Shhhh—don’t criticize Trump!
Commenter “Geoffrey Britain” raises an interesting point:
To exclusively focus upon Trump’s faults is to make voting for him less likely, which at least in swing states makes Hillary’s election more likely.
If Trump loses, that will be the time to focus upon his faults, as in reaction to his supporter’s distress it will provide a ”˜teaching moment’. That would also be the time to attempt to enlist Trump’s supporters in Eric’s conservative social activist movement.
If he wins, he should be given the traditional ”˜honeymoon period’ to see how he actually performs. If he goes “off the reservation” that will be the time for criticism, the purpose of which should not be to tear down but to rein in his excesses.
We all know Trump’s flaws, even those who make excuses for him. It does actual harm to dwell upon them because regardless of intent, it assists the Left. Rationalizing that criticism as simply objective observation, changes that assistance not in the least.
Were there an electable 3rd party alternative, that name would have emerged by now.
Let’s leave aside the question of whether anyone here is focusing “exclusively” on Trump’s flaws (answer: no), and just concede that we’ve talked a great deal about Trump’s flaws since last fall. And I won’t dismiss GB’s argument out-of-hand with some generalized reference to the need to have fair and free discussion of everything relevant to this campaign, although I also think that is true. I’d like to take his argument seriously, because I believe it originates in intense concern at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton candidacy, rather than the thought that Donald Trump is some sort of good guy. I share that intense concern, as do probably most of the commenters here and most people on the right who are nevertheless unsure about what they will do regarding Trump come November.
Nor is this post meant to be an attack on GB, and I hope he and everyone else realizes that. I think his suggestion comes from a feeling of desperation and frustration with how this election year has played out, a desperation and frustration a great many of us share (I certainly do). But we react to it in different ways.
GB’s argument rests on one principle, which is that Trump would be better than Hillary as president. Better for you, better for the conservative cause, better for the US, better for the world—different people may have different ways of parsing “better,” but “better” it would have to be in order to even begin to justify this idea of shutting up about all the dreadful things Trump has done and is doing.
But it’s not obvious to a lot of us that Trump would be better. I’m not going to go into the lengthy arguments we’ve had many times on this blog about that; suffice to say that reasonable men and women may differ, and Trump supporters’ assertions that it’s obvious that he’d be better are not the least bit convincing to the unconvinced.
GB’s argument also is less than compelling if you think there is a third-party possibility or possibilities, and that many names have emerged and in fact almost any reasonable Republican would have a decent chance not only of being “better” than both candidates, but of winning. Again, that’s a topic that has been discussed many times on this blog and I’m not going to get into it again here (after all, I don’t want to be chained to my computer for the entire afternoon).
And those problems are in addition to GB’s argument’s suppress-the-truth message, which in itself is troublesome. If Trump is good enough to win, and would be a better president than Hillary, wouldn’t airing of the truth about him have to support that? If the truth reveals that he really should not be president, don’t we need to know about it? And no, we don’t “all know Trump’s flaws,” and certainly not all of them. What’s more, we are in the middle of deciding something, and need more light on the topic, not less. Hillary’s flaws have also been thoroughly aired for many, many years, and we probably all know those even more thoroughly than we know Trump’s.
Looking back, I cannot recall that a single person, on this blog or elsewhere, chided “don’t criticize Romney because it will help elect Obama” back in 2012. Maybe people said it, but I certainly don’t remember it. People did say that voters on the right who didn’t like Romney should hold their noses and vote for Romney despite their disapproval—just as people are now suggesting the necessity of voting for Trump—and although I think the situation is not analogous (see this and this) I understand the argument and might even succumb to it in the end. But a suggestion that we not talk about what’s wrong with Romney? No, it didn’t happen, and Romney’s opponent Obama was also perceived as very dangerous to the world, the country, and to the right.
This “shut up about the flaws of our candidate” admonition seems to me to be new, and ominous. Why is it happening now? I believe it has something to do with the style of Trump himself, although that’s not the whole reason. I think it’s also that, if many of us thought 2012 was our last chance to reverse things, 2016 would have to have even more urgency for a lot of people.
But what I probably disagree with most vehemently in that comment of GB’s is this assertion:
If Trump loses, that will be the time to focus upon his faults, as in reaction to his supporter’s distress it will provide a ”˜teaching moment’. That would also be the time to attempt to enlist Trump’s supporters in Eric’s conservative social activist movement.
Sounds good, but I don’t think it’s at all relevant to the particular situation we face. There are two types of Trump supporters, the enthusiastic and the reluctant. The first group supported him in the primaries, when there were many alternatives. The second group only supports him now, under duress, because they see no alternative anymore. I don’t really consider the second group “Trump supporters”—not exactly, anyway—because they really didn’t like Trump in the first place and don’t like him now, so there will be no sharp disillusionment for them if he loses and therefore no real need for GB’s “teaching moment.’ It’s that first group, about a third of GOP voters (or perhaps even up to 40%), who GB thinks might have that “teaching moment” after a Trump loss, and become conservative activists.
I do not see that happening. Let me repeat: I DO NOT SEE THAT HAPPENING (and yes, I’m shouting). In fact, I think the opposite will happen.
I’ve watched these people, listened to them, read what they’ve written, for about a year now. Many have come to this blog and most have left again. I strongly suspect that, if Trump loses, they will blame his loss on the Republicans who did not vote for him or support him. They will explode in rage at those people, and develop a “stab in the back” theory of why it happened, and how every bad thing that happens thereafter during a Clinton presidency (and there will be plenty of bad things) could have been fixed or prevented by Trump if only, if only! The rage will increase rather than decrease.
I am convinced that the schism in the party is already permanent and that it predated Trump, who is acting as both lightening rod and amplifier for it.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton there’s no time or need for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Each day that passes focuses the conservative mind on the absolute need to try to prevent her from winning the election.
Trump’s no ideologue; she is and will accelerate Obama’s radical, leftist, “mean egalitarian” transformation of our nation.
You do what you gotta do.
Looking back, I cannot recall that a single person, on this blog or elsewhere, chided “don’t criticize Romney because it will help elect Obama” back in 2012.
When Mittens was running we (conservatives) went out of our way not to talk about various of his “issues” (like RomneyCare) in order to focus on him beating Barky. We did the same with McShame in 2008, choosing not to talk about how much of a POS he was with respect to giving aid and comfort to invading illegals – because beating Barky was that important. BTW, the “holding your nose and vote” thing has long been a well-known term but it was McShame’s own mother who really gave it new life in the 2008 campaign concerning her much-hated, low-life son.
Personally, I don’t care if you are singularly focused on defeating Trump – which is pretty clearly what you are doing, whether you are aware of it or not. I think the screams of many as to how Trump is a tyrant in the wings, waiting to become a full-fledged dictator are just lunatic ravings, especially in light of the person he’s running against. It’s all a bit sad, actually, but I don’t think it’s going to affect much of anything, anyway.
ace was so insane about opposing Trump that he vowed to vote for Shrillary – twice he yelped about that as he raved on about the pure evil that was Trump. Eventually, he realized, I guess, that he was being totally nutty and changed his tune on that. But, after screaming that he was going to vote for Shrillary who could possibly care what he thinks about the election?
Trump poses no threat, whatsoever. The GOP turds will be itching to impeach him, no matter what. They will be on a hair trigger with this. Frankly, I am against that idea but I think that this nation needs a President impeached and thrown out – just in order to restore some sense of restraint on the office, which the GOP has let run totally wild during Barky’s illegitimate tenure.
Of course, my bet is that the GOP tries to impeach Trump when he starts actually enforcing immigration law … sort of the same way barky (allied with Mexico) went after Arizona and the courts backed the idea that the feral government is allowed to ignore any law they wished to and can demand that states allow whatever crimes or invasions that the feds have decided should be allowed.
progressoverpeace:
What alternate universe are you living in?
The talk about “Romneycare” was incessant, extremely critical, and widespread. It went on throughout the primaries, throughout the campaign for the general, and after. I fought it (in terms of countering it with facts, not of trying to suppress it) on this blog and elsewhere over and over again.
Anyone who was paying attention was aware of that. So you either weren’t paying attention and didn’t notice, don’t remember, or are lying.
“Hillary’s flaws have also been thoroughly aired for many, many years, and we probably all know those even more thoroughly than we know Trump’s.” Neo.
Rare that I disagree with neo, but I strongly disagree here.
The public doesn’t know half of Hillary’s corruption. This email thing is way BIGGER than we will ever know. The potential for blackmail by foreign countries is massive.
And the Clinton Foundation is simply a criminal enterprise. The Mob would be proud.
The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Donald Trump is many things, but he is no criminal.
Where I depart from Neo here is that the MSM constantly avoids and covers for the Clintons. This racism flap about Trump got 24/7 coverage for a week. The damage has been incalculable.
We also learn (sort of) that Hillary’s criminal handling of her email may have exposed the identities of CIA agents. Scooter Libby was convicted for allegedly exposing “secret” agent Valerie Plame.
My attitude towards Trump is somewhat derived from my Creighton basketball attitude. When a coach or player is on my team, I am for him 100% even if he goes 5 for 10 from the line.
It is 100% certain that Hillary will be a disaster. I will take my chances with Trump. We don’t need to go Romney on Trump and hand the White House back to the Clintons.
Cornhead:
I think you misunderstood me, but perhaps I was not clear.
I was talking about on this blog. My audience is the audience on this blog. The “we” in most of this post is the “we” on the blog. For example, phrases such as:
“But it’s not obvious to a lot of us that Trump would be better. I’m not going to go into the lengthy arguments we’ve had many times on this blog about that…”
The general public knows or cares little about much of it, Trump OR Hillary or even who is VP right now, or who Churchill was. But they’re not reading this blog, for the most part.
Each blogger and pundit has to decide what he/she will write about, and why. If I had an audience of millions (I wish!) I might make a different decision or I might not. I don’t know, since I most definitely do not have that audience. I write for the people who read me, and I write for myself.
Let me add that I don’t agree with the basketball coach analogy. The worst that can happen in a basketball game is the loss of the game. With Trump, the question is always whether he’d be worse than the very very bad Hillary, and with consequences far worse than in any basketball game. The stakes, in other words, are very very high. And the other question is “what team is Trump actually on?” What if a player or coach was trying to throw or sabotage the game for the team?
Neo:
Maybe I did misunderstood as I took it to mean the larger discussion about this election.
I do want to expand on one point. Today calling someone a racist is the single most damaging label that can be affixed onto a public figure. But with Paul Ryan’s and Mitt’s recent statements about Trump, they are really helping Hillary. And they don’t need to make those voluntary statements. Piling on.
I saw a Guardian story the other day where Hillary called someone a “f$&!ing Jew.” I’m sure there is more stuff like that out there.
Cornhead:
Regarding the criminality of HRC and DJT one is under investigation for numerous serious national security felonies, the other is in court (not proven guilty yet). Both are potential criminals, magnitude and types of crimes differ. But then one has never been a public “servant” so his opportunity to commit those crimes has been limited thus far.
Scale of the criminality does matter, as does character of the individual. Neither are paragons.
Neo
Agree that the stakes are sky high. Supreme Court and foreign policy are two items of note. And Trump can’t do any worse than Hillary. In fact, I think he will do well in those two areas.
Hillary just has a criminal character. Trump – in the past – was competing to make money. Legal money. I think he will devote his energy to making America great again. Hillary is out for herself.
