July 23rd, 2016

Why Trump hates Ted Cruz

The day after his address at the close of the RNC, Trump decided to tear into Ted Cruz and to repeat some of his most scurrilous and over-the-top accusations (some couched in the form of “questions”) against Cruz and his family. In addition, there’s a report (perhaps true, perhaps not) that Trump has vowed to spend tons of his own money on a super PAC to destroy the careers of both Cruz and Kasich. Even if the latter threat is one he actually made, I would bet he’s not going to actually do it. But it’s the typical Trumpian threat (remember when he said he would go to court to find out if Cruz was a natural-born citizen, for example?).

So, why would Trump be dissing Cruz (and perhaps Kasich) the day after his triumphant acceptance of the GOP nomination? It wouldn’t be because they’re too conservative or too liberal—Kasich was the most liberal of all the people running against Trump, Cruz probably the most conservative. It wouldn’t be because they haven’t endorsed him; several others haven’t endorsed him, either (although they don’t hold office: Fiorina and Jeb Bush come to mind). It wouldn’t be because they did or didn’t come to the convention; Cruz did and Kasich didn’t.

It may be in part because they were both the last men standing towards the primary season’s end. It’s also clear that Cruz is Trump’s main target rather than Kasich, probably because Cruz is the strongest and most potentially powerful of Trump’s primary rivals who wouldn’t kiss his butt in the end (sorry for the crassness of the language, but with Trump it’s apropos).

Trump hates anyone who doesn’t ultimately kiss his butt, and that makes him want to make them kiss his butt or at least to humiliate them greatly. This is not some new behavior of Trump’s since he’s become a candidate; it’s a trait he’s had for decades: he is tremendously vindictive, as you can discover from his Twitter history, his litigation history, and any biography of the man.

Trump tried to humiliate and even destroy every single one of his major opponents in turn during campaign 2016. But not one of them has he tried to slander as much or for as long a time as he’s attacked Cruz (of course, some have now joined his campaign, such as Carson). For the most part, he attacked them until they fell in the polls, and then he moved on to the next contender.

But Cruz’s head is bloody but unbowed. It’s not enough for Trump to have defeated him, he is out to destroy him politically and personally for the future, too, if he can accomplish that. Call Trump an “alpha male” if you wish, but real alpha men don’t need to do this, although narcissistic bullies do (I wrote previously on the subject of whether Trump is an alpha male here). And I don’t care how many times Trump’s kids say what a nice guy he is. He may be nice to them, and he may be nice to those who show him the proper obeisance, but to anyone who crosses him he is not only out to criticize but to humiliate and destroy them, if possible.

Now, many politicians are vindictive or fond of showing subordinates that they’re the boss. LBJ was famously the latter, for example (as well as coarse), sometimes liking to receive people while sitting on the toilet in order to demonstrate his dominance over them. But he did this to aides rather than enemies, it certainly wasn’t done in public, and it didn’t involve vicious slurs on their wives or fathers. Here’s the way it went:

LBJ was well-known (although the stories only came out publicly some time after his presidency was over) for insisting that aides accompany him to the toilet, where he continued to talk to them. It was a sort of test:

Johnson also upset aides with his habit of adjourning a conversation to the bathroom when the need arose. Those who were reluctant to follow him to the toilet were a source of great amusement to him. He frequently recounted a story about “one of the delicate Kennedyites who came into the bathroom with me and then found it utterly impossible to look at me while I sat there on the toilet. You’d think he had never seen those parts of the body before. For there he was, standing as far away from me as he possibly could, keeping his back toward me the whole time, trying to carry on a conversation. I could barely hear a word he said. I kept straining my ears and then finally I asked him to come a little closer to me. Then began the most ludicrous scene I had ever witnessed. Instead of simply turning around and walking over to me, he kept his face away from me and walked backward, one rickety step at a time. For a moment there I thought he was going to run right into me. It certainly made me wonder how that man had made it so far in the world.”

Trump doesn’t invite aides into the toilet, as far as I can see. What he does instead is public and libelous. It seems he cannot resist grinding into the dirt those people he thinks have consistently opposed him, and he doesn’t care how dirty he becomes in the process. Yes, “he fights,” and that’s something the GOP has needed for a long, long time. But there are ways to fight and targets to choose, and this just makes him look bad, petty, and even crazy—solidifying the perception (right or wrong) among many people that he’s a loose cannon with poor impulse control. That’s not what’s wanted in a president.

Cruz is gambling that taking the high road and also keeping away from an endorsement of Trump will hold him in good stead, four years from now.

[NOTE: See also this.]

144 Responses to “Why Trump hates Ted Cruz”

  1. Cornhead Says:

    Trump has plenty of flaws but we have two choices.

    Listening now to Hillary bellow and make vapid and meaningless statements.

  2. DirtyJobsGuy Says:

    Trump’s odd behavior has always invited theories that there is some grand strategy behind it by his supporters and others. How often have we heard that he will switch gears for the General Election? My experience is that rarely is odd behavior anything else than just odd. Trump ended up marketing his own brand because he was a terrible real estate tycoon and it fit his personality. Cruz and Kasich are not falling for this and Trump’s gut tells him this damages his brand. Since he cannot rise to the occasion his only response is to belittle them.

    50% chance he torpedoes his campaign badly.

  3. Wooly Bully Says:

    Trump’s not an A-male, he’s an A-hole.

  4. OM Says:


    When you lie down with that Trump, you wake up with mange.

  5. Bob Says:

    You are correct in your analysis of Trump’s behavior. It is the behavior of people with NPD. The first and foremost determinant of a narcissist, is whether or not people conform to their viewpoint that they are superior in all aspects. Out of all the challengers to this personal narrative, Cruz is, due to the fact that not only is head bloody but unbowed, but represents a significant percentage of people who are also bloody but unbowed, the largest threat to this narrative, in fact no one else comes close. The bottom line is anyone who says ‘nice things about him’ is in, those who do not capitulate are the enemy, absolutely nothing else matters.

