say and that will settle the matter and we shall certainly find out if it’s only hyperbole.
” But too many people are locked into binary thinking and to them it’s unthinkable to vote third party.” [Bill @ 1:00]
I strongly disagree. It’s not a matter of “being locked in to a two party system,” it’s a matter of the third parties not being able to make their case. Remember campaigning is nothing if it is not selling a candidate to the voters and no alternative party has a done that successfully enough to even come close to suggest a winning campaign.
Back in the 90s, Ross Perot’s Reform Party was the most successful third party attempt in modern history, but even that drew only 20+% (?) of the national vote. Had the party stayed with its attempts, perhaps it would be a viable third party today, but after two successive losses, it folded. The Libertarian Party has done a putrid job of getting it’s message out. Just because one has a message does not mean that voters are obligated to flock to it. It is that party’s job to make its case.
I would be happy to vote Libertarian if I thought that they had one chance in Hell of winning. They haven’t, and they don’t.
GB:
It’s 25 GAZILLION what evers, get you imaginary numbers right. As long as you are talking reality. 🙂
Bill,
I’m all for working toward the creation of a viable third party, though the Tea Party stands as a cautionary tale in the viability of any alternative.
That said, holding off on voting will accomplish exactly nothing. As neither the dems nor the GOP cares whether half of America or even 3/4 of America sits out elections in protest. All they care about is power and as long as they win the vote (regardless of how few vote) they remain in power.
The GOP will stand and do nothing as the dems use the IRS to go after third party support with the DOJ refusing to prosecute and a liberal/leftist court providing cover for the GOP by ruling in favor of the dems.
Now, if we can get that 1/2-3/4 to vote for a 3rd party alternative, then we would have something. But… and it’s a huge ‘but’… how are we going to come up with a platform that appeals to conservatives, Bernie Sander’s supporters and disgusted independents? Those being the demographic categories most opposed to the status quo..
As Conservatives and Sander’s supporters are fundamentally opposed to each other’s principles and independents just want everyone to get along.
Which somewhat illustrates why there’s no viable 3rd party. Whether Libertarian, Green or Constitutional, in a winner take all contest, the supporting demographic is too small for 3rd parties.
OM,
Thanks for the response. I could never have made as strong a case for your being in denial.
Which somewhat illustrates why there’s no viable 3rd party. Whether Libertarian, Green or Constitutional, in a winner take all contest, the supporting demographic is too small for 3rd parties.
British parliamentary systems handle that problem different than Americans do.
Americans aren’t used to parties allying together, they see that as some kind of deception. In Europe, it’s pretty common to form coalitions.
Trump’s action plan for America
“Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
On the same day, I will begin taking the following seven actions to protect American workers:
FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure
Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back
FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
I’m sure conservatives have reservations about NAFTA, but I think it should be re-negotiated. It’s interesting that Japanese manufacturers can build Japanese cars in the US and still be profitable, yet American manufacturers have to move production to Mexico.
Other than that, I think all conservatives can get behind his plan.
Neo – Stating “the more the merrier” concedes that there is a difference in number no matter how small. I’m convinced that a large victory will make it easier for her to wield the power even if only by a small amount and I don’t concede that small amount to be insignificant.
As to your second point, that would be important if the majority of the party really wanted to nominate Trump. I’m convinced he got in on a fluke when the majority of the party split between moderate establishment conservatives and anti-establishment farther right conservatives.
Having Trump lose by a large margin will not affect either of those groups since they didn’t want him in the first place.
Bill – A vote for Hillary is a vote to put a worse sexual predator and and enabler in office. No one has accused Trump of being a rapist whereas many have accused Clinton’s husband with her help after the fact. Accomplices are as guilty in law as perpetrators.
Geoffrey:
The “all is lost, ‘it’s inevitable” is a well worn rut. You may disagree or deny that.
Apparently, the progress the Left has made is obviated by FDR’s inability to pack the Supreme Court?
FDR did pack the US Supreme Court.
During his twelve years in office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed eight new members of the Supreme Court of the United States: Associate Justices Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, and Wiley Blount Rutledge.
OM Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 3:06 pm
Geoffrey:
The “all is lost, ‘it’s inevitable” is a well worn rut. You may disagree or deny that.
At the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015, Trump said that socialized medicine works “incredibly well” in Scotland and in Canada.
So, if we are worried about the march towards socialism in the United States, Trump is not our candidate.
OM,
Obviously I disagree, nor do I deny that IMO, should Hillary be elected there will remain no peaceful, legal way to stop the Left. Should that eventuate, calling reality a rut changes it not a bit. Time will tell whether it is indeed reality or hyperbole.
Spiral,
There’s no denying the success that FDR achieved. But that fell substantially short of what he dreamed of achieving with the Court.
It’s Trump or Clinton. Clearly, you chose Clinton by default.
“I have NEVER argued that Trump’s authoritarianism would be a “good” thing. Once again you mischaracterize my position. I have only asserted that, if we must have one or the other, that the authoritarianism of the fascist is more recoverable for a society than the societal imposition of Marxism. Nor am I ‘inventing’ that rationale, history conclusively demonstrates that to be the case.” – GB
Look, you argue that we are on a “precipice”, and then tells us that is what clinton will bring in the next four years (societal imposition of Marxism), which you assert are changes which are “peacefully and legally” irreversible.
You also argue that an authoritarian trump would be preferable, because it is more “recoverable” than that imposition of Marxism.
Since we are talking about a democratic (not party) process which requires public support, you believe there is no way to convince the masses that we need to change.
It is impossible, since “the brutal truth is that many people are not interested in the intellect. Physical activity and emotional pursuits are much more prevalent among the populace.” (which sounds very much like a leftists argument, btw).
So, how to solve that conundrum?
– Not enough people could even be convinced because of their failures as humans.
– No future election will change the direction.
– No “legal and peaceful” means exists to effect change.
There is only one way this thinking heads.
Don’t say I am mischaracterizing anything.
OM
Wholesale population replacement removes all argument.
The fellows you imagine being around to join your ranks upon discovering your political wisdom simply won’t exist.
God takes away those golden oldies and replaces them with indoctrinated noobs… 18 to 22 years old… who are culturally alienated from everything you hold dear.
By 2020 the Democrats will have a locked-in base of 220 electoral votes.
By 2024 the Democrats will have a locked-in base of 250 electoral votes.
They need not change anyone’s mind.
Population replacement conquers all.
“Obviously I disagree, nor do I deny that IMO, should Hillary be elected there will remain no peaceful, legal way to stop the Left. Should that eventuate, calling reality a rut changes it not a bit. Time will tell whether it is indeed reality or hyperbole.“ – GB
Time will tell, indeed.
The problem is the old broken clock problem.
Heard the same kinds of arguments in 2008, and 2012. Was told that now it is true because it has been eight years of dems. So it will be, four years hence, the same argument will be made only now it is even more urgent because we are then 12 years down that same road, so it’s, it’s, it’s … Inevitable!
It bl**dy well will be true if we keep harping on the all is lost, all is rigged, we are all victims themes.
It is no accident that a good many of trump’s original supporters had not voted in years. Were they disenfranchised by both parties or were these people never motivated to get involved to begin with because they’ve been fed the victim’s view of the world and bought into it?
In California this process has gone so far that many, many politicians run unopposed.
They have voter worries… same as the Pope.
BM
Trump’s original supporters were conservative Democrats.
They had to flee the ‘Progressive party’ — as Barry had warped it out of its prior Democrat orbit.