OM
Trump’s pending case is a class action for fraud. It is not a criminal case. Huge difference.
We know Trump is VERY litigious. To say Trump is a sharp operator is an understatement. But it is like having a guy with sharp elbows on your basketball team. You want that guy being aggressive going for rebounds.
First, I don’t take your post neo as a personal attack and do take in the spirit offered.
Secondly, if you’re not focusing “exclusively” on Trump’s negatives, it is nearly an exclusive focus.
I do NOT really think that Trump will be ‘better’ than Hillary. I think it is not certain that it will be as disastrous.
Many names have emerged. But I cannot agree that “in fact almost any reasonable Republican would have a decent chance not only of being “better” than both candidates, but of winning.” I can’t agree because of two factors; most of those alternatives do not really take the twin threats of illegal immigration and Muslim migration seriously enough and none of them IMO have a chance of winning because without Trump’s supporters and Hillary supporters, the remaining voters are not unified enough to make a difference.
By “seriously enough”, I mean by making the stopping of illegal immigration a major issue and slowing to a trickle Muslim immigration with full vetting of those we do allow in and by declaring that Islam’s tenets and our Constitution’s principles are antithetical to each other. The toleration of political correctness has to end. It more than any other factor supports the left’s narrative and prevents dealing with the threats.
The only candidate who to my knowledge even came close to being serious enough was Ted Cruz. But he had his shot and lost. No way in a general election against Trump and Hillary does he prevail. There just aren’t enough conservatives in America to put him over the top. None of the suggested candidates have the name recognition and most importantly, crossover appeal, nor can they given the divisions within the American electorate, which are not merely binary but Balkan. I would happily vote for such a candidate but reality is reality.
“GB’s argument’s suppress-the-truth message, which in itself is troublesome.”
I am NOT suggesting any such thing. I AM suggesting that to repeatedly dwell upon Trump’s flaws, here on this blog is to effectively assist Hillary. When Trump calls for a wall and expulsion, list the problems with that approach, suggest another alternative that accomplishes the same thing (self-deportation) and then drop it. The focus IMO should be upon Hillary simply because of the certainty and nature of that threat.
I happen to agree that if Trump should lose, his supporters are going to scream, point the finger and hold a grudge. Bill Kristol, Romney, Ryan, etc, etc. are examples of those cementing that perception. Honest, brief criticism that does not dwell upon Trump’s flaws is less likely to be remembered and stands some chance of persuading some of Trump’s supporters that Trump simply wasn’t persuasive enough.
I am only suggesting that it is in conservative’s interests to harvest as many as we may after a Trump loss.
“I am convinced that the schism in the party is already permanent and that it predated Trump, who is acting as both lightening rod and amplifier for it.”
I entirely agree.
Cornhead:
Trump is out for himself. His entire history screams that. He will devote his energy to that. That is the one thing that we really do know about Trump.
Whether he will always “make America great again” into the bargain, we have no idea. None. Nothing he says has any meaning in that sense; all is mutable, except his interest in the furtherance of Donald Trump. I see Trump as a more complete Machiavellian and Alinskyite than Hillary Clinton, and that’s saying something. And keeping his word is not something that interests him, either.
I am somewhat surprised that so many people give him the benefit of the doubt. He will only try to “make America great again” if he thinks it will help Donald Trump. Plus, even if he has the will to make America great again, I don’t think he has the skills.
And in the bargain, he could make America much much worse again. Even worse, perhaps, than Hillary Clinton would. That’s the problem in a nutshell.
That said, I do not foresee any way I would vote for her. It’s Trump or some other person for me. I will probably decide very late in the game.
“ace was so insane about opposing Trump that he vowed to vote for Shrillary — twice he yelped about that as he raved on about the pure evil that was Trump. Eventually, he realized, I guess, that he was being totally nutty and changed his tune on that.”
Lets not forget shutting down his entire commenting system to give him time to root out and ban the Trumpers.
This caused him to dump his traffic from around 50,000 a day to 35,000 in April but he is building it back up in the last month.
“With Trump, the question is always whether he’d be worse than the very very bad Hillary, and with consequences far worse than in any basketball game.”
The stakes and consequences are of course far more than in any game. In comparing Trump to Hillary, my argument is that we are NOT comparing two personalities. We are comparing an autocrat (or pick the descriptive you’re happy with) to the agent of a deadly, monomaniacal, totalitarian movement. It is that movement that is the threat, not Hillary herself, who is arguably, the ‘flip side’ of Trump.
Cornhead:
You say on foreign policy that Trump can’t do any worse than Hillary.
I beg to differ. I really beg to differ. I have no problem seeing scenarios in which he could make things a lot worse than she.
Again, I’m surprised at the number of people who don’t see that possibility. It seems rather obvious to me. Not that he will, but that it’s hardly preposterous to think that he could, based on his temperament, state of knowledge, and opinions. It seems obvious that he could, so assurances that he couldn’t fail to reassure me or anyone who agrees with me.
Neo,
I agree that Trump’s big mouth could cause us lots of problems internationally, and that scares me. I wish there was some indication that he was trying to learn about foreign affairs, bu the only thing that seems to interest him is possible locations for golf courses and hotels.
Cornhead:
So fraud is not a crime? Interesting.
Geoffrey Britain:
You are ignoring a couple of things.
The first is that, with the presidency (especially foreign policy, but not just that) the personality of the person (stability, etc.) DOES matter, because presidents also have a great deal of power.
The movement—the left—will go on, and is very powerful. Hillary or no Hillary does not change that, nor would a president Trump. Fighting the left is a constant battle. Of course, a president Hillary would empower it, but it is already very powerful.
The other thing you are ignoring is that there IS a movement behind Trump, one he has already empowered, and a very dangerous one at that. It’s the alt-right. It exists, it is real, it is a movement (a worldwide one to some extent), it supports Trump, and it is also using Trump. I do not believe he sees it all that clearly, but there is no question it is allied with him and whether or not he is allied with it (I think that basically he is not) he is making it stronger, and he sends it dog whistles, and he refuses to denounce it.
Ignore that at your (and our) peril.
Neo
To your point, I would consider the question “who is most likely to get is into a nuclear war?”
While I hope that scenario is unlikely, from a temperament standpoint my answer is Trump.
GB: I know we’ve had our run ins in this space, but I’m truly curious about something you wrote and would like to respectfully explore it w you.
and slowing to a trickle Muslim immigration with full vetting of those we do allow in and by declaring that Islam’s tenets and our Constitution’s principles are antithetical to each other.
We can debate the first part – I support strong vetting -, but it’s the second part that has me nervous. What does that look like? Is our President supposed to refute theologically and declare anti-constitutional the religious beliefs of a significant percentage of the citizens (and, by the way, voters) of the US? I don’t see anyone, not even Trump, doing that. And, as a Christian who already feels that declarations such as that about my own faith are already beginning to make their way in our country, I’d be a hypocrite to desire that upon people of a different faith. Thoughts?
Neo
Having brushed up against some rich people in Omaha my view is that Trump knows he is already rich. His kids are rich and actively employed at his company. Trump is out to make a name for himself. He wants to improve the country for others. In his mind, restoring America’s greatness is more valuable to his legacy than giving millions to Fordham and having the school of business renamed for him. (He went to Fordham for a year or two before transferring to Wharton.)
Trump is a Queens guy. Not a Manhatten guy. He connects with average people. I saw him four times in person and I was astounded at how the really blue collar people of Sioux City loved him. Not a country club crowd at all.
Trump wants to be loved and considered great by the blue collar crowd. And that’s also how he can win. Carry WI, IA, OH, MI, PA, FL, NC and VA.
And, frankly, Hillary screwed up foreign policy. When Obama said foreign leaders were “worried” about Trump winning, I thought that was great. We’ve been taken advantage of for years. Saudi Arabia is Exhibit A and the Sauds have put 85 American companies into BK.
OM
There is civil fraud and criminal fraud. Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi scheme was criminal fraud. When someone sells a house and doesn’t disclose a leaky basement, that can be civil fraud.
vanderleun:
Are you criticizing Ace for shutting down the Trumpers? Have you not seen them completely take over and dominate comments sections of blogs with insults, lies, and trolling of all kinds? What are you suggesting he have done, let them take over his?
I don’t think so.
I certainly was determined not to let that happen here. It was the right thing for Ace to do, in my opinion.
What’s more, long before Ace was railing at Trump he was “Trump-curious”—that is, somewhat sympathetic to Trump and possibly going to support him. Trump earned his ire and enmity. Plus, long before that, for the last few years Ace has been railing against the GOP “establishment” in very vociferous terms (particularly Rubio, if I recall correctly), and thus helped to inadvertantly foster the rise of Trump.
All of us bloggers write it as we see it at the time. We can’t know all the consequences of our actions, but we do the best we can.
Maybe not “all,” but most. Ace is actually one of my favorite bloggers, but that doesn’t mean I always agree with him.
Bill:
One of the great cons of The Prophet was to style his political, social, cultural and legal system as a religion. I want to know where head chopping is a legitimate part of any real religion. The guy was a war lord who made up the divine stuff in order to dupe the uneducated and give himself more authority.
Islam is just incapable of being reformed into something consistent with classic American values. We need to quarantine Islam to its home base.
Cornhead:
Trump is rich, but are you sure he’s all that rich? I think he’s nowhere near as rich as he’d like us to think he is.
What’s more, however rich he is, it hasn’t stopped him from screwing people in order to get richer. It’s constant with him.
But my idea of how he will help himself as president isn’t limited to, or even primarily about, money (although I think that’s part of it, of course). He is the consummate amoral narcissist. He will do whatever he thinks helps him, and he has no loyalty to those who voted for him. I think it’s all an act.
That said, it’s certainly possible that he will do at least some of what he says he will do, but not because of any loyalty to his supporters. He will do it if he thinks it will benefit him. He puts nothing before himself. Nothing.
And of course I agree Hillary Clinton has made foreign policy mistakes. Of course! And she will. Plenty of them. I happen to think that as president she will be better than Obama was in that regard, however, and better than she herself was as Obama’s servant.
On the nuke issue, I think it is better to have the other side thinking Trump would use the nukes. Hillary never would. That’s deterrence.
And Hillary handed Iran nukes under Obama’s orders. We should have tightened the sanctions noose on Iran and bankrupted Iran.
Neo
We are certain the Clintons are not as rich as Trump. I’m certain she will do deals while in the Oval to get richer. Donald won’t.
Cornhead:
Deterrence only works if the opposition consists of rational actors. It can work otherwise with irrational actors. Many people believe that Iran and North Korea are not rational actors.
Also, it’s not just the “other side” that thinks Trump capable of carrying out some crazy nuclear threat. A lot of people on this side think it, too (I don’t happen to be one of them, but I see their point, which is not absurd).
Lastly—you write “Hillary handed Iran nukes under Obama’s orders.” I am not at all sure what you’re referring to. The Iran deal was done under John Kerry’s orders and apparently Hillary was not for it, at least not for all of it; I recall reading that she was for being somewhat tougher. Please explain what you’re referring to. Hillary resigned as SOS shortly after the 2012 election. I don’t have time to find links right now, but I seem to recall reading a number of articles back then and earlier, describing how she was more hawkish than Obama on Iran and that that was actually part of the reason she quit or was asked to quit. Kerry had no such reservations.