  6. J.J. Says:

    Glad you talked about LBJ. We’ve had several bullies in the WH in the past.

    Hillary does a good job of seeming to be well adjusted. Read the book, “Crisis of Character,” by Gary Byrne. In it he says Hillary Clinton has a “volcanic” leadership style and lacks the “temperament” to hold office — the same charge she leveled last week against Trump. The Clintons, especially Hillary, are known to be vindictive. An earlier book by Secret Service man Ronald Kessler describes Hillary as being very abusive toward her SS agents and other WH staffers. I know it’s hard to think of a woman as being a bully, but power has that effect on both sexes. The difference between Hillary and Trump is that she has cultivated a public persona designed to blind voters to who she really is. Trump has not. Both are deeply flawed humans. It is just more obvious in Trump.

  7. Stan on the Brazos Says:

    Neo: Another great, insightful column. I know it is a pain, but don’t stop blogging!

  8. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    In this, Trump is another David Merrick, “It is not enough for me to win. My enemies must lose“.

    That said, it’s either this highly flawed man or an ideologue committed to continuing America’s fundamental transformation.

  9. Bob Says:

    Cornhead says:

    “Trump has plenty of flaws but we have two choices.”

    And what is really sad, is that even though I have pretty much viewed the choices as equally bad, I am starting to think that Hillary would be the better of the two. The one-two punch of Trump and Gingrich statements, that gives the defacto green light to Russia to go ahead and take the Baltic states, is absolutely nuts.

  10. Wooly Bully Says:

    Cornhead: “Trump has plenty of flaws but we have two choices.”

    No. There are at least three choices. I choose to vote Libertarian.

  11. neo-neocon Says:

    J. J.:

    I have no problem whatsoever thinking of Hillary, or a woman, as a bully. Her style is more private, however; a more garden-variety kind of bullying, in the mold of the rumors about Martha Stewart, Leona Helmsley, etc..

  12. expat Says:

    I just watched Tim Kaine’s speech. He was very good, although all the things he said he valued are not things Hillary represents. Trump will have a hard time against him because his demeanor highlights Trump’s bullying. Conservatives and Cruz supporters may not even vote as Trump’s moral deficiencies become more evident.

  13. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    What would Hillary give away? Start first with the South China Sea… then imagine what else she would give away. It’s not that Trump is better, it’s that Hillary answers to a higher power; the Left. Which is what makes her a clear and present danger to the Republic.

    Wolly Bully,

    Since the libertarian nominee has no chance whatsoever of winning, that can hardly be considered a viable alternative to either Trump or Clinton.

    What it is is a protest vote that, given your conservative position and, if you reside in a swing state, assists Hillary’s election. And, denial that such a circumstance will directly assist Hillary is willful blindness.

  14. blert Says:

    Trump needs a foil — same as Adolf — the latter famously alluded to is need for class enemies.

    If Trump is to have any shot in November, it’s by running against Conservatives.

    This is being done by running against BOTH Bush, Obama and Hillary — and Cruz — all at the same time.

    You can think of him as the “not present policy, not present conditions” candidate.

    He’d shut up about Ted — except that he gets so much free air time by damning him.

    And, lacking any significant traditional funding source, it’s tactic that Trump is compelled to adopt — just to stay in the hunt.

    I’ve related before: Trump is catastrophically underfunded going into the Fall.

    The ONE thing holding him up: ISIS and its jihad.

    That’s why I place him as high as 5:2 underdog.


    The bit about the Baltics is to keep Putin ‘on board’ — which I think is pretty obviously the case right now.

    See the following from RT:

    “Redacted Tonight” … Lee Camp


  15. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    The natural counter to Kaine is Mike Pence. Pence must assure Americans that he has no desire to impose his religiosity on others. While Trump would be wise to restrain his bombast, which may be impossible for him.

    But regardless, IMO this election rests upon how active terrorists are between now and Nov.

    IMO, Kaine is a serious misstep on Hillary’s part. So much so that I’m beginning to lean toward the opinion that this election is actually Trump’s to lose. Here in Fl, Trump has been subjected to continual and incessant attack ads, has responded with NONE, while the MSM continually attacks him in their ‘coverage’… and yet he is basically tied with Hillary.

  16. OM Says:

    VP choices have very little impact on Presidential contests or for another matter on policies enacted by the top dog. Or maybe you want to argue that Darth Chenney was the downfall of GWB?

    If Pence could be thought to bring some influence on Trump you might have some hope to peddle, but Donald can’t seem to control himself from day to day.

  17. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    I can’t agree that Trump running against conservatives is a viable strategy. Which is not a suggestion that he embrace conservative positions. Illegal immigration, ISIS, Muslim refugees, trade imbalances affecting jobs are all he need stick to…

    I suspect that Hillary’s support is more shallow than it may appear and I’m doubtful that Trump will be hamstrung by a lack of funding.

  18. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    Some VPs are more impactful than others. ‘Darth Chenney’ absolutely impacted GWB’s popularity with the public. And reportedly, he had a decided influence upon GWB’s ‘War on Terror’ policies. And I state that, as a Cheney supporter.

    I didn’t say or even imply that I thought Pence would influence Trump. I said that, “The natural counter to Kaine is Mike Pence.”

    You really need to work on your animus, it’s affecting your reading comprehension. Every time you assert me to have said something I haven’t.

  19. Bill Says:

    Here’s what I don’t understand: Trump should be doing everything he can to try to keep a GOP Senate.


    I mean, that’s what a GOP President would want. Right? So why is he going after a sitting GOP Senator?