Trump gained ALL of his traction in primaries where Democrats can vote in the GOP primary.
Trump was thumped when this was not permitted.
That explains what went wrong with the GOP.
Irv, you wrote “Bill — A vote for Hillary is a vote to put a worse sexual predator and and enabler in office. No one has accused Trump of being a rapist whereas many have accused Clinton’s husband with her help after the fact. Accomplices are as guilty in law as perpetrators.”
A vote for Hillary is a vote to put a worse sexual predator and and enabler in office
I’m not voting for Hillary. I was against Trump being the nominee from the beginning and will not vote for him either. That’s where that stands
No one has accused Trump of being a rapist
This.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen
A number of women have also come forward accusing him of various forms of sexual assault. You can, of course, choose not to believe them. I haven’t researched the claims very thoroughly.
The case above was dismissed in california over technicalities, has been re-filed in New York. Here’s the Snopes article about it: http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
There is no doubt Trump knows Epstein. Doesn’t mean he’s guilty, but does show that we can’t say he’s never been accused of rape.
I’ve heard from Trump’s own mouth that he’s a sexual predator, including him bragging about walking through the contestant’s dressing room at his pageants (at least one of the women who have come forward claims he did that).
Neither he nor Hillary is fit for office.
Bill
Pageant dressing rooms, Hollywood dressing rooms, Vegas dressing rooms do NOT conform to proper sexual norms.
It’s NOTHING for men to waltz in and out of such rooms – nor for women to walz through athletic locker rooms — microphone in hand.
The latest ‘gal’ to come forward WRT Trump is a publicity hound and film whore.
Trump wouldn’t touch her: STD risk.
Ask Charlie Sheen about that one.
There is absolutely no credibility in these sex crime stories.
The gals ARE too ugly for Donald.
We have some idea of the women he’s banged — and without a single exception they are top line models.
In fact, it seems that he only screws cover girls.
His current wife was a cover girl.
When given the exact same stories — all other tabloids refused to publish them.
Only one tabloid would: the NY Times.
The tales have more holes than Swiss cheese.
You’re the only poster I run across that still takes them seriously.
“The third is — I don’t vote for sexual predators.” – Bill
I’d put that as a subcategory of the second reason – part of the “why” a large margin of defeat is needed – to delegitimize that whole line of “thinking” as having a place in the party.
Picking trump was like hiring a loud mouth braggart quarterback who trash talked the opposition, but when it comes time to play the game, he frequently throws the ball towards our own end zone, frequently runs the ball himself, often fumbling the ball in the process, all the time blaming others – the refs, the NFL rules, his own team mates.
When we face another team with their own awful quarterback, if we come close to winning, people will think our QB is not so bad. If it is a washout, folks will be clear about how good a QB we really have.
Blert:
Only one tabloid would: the NY Times.
The tales have more holes than Swiss cheese.
You’re the only poster I run across that still takes them seriously.
Are you kidding me?
I proved conclusively that your comment about the NY Times is false. It’s been reported in a lot of places
I don’t expect you to believe them. You’re a Trump supporter.
The GOP has become amoral.
“I’ve heard from Trump’s own mouth that he’s a sexual predator”- Bill
I get you’re a “neverTrumper”, so I should expect your attacks to be over the top, but next thing you’ll be claiming he drowns kittens.
It’s Trump or Clinton. Clearly, you chose Clinton by default.
Did the Founding Fathers choose to live under British tyranny or did they choose peace/neutrality?
The problem with binary selections is that they are a slave’s tool, or rather a master’s tool to enslave.
The Islamic pirates had captured a US frigate and some of its crew. Did Jefferson decide to pay the Islamic ransom or did Jefferson decide to sacrifice the frigate and its crew?
If the US Republic is dead or dying, then the choice is not between two candidates for President. The choice will be war or not war.
You have chosen not war, GB, but war it will be.
but next thing you’ll be claiming he drowns kittens.
It’s debatable whether the MSm is 50% true or not about Trum’s history of sexual conduct. Arnold Schwarz, for example, had issues going on and perhaps not all of them were fabricated by Democrats looking for dirt.
For Sarah Palin, it was quite obvious the Democrats had nothing on her.
As for drowning kittens, I can easily believe that of a 70 yo Demoncrat, especially from a state that also voted their soul and power to H Rod Damn Clinton.
Edward Kennedy also “drowned” a person, and it wasn’t a kitten, btw.
Back when I was first frequenting this blog, I noted in a comment that I saw similarities between the unbelievable celebrity/messiah worship of Obama, and that of Sarah Palin. (Similarities, not identity.)
Indeed, but I could say the same about MJR/Palin being similar to Jim Jones’ organization.
The thing is, sometimes rhetoric doesn’t work the way you intend it to, given the way humans read words but don’t see voice tones or body language.
“FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States…” – Trump/Pence campaign
Of course this will be dismissed as “you can’t trust a thing he says”, but this pledge is very specific that the nominee will come from the 20 judges he previously announced.
That should be very heartening to those that are skeptical of Trump’s motives.
And if you doubt Trump, do you also not believe Mike Pence?
Geoffrey,
I think you misread my entire post.
“Since very few here are enthusiastic supporters of Trump, I take it you include the ‘reluctants’ as well. ”
Absolutely not. The 40% or so who made Trump the nominee are not reluctants.
I’ll try to restate: we know that the other side doesn’t share any important values with us. Now we know that about half our side doesn’t share any important values either. So when maybe 80% of society couldn’t care less about what we consider the most important aspects of a decent society, what’s the point? Our victories will be marginal and ephemeral.
Bill Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 4:56 pm
AFTER the tabloid Times ran their hit piece, it was open season.
Suddenly, they were no longer concerned about being sued for libel.
Big Maq @ 4:18,
I am NOT saying that Hillary will take us into Marxism in her first term or even in her second.
I AM saying that we are close to a tipping point from which descent into collectivism will be inescapable. That is what I mean by ‘precipice’. I am saying that the political infrastructure through which peaceful and legal recovery can be currently achieved will be in another 4-8 years, so corrupted by the Left’s machinations that it will no longer be possible to do so.
As for the reality of a majority of the public being mentally lazy, no less a personage than Winston Churchill implied it when he observed that, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Among others; Franklin, Jefferson and Madison all spoke against a pure democracy’s failings. Which of course is based on majority governance by the common man. It is neither elitist nor an indication of tyrannical leanings to observe that far more people are interested in sports and music than are interested in politics or science.
Nor is pointing out uncomfortable realities, a “way of thinking”. But labeling it as such is an excellent means in maintaining denial. And yes, it is denial since none of you have rebutted the inevitability of amnesty with a path to citizenship should Hillary be elected. Much less demonstrated how 70% of 25 MILLION new “undocumented” democrats will not give the dems an insurmountable electoral advantage.
The most effective way to sway voters is with an appeal to their emotions.
The strongest emotion of all is that of Identity — of who we think we are and who we want to identify with.
Cialdini’s craft is to cause even savvy voters ‘identity revulsion’ — well illustrated here by Bill and BM.
No-one encapsulates identity revulsion more than Bill in this thread stream. He can’t wake up November 9th and face the mirror should he vote for Trump or Hillary.
Cialdini has done his work well.
At no time was there ever an attempt to win over voters; at all times the scheme was to pick the weakest most easily damned opponent for the GOP — so that as the hour comes, rational voters are tossing their cookies from coast to coast.
For there was never any prospect that Stalin’s policy suite of wholesale population replacement, her war on White men, her corruption and pollution of all government organs, would ever sell to the thinking dominated fraction of the voting public.