That isn’t to say she didn’t support the deal (at least, with reservations) once it was done. But it was not done on her watch.
Neo
Technically you are correct. The Iran deal was done by Kerry. But she worked on it the entire time. Hillary is a big believer in diplomacy and the international community; the UN and all that jazz. I’m not. Iran cannot be trusted. We should have crushed them. Encouraged the Green Revolution. We didn’t.
Yeah, Obama was calling the shots but the premise that we could work with Iran is crazy. Condi Rice got taken by North Korea. We should have learned.
I share neon’s amazement with those that can’t understand the “not with Trump (either ever or not yet) arguments”. About 90% of Republicans say they will vote for him. So that leaves a pretty small group that either values something other than party loyalty or they doubt the wisdom of some supposed surety in the ability to intuit Trump. It’s not that you don’t agree or don’t share these concerns to the same degree, it’s that you don’t seem to get that a small minority feels differently. I thought the Democrats were the lock-step party – no questions, no disagreement allowed.
If Trump has many more weeks like this last one, it is all moot anyway. And when he loses he won’t have anyone to blame but himself.
My only quibble with neo’s post is what happens afterwords – if a lot of Trump supporters were previously politically unengaged, I would expect them to be sorely disappointed and then fade back into the woodwork.
neo,
I assure you that I am not ignoring those issues at all. I simply assess them differently than do you.
“with the presidency (especially foreign policy, but not just that) the personality of the person (stability, etc.) DOES matter, because presidents also have a great deal of power.”
If elected, it is a virtual certainty that Trump’s personality is going to create, at the least, friction.
It may of course create far more serious issues than just hurt feelings. IMO, that is undeniable but more serious issues are only a possibility. In the nuclear age, great nations avoid at all costs stumbling into outright conflict that they wish to avoid. As the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated. And yes, I remember WWI. In matters of war, there are no certainties, just probabilities and motivations.
The most serious possibility is war between America and Russia or China, no other nation being able to challenge the US militarily. My reading of Putin is that he neither wants war nor would he expect to win a war with America. He may get threaten and bluster but he will not attack.
China is an entirely different matter. They are militarily and economically preparing for war with America but they are not yet ready. They won’t strike until they have a clear advantage. Weakness is viewed by the Chinese as an invitation to aggression. Trump wants to rebuild our military, though for egotistical reasons, in that I think he’s sincere. That will delay the day of confrontation with China. Under Clinton, not only will that day come sooner but we are much more likely to lose. None of us will like a world in which China is the superpower…
In addition, you apparently ignore Iran and the inarguable path that Hillary presents in regard to that nation gaining nuclear capability. A ‘wild man’ Trump may actually give the Mullahs pause. Trump may cancel Obama’s ‘deal’ and reimpose sanctions but Hillary manifestly will continue with Obama’s deal.
The movement–the left–will indeed go on, and is very powerful. IMO, they are much closer to ‘closing the deal’ that apparently you do. If I am wrong and you right, great but if I am right and you wrong, can you live with the consequences? Nor do I agree that Trump cannot hurt them, not that he will necessarily do so but that opportunity will be available. SCOTUS appointments, canceling Obama’s executive orders, starving malicious federal bureaucracies, etc., come to mind as examples.
I am NOT ignoring the mob behind Trump. Since they are an unorganized mob, rather than a highly organized, ideologically dedicated, well funded movement, that mob worries me much less. So I’m not ignoring it, just assessing its strengths and weaknesses differently than yourself.
Cornhead, there are two questions about nukes: whether the President is batpoop crazy enough to use them, and whether he’s perceived as batpoop crazy enough to use them. The best case is if he wouldn’t use them but people think he would (Reagan?). Next is the sort who wouldn’t use them and everyone knows it. The worst is the guy who would actually use them.
I might be overstating that. There are occasions when using nuclear weapons would be the proper move. But I’m assuming we’re talking about their irrational use here.
Cornhead:
Trump won’t? You are certain?
That seems incredibly naive to me. Even during the campaign, Trump may have made money or at least not lost much at all (see this). He’s very concerned with making money, even now.
Hillary and Bill are estimated to have a net worth of 111 million dollars. (See this.) The estimates for Trump vary wildly, because his major asset is his name. How much actual money or more ordinary assets does he have? Hard to say, but please familiarize yourself with the facts in this post. Trump’s worth may actually be something between 150-250 million, or it may be more. Read it, and also read this.
Neither you nor I actually knows how rich Trump is, although he’s certainly rich. So are the Clintons. But the bottom line is not absolute wealth, but how motivated a person is to increase their wealth, and what their morals are about that, and how they would use power.
Trump has never had that power. Neither you nor I have any idea how he would use it, but I see no reason to believe he’d refrain from using it in that way. However, that’s not my major concern with Trump. I think I’ve made my major concerns clear.
Cornhead:
I’m not just “technically” correct. It was not Hillary who “handed Iran nukes” (your statement). It was Kerry and Obama. Yes, she was part of earlier steps towards negotiations, but she did not negotiate the specific terms of the Iran deal and did not hand anyone weapons.
I am not a Hillary fan, nor am I a fan of the foreign policy I think would happen under her. But I am pretty sure she was not as far to the left on Iran as Obama or Kerry.
“Is our President supposed to refute theologically and declare anti-constitutional the religious beliefs of a significant percentage of the citizens (and, by the way, voters) of the US? I don’t see anyone, not even Trump, doing that. And, as a Christian who already feels that declarations such as that about my own faith are already beginning to make their way in our country, I’d be a hypocrite to desire that upon people of a different faith. Thoughts?” Bill
Yes. Ideally our President and Congress should declare that Islam’s most basic tenets are incompatible with our Constitutional freedoms and principles. That is a fact not an opinion. That antipathy is so deep that it is impossible to be a devout Muslim and a loyal American without self-deceit, which is the case with ‘moderate’ Muslims. No amount of rationalization can change that reality. Trump started to do that and has even skirted around the edges of it but I strongly suspect that his political handlers have steered him away from it.
On the other hand, there is nothing in Christianity that is antithetical to our Constitutional freedoms and principles. The Christian God does not command on pain of death, he pleads while also declaring that there are consequences for our actions.
The animosity toward Christians is partially due to some Christian fundamentalists ‘you’re going to hell if you don’t believe as I do’ and, the Left’s perception that attacking Christians tears at America’s societal foundations.
Geoffrey Britain:
I did not ignore Iran. I wrote about it here.
And are you actually familiar with Trump’s position on the Iran deal? “Confusing” doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Here’s a Trump story that I think is very relevant to foreign policy. I wrote about it here in the primaries as a reason to vote for Ted or Carly.
Trump was buying a golf course/resort. Ivanka comes to the closing for the first time. She’s new. Father wants to teach her the ropes and impress her. Trump gets to the closing table and says he is cutting the price by, say, $10m. Clear breach.
Seller says “Why?” We have a deal. Donald just makes it up out of thin air that there were problems with the infrastrucure. Pure fiction. But what he knew was that the seller needed to sell more than he needed to buy. The seller needed the money
now. He would get sued, but so what. He’s defended hundreds of lawsuits.
I want THAT guy at the table – in all matters – on OUR side.
Hillary just caves to the consensus. She’s an Ivy League lawyer who has never really tried a lawsuit who moved to the Senate club and then “the international community.” She has plenty of balls when it comes to taking bribes for her self, but no guts when it comes to the country’s interests. Hell, she sold out our people in Libya. Jets from Italy would have scared the hell out of those terrorists.
Geoffrey Britain:
You write:
Actually, you may not be ignoring that “mob” in your head, but you certainly were ignoring it when you wrote:
Let me tell you one thing: the alt-right (and particularly the international, anti-Semitic, white supremicist wing of it), in not an “an unorganized mob.” It is in fact a “rather than a highly organized, ideologically dedicated movement.” That is what I see. I am not sure about its funding but I suspect it may be fairly “well funded,” too.
I agree with Cornhead in general. One thing is that, as with Nixon, the GOP will go after their own; 69 indicted for the Watergate cover up and 48 convicted by President Ford’s DoJ. If Trump goes too far, the cabinet with the VP can shut him down per the 25th Amendment if he becomes very incompetent/irrational. As with the Nixon tapes and resignation, the GOP leadership pushed those issues, but never would with Obama; lessons learned from Clinton? But they are going after Trump’s excesses in language/personal attacks. I will hold my nose and vote for Trump ready to go after him, as a TEA Party leader, if he goes progressive. And I believe we will have allies in the GOP if that happens. With Clinton there is nothing any Democrat would do to rein her in as her E-mail lies show and the Left’s reaction to them.
Let me tell you one thing: the alt-right (and particularly the international, anti-Semitic, white supremicist wing of it), in not an “an unorganized mob.” It is in fact a “rather than a highly organized, ideologically dedicated movement.”
That has nothing to do with Trump, all 37 of them, even.
Sheesh.
progressoverpeace:
Oh, very reassuring indeed. You no doubt have the inside info on this.
amr:
I’ve heard that impeachment argument before. I disagree. The GOP in Congress at this point doesn’t have the guts or the relative integrity it used to have, back in Nixon’s days. It takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict, which is a very high bar. The Democrats would be a given, but I don’t see the GOP as a given at all. Plenty of people go along with power, and who is in power, and have their price (either monetary or otherwise).
Come on, neo. You’re just trying to scare yourself … like kids sitting around a campfire in the dark telling ghost stories. Where do you see any connection between Trump and any “alt-right” groups?
No matter what our political ideas each and every one of us have “unpalatable” people who agree with us on certain issues. Anyone who is in favor of true free speech will find people who like to say nasty and offensive things in political league with him – even nasty and offensive to him. So what? That doesn’t make the idea of free speech wrong and that doesn’t mean that the nasty, offensive speaker is “behind” the free speech guy, though many love to try and paint that exact picture.
Trump is not in league with any alt-right crowd. Trump happens to take a hard line (and a correct one) on illegals and that meshes with some of the boogeymen in the alt-right. So what? Sovereign control of the territory is a REQUIREMENT for a government to even exist and is something that the Founders were very serious about. It is the correct position, no matter who happens to agree with that.
But trying to imply that some “alt-right mob” is behind Trump … that’s nothing but a ghost story. I mean, really.
progressoverpeace:
No, I’m not.
You seem to be trying to reassure yourself (or me) about the nature of something you either know nothing about, or know about and approve of.
And neither of us is a child. Don’t give me that condescending garbage.
Neo-neocon; I didn’t address impeachment, only the use of the 25th Amendment and pressure (maybe a threat of impeachment might be used as with Nixon). If Trump misleads those who support him, the backlash, I believe, will be huge.
Cornhead – It is always best with politicians to judge them by what they have done, rather than what they say. I can think of no one of whom that is more true than Donald Trump.
He says, in “The Art of the Steal” that he uses hyperbole to appeal to people’s fantasies. (There’s a less polite way to put that.)
And when has he done anything, except for himself? He has no record of public service; he has never done anything for the United States.
Two out of three times, he didn’t even marry an American woman. Most of his staff at Mar_I_Crooko is imported from Eastern Europe. And so on, and so on. (I have jokingly suggested that he thought wife number 2 was from the other Georgia.)
To believe that he will, at 70, suddenly change, and start doing things for the United States and the rest of the world. requires you to ignore those 70 narcissistic years.