    Or a sitting GOP governor of a state he must win to win the election

    This is who Trump is. He’s about Trump and he’s about strength (of a sort) and can’t handle people who don’t think he’s a god-king.

    To this point in his life he’s mainly gone after them with slander and lawsuits.

    What’s he going to do when he has the IRS, the Military, and his own nuclear arsenal?

    I know, I know – the Dems have used the IRS against conservatives. I think Trump is licking his lips over getting into some of that action, and he will double down, add 16 stories, and gold-plate abuse of the IRS.

    And, denial that such a circumstance will directly assist Hillary is willful blindness.

    Listen, the reason we have these two choices now is because of reasoning like this. I know – HRC might win if we don’t fall in line behind the orange savior. That’s a shame. He is unacceptable and it sucks that the GOP nominated him. I realize you believe he’ll be a nice safe Caesar and if she is elected we’ll end up as the USSR.

    I don’t think there’s anything safe about him at all. And his cozying up to Putin doesn’t bode well for your Caesar/Lenin dichotomy.

    If we don’t get the attention of these political parties by not buying the product their selling we really will have Kanye/Kardashian in 2020 (does anyone still think that’s not possible?)

  20. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    “And, denial that such a circumstance will directly assist Hillary is willful blindness.”GB

    “Listen, the reason we have these two choices now is because of reasoning like this.”

    Not so but it is a convenient means of deflection.

    The reason we have these two choices is that a majority of Americans are incapable of wise self-governance. That’s the bottom line and the reason why that’s true is that the majority of Americans are no longer a “moral and religious people”. Instead the majority are an irreligious people, whose ‘morality’ is that of subjective relativism, which results in societal dissolution.

    I agree, Trump IS unacceptable and it does suck that the GOP nominated him. Unfortunately, he’s what we’ve got and he’s the ONLY viable counter to Hillary.

    And, I do NOT believe he’ll be a “nice safe Caesar” and, I’ve repeatedly said so. Speculating that we might survive Caesar, while thinking it virtually certain that the Republic won’t survive Lenin is NOT an endorsement of Caesar. It is instead, a recognition that the nation has placed itself on a path where one or the other shall eventuate.

    IMO, there is little doubt that, “if she is elected we’ll end up as the USSR”. The Left is too strong, too organized, too deceitful and too far advanced in their March Through Our Institutions. And, of course it will be a ‘soft’ socialism that incrementally morphs into ever greater political correctness, where eventually all thought, speech and behavior will be declared to either be mandatory or forbidden. And the evidence is that it’s been happening in ‘higher’ education for quite some time. Euphemistically labeled “safe spaces’…

    I do admit that, if Hillary’s elected, we might dodge that bullet but I also think that it will take a civil war to do so. The Left is not going to give up and there is nothing they won’t do to win, no moral barrier that they won’t cross because, in their minds, the end they seek justifies whatever means are necessary. The Left has embraced evil and the liberal LIVs are too indoctrinated to see that they support evil.

  21. Mike K Says:

    I am starting to think that Hillary would be the better of the two.

    I would suggest reading a couple of books about Hillary, starting with “Unlimited Access” the first book about what the Clintons were really like. She is an obscene, ruthless tyrant.

    I too am uneasy with Trump and keep hoping he settles down. I see no reasonable option. There is a reason for his appearance this year. Everyone else has failed us.

  22. parker Says:

    IMO djt as POTUS will not even pretend to fulfill his campaign vows, and has no interest in becoming informed about the nuts and bolts of domestic and foreign issues beyond what he reads in the esteemed National Enquirer. He loves to huff and puff. He revels in the attention he receives. Although his style differs, he has much in common with bho.


    Trump could give a fart in the bath tub about gopers running for US senate or house seats. Same applies to state legislatures and governor mansions. Why should he care? He, gopers who have embraced him, and members of his fan club tell us they don’t need those who do not bow and kiss his hand. And, there is another reason why djt does not care. He is a life long NYC values democrat.

    The only people who are concerned that you will not vote for djt are people who know he is not fit to be POTUS, but conclude that voting for the lesser evil applies in November. I see the choice as voting for equally evil, thus no choice at all. Cancer or cancer. Satan or satan. Dictator or dictator. Choices, choices, so many choices.

  23. Harry The Exremeist Says:

    I think we’ve pretty much flogged the whole Trump/Cruz thing to death neo. I mean there’s so much more going on that deserves far more attention than Trump, Trump Trump.

    Hes horrible. I get it. Please, lets move on.

  24. KLSmith Says:

    Hillary is a lot of things but I don’t think she is mentally unstable. DJT is. No self control over his petty nature. He is not fit to hold the office.

  25. KLSmith Says:

    And no, I’m not voting for her.

  26. Bill Says:

    Parker, well said.

    GB – bottom line, we have one single area of disagreement. You are convinced that DJT at least has a chance of being better than HRC and (I believe, correct me if I’m wrong) you see very little chance that he’ll be worse.

    I think he’ll be worse. I become more sure of it every day. The Republican party is no longer recognizable to me and is no longer conservative. The Trump sycophants in Cleveland were cheering for speeches that could have gotten equal cheers, on a policy level, at the DNC. Or at least a majority of the speech content would have.

    If HRC wins, we have a loyal opposition and a chance to take the party back. If Trump wins, the conservative movement is dead, and it’s leftism, statism and authoritarianism as far as the eye can see, mixed with a hefty amount of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) as to what the insane blowhard might actually do with all that power. The signs don’t look good.

    People can disagree. People of good faith can disagree. I am arguing in good faith, and I’m not naive. Your mileage may vary and it’s OK if you don’t believe me on that.