Bill is so ‘high minded’ and principled that he’s going to sit on his hands will Medusa romps to the Oval Office.
But more, he is going to troll the Internet espousing identity revulsion points so that other wavering voters will stay home.
Even while proclaiming that he’s not for Hillary.
Bill Mr. Cialdini would hand you a medal — if he could. You’ve joined his digital army — and you weren’t even recruited — and can never be recompensed.
BTW, all of your points should’ve been slammed home during the early primaries.
It was at that time I howled in revulsion anticipating everything that has come to pass, right here in Neo’s front room.
Yes, it was that obvious.
The MSM put Trump up; the MSM is taking him down.
The GOP has to stop open primaries — ESPECIALLY New Hampshire. Out of state Democrats use their vacation home to vote in New Hampshire. They even go so far as to brag upon the matter — over the Internet.
No party needs the opinions of those outside its ranks when it’s picking its own nominee.
Such a mad scheme largely defeats the purpose of even having a political party. Nominee selection is its primary focus. The pivot to the general election only lasts about 135 days.
Brian E: “I get you’re a “neverTrumper”, so I should expect your attacks to be over the top, but next thing you’ll be claiming he drowns kittens.”
I don’t understand this criticism. I was referring to the Billy Bush tape. He claimed he did the kind of things that women have accused him of doing (kissing them without asking, grabbing them under their skirts, etc). He also bragged about going into dressing rooms, etc.
Am I over the top for referring to Trump’s own words? I also posted a link to an affidavit accusing Trump of raping a 13 year old in 1994, along with a Snopes article about that. That’s an active lawsuit. Doesn’t mean he did it, but it also means we can’t (as someone above said) claim he’s never been accused of rape. He has – and not just after he began running for President.
The GOP is shedding women, big time, because of this issue. This is one of the saddest parts of the entire election cycle – the GOP used to at least pretend to have a sense of honor, to stand for higher values than just winning by any means. Many GOPers were all over Bill Clinton for doing things that Trump has bragged about.
It’s disillusioning in a very literal way (my illusions are shattered). In the past years there’s been all this angst on the GOP (particularly the “religious right” side) about gay marriage, LGBT bathrooms, freedom of religion, abortion, Christian values, etc. And yet we nominated a guy who is a self-proclaimed serial adulterer, took the LGBT side when asked about the bathrooms when that first came out, posed as a person of faith when he was courting the evangelical vote, has publicly expressed support for Planned Parenthood during the election, has in the past expressed his support for partial birth abortion, and just recently (the Billy Bush tapes) bragged about what most people would consider sexual assault.
A lot of conservative women aren’t supporting any of that. None of us should, actually (in my opinion).
“The Hillary Clinton campaign’s coordinated effort to enlist undocumented immigrants to help get out the vote could prove a boon down the ballot as well.
The Democratic presidential hopeful’s political operation rolled out a new “My Dream, Your Vote” initiative Monday encouraging people who came to the United States as children without proper immigration status to help Hispanic voters get to the polls.
The campaign sought out undocumented immigrants who are at least temporarily not at risk for deportation because of an executive action by President Barack Obama, at venues ranging from Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., just opposite the Old Post Office that’s being converted to a new Trump hotel to a phone bank in Arizona….”
Clinton Campaign Uses DACA Anniversary to Rally DREAMers
Tactic could have down-ballot turnout benefits
from a Roll Call article
blert Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Trump gained ALL of his traction in primaries where Democrats can vote in the GOP primary.
Trump was thumped when this was not permitted.
This is incorrect. Florida and Arizona held closed primaries where only registered Republicans could vote. Trump won both states. Wisconsin held an open primary where any registered voter could vote (because in Wisconsin they do not have party registration, only plain voter registration). Cruz beat Trump in Wisconsin.
Trump benefited in the primaries from the awarding of delegates based on a formula of winner take all by state and/or winner take all by congressional district.
If delegates had been awarded by proportional representation neither Trump nor any other candidate would have received a majority of delegates. There would have been a contested convention and the delegates would have been given the choice as to who would be the nominee.
In 2020 Republicans should nominate a credible candidate to take on President Hillary Clinton.
No more joke candidates like Trump.
The biggest lesson was that Talk Radio, Fox News, and Evangelical leaders in large measure abandoned ship or sat feebly by as a carnival barker ran his con game.
The second biggest lesson was that too many GOPers fell hook, line, and sinker for a cult of personality,….very little substance….wild proclamations….self absorption….and recklessness. Instead of being steady and cautiously strategic….as Republicans normally are….we fell for the steady stream of fear, hate, desperation, and anger that were fed to us.
We hate Obama, we fear Muslims and invading immigrants, we’re desperate for change, and we’re angry at the establishment for not getting things done.
Are we really surprised that a big chunk of GOP went for an “outsider”, someone “politically incorrect”, someone who promised “different”…someone who promised to get things done…even if those things are not particularly conservative or sensible.
We need to get more serious, get back to experienced, proven leaders, get back to a positive uplifting message, get back to talking about liberty and the power of the individual….we’ve been manipulated into an unhealthy state, the first step must be to recognize that we must change.
Spiral
By that time, the vote was a pile on.
The decision point had been reached much earlier.
It was for that reason I begged for Rubio to drop out and support the only non-Trump in the hunt: Ted Cruz.
Rubio and Kasich destroyed Cruz’s path to the nomination.
Kasich has gone on to harm GOP in the general, too.
“It’s disillusioning in a very literal way (my illusions are shattered). In the past years there’s been all this angst on the GOP (particularly the “religious right” side) about gay marriage, LGBT bathrooms, freedom of religion, abortion, Christian values, etc. And yet we nominated a guy who is a self-proclaimed serial adulterer, took the LGBT side when asked about the bathrooms when that first came out…”- Bill
I’ll give you the short answer. In his Contract for the American voter Trump pledged to “… begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States”. That’s very specific.
That’s where the battle for the future of America lies as at this point the Supreme Court has become the legislature of last resort. There will be no turning back when the Supreme Court finds the next magical right out of whole cloth.
Trump is a flawed man. But that doesn’t mean he can’t be used to advance good government.
And as to lawlessness, we know Hillary Clinton has broken the law, is in the act of breaking the law as we speak and there is no one, except the voters that have the ability to do anything about it. It appears our legal system has been corrupted. That in my mind is the greater tragedy than whether Trump has had a problem keeping his hands off women. And notice that is the past perfect. All these allegations occurred years ago.
And no, he’s not a sexual predator.
Spiral Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 5:56 pm
The biggest lesson was that Talk Radio, Fox News, and Evangelical leaders in large measure abandoned ship or sat feebly by as a carnival barker ran his con game.
&&&&
What ?
Trump’s original, and base, demographic consists of ex-Democrats.
The alt-right is stuffed silly with ex-Democrats.
That’s why Trump — and they — don’t align with traditional GOP primary logic, or logic in the primaries.
When the GOP “expanded its base” it did so by absorbing a philosophically alien faction of the vote.
Pure and simple.
You’re witnessing the body politic pulling Leftward right under your feet and before your eyes.
It’s a wicked rip tide, let me tell you. It hit the beaches of California a generation ago. It’s a tsunami that never ebbs.
This mass migration is actually pulling the median national IQ down.
This has staggering impacts across the economic sphere. The Smart Fraction of a nation’s IQ distribution triggers almost everything economic. The correlation is ~ 95% — an unheard of figure in the Social Sciences.