Two recent exampeles: The Washington Post asked his staff for a lsist of his charitble contributions — and found that none of them actually took money out of his own pocket. Recently, he said that he hoped to revive Trump U while he is president.
Trump may cancel Obama’s ‘deal’ and reimpose sanctions but Hillary manifestly will continue with Obama’s deal.
Hillary actually called for new Iran sanctions just this past January.
amr:
But the “threat of impeachment” is invoking impeachment. The threat only works if it’s credible. The GOP leaders informed Nixon they had enough votes to impeach and convict him, and they did, and they would have done it, and he knew it, and he was at heart a patriot, so he resigned instead.
That whole scenario wouldn’t work for Trump—that’s my point. Either they wouldn’t threaten him, the threat would not be credible, they wouldn’t be able to get enough votes, he would call their bluff, etc..
It’s strange to me that so many people on the right who think so little of the Republicans in Congress assume they would do the right thing re Trump. I make no such assumption, and I probably think more highly of them than most of those people do.
neo,
I’ve read your many discussions on the Iran deal, so I wasn’t implying that you’ve never addressed it. I simply noticed that you omitted it in this discussion. Since it’s as major as any of the other issues you did mention, I found its omission, noteworthy.
“And are you actually familiar with Trump’s position on the Iran deal? “Confusing” doesn’t even begin to describe it.”
In a general sort of way, yes. I don’t pay a lot of attention to Trump’s varying positions since he has no consistent principle driven position. It’s all gut reaction with him. But while he may not do anything about Iran, it’s just as possible that he may. While with Hillary, since she is ideologically driven we know she’ll do nothing.
And yes, I disagree that Hillary is simply about the personal acquisition of power, status and wealth. In fact, I think she’s as ideologically driven as Obama, she’s just had a lot longer to pretend otherwise and she’s had William Jefferson Clinton advising her for a very long time.
“Actually, you may not be ignoring that “mob” in your head, but you certainly were ignoring it when you wrote:
“Let me tell you one thing: the alt-right (and particularly the international, anti-Semitic, white supremicist wing of it), in not an “an unorganized mob.” It is in fact a “rather than a highly organized, ideologically dedicated movement.” That is what I see.”
I can’t ‘ignore’ something that I have yet to see exists. I’ve seen a lot of bile but zero evidence of “a highly organized, ideologically dedicated movement.”. My reading of the linked articles you’ve provided, evidence a disparate ‘movement’ united only in its opposition to the status quo. I’ll be grateful (no sarcasm intended), if you can provide actual evidence to the contrary.
“I’ve heard that impeachment argument before. I disagree. The GOP in Congress at this point doesn’t have the guts or the relative integrity it used to have, back in Nixon’s days.”
They certainly don’t have the integrity but if it is clearly in their interest, they do have the guts. To survive in that ‘club’, you have to have an advanced degree in chutzpah and, be expert in sliding the ‘political knife’ in the back. They’ll turn on him in a ‘New York minute’ (btw, is time faster in NY?;-), IF the ‘downside’ is manageable.
I assume that a President Trump would be impeached within 6 months of taking the office. His pride is only going to get worse, and he’s bound to do something unconstitutional. The Republicans and Democrats will be happy to throw him out, for their own reasons.
I find it passing strange that in order to deal with the threats posed by Islamic terrorism and it’s lesser immediate metastases some propose gutting the First Amendment. As if only the left or Islam are threats to freedom to worship, to believe or not to.
Again, interesting.
GB:
Here is what to look for:
http://libertygb.org.uk/sites/default/files/blog/roderick-spode.jpg
They will be wearing black shorts.
Ann,
“One of Hillary Clinton’s top priorities as president would be to use sanctions to pressure North Korea to negotiate limits on its nuclear program, according to Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser. The strategy would mimic the Obama administration’s approach to Iran.” MAY 17, 2016 Josh Rogin, bloomberg.com
Sanctions against N. Korea are a bad joke.
“We are safer now than we were before this agreement.” Hillary Clinton 6/2/2016
“Although Clinton is slightly more hawkish in comparison to Obama, she has shown almost no deviation from Obama’s foreign and Middle East policies.” 06/03/2016 Huffington Post, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, President of the International American Council
Draw your own conclusions, while remembering that Clinton has a history of reversing herself. Repeatedly.
OM,
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” Abraham Lincoln
It is not their freedom of speech that I oppose but the pretense that Islam’s theological antipathy to freedom is not endemic to the ideology.
Well I, for one, am now convinced that the only choice is either to go ahead and vote for Clinton or put a fig leaf on it and support some fantasy candidate approved by Jeb Bush or Romney so that I can be sure that I’ve stuck with — and demonstrated — my principles.
With all due respect: Bullshit. We KNOW what we get with HRC. The only question is how to most effectively oppose her.
Please: Not doing everything possible within our power to defeat her is just not an option. I dearly love this blog but this thread is scaring the crap out of me.
A v. P…
carl in atlanta:
I’m not sure what’s scaring you about this thread.
I don’t see a lot of people saying they’re voting for Hillary. In fact, I see none.
Nor—if people do vote third-party—are they saying that it would be in order to “stick with – and demonstrate –” their “principles.” Not that that wouldn’t be a decent reason, actually, but that’s not the reason being cited by most people, and it’s not the reason I’ve cited for myself, if I do decide to vote third-party (which is certainly not a decision I have made at this point, as I’ve also made clear). Nor would it be a “fantasy candidate approved by Jeb Bush or Romney.”
I could not care less who they approve or disapprove of. Nor have I seen one single person here say they care who those people approve of or disapprove of.
You write, “the only question is how to most effectively oppose [Hillary].Please: Not doing everything possible within our power to defeat her is just not an option.”
I’m not sure why you are not seeing that people who are refusing to support Trump are usually doing it for that exact reason—wanting to defeat Hillary—as well as because they object to who and what Trump is and what danger they think he represents. In the practical sense, most of them do NOT think Trump is an effective way to oppose Hillary—in fact, all signs point to the likelihood that she will clean his clock in the general. These people are in fact trying to come up with an alternative in order to actually defeat her, as opposed to her defeat of Trump.
You may think their judgment is wrong, you may think Trump is the way to do it, but that’s a disagreement on tactics, not on the importance of defeating her. People who oppose Trump also happen to think that he would be just as bad or worse than she would, but defeating her is absolutely something they are trying very hard to do, and they think that it is almost a certainty that Trump cannot do it.
As I said, you may disagree with the path and the conclusions (I waver on those things, myself). But surely you can follow the reasoning and understand the motivation for most people is not as you characterize it.
“Ideally our President and Congress should declare that Islam’s most basic tenets are incompatible with our Constitutional freedoms and principles.”
That would bring down the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia within a matter of hours. It’d end oil shipments to Europe. You might as well just close every airport in the US, because airplanes will be falling out of the sky like autumn leaves. You can count on Germany catching on fire, and the new government in Berlin and the new government in Ankara (or maybe Istanbul) will go to war. I wonder what will replace NATO? My guess is, something German-led and genocidey.
Let’s see, what happens next? Well, millions dead in Africa, of course. Tens of millions. The diplomats will give it some kind of name like the Boko Haramization of Africa. Got to give the diplomats something to do. The thing they won’t be doing is sitting on human rights councils, because along with condemning Western democracy, the Islamic world will be “discovering” the evil Jewish roots of the concept of human rights.
I guess with this many dead, dying, gang-raped, and driven from their homelands, it’d be petty to talk about what happens to international stock markets. But hey, with a seven-front war going on, some things needed to be nationalized, right? And the internet will have gone the way of unlicensed interstate travel. All in all, a heck of a way to defend our Constitutional freedoms and principles.
Geoffrey Britain:
I didn’t mention ANY specific issues in the post. None whatsoever. In fact, in the post I mention several times that I’m not going to go into the specific arguments back and forth that we’ve argued before.
And I did mention Iran as an issue quite prominently in the comments, and I gave you the link to the comment in which I discussed it.
So I have no idea what you’re talking about when you write:
I did not mention any other issues, and therefore I did not omit Iran as an issue.
GB:
Regarding foolishness and speech look in the mirror. That isn’t slander BTW.
On a lighter note:
“Menace
Power is intoxicating. Everyone loves having the ability to make their decisions into reality – to think “this should be something that happens,” and then actually be able to make that thing happen.
It is also dangerous.
And it is especially dangerous when applied to four-year-olds.
Four-year-olds lack the experience to wield power responsibly. They have no idea what to do with it or how to control it. ……”
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2013-01-01T00:00:00-07:00&updated-max=2014-01-01T0
Bet you thought I was going to comment about Trump. Nope, just waiting for Allie Brosh to post new content. A gem revealed by Neo.
OM:
Hey, that’s what the Fred Astaire Ginger Rogers thread is for.
Diversion. Entertainment. Enjoyment.
But Allie Brosh is so good, isn’t she? Her drawings seem so simple and yet they express so much. My favorite is her piece about getting lost with her sister and mother in the woods. It’s in her book, though—not online.
OM,
I don’t take the accusation that I’m guilty of what I suggested applies to you, as slander. I’m unclear if you meant to apply the Nazi figure to me but if so that’s clearly slander.
Nick,
When telling the truth creates volcanic upheaval, the truth is not responsible. It is however, an exact metric of how badly dysfunctional is the state of the world. And, the longer addressing that dysfunction is avoided, the greater the eventual price paid. Avoidance of the difficult ensures even worse outcomes.
who among the third partiers, johnson who apparently doesn’t understand private property, (throwing away someone elses gun,) and thinks socialism is great, as long as it is voluntary,
when someone has been directly involved with the faulty policies of this administration from the niger river delta to the hindu kush,
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_criminal_investigation_emails_clinton_approved_cia_drone_assassinations_with_her_cellphone_report_says/
neo,
You certainly alluded to specific issues.
“GB’s argument also is less than compelling if you think there is a third-party possibility or possibilities, and that many names have emerged and in fact almost any reasonable Republican would have a decent chance not only of being “better” than both candidates, but of winning.”
The viability of a third party alternative candidate having a chance to win is a specific issue.
“GB’s argument’s suppress-the-truth message, which in itself is troublesome.”
“suppress-the-truth”? A base charge, as I made clear that was not my message.
“This “shut up about the flaws of our candidate” admonition seems to me to be new, and ominous.
I made it clear that in my view, the drumbeat of negativity had evolved into “beating a dead horse” for the readers of this blog, as the truth of Trump’s flaws has been explored ad infinitum and that, by your own frequent admission.
You specifically mentioned the issue of the 1/3 of GOP voters who supported Trump in the primaries who you expect to “explode in rage” if he loses.
You specifically mentioned the issue of the “schism in the party” being already permanent and that, “it predated Trump, who is acting as both lightening rod and amplifier for it.”
In the comments, before I brought up Iran, you said,
“With Trump, the question is always whether he’d be worse than the very very bad Hillary, and with consequences far worse than in any basketball game. The stakes, in other words, are very very high. And the other question is “what team is Trump actually on?”
Trump is out for himself. His entire history screams that. He will devote his energy to that. That is the one thing that we really do know about Trump.
I see Trump as a more complete Machiavellian and Alinskyite than Hillary Clinton”
All of those comments allude to specific issues. Given that you had focused on all the reasons why Trump was unsuitable without, even in the slightest, exploring the ways in which even the possibility existed that he could be preferable to Hillary, I couldn’t help but conclude that animosity had superseded objective consideration of the man.