  27. junior Says:

    There’s another reason to vote for Trump, though it’s definitely damning with faint praise. If Trump becomes president, then the news media might actually do its job for the next four years.

  28. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    I’ve never imagined that you were not arguing in good faith. I assume all here are until they demonstrate otherwise.

    Trump may well be disastrous but if so it will be like a natural disaster, from which there is some possibility of recovery. As I don’t buy the proposition that he could carry off a coup and declare himself el presidente for life.

    While hoping I’m wrong, I think it highly likely that if Hillary is elected we will find that we are at a tipping point with the Left from which recovery is not possible without a civil war.

    Here are just two objective illustrations of the tipping point I suggest;
    Under Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Ryan and McConnell a path for citizenship will be found for the millions already here and for the millions yet to come. If that path is constructed, America becomes a one party State and America’s fundamental transformation becomes a fait accompli. And, I welcome anyone demonstrating how, in that scenario, that not to be a logical inescapable progression.

    Then there are the SCOTUS appointments which will, for all intents and purposes, permanently transform the Constitution into a charter of ‘positive’ rights.

    There are many other fronts in which American society is being transformed. And, the thing about tipping points is that, they’re only obvious to most people, after the fact.

  29. parker Says:


    If you think djt will appoint conservative judges or even ‘moderates’ to SCOTUS because of the list offered early this year; you might want to think again, because absolutely nothing in his past or the immediate pivots during the campaign so far provides a even a scintilla of evidence. The man is living in trumplandia; bound inside a world where the donald is the best brain, the best dealer, the best whatever; remind you of someone else?

    Dinner at the neighbor’s. Will come back later to visit neoneocon. Best wishes to all.

  30. Michael Lonie Says:

    Cthulhu for President 2016! Why settle for the lesser evil?

  31. Eric Says:

    “I know it’s hard to think of a woman as being a bully”

    Mean girls. Girl bullies are vicious.

  32. Eric Says:

    re mean girls:

  33. The Other Chuck Says:

    Parker, Bill, KLSmith well said. The more we see and hear of the man the more he confirms psychosis. He’s not fit to be anywhere near the red button. We’re living a political nightmare this year. God help us all.

  34. liz Says:

    I was starting to feel better about voting for Trump until he had that rambling attack on Cruz again. I’ll still vote against Hillary and pray that the press does the job of keeping Trump on the narrow road.

    My dollars will go to support conservatives at the state and national level.

  35. Steve D Says:

    ‘While hoping I’m wrong, I think it highly likely that if Hillary is elected we will find that we are at a tipping point with the Left from which recovery is not possible without a civil war.’

    We reached that tipping point long ago, I’m afraid. But a civil war would just let foreign powers take over, so recovery is probably no longer possible. That is unless the foreign powers have the same problems, which fortunately they do. But the timing…

    The most pernicious issue is the catastrophically low interest rate – it’s making us eat our seed corn and gobble up capital which took us centuries to create; all to be destroyed in a matter of decades.

  36. OM Says:


    The left hated GWB, Chenney, Rumsfield, Ashcroft with such fervor and consistency before and after GWB served our nation, for the most part with distinction. During that time I routinely heard the slurs and insults from many PhD that I worked with at a PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). Many of the same PhDs that were all in with BHO’s election, ah, the intellectuals.

    But VP choices generally don’t matter, the job being described by one VP as “warm bucket of spit.” Exceptions (Calvin Coolidge (good) and LBJ (bad)) don’t prove the rule.

    You need t

  37. Eric Says:

    “The one-two punch of Trump and Gingrich statements, that gives the defacto green light to Russia to go ahead and take the Baltic states, is absolutely nuts.”

    The ISIS part of Trump’s speech was for Russia, too:

  38. Bill Says:

    A few other questions about Trump which can lead to disqualification (not that he’ll actually BE disqualified) based on the answers.

    No one seems to be asking what’s to become of his financial empire? And no, having his kids run it will not make it independent of the full might and power of the Federal Government. Look for Trump to flout all rules unspoken and legal in enhancing his bottom line.

    Few people are asking about his obvious (well, they seem obvious) ties to Russia, and the possibility that Russian efforts are in play boosting his candidacy. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

    This is why I’m arriving at “worse than Hillary”. We’re up in ARMS over illegal donations to her little foundation. What if the President of the US is in financial cahoots (and dependency) with Russia? We are rightly enraged at HRC’s cavalier treatment of US secrets via her clumsy and criminal use of an unsecured email server. What if Trump owes some political capital to Vladimir Putin himself? What if Russia has a vested interest in getting him in office?

    I know, I know – some of this sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But I think these questions need to be asked. In a normal election Trump’s assets would be put into a truly blind trust (not in the unblind hands of his children). But what’s going to keep Trump from doing whatever he can, constitutionally and unconstitutionally, to benefit Trump Inc.?

  39. Bill Says:

    Eric, posted my comment before seeing yours. Great minds and all that . . . 🙂

  40. Eric Says:


    At minimum, the Trump phenomenon is a manufactured product of alt-Right activists, and the alt-Right is tied to Russian propaganda.

  41. I won't submit Says:

    Check this link out about Ted Cruz and the DNC. Ted Cruz asking money from the DNC to help fund him in Cleveland??


    TDS is strong at Neo’s

  42. OM Says:

    Oh, Cruz is tight with the DNC? Yeah, saw it on the interweb and read it in the National Enquirer! Must be true! /S

    Right up there with Ted’s father and Lee Harvey Oswald. A true Trumper,

  43. parker Says:

    I won’t submit,

    You make me smile. However, so sorry to inform you, but you already submitted. In trumpian translation to english that means sad, bad. ;-).

  44. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    I do not expect Trump to nominate conservative constitutionalist judges. They’ll probably be Kennedy or Roberts types.