Folks in the non-Smart Fraction end up being economic dependants of events triggered by the Smart Fraction faction… typically by way of direct employment for a wage.
Very, very, very few non-Smart Fraction players are able to even hang on to wealth — even if it dropped down onto them via LOTTO or Power Ball.
With a Normal distribution and a mean IQ of ~85 Mexicans are drastically short of Smart Fraction players. ( This distribution totally dominates second generation Mexican American voters – reversion to mean and all that. )
The original Colonies had a high median IQ — as the dummies simply died, and quickly, too. ( Check out the Puritan’s death stats — they are a fright. ) Of course, “IQ” hadn’t been invented yet. Suffice it to say, if you didn’t have guts and motivation — you would’ve never hazarded the trip in the first place.
The gene pool that dominates IQ changes slowly. So for centuries to come, America is going to have to deal with a Mexican American minority (majority?) that is a full standard deviation slower than the founding ‘European cultural pool.’
We’ve seen how distressing that is with White-Black relations.
This influx is a strategic cultural policy disaster for all parties involved. Resentments will bounce in all directions — and prove everlasting — wholly immune to the dreams of collectivists, preachers, and especially preachy collectivists.
The Supreme Court has become the left’s final arbiter of fairness– as defined by them, with no recourse.
And you notice how they scream precedent and a decision becomes holy scripture once their desired outcome is achieved?
NeverTrumpers seem to think we can “recover” from that. What if the SC finds a right that all residents of the country have the right to vote. That seems absurd. But then who would have thought a few years ago this:
Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in Obergefell is fully encapsulated by his first line: Americans have a constitutional right “to define and express their identity.” Of course, this right is contingent on their defining only those things to which the Supreme Court is willing to ascribe “dignity,” in prose so purple it must be read with tinted glasses. On its face, the reasoning is as risible as it is contemptible. In this new, metastasized version of substantive due process, the business of adjudicating rights no longer demands analysis, only ascription. The dissents are among the harshest, most dismissive, and most suggestive in the history of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia opines that the Court has “descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” He says, “If I ever joined [such] an opinion . . . I would hide my head in a bag….”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420934/same-sex-marriage-and-rule-law
Many persist in saying Trump was the choice of the republican party therefore the party should be punished for doing something so stupid so they won’t do it again.
I persist in saying that republicans did not choose Trump, he was what was left after the majority factions of the party destroyed each other. His nomination was not the fault of the low percentage of folks who were for him from the start; it was the fault of a minority of the party who refused to compromise on a conservative even after their candidate had been rejected by the voters.
The lesson needs to be learned by the GOPe that they are not in charge anymore because they have lost the confidence of enough of the party to prevent them from naming the candidate.
So they can either learn to compromise with the other factions of the party or they can give up.
Notice I said compromise. The other faction of the party has proven that it is willing to compromise by the selection of Ryan as Speaker. Now it’s time for the GOPe to show that they are willing to compromise.
They could have had Rubio or Walker or any number of others but they wanted Bush or Kasich and refused any other.
“The gene pool that dominates IQ changes slowly. So for centuries to come, America is going to have to deal with a Mexican American minority (majority?) that is a full standard deviation slower than the founding ‘European cultural pool.’
We’ve seen how distressing that is with White-Black relations.”
Racism. The new GOP.
And if Trump is convicted of a crime while President, I would expect the senate to do their duty and impeach him.
Irv…
Yes, get a LOAD of the funding !Jeb! got — which he threw away buying MSM adverts.
At least Trump didn’t feed the media beast with fat $$$$.
“They could have had Rubio or Walker or any number of others but they wanted Bush or Kasich and refused any other.”- Irv
I’m not sure they wanted Kasich. He was always a testy maverick in congress. If you think back, he got very little support from DC, which was one of the reason I supported him– that and the progress he made on the budget in the 90’s.
One more time: 1. Trump’s first wife accused him of marital rape. She made that accusation under oath, which makes it stronger, than her later retraction, which was not under oath.
2. If you believe in an “establishment” — I don’t — then you have to recognize that Trump has been part of it since birth, and that he is a classic crony capitalist. (Though not a very successful one, after his fater passed away.)
Bill Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 6:32 pm
“The gene pool that dominates IQ changes slowly. So for centuries to come, America is going to have to deal with a Mexican American minority (majority?) that is a full standard deviation slower than the founding ‘European cultural pool.’
We’ve seen how distressing that is with White-Black relations.”
Racism. The new GOP.
&&&&
Running away from the truth about the human animal provides no succor.
Would that such antics work. It’d be Kumbaya forever more.
Big Maq @ 4:28,
The old broken clock problem or the little boy who cried wolf? The first has little consequence, the latter rather more so. If you’re right, I’ve played the fool. If I’m right, you’re fiddling while Rome burns.
“I’m not voting for Hillary.” Bill
It’s one less vote for the republican nominee. One less vote to stop Hillary. How impactive that will be depends entirely upon whether you reside in a swing state and how close the election turns out to be.
Ymarsakar,
“You have chosen not war, GB, but war it will be.”
It would have been premature for the colonists to chose war before they had exhausted all other alternatives. So too with my support for Trump. I do not expect much but better he have a chance than we dismiss that possibility. Since IMO, to do so leaves only life under the Left or war.
Remember, “war is hell”. It is best avoided while there is the possibility of another path.
jvermeer,
Apparently so, my bad.
Trump made his bones in an industry rife with corruption — up there with the Clintons corruption.
Yet, Donald has proved remarkably clean for his craft.
It’s with a shock — to me — that this October has NOT featured an epic skeleton in his real estate closet.
I expected many a ‘Christie-bridge’ moment. Strange.
Jim Miller Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 6:36 pm
One more time: 1. Trump’s first wife accused him of marital rape. She made that accusation under oath, which makes it stronger, than her later retraction, which was not under oath.
2. If you believe in an “establishment” – I don’t – then you have to recognize that Trump has been part of it since birth, and that he is a classic crony capitalist. (Though not a very successful one, after his fater passed away.)
%%
Get real. Donald made the bulk of rep and fortune going AGAINST the business advice of his father, Fred.
A man, I should add, that refused even a taste of Donald’s early deals — after which the son gave up making such offers.
Fred loathed the Manhattan ‘crowd.’
Husbands and wives say ANYTHING during court proceedings — the Bible means nothing to them. Their kids are on the line.
Every attorney working that beat takes that as a given.
The Court is never going to pursue a woman over such claims… which are obviously impossible to adjudicate in the first place. He said… she said….
And, do we have to mention she’s actively campaigning for him at this time ?
I found that amazing. Most ex-wives are angry for a lifetime. Apparently Donald is boorish in public and charming in private.
If so, he’s the true opposite of Hillary — who is astoundingly boorish in private — a real thug… by all accounts… a real royal.
A year ago, I explained why, under our Constitution, deadlock was nearly inevitable when the Republicans controlled one or both houses of Congress, and Obama was in the White House.
To blame Boehner or McConnell for that deadlock was the kind of error that someone who didn’t understand the Madisonian design of our Constitution would make.
“I don’t understand this criticism. I was referring to the Billy Bush tape. He claimed he did the kind of things that women have accused him of doing (kissing them without asking, grabbing them under their skirts, etc).” [Bill @ 5:49]
No Bill. He didn’t claim in that quote that he did so (whether he did or not is another matter). He said they let you do that. That’s very different:
Let’s get it correct. You are guilty of the same kind of mis-interpretation that the anti-Trump MSM uses to target its victims. You may call Trump vulgar, common, having no taste—all of that might be true, but at least cite him correctly.