I’ve been of that opinion for some time, now with the primary over, continued and ongoing criticism of Trump cannot help but assist in the election of Hillary. That is NOT a demand that we “shut up about his flaws”. When something new emerges, such as Trump’s accusation of bias from Judge Curiel, fully explore it but beating a dead horse serves no constructive purpose.
we can try one end of the atlantic,
https://world.wng.org/2016/05/troubling_ties
or the other closer to home,
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/video-pay-for-play-at-clinton-foundation-for-haiti-relief/
Neo:
“if you think there is a third-party possibility or possibilities, and that many names have emerged and in fact almost any reasonable Republican would have a decent chance not only of being “better” than both candidates”
It can work this time. When the Republican candidate and the Democrat candidate is each worse than the other, a sane 3rd option can be better than both.
However, while a checklist 3rd-option candidate is a necessary element, that’s not the primary element. The success of a 3rd-option campaign doesn’t begin with the candidate. If the cornerstone step of the 3rd-option campaign is a magical messiah candidate, even if such an outstanding candidate was found, the basic approach would be wrong. The 3rd-option campaign would be lost before it began.
Only a social activist movement can compete for real versus a social activist movement; in this case, two of them, simultaneously.
A candidate, including Obama and Trump, doesn’t cause the attendant social activist movement. The social activist movement manufactures the candidacy.
The primary element is not the candidate, but rather a social activist movement that zealously competes for dominance against all comers throughout the arena. The team that wins the game has the winning candidate on their team.
Playing to win the activist game doesn’t mean cargo-cult copying Democrat-front Left activists and Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right activists. Playing to win means beating them. Of course, you should always be open to learn the lessons that the competition teaches.
Neo:
“I do not see that happening. Let me repeat: I DO NOT SEE THAT HAPPENING (and yes, I’m shouting).”
That won’t happen.
They’re mimicking the Left. Left activism uses electoral politics with the rest of the social spectrum, but it has never been chained to elected officials or restricted to electoral politics.
They don’t depend on Trump. They’re not defined by Trump. They’re not led by Trump. They’re not limited to Trump. They’re not caused by Trump. They methodically manufactured the Trump phenomenon as a stratagem to establish their Gramscian long march to paradigm shift.
They’ll exploit the phenomenon as long as it’s productive. When the resource dries up, they’ll shift to other resources and continue building their Gramscian long march to paradigm shift.
That being said, Geoffrey Britain’s point has merit. Adopting activism at any time means entering into a binary state of either social dominance or insurgency, which helps to preserve at least minimal social survival.
But if you mean to win, then you need to approach it like any other kind of competition.
Building a social activist movement that competes with a real chance to win demands that you seize opportunities aggressively and intelligently. That’s the 2016 presidential election.
Meanwhile, competing activists won’t pause the game to wait for you and take turns. If you don’t seize the opportunity, then the opportunity goes to your competition to further displace, reduce, and marginalize any competitive threat you might pose to them, while they consolidate the social dominance that you’ve conceded.
So, if your ambition is limited to minimal social survival as a marginal insurgency, then you can wait.
But if your mean to win the social dominance required to reify your preferred social condition – your paradigm shift – then the window of opportunity to establish a social activist movement that competes for real is here and now with the 2016 presidential election.
On the other hand, if you pass up this window of opportunity, then your competitive potential shrinks dramatically to a marginal insurgency that scrapes at the fringes of the arena.
You’ve been knocked off your turf by activist usurpers, and right now you’re sliding. But your turf isn’t out of reach yet. Here and now is the best opportunity for the foreseeable future to grip, stop sliding, and fight your way back.
And more than reclaiming your turf, you can win.
But if your side chooses instead to keep not competing for real by again rationalizing their aversion to activism, then you’ll keep sliding into social political obsolescence. If you don’t grip and fight your way back up now, then the competing activists on either side will contemptuously flick at your fluttering fingertips as you slide down, with a smirk.
Geoffrey Britain:
I did not allude to specific issues of the “Iran” type. I only spoke about politics itself—winning, losing, supporters, opponents. I did not speak about “issues”—Iran, North Korea, immigration, China, the economy, gun control, the Supreme Court, Obamacare, the military, Mexico, free trade, taxes, and on and on and on. I specifically avoided all issues of the “Iran as an issue” type.
How can you fail to see what I mean? Do you really think I meant to say that my post was content-free?
You write:
But that’s not what you wrote in the comment of yours I used to set up this post. You did not say that it’s okay to discuss new flaws, just not old ones. And even just now, in your paragraph that I just quoted, you are contradicting yourself, because you say that “continued and ongoing criticism of Trump cannot help but assist in the election of Hillary.” Even a new issue is actually “continued and ongoing criticism of Trump”—it’s just on a new issue.
And I’m wondering what old Trump issues you think I’ve been criticizing. I don’t actually see any. That post in which you wrote that comment that I used as the jumping-off point for this thread was about the psychology of Trump’s supporters, it really wasn’t about Trump at all (although to talk about his supporters I had to talk about some of his flaws that they have excused, both past and present). But my recent posts about Trump himself have been about the Curiel accusations and about Trump University, all current issues with Trump. Other than that, I’ve been sticking to posts about the dilemma we face as conservatives, having to decide about Trump. That is something very very current, not old news at all—and relatively new, since he’s supposedly clinched the nomination. I’ve also written quite a bit about possible third-party alternatives. That’s also a new thing.
I don’t see that anyone here is beating a dead horse. Those horses are very much alive—very current and very in-our-faces.
Perhaps you’re just weary of the disagreement. We all are. That’s been going on for a long time.
the stakes are rather clearly defined,
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/10/i-really-dont-personally-think-anyone-should-have-a-gun-democratic-national-committee-policy-shaper-has-her-say/
Geoffrey Britain and Cornhead are the two most sensible voices on this blog. I try, but I’m no match, particularly temperamentally.
Neo has her entire ego invested in it, and sometimes regards her (reasoned) opponents with something approaching insufferability. I recall, for example, trying to explain why everything that happened in Dallas with that 1st Ebola patient was not malpractice, but she wouldn’t have it…and I was the MD.
I am grateful for GB’s and Cornhead’s analyses.
We have had some very solid commenters give up on this blog over the years. One died, one was seriously cancer-ridden, but the others just went away.
GB:
You said regarding alt-right extremism:
“I can’t ‘ignore’ something that I have yet to see exists. I’ve seen a lot of bile but zero evidence of “a highly organized, ideologically dedicated movement.”.
Others see warning signs, so, to “help” you I post the farce fascist from the 1930’s Sir Roderick-Spode. No that’s not slander. You take yourself pretty seriously it seems.
You propose gutting the First Amendment regarding Moslems and cast aspersions on fundamentalist Christians and then call me a fool for questioning that approach as have others.
I read your comments seriously. But you trow out some clunkers from time to time.
“People who oppose Trump also happen to think that he would be just as bad or worse than she would, but defeating her is absolutely something they are trying very hard to do, and they think that it is almost a certainty that Trump cannot do it.” – Neo
Thanks for correcting a logic error.
Arguing against Trump is not about being “for” Clinton, as it is to probe how even the reluctant ones are coming to their conclusions that Trump is necessarily “better” – really, to move them towards a third choice.
Many have given up hope that Trump would do much from a conservative principle point of view, so that is not a big differentiator with Clinton at this point, save for some aspect of Border Security (won’t say it is immigration, nor a complete “solution” to Border Security, given his walkbacks) and possibly a conservative replacement for Scalia (only because he published a list, but if he runs into challenges in confirmation, who knows). Don’t even know if we can trust him to do those things.
The core of the argument I’ve been making about Trump is that even those reluctantly willing to support him have not come up with a convincing case that he is “better”, simply because Trump has not given anyone enough to go on that is solid enough to base such a judgement on.
Trump’s unpredictability IS the problem, made worse by his comfort at courting themes of racism, white identity politics, and Authoritarianism.
Unpredictability = Uncertainty, and that creates a whole other set of problems – from foreign affairs, to trade, to investment, to the economy, to stock prices and interest rates, etc., etc..
Too much uncertainty = chaos, which triggers crises – the perfect environment for Authoritarianism to arise.
His character only amplifies that unpredictability, as it brings with it questions of motivation and sincerity.
That is the fear, and the gamble, essentially.
How does one price that risk?
How does one size up the downside if they are wrong about Trump?
Are these questions even being considered by reluctant Trump supporters?
Some sidestep pricing the risk by arguing that Trump’s Authoritarianism is still better than Clinton. A classic “ends justifies the means” argument that rarely ends well for those advocating the means used. It also begs the question as to what is that “end” we think we have in common. Maybe we shouldn’t be arguing Trump vs Clinton, but about what is the right “end”.
The other part is that the anti-Clinton argument is overplayed. Bad, yes, but many talk like the eventual outcome of a long term leftward government is something that WILL somehow be accelerated into the next four years. Or, argue that Clinton is just as likely to make a play at Authoritarianism / Permanent Dem government. Again, this is all on thin evidence to support such change over that term. (Really, if that was such a likely scenario, one would think we’d have seen it under Obama.)
Nobody (other than Dems) are arguing that a Clinton admin is “good” or “desirable”, only that we can see where it is headed, thus, it is more “predictable”, and more “survivable” in relative terms (i.e. lower risk and downside is somewhat bounded).
So why address this? Because reluctant Trump supporters are all about “not Clinton”, which might be explained by a framing and an anchoring effect here, and is hard to overcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
(probably an interesting discussion to expound on, but not here)
Finally, part of the argument is that there are other choices, so one is not obliged to pick either of the two candidates. This is what I’d like to see people do vs be stuck on two poor choices.
It works if people move off both Trump and Clinton, but, as in a classic chicken/egg scenario, we wait for movement from others who are also waiting for movement from others before they will move.
That gets complicated if we think the GOP would make a move during the convention to disqualify Trump, but one has to wonder if that is a seed planted to prevent a third party from seeing any “movement”.
I’ve mentioned it before, but the Libertarian Party has two former Republican Governors at the top of their ticket. They deserve serious consideration, with GOP downticket support.
Frog:
You tend to agree with GB and Cornhead is that you are grateful for their analysis, confirmation bias? Sensible about some things they are, other things are just well polished unsupported opinions.
But that’s just my observation. I’ve only been a reader of Neo for about 10 years or so. I’m not a MD, PHD, lawyer, but I can spot BS sometimes.
I agree with Geoffrey that we can be certain Hillary would be a dreadful president, whereas there is a possibility that Trump would, on balance, be less of a disaster.
His remarks about the Leftist supermachine are also true.
Neo:
Allie’s book is very, very good. We like it “alot.”
“I’m not sure why you are not seeing that people who are refusing to support Trump are usually doing it for that exact reason–wanting to defeat Hillary”
NO. That may have been true in the primaries but it is not true now. The next President of the United States is going to be
1. Donald Trump
2. Hillary Clinton
3. NO ONE – there are no other possibilities. No third party candidate. Look at Bill Kristol for crying out loud. Supposedly one of the smartest guys on the right and the best he could come up with was David French?!?!?! And if Trump is somehow maneuvered out of the nomination at this point it will tear the party apart and Clinton will win in a cakewalk.