    But is there any doubt of the type Hillary will nominate? Is there any way Trump could nominate judges more leftist than will Hillary?


    Just for the sake of discussion, if Trump is as beholden to Putin as you fear he might be, how is that worse than a Clinton whose campaign ‘initiatives’ will push this country over the cliff’s edge?

    I realize you don’t think Hillary to be as much a threat as do I but here’s the difference; the forces aligned behind each and the fanaticism of the Left’s true believers.

    And there is a profound difference in malevolence between the Trump’s crony capitalism and Hillary’s ideologue. Hillary sees money as a means to power and influence. Trump sees money as a tool that validates others affirmation of his worth.

    Crony capitalists do not want to change the world, they do not seek fundamental transformation of the world within which we exist. All ideologists do seek to change the world, as they know better. Which BTW, is reportedly, exactly what Lucifer claimed.

    Crony capitalists cut their losses. Ideologues double down. Crony capitalists make deals. Ideologues don’t honor compromises. Though they both seek personal power, there is a profound difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump seeks the affirmation of the alpha male. As long as you don’t challenge him, he could care less what you do or think.

    Hillary Clinton seeks to decide for you because she knows best. She sees self-determination as an impediment to the better world she would create if we would all just get out of her way and let her run things.

  45. kolnai Says:

    GB –

    You’re in Florida? I did not know that (I always thought you were in England). My home base is in Florida (Tampa Bay area), and based on my last trip in January-March, at least in that area, Trump is *very* popular. My family was completely sold, as were various random people I talked to, like the plumber who came to fix our pipes and couldn’t contain himself from going on about Trump being the only answer etc (I was quite happy to see someone not give a crap before spouting off anti-leftist rhetoric, by the by).

    Turnout will matter immensely of course, but I think Trump has a very good chance of taking Florida. Better than both McCain and Romney had. If I recall correctly, Trump absolutely crushed the primary in Florida. (It was very disheartening for me – I spent my whole vacation trying to persuade my family to back Cruz. Didn’t work.)

    Anyway, Florida has a really odd brand of conservatism (among the conservatives), and in many ways I get the feeling like they’ve been waiting for someone like Trump for a long time. It’s a kind of Devil May Care conservatism, glued together by hatred of PC above all else. Sometimes I get the feeling that it’s more important to them to feel that they can SAY whatever they please than to have any particular economic or foreign policy implemented. It is absolutely cultural. Everything else is secondary, and distantly secondary.

    I remember back in the 90’s when Colin Powell was still cool how the conservatives in Florida wanted him to run against Clinton, then a lot of them hopped on the Perot train for a while (ultimately they got off, but maybe that was a first taste of what was brought to fruition with trump).

    The most common phrase I heard in Florida from conservatives I know or met: “it’s all screwed; Trump is the only chance we have.” But he migh cause a catastrophe – “So? It’s already a catastrophe. What other option is there?”

    I would say “Cruz,” but he wasn’t good enough for them, largely because of the way he talked. The sheer catharsis provided by Trump cannot be underestimated. I have to admit, I even felt it a little myself watching his convention speech. I couldn’t imagine another conservative speaking like that (basically: “here’s the way it is; here’s how they say we have to talk about it; ‘f**k them,’ we will talk as we please and as fits the reality; and damn the torpedoes”).

    If Trump talks like that – if he can be disciplined enough to talk like that in his debates with HC, he will simply overwhelm her. The anger and passion in his voice will resonate with a whole llot of people, people who will not admit it publicly (as perhaps happened with Brexit polls). If it energizes an extra four or five percent of white voters who stayed home for Romney, then he will probably win.

    Well – what’s your take on Florida? (It’s a key state, so I’m interested for impersonal reasons too).

  46. kolnai Says:

    Or rather – SHOULD not be underestimated

  47. expat Says:


    Powerline linked to this interview. It talks about the cultural aspects you mention that have come to the political level. A must read


  48. kolnai Says:

    Expat –

    Much appreciated – will read now.

  49. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    My internet ‘handle’ is a combination of my actual first name and a play on my surname’s original ancestry, which originated as ‘man from Briton’.

    So no, I’m American born and raised. I grew up in FL but lived in Calif. from 1970-2012. I moved back here 4 yrs ago to be of help to my aging parents. Once they’ve passed, I plan to move to Oregon for the fishing and climate.

    So, I’m not really familiar with the ideosyncracies of Florida’s conservatism. Overall, Florideans seem fairly average. The state’s natural beauty seems to be what most recommends it.

    The Trump supporters you describe seem fairly typical as well. I too was a Cruz supporter but I must confess with being disappointed in his remarks at the convention. IMO, he allowed personal animus toward Trump to interfere with keeping Hillary out of the WH.

  50. kolnai Says:

    GB –

    I basically agree with your perspective on trump and this election, so I don’t really comment on the matter, as I’d just be seconding points you already make better than I could. (And I’m too exhausted with political debate to do the work you do mixing it up here – from which I learn a great deal, actually).

    Anyhow, we have a fairly similar geographic life history. I lived in California from ’84 to ’93, then moved to Florida where I lived pretty much continuously until 2006, and finally went back to California for grad school and teaching until I left for China in 2013.

    Kind of weird – I consider myself Floridian, but it’s a fact that I’ve spent about eighteen years in Cali, vs. eleven or twelve in Florida. Guess it’s just where my home base is; but some strange irresistible force seems to keep dragging me back to California.

    I feel like a doofus assuming you were British this whole time; seriously can’t believe I would assume it SOLELY based on your monicker, but apparently that’s what I did.

    By the way – there’s another commenter here who doesn’t comment much anymore, whom you may remember, by the name “davisbr,” who if I remember correctly lives up in the Oregon neck of the woods (maybe it was Washington though – my memory sucks). Loved his comments. Apparently there’s a lot of beauty up in the Pacific Northwest. (My only experience with it is Portland, Seattle, and the San Juan Islands.).