Those that don’t see error here are in desperate need of remedial English training.
““Now, GB, you didn’t say that here, but you have argued that it would be a good thing if trump were authoritarian, as that would be something we could “recover” from.” – Big Maq
I have NEVER argued that Trump’s authoritarianism would be a “good” thing. Once again you mischaracterize my position. I have only asserted that, if we must have one or the other, that the authoritarianism of the fascist is more recoverable for a society than the societal imposition of Marxism. Nor am I ‘inventing’ that rationale, history conclusively demonstrates that to be the case.” – GB
Hold it! Hold it! Hold it!
You, in fact, would have us choose an authoritarian. You are arguing IN FAVOR of chosing someone you recognize as an authoritarian rather than making another choice…
“Of course Trump is a bully, as is Putin, Xi and Iran’s Ayetollah . What counts is the forces at their back and, if a situation calls for it, their willingness to use those forces. … He’s a social liberal but a nationalist with a populist appeal. And that, even given his authoritarianism, makes him far less of a threat.” – GB
http://neoneocon.com/2016/07/28/russia-and-the-emails-trump-needs-a-sarcasm-tag/
.
You are willing to go to that extreme because you see the most extreme with clinton.
“Hillary’s path leads to reeducation camps, the gulag and the killing fields… to 1984.
IF he’s sincere, Trump cannot fulfill his promises without “cutting down all the laws, to get after the devil”. That path leads to Rome’s fate. True, arguably better than the path of ‘the Soviet’.
But either path foretells that the American experiment in justice and liberty for all… is over. “
http://neoneocon.com/2016/05/31/populism-is-the-opiate-of-the-people/
You have since toned down your rhetoric, but your base argument is still there. The next four years ends it all.
.
You are asking us to believe a way over the top case and to take a flyer on someone you claim to “know” is a (and, to many of us, looks very much a possible) tyrant.
In the face of many other choices, you choose… NO … you practically beseech us, to turn it up to “11” right away, with someone you know you cannot trust.
“I get that there are many indications that Trump will do little to none of the things he promises and NO evidence that he will fulfill any ‘promise’. I have ZERO faith in the man.” – GB
http://neoneocon.com/2016/07/26/just-imagine-2/
.
You are, in fact, making a “burn it all down” argument.
You are, in fact, claiming that “all is lost”.
You don’t expect trump as POTUS to do anything positive.
You very much seem to WANT trump there to be destructive! To, “cut down all the laws”.
To essentially, start over!
.
But now, we argue about whether you have literally said it would be a “good” thing?
So let me correct myself… you have argued that it is a “preferable” thing to choose trump (amongst all other choices) who is, to your knowledge, authoritarian, because, essentially, he won’t be restricted by “legal and peaceful means” allowing him free reign to “get after the devil”, and accelerate “Rome’s fate”, all because you believe “the American experiment is over”.
Tell me I am “misrepresenting” you here, again.
“we’ve been manipulated into an unhealthy state, the first step must be to recognize that we must change.” – Spiral
Great post, btw.
On this point, I think we need to kill the notion that “all is lost” and that we are all somehow helpless victims here in need of a savior like trump.
This poison permeates much of the trump supportive arguments here.
I’ve seen population replacement first hand.
It takes argument, logic, culture and throws all into the dust bin of history.
I, for one, can’t imagine Trump as Caesar.
His monumental ego wants his face carved into Mt. Rushmore.
Get a load of his buildings.
To do that he’ll have to out Reagan, Reagan.
His crew already includes many sound and seasoned hands.
I can live with a Conservative Democrat// Liberal Republican in the White House.
I have no hope for a polity that’s been replaced on a wholesale basis.
Check out what’s happening in Europe. Even with citizens bleeding pain, the oligarchs refuse to bend to reality. The Muslims that Merkel let in are almost all military aged males in a tight spread.
When compared to native German stock — of the same ages — they equal them.
What appears to be a trivial shift in population numbers today MUST mean that in one generation 80% of the babies born in Germany will be Muslim. BTW, Muslims identify as Muslims — not as Germans, Americans, or Iraqis. In fact, in Araby the Muslims wear costume so as to clarify which tribe they hail from. ( it’s the head rag, usually; see Arafat’s get up. )
I should add that Hillary deems Merkel the politician she MOST admires in the world — and that Soros has BOTH women in his political pocket.
The Merkel plan for Europe came straight from George Soros.
Needless to say, he has the exact same plan for the USA and Canada. Trudeau has his foot to the floor accelerating the hijrah as I type. He’s shutting down his military to fund it.
( His first act was to cash out ALL of Canada’s gold reserves !)
Ronald Reagan was a “Cowboy” who would blow up the world.
The MSM was yapping that EVERYWHERE back in 1980.
Instead, Ronnie ended the Cold War with nary a drop of blood. It was the most expensive war in history — with the existence of the human race placed in doubt.
That trumps every other president of the 20th Century — bar none.
With Hillary the Cold War will be BACK.
If you didn’t fight tooth and nail right down the line against Trump, you are part of the problem.
Don’t any of you dare give me th Binary Choice. You pose the Binary Choice, you voted for Hillary. Not me.
Live with it.
Laura Ingram
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/elites-blew-world/
The time has come to strike out on a different path. When you look past all the elite blather about Trump’s “temperament” and “tone,” one thing becomes obvious: On the big foreign policy issues facing America, Trump is right, and the elites are wrong. It is insane – and dangerous – to keep propping up a global trading regime that treats Chinese companies better than American companies. It is insane – and dangerous – to keep wasting the U.S. military on missions that cannot succeed. It is insane – and dangerous – to continue trying to maintain a position in the world that we can no longer afford. It is insane – and dangerous – to tear down all borders and effectively dissolve the nations of the West. Most of all, it is insane to install, as president of the United States, a vapid and untrustworthy politician who has consistently been wrong on every major foreign policy issue of the last 20 years.
Blert and BrianE:
Have you coordinated your ‘Flood the zone” defense of all things grand and glorious about Trump (not that there are any other things)?
And Blert:
“Running away from the truth about the human animal provides no succor.” Are you too old or just to shy to get the white sheet and conical hat? David Duke needs new followers, not that the IQ in that group of “patriots” needs your assistance. Have you forgotten about that gand and glorious field of scientific research – eugenics? It had some unintended consequences, or were they unintended? Put that great mind to work on that problem. 😉
Here’s a wonderful snapshot of Trump’s polls against Romney’s.
https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/790510763035078657
Romney ran against the far more dangerous opponent, Obama 2012, and Romney did better than Trump right down the line.
All you, “Romney woudn’t fight!” silly folks ought to burn this graph into your memories.
You got the guy who would fight to your satisfaction and he totally flamed out. All that “Hillary is the end of the world so you’ve got to vote Trump” — you got your wishes.
We are going to get wiped. Everything you were screaming about is going to happen.
Thanks a heap.
I’m certain few Trump supporters — early or late — will learn from this. Prove me wrong.
huxley Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 10:57 pm
If you didn’t fight tooth and nail right down the line against Trump, you are part of the problem.
Don’t any of you dare give me th Binary Choice. You pose the Binary Choice, you voted for Hillary. Not me.
Live with it.
&&&&
You are a recent arrival or have a terrible memory.
I predicted every bit of this a year ago — and was not happy — not by a long shot.
I never voted — as my primary was cancelled by events. Trump was the only fella on the ballot.
My state is not in play.