Sorry. We have to face up to the fact that like him or not the only person standing between us and Hillary as POTUS is Donald Trump.
Jim Miller Says:
June 11th, 2016 at 6:32 pm
And when has he done anything, except for himself? He has no record of public service; he has never done anything for the United States.
%%%%
Trump has — when permitted — performed multiple public works in the Greater New York area.
His rescues have been so successful — and embarrassing — that he is often rejected — as he’s revealing the players as being stupid.
( Central park ick rink fiasco…
( UN building reconstruction fiasco… the fellas in charge didn’t even know the argot of construction at the most basic level…
( His celebrated estate in Florida was a wasted asset that no-one would touch. He turned a money pit into a tax spinner for Florida… and lots of jobs, too.
&&&&&
Trump profiles like JF Kennedy, like either Bush I or Bush II, — Liberal Northeastern — born into serious wealth.
This is contrary to the profile of most of the worst tyrants of history.
I will grant you that all three presidents cited made HORRIFIC foreign policy errors.
Trump is going to want to go down in history like Andrew Jackson — NOT LBJ or Bill Clinton.
And, of course, Jackson had all elites — up and down the coast — spitting blood.
THE biggest issue of our times is the corruption of Congress by Wall Street// Big Bankers.
The Second biggest issue is the corruption of truth by Google, Bing, Facebook, and the rest of our social minders. We are losing our 4th Amendment rights.
This is followed by the corruption of Congress by Academe, Big Medicine — and by Alien despots.
OM Says:
June 12th, 2016 at 1:10 am
GB:
…
You propose gutting the First Amendment regarding Moslems and cast aspersions on fundamentalist Christians and then call me a fool for questioning that approach as have others.
…
Our First Amendment stipulates that there is to be NO state sponsored religion.
Yet EVERY mosque in the USA is STATE SPONSORED.
ALL mosques in Muslim nations are STATE SPONSORED.
Unlike Hindus, Jews, Christians, — you name it — no-one passes the hat around to establish a new mosque.
They are ALL sponsored by a head of state — one way or the other.
4 out of 5 ‘American’ mosques are Wahhabbist — Sunni — with the King of Saudi Arabia providing 100% of their funding. Well over $100,000,000,000 has been spent world wide for such Wahhabbist mosques. The successive kings have ALL bragged about this expenditure — deemed jihad.
ALL of the imams in said mosques are graduates of KSA Wahhabbist ‘universities’ — indoctrination centers — and are ON THE KINGS PAYROLL.
Only now Merkel is waking up to this situation in Germany. ALL of the Turkish imams are CIVIL SERVANTS paid entirely by Ankara — ALL having been indoctrinated within Turkey.
EVERY mosque in the USA needs to be SHUT DOWN as they are ALL in gross violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
You may see the hat passed at this or that mosque — such alms are used EXCLUSIVELY for jihad — however defined.
This financial jihad is deemed a pillar of Islam.
It is as essential for the Muslims as visiting Mecca — and all the rest.
EVERY time jihad is encountered — it leads straight to the local mosques — as Paris has ruefully discovered.
Those aren’t houses of worship — they’re ammo bunkers.
They DON’T go to the maintenance of the imam/ mullah.
FOAF at 3:41am:
Exactly.
Geoffrey – Are you saying that Islam is neither healthy nor good for the world? No complaints from me on that. But you’ve posed it as a matter of the best timing for a US President to tell a billion lunatics that their religion is incompatible with civilization. That would be terrible for the state of Islam, and terrible for the US and her allies.
Big Maq:
“So why address this? Because reluctant Trump supporters are all about “not Clinton”, which might be explained by a framing and an anchoring effect here, and is hard to overcome.
… (probably an interesting discussion to expound on, but not here)”
Actually, this is a critical point.
There’s no pause button for the window of opportunity. The game is still within reach here and now, but the game isn’t suspended for your convenience. The competition is pulling ahead while your side continues to not do what’s needed to compete for real.
The window of opportunity for a viable 3rd option is realistic right now, but it is shrinking. The longer your side continues to assume its crippling aversion to activism and not create a viable center of gravity for a 3rd option – ie, an aggressive smart opportunistic social activist movement with a good-enough candidate to front it – there will be a growing rate of attrition from concession, conversion, and compromising submission by your core constituency as it pragmatically migrates to the ‘other’ competitively viable center of gravity.
At some point of zero-sum loss versus growth by the competition, you won’t have enough left to compete for real even if your side were to belatedly come around to do what’s needed to establish a viable 3rd option in the arena.
Big Maq
“Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”
It’s essential competition. Are they and, more significantly, their “movement” doing what’s basically needed to compete for real and win versus two leftist-style social activist movements?
If they’re just running their usual 3rd-party campaign again, then they’re not a viable 3rd option.
Big Maq:
“That gets complicated if we think the GOP would make a move during the convention to disqualify Trump, but one has to wonder if that is a seed planted to prevent a third party from seeing any “movement”.”
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. The shaky possibility doesn’t obviate the glaring need.
Moreover, it should be clear by now that a social activist movement distinct from and irrespective of the GOP is necessary. If that’s not clear by now, then conservatives are evidently choosing social helplessness, dependency, and thus concession to any social evolutionarily viable “movement” that sweeps them aside and takes over their erstwhile political space for more productive use.
blert – Trump was paid, indirectly, for his work on the Wollman rink. He made a profit on the deal. And benefitted enormously from from the publcity.
He did it for himself. As always.
(He needed the good publicity, since the Justice Department had nailed Trump and his father for discriminating in housing.)
Anyone who thinks he has treated little guys fairly should read either the USA Today or the WSJ articles on how he has stiffed so many contractors over the years.
It would be interesting to try to estimate how much Trump has cost the taxpayers through endless lawsuits. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is more than $1 billion.
(Many people in Venezuela believed that Hugo Chavez would do exactly the kind of things you hope Trump will do. He was a strong man, they thought, who would fight the elites and keep foreign influences out. Those ideas haven’t worked out that well for Venezuela.)
Here’s the summary paragraph from the USA Today article:
“Donald Trump casts himself as a protector of workers and jobs, but a USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found hundreds of people — carpenters, dishwashers, painters, even his own lawyers — who say he didn’t pay them for their work.”
No doubt Trumpistas will find excuses for this behavior, just as Chavistas found excuses for Hugo’s power grabs and blunders
Blert:
When the US government sponsors a religion your argument will have some “logic” behind it.
So all the mosques in the US were built with KSA funding. I’m sure you have researched (NOT). Look up the word hyperbole.
You and GB appear to have little regard for individual freedom when it comes to this issue, sort of like the extreme Moslems. Your “cure” for their “disease” is worse for all.
In light of today’s Islamist terror attack, here’s my bottom line.
Hillary is the candidate of the status quo. The status quo is chaos with terrorism and failure in all matters of foreign policy. HRC will NEVER be effective in defeating radical Islam. Add in economic stagnation due to the Greens, crony capitalism, the inherent nature of the Left and not defeating HRC means we choose pain and managed decline.
Trump is the other side. Trump is the real candidate of hope and change. I choose Trump.
Jim Miller…
It’s a HIT PIECE.
I’ve already scanned it:
1) A huge fraction of the ‘victims’ were involved in his Atlantic City Casino fiascos.
Once Chapter 11 is invoked — never casually done — ALL of the decisions are made by the Federal Bankruptcy judge… Trump had no say at all.
That’s how the system works.
Further, once you file Chapter 11 you CAN’T pay off the small claims to reduce the ‘body count’ in the filing.
If you’ve ever seen an actual Chapter 11 filing — you’ll run into this. Claims as low as one dollar are often found in the unsecured creditors ‘stack.’
Then, should the case exit Chapter 11 — ALL of the claimants are paid — per the Judge’s schedule.
In as much as the typical claimant in Trump’s situation was a licensed contractor — their claims would have priority over Wall Street financiers. That’s why his financing was termed “junk” — it was subordinated to the contractors.
( Legally, any contractor with any moxie would’ve established a lien on the property. This makes such claims SECURED claims under bankruptcy law — as a rule.
Yes, attorneys can fight over every last detail. )
If any given party does not want to defend his claim — then that’s their business — or foolishness.
The real reason that Donald Trump and Merv Griffen lost BIG TIME doing the same thing at the same time in the same industry — the MOB.
Atlantic City has been a MOBBED up town for at least ninety-years. It’s where Lucky Luciano conducted confabs — in swimming trunks — in the ocean — to prevent wire taps.
This stunt was echoed in the film “Traffic” when Del Toro’s character had the agents wading in the swimming pool during their confab. Now you know where the idea came from: Lucky Luciano. No kidding.
BTW, Merv Griffen, — no body’s fool — lost more money than Donald Trump. You don’t see anyone trashing Griffen’s bona fides.
&&&&&&&
Folks, this hit piece is what the MSM has been sitting on ALL THIS TIME.
This junk is exactly why I deemed Trump a terrible candidate.
In contrast, the MSM can’t seem to find the open-and-shut criminality of Hillary Rodham-Clinton-Goldman-Sachs.
{ Yes, she’s married to the money. Duh.
Get a load of the soft piece now linked at Drudge.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-susie-buell-hillary-clinton-20160603-snap-story.html
It reads like it was crafted by HRCGS staffers.
&&&&&
Look, Donald Trump is in the real estate development game. That’s a zone dominated by fellas that have the disposition of honey badgers// wolverines.
ALL of his peer rivals would have similar tales to tell — if they ever got out into the public.
The contractors that Trump ‘stiffed’ are ALSO about as huggable as a honey badger, too.
I can’t feel ANY pity for ANY of them.
BTW, anyone that secures a contract with Trump for one of his monster projects is ANYTHING but a small time outfit.
Widows and orphans — they are not.
&&&&&&
Trump is not even in the same quadrant of economic space as Hugo Chavez.
Trump is VERY likely to shock everybody by his management moxie should he prevail in the Fall.
He’s an extreme pragmatist. This is so true that no-one can figure out his compass bearing.
After eight-years of the 0bamanation — pragmatism may actually be the perfect cure.
Admittedly, Trump is providing no guide rails as to his behavior.
One thing IS clear: Trump is a profiler.
Just on his track record, I’d swear he’s a devotee of John Wareham.
John Wareham: Wareham’s Basic Business Types
ISBN 0-689-11756-6 ( 1987 ) Atheneum.
Wareham’s other Big Client: Rupert Murdoch — going back just about forever.
Cornhead:
Donald’s record doesn’t match his current talk. Maybe Kadaffi was a good Moslem for Donald ($$$).
OM Says:
June 12th, 2016 at 12:48 pm
Blert:
When the US government sponsors a religion your argument will have some “logic” behind it.
So all the mosques in the US were built with KSA funding. I’m sure you have researched (NOT). Look up the word hyperbole.
You and GB appear to have little regard for individual freedom when it comes to this issue, sort of like the extreme Moslems. Your “cure” for their “disease” is worse for all.
%%%%%%%
IT’S OFFICIAL.
Straight from Riyadh.
You’ve got some zany idea that I’m just making this stuff up.
&&&&&
The king of KSA has already gone on record with Berlin: the king will — entirely fund — hundreds of new mosques — in Germany — for the invasion hordes.
Mosques — the world over — are STATE SPONSORED.
The hoi polloi’s droppings into the hat go for JIHAD.
That’s ALSO a prime tenant of Islam.