  51. The Other Chuck Says:

    Reading Kolni and GB, and others, I get the impression that reason and common sense don’t count. It’s all emotion, damn the PC, F—k Yeah!

    Back when Andrew Sullivan was still blogging, and worth reading, he said something to the effect that the Republican Party needed a catharsis, and he was waiting for the fever to break. Well it broke – and broke the party with it. The Republican Party as a focal point for conservative values is dead. After seeing the direction it is taking, who is now in charge, the almost open racism, I’m done with it. I don’t have a home but have temporarily decided to vote 3rd party. It’s either that or not vote. Hell will freeze over before I’ll register Republican again.

  52. Uffdaphil Says:

    For the first time in my voting life I am considering not casting a meaningful vote. Or as a conservative in Minnesota, the usual theoretically-could-happen vote.

    The single reason I could vote for Trump is if I thought a 20 year, 6-3 or 7-2 leftist majority Supreme court is less likely with the maniac doing the nominating. Scary to believe it would hinge on which side President Trump most wanted to stick it to when he got out of bed that morning.

    These worst of times I am daily thankful for being well aged.

  53. Outsidelookingin Says:

    Reading through the post and comments it stands out how the media lead meme’s constrict people’s thinking.

    To me, a person on the outside (not–american) looking in, but paying attention to who does what… it is quite obvious that Trump’s actions follow definite, well-defined rules and a game-plan that tie his opponents into operating within the limits of their media meme’s. This is why he wins.

    Yet still the media description of him is as a loser! How odd – A ‘loser’ that keeps winning? That paradox means something is wrong with that reckoning.

    The Media have informed everyone that both Trump and the Trump methodology is evil, vulgar, stupid, anti-social and therefore destructive and bound to fail.

    Well – just taking a quick glancing side-by-side comparison of him and his family with the Clinton family makes for real cognitive dissonance. In comparison the Trump family looks like the real family. They are composed, well-mannered, gracious and good looking. They have obvious and well-honed skill sets. None of this tallies with the media image of “Trump”.

    It is at complete variance with what the media tells us Trump should be.

    The media image of Trump is at variance with reality and that is why Trump acts as confusingly as Trump does.

    It is very simple:

    Trump’s entire strategy is based on not following the media playbook for Conservatives/Republicans.., yet most of the media and those that are generally ‘anti-Trump’ keep trying to figure him out using their stamp-cut media meme’s as guidelines for how he ( as a Republican/Conservative) should behave!

    To date (including Reagan) everyone who has followed those guidelines has been shackled by the media!

    What sort of an idiot would Trump be to follow those guidelines?

    To understand Trump’s actions all that is required is to look at how, by what manners and processes, the Media would like to restrict him – then to assume that Trump will act to avoid that.

    You are looking to compare Trump to a media contrived ideal. In reality Trump (as viewed from the outside) comes across as much closer to your founding fathers ideals than any other current US politician does. His perceived ‘vulgarity’ points directly to this… and yet you wonder how he can be popular!

  54. Bill Says:

    In reality Trump (as viewed from the outside) comes across as much closer to your founding fathers ideals than any other current US politician does

    Yeah. He’s a regular George Washington.

  55. Bill Says:

    Anyone have any plausible theory how Trump’s business empire will be run once he’s President that will prevent him from using the power of his office to enrich his family and favored parties?

  56. mf Says:


    You nailed it. People need to thnk outside the box to understand what’s going on. I shifted my thinking when I saw him being recommended by people wse opinions I had respect for. Then I saw the Trump family and was basically sold.

    One might want to take a look at Trump not as a president but as a general. We are in a war. Maybe the left is being outflanked.

    General Patton was a controversial figure. Think of Trump as Patton and remember that he said Amercans love to fight and a fight it will take to regain our republic.

    Don’t let the media define you or Trump.

  57. Bill Says:

    One might want to take a look at Trump not as a president but as a general. We are in a war. Maybe the left is being outflanked.

    And when he’s President he can wear a General’s uniform with medals and gold shoulder epaulets for the reviewing stand.

  58. mf Says:


    wse should be whose

  59. kolnai Says:

    Chuck –

    Definitely check out that interview expat linked to if you haven’t already. I plan on reading that book sometime soon; might get a broader angle on the whole phenomenon.

  60. Sharon W Says:

    On Friday I listened to Levin go over Trump’s comments on Cruz. Yes, hard to believe. Definite head-shaking, eye-roll inducing behavior. But at the end of the day, one believes a Trump or Hillary presidency will be more destructive to the Republic. As I have stated many times, my belief in the structure of the government as designed by the Founders (Congress and Supreme Court role) may come into play during a Trump presidency–aided by a hostile press, whereas it will never happen during a Hillary presidency. That’s it. I haven’t seen it yet, but my son and his fiancee saw Hillary’s America Friday night and urge everyone to see it. They are young conservatives who supported Cruz, see the truth about Trump, but are voting for him, in hopes that the Republic will survive for the reasons I stated above.

  61. Sharon W Says:

    Bill–“And when he’s President he can wear a General’s uniform with medals and gold shoulder epaulets for the reviewing stand.”

    Why? Is there no hostile press? Congress? Supreme Court? I know you might be thinking that way because of all that this current administration has gotten away with, but the only reason for that has been the complicity of the fawning press and ignorant, adoring public. In the event of a Trump presidency, I don’t anticipate those essential factors, whereas I would in a Hillary presidency.

  62. Sharon W Says:

    expat–Excellent article/interview. Thank you for the link.