If Hillary is allowed to prevail, soon your state won’t be in play, either.
You can then kick back and work on your popcorn.
The show will play as tragedy, BTW.
If your memory improves, maybe you’ll remember that Trump is the MSM’s creation. He didn’t get the nomination on his merits.
They WELL KNEW that they could — and would — trash the Big Mouth in November.
The MSM herded the LIV like sheep.
The alt-right is composed almost entirely of ex-Democrats.
They are the alternative right based on being rightward of the 0bama-Hillary-Bernie faction.
They could not properly be slotted even in the center of the political spectrum, as many of them wish to go back to antebellum Jacksonian ideals. ( ie hard segregation — strangely most prominent Black leaders espouse hard segregation. )
The LAST thing that alt-right fellas would admit to is joining the GOP. They openly despise it. I can’t see many Jews welcome in their ranks, either. I’d swear that Russian agents troll anti-Semitic memes through the alt-right bloggosphere.
I can’t post over there. I’ve been chronically banned // tossed into the bit bucket.
Anyone who thinks they will become a significant faction of the American polity is crazy. They are the Birchers of our time.
Blert:
Give us some quotes from Sean Hannity to leaven the wisdom of Laura, you know the working man’s POV.
Sycophants – the male and female versions, almost to the point of the ultra-progressives who pledged to perform sexual acts on certain politicians if that would further the “cause.” Now in Trump’s case it’s not clear if his demands would be mutually consensual, because after all power and celebrity does have it’s advantages (to paraphrase DJT).
Blert:
Haters hate, be it alt-right, black, white, progressives, or what ever. Haters hate, rich and poor, no matter what their “class,” ethnic origin, or creed. You don’t need Scott Adams to figure that our about people.
OM Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 11:09 pm
I’d pay real money if grand thinkers would stop playing at god with the existing populations of the world by wholesale murder, hijrah or population replacement.
EVERYBODY would be better off if left where they were born and raised.
Only the most exceptional folks can bear the cultural strain of relocating to an alien society.
As we can well see in Germany, the hijrah is to be an imposition of an alien culture upon Germany.
This is just as whacky as Adolf’s project to conquer and liquidate the world.
The elites LIKE the fact that Mexicans became Mexican Americans — and vote in droves as LIV. This population is a tool for them — not people.
The importation of this labor pool is destroying Black economic progress.
Indeed, it’s doing a bang-up job destroying White economic progress.
Read Laura Ingram’s stats. They are correct. They are a fright.
This wave of excess talent has crushed the union movement. So it’s easy to see why the billionaires just love it, love it.
The way to help the Third World is where they are born and raised. They need to stay home. We can’t squeeze billions of souls inside this nation.
We need to stop disrupting primitive societies with lures and hopes.
Every population has to advance in its own way — and at a tempo that’s much slower than the dreams of Big Dreamers.
Your posts would HAVE to be Cialdini’s fondest desire, BTW.
This election has fallen down to driving up the opposition’s negatives. Again, just as I predicted — many a time — right here in Neo’s front room.
Letting the billionaires run the show has proven a disaster. Hillary Clinton means four, eight-years more of George Soros.
The man should have his own bedroom in the White House by now.
huxley Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 11:13 pm
Here’s a wonderful snapshot of Trump’s polls against Romney’s.
https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/790510763035078657
Romney ran against the far more dangerous opponent, Obama 2012, and Romney did better than Trump right down the line.
&&&&
Fact check:
We have Podesta’s emails where he dictates to the pollsters how to spool up Hillary’s numbers.
This has been done repeatedly.
The result is in your mirror. Folks don’t like to vote for a guy that’s being crushed, especially LIV — low conviction voters.
Further, such polling suppresses GOP fund raising — A LOT.
We have the Dirty Tricks squad committing and admitting to felonies on video and tape.
We have Bezos buying the WaPo for the express purpose of running it as a campaign asset for Hillary. His minions have popped Hillary up to +12.
Podesta’s emails explain just how easy this is to do in our era of total databases and selection algorithms.
We have Google and Apple in league with Hillary. This means that even search functions in Google have been modified by the Ministry of Truth. It’s no exaggeration that Hillary’s negatives have been filtered down the Memory Hole. Pure 1984.
These are EPIC abuses of law and ethics.
But you are telling us we are the damned because we are forced to vote to block her ?
It does not compute.
You function as a concern troll. Hillary has an ARMY of digital posters working this beat across the bloggosphere.
Somehow I doubt you’ll be an active poster after November 8th.
Are the predictions of Blert, now available as an ebook? Someone wiser than you once said that predictions are difficult especially when predicting the future. (look up Yogi Bera).
Got to keep all them others out of here, NOW!
As I recall the former Soviet Union had a well established policy of who lived where and who could move where. They also moved whole populations, some even survived the relocations, and some didn’t survive even when left in their native lands. Oh, yes it’s much better when those pesky humans just stay put.
Blert
When you find a new shiny toy, the next “Cialdini,” you be sure to let us all know about it. Until then carry on with this obsession; he must be quite the master persuader, at least of you anyway. 😉
Here’s a link to Podesta’s machinations.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples
Apparently, “Atlas” developed a friendlies database expressly for the purpose of “random” polling.
It would have no utility if it was not taken up by pollsters.
OM Says:
October 25th, 2016 at 11:39 pm
Forced relocation is now deemed a crime against humanity.
Induced mass relocation is its sister.
&&&
My prediction track record is up through the roof.
Astonishing, really.
You’d be disgusted.
Neo would have the stats, but your nic appears to be an election season arrival.
Refresh and correct my impression.
Thanks.
Your impression is based on your biases and a propensity to label those who disagree with you pronouncements as trolls or concern trolls or whatever suits your fancy.
Funny you cite crimes against humanity and ignore eugenics. One of those oxen and goring things.
Yes it is true that I’ve only been commenting here for a short while. So what. Do you have more allegations to fling, maybe an accusation of deep dark Soros ties? LOLROFL. I just won’t vote for Trump or Hillary. Can you wrap your mind around that?
I haven’t kept track of how long I’ve read Neo, at least 8 years.
For a while I thought you had some insight and wisdom. Lately your comments are mostly scroll by.
Looking forward to the end of this election. 🙂
Nothing I have posted has ever been favorable to eugenics.
I don’t even discuss it in the first place.
Wow.
You can look up “Concern Troll” in the Urban Dictionary database.
Your pitch is dead nuts aligned with Cialdini’s craft and art.
That I — and others — have bewailed this final selection — over a year prior — is apparently all news to you.
BTW, your disgust of Trump does not turn him into a tyrant.
I’ve always appreciated that he was a terrible candidate.
If by the grace he wins the election, you’ll be astounded to find out that he’s a very effective chief executive.
If he was even remotely as zany as the MSM libels indicate, he would not have the supporters he has.
We don’t need your scorn of Trump to figure out he has flaws.
The MSM has that beat covered — flooded I’d say — with hit pieces — many of which have sunk in.
They keep popping up in your thread stream.
Neo (this is a thread that Never Dies – until Nov 9?)
>> “I am really really sick of false binary oppositions, such as “crude or corrupt.” It trivializes (as seems to be typical) the objections to Trump. Yes, the man is crude, but if that were the major objection to him, the choice would be easy. There are far more serious objections to him than that.”
One of the key issues to take from this 2016 election debacle is … that most voters most of the time really DO want a binary choice, and they prefer it to be easy.
Voters WANT the “infotainment” of an election horse race, altho they also do want their own choice to win.