The primary beneficiary of MANY ‘American’ mosques is HAMAS. This flow is by cut-outs and such.
The FBI has had its case put on hold — ever since Barry was sworn into office.
The diversion ( funding laundering ) of alms towards HAMAS and other fanatical Islamic societies is both systemic and broad.
No mosque funded by the King of Saudi Arabia has any imam other than his appointees.
ALL of them are educated// indoctrinated in alien lands. There is no possibility of an American born imam getting into the program ‘ROTC’ style. The ONLY source for ‘talent’ is via the Wahhabbist ‘colleges’ back in the old home land.
Such is what is.
The Shi’ite factions have their own funding schemes.
The funds for the Ground Zero Mosque* were going to come from Saudi Arabia. The notion that the monies were to be locally raised is but a ruse.
* That building was not going to even be a mosque. It was intended to be a “rabat.”
A rabat is a jihadi bastion // fort designed as a foothold to massively expand Islam.
It’s a structure that’s unique to Islam.
The closest one can come in Western parlance would be a monastic bastion for the Crusaders in the Holy Land.
And, you don’t see such Christian bastions built these days.
BTW, only NOW the Germans are waking up to the reality that Turkish imams are on Ankara’s payroll — as civil servants !
How state-sponsored can you get ?
Jim Miller Says:
June 12th, 2016 at 11:12 am
I have no clue as to where you’re coming up with your Venezuelan political history.
1) From the FIRST Hugo Chaves ran on a revolutionary philosophy of kicking out the Venezuelan Bourgeoisie.
He was as good as his word — canning most everybody working for PDVSA – Venezuela’s nationalized oil firm — and replacing them with loyalists off the street.
It, of course, has never recovered.
2) From the first, Chavez was running against the established order.
Trump wants to re-establish the conventional order.
Trump’s idea of normal is Classic New York Liberal politics.
So, you can’t get much further apart.
3) Trump has plenty of faults — but being against the middle class is not one of them.
He is MOST despised by our elites and our illegal aliens.
A joke poll was taken in Mexico the other day. Every Mexican was against Trump. Well, duh !
{ You know it’s a joke — fake news to fill the news-hole. }
%%%%%%%
America has had PLENTY of crass businessmen.
Ruthless bastards, even.
They profile as Wareham’s EMPEROR:
” An EMPEROR is an outstanding business leader who runs his business like a personal empire. ”
Lee Iacocca
Rupert Murdock
Estee Lauder
Henry Ford
William Paley
David Ogilvy
Steve Jobs
Larry Ellison
Michael Dell
” The Emperor’s management style is that of the benevolent autocrat, whose right to lead springs from his competence, his common sense, and his joie de vivre.
” The Emperor is normally too well adjusted to be imperious with his own people, whom he often regards with affection for being part of his “team,” or, as he might sometimes even think of it, his “family.” He detests incompetence, however, and thus may be ruthless in terminating people who display on-going sloppiness or stupidity.”
Role Model: Own father ( Fred Trump )
Real Objective: To fulfil high familial expectations. To compensate for a sense of inferiority relative to forces outside his family.
Much more in the book.
Donald Trump is NOT going to change is Emperor internal programming.
&&&&&&
He’s NOT my favorite candidate — Ted Cruz suited me much better.
I still rate Trump as a 20 to one underdog.
But…
With ISIS in his corner…
I should move his odds up to nine-to-one underdog.
“Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” … “If they’re just running their usual 3rd-party campaign again, then they’re not a viable 3rd option.” – Eric
Seems you got wound up on the word “deserve”. Think, “give serious consideration”.
The Libertarians are not a party rooted in the conservative movement. It would be us joining them in supporting and voting for their candidate. Without a third party option in sight, we need to give them serious consideration.
Activism already exists, for example, the various Tea Party organizations. So, yes, it is separate from the political party, and 2016 has shown us the reason why it is important to exist separately.
Of course, yes, better to have options. Just don’t know how real that talk is about the party abandoning Trump.
.
<em"The longer your side continues to assume its crippling aversion to activism and not create a viable center of gravity for a 3rd option"
Interesting turn of phrase… “your side”.
The window of opportunity for a 3rd party candidate is, indeed, closing. I don’t think the average person here can organize that.
As a result, my concern is that we may end up waiting too long to see if one comes to fruition, leaving a reasonable existing POTUS alternative without support needed, early enough, to make their run “viable”.
I see that people have abandoned the political process to others. They’ve been “inactive” on something that requires care and feeding. That is something very “doable” for people.
I buy the concept of “activism” at high level, but not sure what you are exhorting people to do here, to “compete for real”. What does it look like to the average joe?
Blert:
Stuck on stupid. Muslims in USA predate the KSA, and Muslim American citizens in the USA predate the KSA. And then the is that other “Moslem” religion in the US, “The Nation of Islam” that predates the influence of the KSA.
You can post all the facts about the KSA funding mosques in the USA and all over the world but it does not change the fact that the First Amendment concerns US citizens and the power if the US government regarding individual freedom.
Occam’s Razor. Your solution is a tool for tyrants.
Jim Miller – you make some good points. Your analogue to Chavez, points to how little a difference between a leftist strong man or a right strong man is.
People project all kinds of outcomes onto their “promises”, such as “Trump wants to re-establish the conventional order.”. And, so, they never see what they have wrought with their support.
Thing is, I doubt many in Venezuela today think they made a mistake voting for Chavez.
OM Says:
June 12th, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Blert:
Stuck on stupid. Muslims in USA predate the KSA, and Muslim American citizens in the USA predate the KSA. And then the is that other “Moslem” religion in the US, “The Nation of Islam” that predates the influence of the KSA.
{ What the HECK does that have to do with the jihad that’s fully underway. ? }
BTW, NOI is WAY out there WRT this discussion. It’s NOT deemed Islam by ANY mainstream Muslim scholars.
You can post all the facts about the KSA funding mosques in the USA and all over the world but it does not change the fact that the First Amendment concerns US citizens and the power if the US government regarding individual freedom.
Occam’s Razor. Your solution is a tool for tyrants.
It’s YOU who is abetting the crazed dreams of Islamic fanatics.
AS IT NOW STANDS, KSA and others are STATE sponsoring Islam inside the USA.
It, state sponsorship, is what’s prohibited.
The Founders realized that state sponsored religion was bad — straight off.
It never crossed their minds that 2016 American politicians would permit a HOSTILE alien state to sponsor mosques all over the land.
“I didn’t mention ANY specific issues in the post. None whatsoever.”
“I did not mention any other issues, and therefore I did not omit Iran as an issue.” neo
First you say that you didn’t mention ANY specific issues, then in response to my pointing out that you did and alluded to others, you state, “I did not allude to specific issues of the “Iran” type. I only spoke about politics itself–winning, losing, supporters, opponents.”
Oh of that ‘type’… sorry but speaking “about politics itself–winning, losing, supporters, opponents.” ARE specific issues.
No, I did not think your post to be content-free. I didn’t realize that only certain types of specific issues counted.
“”And I did mention Iran as an issue quite prominently in the comments”
Yes you did. AFTER I brought up Iran.
“Others see warning signs, so, to “help” you I post the farce fascist from the 1930’s Sir Roderick-Spode. No that’s not slander.” OM
“I’m unclear if you meant to apply the Nazi figure to me but if so that’s clearly slander.” GB
A picture of a farcical fascist indicates racism, which certainly applies to some in the alt-right camp. IT does NOT provide evidence of it to be true of the majority. Which was the point in dispute between us.
“You propose gutting the First Amendment regarding Moslems and cast aspersions on fundamentalist Christians”
Unfortunately, it’s unavoidable as Islam’s fundamental incompatibility with our Constitutional precepts cannot be accommodated. The problem is that Islam is a virulently totalitarian ideology that wraps itself in a facade of religiosity. That most Muslims are ‘moderate’ while in a very small minority does not obviate the consistent historical fact that as that minority percentage rises, Muslims in toto become less and less willing to live within the political and cultural structures of the non-Muslim society. Nor did I cast aspersions on fundamentalist Christians, I spoke of the common perception of fundamentalist Christians by non-fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise.
Blert:
“{ What the HECK does that have to do with the jihad that’s fully underway. ? }”
You are proposing to ban a specific religion that’s what is offensive and unconstitutional.
“It, state sponsorship, is what’s prohibited.” That is absolutely incorrect, because the “state sponsorship” applies to the United States of America, not the rest of the world.
Amazing that you have found this legal doctrine, why not apply it to the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church by analogy. Even Justice Black, a noted Catholic hater, didn’t find the Blert doctrine.
There are existing tools that address what is allowed under the Constitution regarding religious institutions (churches, mosques, ….) and political speech. Obama has curtailed those programs (surveillance of extreme Imams and monitoring what is said in their “sermons.”)
The left is more concerned what was said BTW in Christian churches during election seasons than by what Imams say in mosques. The threat of the loss of tax exempt status is the hammer used to threaten Pastors/ministers and Churches that stray into specific political speech.
“It’s YOU who is abetting the crazed dreams of Islamic fanatics.” Hyperbole, or maybe slander? No, just BS.
Nick @ 9:56,
Yes I am emphatically and unambiguously saying that Islam is neither healthy nor good for the world. ALL totalitarian movements are liberty’s mortal foes.
When would be a ‘good time’ to speak the truth?
Frankly I could care less how bad for Islam it may be or how offensive the truth may be. As for the negatives for America and our allies, the sooner we bite the bullet, the less painful the consequences. Which will indeed be horrific, which is why we are avoiding doing something about it. Perhaps after we lose NYC, people will be more willing to face the nature of the threat.
Jim Miller,
In general, there is NOTHING inherently wrong with a private individual putting self-interest first in a business deal. It may not be wise, their behavior may be unethical but ‘looking out for yourself’ is not inherently immoral. Altruism is a option, not an obligation.
blert,
I am only familiar with John Wareham from reading his book, “Wareham’s Way: Escaping the Judas Trap” I was and continue to be highly impressed with his psychological insights.
OM,
Yes, ignoring a future, predictable mortal threat, pretending it’s malevolence isn’t a theological imperative… is indeed a working definition of “Stuck on stupid.”…
Big Maq – Thanks.
I don’t know how well Hugo would poll now in Venezuela. As you probably know, the opposition took over their legislature at the last election. And a large majority would like Maduro to leave this year.
Still, I am sure there are some Venezuelans who think that things were basically OK while Hugo was alive. (And I wouldn’t say they are entirely wrong to feel that way, since Maduro seems even more incompetent than Chavez.)
One other similarity between Hugo and Donald: Both took on more debt than was wise.
(Here’s a comment from a commercial farmer over at Devil’s Excrement:
“In answer to your specific question .5mt, if the government seizes the seed of this company, they will likely distribute it to the different branches of AgroPatria spread around the country. There it will be sold to Chavista insiders for a fraction of market value. What they do with the seed is anyone’s guess, though if it’s like most products coming out of AgroPatria, it will be resold by the “socialist-minded” Chavistas at full market prices giving them a huge windfall. I’ve never seen bigger capitalists than Chavistas with a freebie from the government.”
He isn’t sure he’ll get the seed he ordered and paid for.)
Geoffrey Britain:
I thought my meaning was obvious, that when I said “specific issue” (and we were discussing Iran as a specific issue) that I meant more than “politics” or “the election” as specific issues—that is, that I meant specific policy issues or even specific policy areas.