  63. Bill Says:

    Sharon W – I was kidding about the general’s uniform, although often I think his most enthusiastic supporters would think that’s awesome. They want him to be El Presidente for life, and then hand the reigns over to Ivanka.

    Regarding the checks and balances on a President Trump. I don’t know – my sense is that Trump is (obviously) a really good politician, ground-breaking actually. HRC not so much.

    The media won’t admit it, but they LOVE (LOOOOOOOOVE) Trump. That’s why they gave him 2B in free advertising during the Primaries. They love everything about the guy, because he gives them ratings. The Presidency will resemble in many ways a reality show starring Trump.

    So am I expecting a hostile media? Well, yeah, more hostile than what we have now. But I think Trump will be able to do what he’s always done – manipulate them. He really doesn’t care what people think, as long as they think he’s the baddest alpha male on earth.

    Therefore – he will push the boundaries like you wouldn’t believe. Reasons

    a) great precedent set for expanding executive power over the last number of administrations, taken to its current peak by Obama

    b) Do you really think Donald Trump understands the separation of powers and checks and balances set forth by the Constitution? He displays ignorance of them in the way he talks, daily

    c) Do you really think Donald Trump is less ambitious than Hillary to expand his own power? I don’t.

    d) I realize here’s where the controversy lies: I think he’ll be better at expanding power than she will be, because she’s not a good politician and can’t sway the masses. She barely won in the primaries against a 74 year old avowed socialist. He beat 16 opponents.

    e) You’re thinking in the old categories of “Press opposes Republicans”. They do, of course, but this election season has blown the old categories away. I think Trump will get a real kick out of messing with the press.

    f) We’re doomed.

    This is awful, because what I was hoping for was a President who would bring us back to the constitutional framework and would work to limit the power of both his branch and the other branches (if he/she could). At least try. No chance of that now.

  64. I won't submit Says:


    Those picts of the Cruz comings off a plane with the Obambi gang and in a huddle with them…. whoo hoo

  65. Nick Says:

    “Cthulhu for President 2016! Why settle for the lesser evil?”

    Are you sure that Cthulhu is a greater evil? He is completely oblivious to the ruin he causes. He’s not spiteful. He’s libertarian in that he wants to do his own thing and doesn’t care about the damage he causes others. Clinton and Trump seek worshipers. Cthulhu is above that.

  66. Nick Says:

    “Why? Is there no hostile press? Congress? Supreme Court?”

    The press isn’t hostile to Trump, exactly. Lions aren’t hostile to the zookeeper, because he keeps feeding them. They’d turn on him in a second, but it’d take too much effort and it’s nap time.

    Would Congress be hostile to Trump? The Dems would, when he did conservative things. The Republicans wouldn’t, when he did liberal or conservative things. None of them (other than Ryan) seem interested in protecting the checks and balances. And if Trump wins, all normal political calculations are off, so they’ll think it’s safer to suck up to him.

    The Supreme Court? Three of them will stand on principle, four of them on liberal ideology. As long as Trump’s lawyers can justify what he’s doing and/or he’s expanding government, they’ll get five votes.

    Obviously, I’m being bleak here. If Trump moves toward totalitarianism faster than Obama moved toward “unilateralism” or whatever you want to call his a-pen-and-a-phone moves, then there will be resistance. How much, though? I’m not confident.

    Obamacare is a good illustration. It pushed the fringes of legality, but there was one possible way that it could be interpreted to make it legal, so someone did. Remember that there are a million lawyers in Washington who can find some justification for the ravings of a madman if they have to. If Trump says “I quit NATO”, his team of diplomats and advisers have to figure out a way to enact it legally, or quit.

  67. OM Says:


    And your point is that Cruz flew down to Dallas on Obama’s plane? And that makes Cruz a threat ot dear leader Donald?

    Is Cruz still running for President? I’ll help you out, no he isn’t.

    Is you point that you wish Cruz to loose his senate seat in Texas because of all the Trumpster facts (see National Enquirer)?

    So here’s this for Trump and breaking the “Ultimate Pledge of Honor”


    I’ll help you again, Trumpster broke the pledge in March. But it doesn’t matter because, well whatever.

    As Sharon W pointed out Mark Levin went over this Friday, You have already submitted, Trump already has you conquered. Enjoy your chains.

  68. Sharon W Says:

    NIck, continuing with your points, one of the most destructive aspects of a Hillary presidency would be the continued, unencumbered illegal immigration, and escalation of immigration of “refugees” that will forever change the calculus of our nation. Of course, this is the original issue that put Trump on the map, but between the 2 he alone represents the possibility of honoring our present laws regarding legal immigration and call for assessment regarding the influx of Muslims coming into our country, on the taxpayer dime, no less. In the last year, the number of women in head scarves and even burqas has risen dramatically in our suburban area. That combined with the already rampant open border to Mexico resulting in a changed physical landscape (our city is filthy now and even record tax revenues can’t keep up with the social/physical burden) and only a fool wouldn’t feel grave concern for the Republic under these circumstances.

  69. Doug Says:

    Well, thanks for comments neo – this catharsis has been somewhat therapeutic, if not exhausting! Trying to define the lesser of two weevils! I think H will need to appeal to the Bernie crowd, making her a hefty weevil.

  70. OM Says:


    They are all “just a looking for a home”


  71. OM Says:


    This might help you understand the man who is running for the Senate in Texas.


  72. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    It’s an understandable mistake, that’s been made by others and I’m sure will be made again. When it comes up, I set the record straight.

    “Reading Kolni and GB, and others, I get the impression that reason and common sense don’t count. It’s all emotion, damn the PC, F—k Yeah!” The Other Chuck

    That’s a fine example of projection. I hope I’m passionate but I know that I endeavor to employ reason and common sense. It’s also interesting that you are the first person ever to accuse me of being devoid of reason and common sense. Congratulations on that first ever accomplishment.