Trump or Clinton, binary. Support crude or corruption … or either with all the complexities of that choice.
You’ve been great about struggling with your choice, but in your focus on Trump, you’ve really been under-reporting the terribleness of Clinton.
Please look at the last year and amount of time you’ve spent on (mostly bad-mouthing, accurately) Trump — compared to how much you’ve spent on Clinton. I would guess it’s about 4:1 ratio (or even more on Trump).
Yet, politically, there is far more substance to Clinton, what policies she has actually supported and their results — but you’re not spending much time on her & Obama’s many many failures.
“Clinton is corrupt” also simplifies objections to her, altho perhaps less trivially. But perhaps that’s because her known corruption is so non-trivially worse than his unknown political actions? (except for that uncertainty!)
For me, the greater evil is Hillary and her being a “known crook”. I imagine Trump getting his supporters to have more banners: “You DO know she’s a crook, right?” with a side picture of Hillary & bars (perhaps smaller words: Hillary for Prison).
But lessons learned do need to wait until the test results come back. The biggest “pro-Trump” info I saw was how all the “smart money” was betting on Clinton, but how very many small money bets were being placed on Trump. Trump hasn’t lost until Hillary gets enough electoral votes counted for her. (More binding than Brexit.)
Thus, if Trump wins, the lesson is — loose cannon fighting really IS better than not fighting at all. (And Hillary was a worse candidate than any top Dem knew.)
If Trump loses, the lesson is — don’t use a loose cannon to fight! (Plus, Neo was right! about how terrible Trump was as a candidate.)
And most voters will want to hear only 1 lesson learned, not top 3 or top 10 — too complicated. But perhaps for most blog commenters, there can be many posts about various lessons.
Hm.
Finally, there is the male-female change in society, and the Alpha-male / alpha-jerk reality that many very attractive women like men who don’t always treat the women as respected equals. Both Trump and Bill Clinton (the perjurer) are alpha-jerks; maybe Brad Pitt is, too.
For months now I’ve supported Trump, and Reps in Congress, to minimize support for Crooked Clinton. It’s sad, but also interesting, that you haven’t been able to decide.
Since you don’t want a binary choice.
But binary is what we got, Trump or Clinton.
…
“Finally, there is the male-female change in society, and the Alpha-male / alpha-jerk reality that many very attractive women like men who don’t always treat the women as respected equals. “
Can you cite a poll or study in support of this?
How do unattractive women feel about it?
Here’s an idea for the GOP – women are a majority in this country, a lot of GOP women are values-voters, maybe declaring creepy Trumpian rationales for men being too handsy / gabby / lippy with women isn’t a winning strategy.
“The gals ARE too ugly for Donald.” (main defense against the 11 or so women who have come out.)
….“And when you’re a star they let you do it,” Trump says….“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump says. “You can do anything.” (In Trump’s learned opinion, it was always consensual. So case closed)
“many very attractive women like men who don’t always treat the women as respected equals.” (MAGA!!)
“You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy,” Gingrich said. “That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.” –
That last one was our former speaker talking to a fox news correspondent yesterday.
“You’ve been great about struggling with your choice, but in your focus on Trump, you’ve really been under-reporting the terribleness of Clinton.” – Tom G
There are many sites that discuss clinton’s failures. What value is added by Neo also focusing on it?
It is not like the audience are not aware of how awful clinton is. Heck, the majority of commenters here are more than willing to provide details about just how awful she is.
This is one of the few blogs that doesn’t hyperbolize the issues with the candidates, but gives background and reasons for taking a harder look at trump, and highlights some notable ones wrt clinton.
I still say we have a choice between just a male chauvinist pig and a male chauvinist pig and a crook in the white house. The crook part bothers me much more than anything else.
I’m convinced Trump would stop his piggery in office whereas I’m convinced her crookedness would get much worse.
And I still say the evidence of the past 16 years is that he would be constrained in his actions by both sides whereas she would have almost no constraints at all save those put on by Russia, China, and Iran.
Blery:
“Nothing I have posted has ever been favorable to eugenics.”
Funny that, when you post comments about genetic makeup of ethnic groups and intelligence (IQ) and the “science” that supports such reasoning. And yet can’t recognize how those arguments have been used in the past (eugenics). 🙂
“Funny that, when you post comments about genetic makeup of ethnic groups and intelligence (IQ) and the “science” that supports such reasoning.” – OM
Noticed that too.
Don’t think blert has taken that last step, but he does share some of the rationale wrt culture being “downstream” of genetics.
Between that, quoting dilblert, and citing other conspiracies, is there much to rebut?
He must have gotten under your skin. 😉
Scientific demographic statistics are neither good nor bad. It is only how they are used that makes them so.
“Scientific demographic statistics are neither good nor bad. It is only how they are used that makes them so.”
Let’s hold off on the term “Scientific” for just a moment.
Has Blert actually provided any links to justify his contentions? Here’s a dogs-breakfast of them from an earlier comment: http://neoneocon.com/2016/10/24/the-trump-candidacy-has-been-a-learning-experience-hasnt-it/#comment-1820224
“With a Normal distribution and a mean IQ of ~85 Mexicans are drastically short of Smart Fraction players. ( This distribution totally dominates second generation Mexican American voters — reversion to mean and all that. )
The original Colonies had a high median IQ – as the dummies simply died, and quickly, too. ( Check out the Puritan’s death stats – they are a fright. ) Of course, “IQ” hadn’t been invented yet. Suffice it to say, if you didn’t have guts and motivation – you would’ve never hazarded the trip in the first place.”
Several contentions being made with no supporting references
– Normal distribution and a mean IQ of ~85 for Mexicans
– Puritans had a high death rate due to low IQs (Blert, have you ever actually read the writings of the Puritans?)
If this is the direction the GOP is heading I want no part.
Statistical demographics infer nothing about an individual in the group.
Brian E – So true. I’ve always heard it said that the problem with stereotypes is that they’re true. What many don’t realize is that they are only true when applied to a group and are always prejudice when applied to an individual.
“Statistical demographics infer nothing about an individual in the group.” – Steve E
Agree.
It is very much the point about why folks who think that various groups are somehow “immune” to a conservative vision / message is a HUGE mistake.
“Statistical demographics infer nothing about an individual in the group.”
That’s all well and good until you are in the group that is being regulated, nudged, or manipulated because of misapplied statistics. Be it legal immigration or whatever. But let’s not quibble about the niceties of science let’s just ignore how this has worked in the past.
Is this a better explanation of what we face vs some “vast left wing conspiracy”?…
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/25/failure-of-american-institutionsd-not-conservatism-made-trump-possible/
Irv Greenberg:
As I wrote in this post, I am really really sick of false binary oppositions, such as “crude or corrupt.” Your latest false binary opposition is essentially the same thing in different words (“a male chauvinist pig and a crook”).
These choices trivialize/simplify/reduce (as seems to be typical) the objections to Trump. If “male chauvinist pig” was the major objection to him, the choice would be easy. But there are far FAR more serious objections to him than that.
I’ve spent a lot of time and many posts explaining the very real and serious objections people have to him, so I won’t bother going into it again here. The “crudity” and/or “male chauvinist pig” objection only really matters because it made it easier for the Democrats to attack him.
The problem with Trum is that he is a 70 yo New York Democrat. The problem with Clinton is that she is more stuff on top of the New York Democrat platform.
Now the reason the media attacks Trum on sexual matters, is because Trum decided to take the throne of US power through the Republican party, instead of the Democrat party. But if Trum had taken the Democrat primaries instead, Clinton would have attacked him in the same fashion she attacked Sanders.