Otherwise my comment would make no sense—how could I mean that I didn’t discuss any issues at all? Of course I discussed issues concerned with the election itself and talking about Trump, which is what the post is about.
One can’t design posts or comments as though they were legal documents, dotting every i and crossing every t. Sometimes things are implied by context, and thought to be understood. I thought it was clear and understandable that I meant “issues” in the sense that Iran is an “issue” extraneous to the basic subject of the post itself—a side issue, as it were.
There is no way to speak without being misunderstood by someone, as Karl Popper claimed.
Geoffrey Britain:
You also write:
Not true. I went back and looked at this comment thread. My discussion of Iran in the comments occurred in response to this comment Cornhead had made at 4:57 PM on June 11. I answered him on the topic in this comment I made at 5:15 PM.
It was AFTER that, in your comment at 5:29 PM, that you wrote: “In addition, you apparently ignore Iran and the inarguable path that Hillary presents in regard to that nation gaining nuclear capability.”
When I replied to you that I had addressed that issue already in the comments, it was because I had addressed it already in the comments before you had accused me of ignoring it. I had not brought it up only in response to you, because you had not brought it up yet when I published that comment about Iran, Clinton, and nuclear weapons.
Geoffrey – I should have been clearer.
Islam has always been a problem, since long before the US was around. Like any other religion, it has adherents of different intensities with varying interpretations of its teachings. You’re proposing that the US make itself the stated enemy of Islam. You’d drive even the most moderate Muslim toward fanaticism. You’d endanger every democracy, since you’ve just declared that democracy is antithetical to Islam. You’d also alter the relationship of the US to religion, by having the President act as theologian.
There is no right time to do this, because it’s a terrible idea. You say the sooner we do it, the less painful the consequences, but you haven’t stated why it’s necessary. I don’t thing you’ve even stated one possible benefit of it.
Nick…
Islam is the stated enemy of every society on Earth, per Mohammed’s dicta.
No matter how one bobs and weaves — that remains true.
So it’s a status that we already endure.
neo,
I stand corrected. I did not intentionally misstate the chronology. I did recheck but missed that comment.
Nick,
“Like any other religion, it has adherents of different intensities with varying interpretations of its teachings.”
Adherents may ignore its tenets but there cannot be honest differences in ‘interpreting’ Islam’s most basic theological tenets. As the claim is that they come from Allah, NOT Muhammad. Infallible Allah cannot be corrected by fallible man. ‘Allah’ is very specific and direct as to Islam’s basic tenets.
“You’re proposing that the US make itself the stated enemy of Islam. “
No, I’m proposing that we recognize and react to Islam, from its beginning, declaring itself to be the enemy of the West. Indeed of any non-Muslim.
“You’d drive even the most moderate Muslim toward fanaticism.”
In 2012, 46% of American Muslims favored shariah law for themselves. In the majority country of Egypt, 84% support the death penalty for apostasy. The more Muslims, the more violent the resistance in non-Muslim societies. ‘Moderation’ declines as population increases. Moderate Muslims condone the violence, evidenced by the overwhelming silence on the internet of anonymous Muslim voices that could safely condemn the violence.
You’d endanger every democracy, since you’ve just declared that democracy is antithetical to Islam.”
I haven’t ‘declared’ it, that is the reality. Appeasement through a refusal to face the truth, invites aggression. The greater the denial, the greater will be the aggression.
“You’d also alter the relationship of the US to religion, by having the President act as theologian.”
Islam is a virulently aggressive, totalitarian ideology that wraps itself in a facade of religious pretense. That is NOT an opinion or hyperbole, that is what Islam declares itself to be.
And it is up to Congress and the President to publicly acknowledge that reality.
GB:
“Damn the constitution, Full Speed Ahead! I have the answer!”
Others have thought about this more deeply than you.
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/1/3/new-pamphlet-the-three-conjectures/
Blert and GB:
Your solution:
Kill them all and let Gods sort them out.
Nuke ’em until they glow.
Make the rubble bounce.
“They have been sent to the east.”
OM…
NO.
Good fences make for good neighbors.
The Western world did not have these troubles when Muslims stayed within the 57 Muslim states.
I don’t want to ship anyone ANYWHERE.
Let them be.
To a huge degree, Western civilisation is an irritant to Muslims.
&&&&&
One of the perplexing social realities that baffles Western soldiers: their high performance in the field is a HUMILIATION to the martial pride of Muslims.
Indeed, once Western military ‘assistance’ is removed, Afghan, Iraqi — you name it — morale COLLAPSES.
For they know they are nothing but a bunch of screw-ups.
{ See the battle of Khafji, 1991 }
All through the Iraq-Iran conflict both sides demonstrated staggering incompetences — such as no skill with artillery to speak of.
{ One might note that ISIS captured M198 howitzers of extreme sophistication. They are now missing from all battle reports. }
&&&&&&&
BECAUSE ALL Wahhabbist mosques are state sponsored indoctrination centers — they must be shut down.
It’s safe to ‘persecute’ brick, concrete, wood… and to eject hostile enemy aliens. ( ALL of the imams. )
Without those mini-Goebbels, the spell will be broken.
Muslims, without totalitarian control out of mosques, self-de-program.
This is already fully under way here and there — but without comment.
Virtually ALL of the earlier Muslim immigrants were ESCAPING Islam, escaping their imam, mullah or whomever.
That trend is now being massively reversed — both in Europe and in North America.
Remember, to leave Islam is to have a death mark placed upon you — to be executed by your own family.
It’s for this reason, that departing Muslims, cafeteria Muslims, never quite renounce their ‘faith.’ They just keep a toe in the water.
It is THESE folks that Westerners conflate with faithful Muslims.
The push to install Wahhabbist imams really only got rolling after the AOPEC oil embargo — when big funding was finally to hand.
Your ‘solution’ is virtually certain to end up in a glowing Ummah.
You solution won’t let the escapees — escape.
Shut down the mosques — and the flow of events will suddenly turn towards a bright new era.
OM Says:
June 12th, 2016 at 8:15 pm
The Three Conjectures are ANCIENT news around these parts.
I’ve cited them countless times over the years — here and elsewhere.
Blert:
And yet you don’t seem to learn from ancient wisdom. You aren’t “Wretchard.” Bla bla bla about 155mm howitzers, what was that all about?
neo – I think you should be more clear on what actions as President you think a terrible Trump would do.
Worst case.
Nuke Russia for some reason? (what reasons?)
Nuke China?
Nuke Iran?
Nuke N. Korea?
Nuke somewhere else?
Only Russia and China are real threats to the USA. Japan has already survived a couple of nukes — I actually think nuking Hanoi is a moral option when compared to accepting commie Killing Fields after the Dems make the USA run away.
Your fear of the alt-right seems pretty new. They are small fry, and will be resisted by most Reps, far more than Dems resist the anti-American PC activists in their ranks.
The key problem is that both Dems and reasonable Reps will be against the “bad things” a Pres. Trump might do, while only the few Reps would be against the “bad things” a Pres. H. Clinton would do. The Dems will support any crimes or problems Clinton creates.
Many checks on a Trump, few checks on a Clinton.
Vote Trump plus Reps in Congress.
OM Says:
June 12th, 2016 at 11:10 pm
Blert:
And yet you don’t seem to learn from ancient wisdom. You aren’t “Wretchard.” Bla bla bla about 155mm howitzers, what was that all about?
&&&&
Have you been drinking ?
This post of yours is virtually in coherent.
Blert:
Rich coming from Mr. Stream of Consciousness.
Any long time reader of the Belmont Clun would know who “Wretchard” is.
The M198 is a 1980s design 155 mm howitzer, not the most advanced tube in our military. Read up on it.
“They have been sent to the east.” Where the European Jews went. That’s where your solutions lead, genocide.
“Many checks on a Trump, few checks on a Clinton.” – Tom G
Such folly!
Any check the GOP might have is about as strong as it is now in stopping Trump from getting the nomination.
GOP opposition during Trump as president is like making love in outer space… it is XXXXing close to nothing. (to borrow from a famous MPFC joke)
They will be steam rolled as much as they are now. Most will acquiesce in the name of “unity”, “opposition to Dems”, or just for their own personal ambitions.
Not sure how anyone will think things will be different if Trump has the presidency.
Need to add…
IF Trump decides he wants to or needs to turn Authoritarian.
We don’t know for sure, but he comfortably gives many signs he is not opposed to the idea.
Big Maq:
I am in complete agreement with you there.
I find it very odd that people who have long said and continue to say that the GOP lacks cojones and principles believe that the GOP will suddenly and magically develop them to oppose Trump if he is president. They certainly have not done so when they might have stopped him in his tracks. Why would they do so when his power has increased?
Big Maq:
Trump turning authoritarian – “Inconceivable!” He used the word in a rambling accusation about Obama and terrorism today BTW.
Seriously, I agree with you. Sad, sad times.
Maybe people should have felt that desperation back when they were voting for the Demoncrats… just saying. Plenty of time then.
Not sure how anyone will think things will be different if Trump has the presidency.
They are most likely counting on the evil Leftist media and the Demoncrats in DC, to hold Trump back.
I just think that’s more likely to throw gas on an oil flame. Because the American people will begin to see how hypocritical DC is, Republican or Demoncrat. At that time, Trump will have an easier time justifying “Emergency Rule”.
There is no right time to do this, because it’s a terrible idea. You say the sooner we do it, the less painful the consequences, but you haven’t stated why it’s necessary. I don’t thing you’ve even stated one possible benefit of it.
Nick makes a good point, but I think there are benefits to stating that Islam is the enemy, in private if not in public. And if people like GB want to push the propaganda info war towards that, they should do so via their own resources. But it shouldn’t be a national policy thing, they are incompetent, at best, in such spheres. At worst, they are in league with Muslim Brotherhood and ISIL, traitors to the USA.
What matters to me is action, not wording. It doesn’t matter what Bush II thought of Islam or Putin. It only mattered what he did when the decision landed on his desk. In all of American history, I doubt they would have been able to find a President that found a good general like Petraeus, so soon with so little casualties before hand. Although that was actually Cheney’s accomplishment.
No, I’m proposing that we recognize and react to Islam, from its beginning, declaring itself to be the enemy of the West. Indeed of any non-Muslim.
That should be the job of grassroots organizations, like various churches. Having the government try to deal with this, would be sub optimum. Outsourcing power to government is the reason why the nation is corrupt and evil now. Banning guns so that Islamic Jihad can kill more Americans, that’s not supposed to be evil now?
As for this thread of in fighting, I think it is a good microcosm of what the Alt Right perceives as the problem with anti Leftists. They aren’t unified under one political or religious head. So now they try for Trump on the throne, and that may be natural for America, just as Caesar was for Rome. And Trump may just die for it, but that’s his risks.
The Leftist alliance and even Islam, are unified under one head. And they can work relatively well together, even as Islam kills Leftists.
What about their enemies, meaning us? Look at all this micro in fighting going on, trying to get that into an army to fight the Left is almost impossible. Rebels and revolutionaries tend to eat their own after taking power, because there’s just too many factions. And they usually all have mutually exclusive methods or goals.
So the Alt Right will try for their own tyrant or authoritarian, and maybe it’ll work, and maybe it won’t. It won’t matter either way, the US Republic is dead. No way to reform or resurrect it now.