There can only be One, top echelon leader left to command America’s command economy. And that One is only One New Yorker.
It really worrying me that most commenters on this blog prefer to discuss only tangentially relevant issues like personal qualities of candidates but not the most important ones, that is, proposed policies and their economical impact. But economical situation is bad, really dangerous, and choosing right course is of paramount importance. I have read serious analysis of it, and it looks like a recession is just around the corner. Corporate debt is huge and growing, stocks overpriced, lots of financial bubbles are ready to burst, and Feds have much less ammo for damage control than in 2008. In such situation only protectionist tariffs proposed by Trump can give real-sector corporations some breathing space to kick-start real recovery or prevent recession. But what is good for financial capital (hemisphere free trade zone and open borders, as Hillary wants) is a mortal blow for real-sector enterprises and jobs creation. Cheap foreign-made merchandise depresses wages, undermining internal demand for domestic manufacture, and exposes USA economy to contagion of slump on world markets. A healthy dose of economical isolationism is now not only desirable, but absolutely necessary.
Sergey, well said.
No one is talking about the policies that will shape the next few years.
Sergey:
It is puzzling that you continue to think that character issues are tangential. They are not.
Maybe your cynicism about character issues arises from living in Russia, where it is simply assumed that all politicians are totally corrupt? Not being a Russian, I really have no idea. But wherever a person lives, unless it’s in a complete totalitarian country or completely corrupt third-world banana republic, character is extremely important.
Just on a very simple level, if one wants to evaluate the policy statements of a person, it is extremely relevant to know whether that person is a con artist who is lying through his/her teeth.
And that’s just for starters.
It is also very important, for example, to know whether a person is sane or an impulsive madman.
Brian E:
Plenty of people here and elsewhere are talking about policies, both of Clinton and of Trump. For Trump, there is no track record, so it’s all about promises, promises he keeps contradicting, and promises a person either trusts he means or doesn’t trust.
But those things have gotten quite an airing over the past year and several months. So I have no idea what you’re talking about when you write that no one is talking about policies.
Also see my response to Sergey above.
Neo-neocon
I’m willing to stipulate that the character of both Hillary and Donald leaves much to be desired. You might say horrible.
So now what do we talk about? How one is worse than the other?
But one or the other is going to implement regulations, propose legislation, affect how federal crimes are investigated and choices are made which will be prosecuted and which will be ignored.
These are the things that will affect us or the next 4 or 8 or 20 years. In other words, more important.
You say we don’t know what Trump will do, since you don’t think he’s honest.
Humor me and accept that he will do the things he says he will do. And the list from his Contract with the American voter is fairly specific. What would be the effect if those policies are pursued? These are specific items that he released only a week ago, so speculation about his policies months or a year ago aren’t particularly relevant.
I’ve seen Bookworm at Bookworm Room talk about them, but few others.
Ace of Spades HQ, which I assume you don’t think much of, had an interesting post about why no one talks policy– and it isn’t just your blog, which, of course, you are free to talk about whatever interests you.
That is precisely why I enjoy reading many blogs, just because of the quirky interests of so many people that are enriching.
Right now we’re stuck on the election– which is pretty important.
Rather recently Trump made a program speech about his policy proposals. For the first time it was comprehensive and detailed, so I assume this was not an causal emotional remark as most his previous utterances, often contradictory and ambiguous, but the real agenda of his team of advisers and policy makers, so I expect that this should be taken seriously. The people who wrote it meant business, this does not look as just a rhetorical device.
As for characters issues, the only important one is, of course, sanity. And in my opinion, Trump is as sane as an extremely ambitious man can be. This does mean much, of course, but all contenders for this office are expected to be extremely ambitious, with all potential problems for sanity it portends. Another issue is integrity, which in case of professional politicians also implies some caveats and reservations not applied otherwise. Politician need to lie, it comes with profession, just as for proverbial used car salesmen or real-estate speculators. In democracy it is simply impossible for a politician not to spin his case, suppressing some information and being selective about what issues to put forward, not necessary the same which he himself sees as most important. All court attorneys do the same and can not do otherwise.
On both these character issues – sanity and integrity – in my opinion, Trump much more palatable than Clinton. A lot of Clinton’s traits are indicative of serious problems with mental health. Both candidates are narcissist, which is expected, but only one is a malignant narcissist, emotionally empty and completely lacking compassion, remorse and conscience. And it is not Trump. And only one is not a simply liar when it is expedient, but a compulsory liar who lie as easily as walk and breath, without any necessity or even advantage. And this also is not Trump.
Sergey:
I and some others do not agree with you that it is only one that has those characteristics.
In a completely totalitarian state, just as in a banana republic, the character of the ruler is extremely important, even much more so than in a functioning democratic state, where the chief executive is subject to lots of restrictions and institutions capable to mitigate his worst impulses. I lived in both, in completely totalitarian superpower which in 25 years gradually morphed into totally corrupt banana republic, under many different rulers, and the difference of their personalities was pervasive and defined the quality of everyday life of ordinary folks more than anything else.
Sergey:
I defer to your personal knowledge of the character of rulers in totalitarian states and/or banana republics. I was assuming that they pretty uniformly tend to be power-mad psychopaths or party guys and that either way it’s bad (for example, Stalin worse than Khrushchev, but both bad), but I suppose that’s not always the case.
But your response just indicates that character is very important under ALL systems of government.
“Humor me and accept that he will do the things he says he will do.” – Brian E
Accept which of his statements?
We have to be rather selective in what we cite wrt trump.
Now we have his most recent “Contract”. Well, much might be agreeable in that, but, again, why should we believe his latest iteration vs what he’s said at other times?
It is not like he’s been on point, consistent, and credibly detailed in his explanations during this campaign season.
A presidential candidate needs to be the “entire package”. Like it or not, “character” is one of those legs of support, and trump has himself given us much to discuss on this point.
Would have loved for it to be all about clinton and her leftist policies, but trump won the primaries seeking 24/7 coverage, and that’s what he sought and nearly received after the convention.
There are many comments on this thread about how the GOP controlled Congress could do nothing about Obama’s many unconstitutional actions. The Founders knew from British history that the only real power that first the nobles and then the nobles and the commoners had against the king was the power of the purse. For that reason they gave this power to the House, which they wanted to be the real power in the government.
McConnell and then Ryan gave away this power when they made the blanket statement that they would not shut down the government. I think they made this statement only to protect their own political hides and not from any desire to govern well.
You can argue that if the government shut down in a dispute with Obama then the Republicans would be turned out of office at the next election and they could no longer do anything. The GOP landslide on 2014 after the 2013 shutdown contradicts this assertion. But even if true, the GOP would be doing the things they were sent to Washington to do. They were not sent there to get themselves re-elected. If the people want Obama’s actions then so be it. We could answer Ben Franklin’s question about whether we can keep our republic.
Yes, in post-modern world purely totalitarian regimes are rare exception, since true totalitarism demands ideology as its most sacred foundation. When ideology is dead, what remains as practical options are more or less pragmatic authoritarian rule, like China, or totally corrupt oligarchy, like Russia or Filipino Republic under Ferdinando Marcos. And in transition from totalitarian party state to democracy or banana republic sometimes arise popular reformist leaders who are neither party guys nor power-mad psychopaths. I cannot describe by such bad names neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin, who possessed some personal integrity and morality and led their own personal crusades against the party which created and appointed them.