    If you live in a swing state, not casting a vote IS meaningful… for Hillary.


    Some disagree with the specifics Trump proposes, like building a wall and some distrust him given his history but it is Trump’s personal qualities that most find unacceptable.


    Trump using the Presidency to enrich himself and his family would certainly be unethical. Is it your contention that the Clinton’s will be less so? If not, what’s your point? That only a Washington is acceptable?

    As for the media loving Trump, the major networks run negative coverage of Trump every night and as positive as possible coverage of Hillary.

    No, I for one do not think that Trump understands nor cares about Constitutional provisions like checks and balances. Of course neither do the democrats.

    So, exactly how is anyone going to change things for the better when faced with a traitorous democrat party, a treasonous mass media, a Congress made up of ideologues and collaborative opportunists and a positive rights seeking liberal court?

    How does any President, working within the Constitution, create lasting change for the better when the entire edifice of government is either dedicated to ‘fundamental transformation’ or clings to the status quo?

    Think well on that and then get back to me.


    The press is highly hostile to Trump and they do want those ratings, so they do cover him… negatively.


    Cruz flying down to Dallas on Air Force One with Obama is more significant than you credit. The reasons would be obvious, if your bias wasn’t in the way.

  73. OM Says:


    Take the high tone again. Article 5 Convention of States. Remember that process? You don’t listen, especially when others don’t agree with your biases. So repeat the “Oh the people are too stupid or too immoral (or not G), and I cannot work because (it’s not my idea). Animus, no GB fatigue.

  74. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Richard Fernandez’s latest; “Munich follows Cleveland”

    “An editorial in the Wall Street Journal notes that nobody’s taking any prisoners this election cycle. “Hillary Clinton wants to win over Bernie Sanders voters, and on Saturday she bid for them by reinforcing her promise to rewrite the First Amendment to limit political speech that she and they don’t like.”

    “Today, I’m announcing that in my first 30 days as President, I will propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and give the American people—all of us—the chance to reclaim our democracy,” Mrs. Clinton said in a taped speech to the Netroots Nation conference of progressives. First 30 days? Who knew the 225-year-old First Amendment was in need of such urgent revision? …

    Mrs. Clinton knows that such an amendment won’t pass, so she also took up the spirit of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent comments that she expects a new liberal majority on the Court to rewrite the First Amendment the easier way. “I’ll also appoint Supreme Court justices who understand that this decision was a disaster for our democracy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And I hope some of the brilliant minds in this room will seek out cases to challenge Citizens United in the courts.” So add one more litmus test for Mrs. Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees.”

    [Fernandez continues] “That is the political system’s response to crisis. The WSJ misses the point. The Clinton promise means that the liberal project finally feels it will win big enough in November to control changes to the Constitution and the Supreme Court — that is, if the populists don’t succeed in “jailing Hillary.” Democracy is on a knife edge, not just in Turkey but in the West.”

    I find Fernandez’s opinion noteworthy because I share it, IMO our entire way of life is on “a knife’s edge”… the distant drums of momentous change draw nearer.

  75. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    How little you understand me and how little you observe. I have iterated and reiterated why I’m doubtful of an Article V convention. Your and others assurances that it will work are not in and of itself persuasive. How will you prevent the half of America who seek or ignorantly support fundamental transformation from having their way at such a convention?

    If the elections of 2008, 2012 and now the ‘choice’ of Trump or Hillary are not enough to persuade you that the majority of Americans are incapable of wise self-governance… then nothing anyone says will be persuasive because you refuse to even consider that evidence.

  76. OM Says:


    Keep it up Eyeore. Wheels within wheels, Cruz as an Obama plant and secret Democrat/leftist super secret agent. Take that argument to Mr. Ed and ride it home.

    You are doubtful of most everything except your own opinions (the country is doomed, but vote for Trump anyway). That is consistent. As others have pointed out you argue a tautology.

    Maybe the country needs new citizens? A new process of government? A wise, benevolent ,,,,,, scratch that, naw, it just needs a Trump.

  77. Jim Miller Says:

    Here’s a bit of data that has fascinated me all year. The most disliked candidates were, in order: Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.

    Despite this, a majority of Democratic voters chose Clinton, anyway, and a plurality of Republican voters (somewhere between 40 and 45 percent, depending on how you count) chose Trump. Cruz, as you all know, came in second in the Republican race.

    So voters in each party preferred the candidates least likely to win.

    Although voters have erred in this way before — in 1964 and 1972, for example — this is the first time we have seen this kind of error in both parties, simultaneously.

    (Althugh there is less reason to dislike Bernie Sanders as a person, his demagoguery is despicable, and his ideas laughable. He appears to have learned nothing from the failures of socialism, all over the world.))

  78. neo-neocon Says:

    Jim Miller:

    In the GOP, that result is a reflection of anger (most of it AT the GOP) and splitting of the electorate. In the Democratic Party, it’s the result of few new faces coming up to challenge the old one, and a sense of inevitability.

  79. Jim Miller Says:

    Neo – Thanks for your reply. I have a more complex set of explanations for the Republican failure, that I may lay out in a series of posts.

    One part of that set, of course, is the power of celebrity.

    For the Democrats, as I have said in my posts, I thiink it came down to identity politics. Neither Andrew Cuomo nor Jerry Brown would want to run against the — possible — first woman president. The most likely women who might have opposed her, women like former governors Kathleen Sibelus and Janet Napolitano, chose not to run, for whatever reasons.

    (Despite his age, Brown appears to be at least as healthy as the principal candidates.)

  80. Big Maq Says:

    @Outsidelookingin (through a fogged window, it seems).

    Dude, sorry, but I have to admit that I laughed out loud when reading your conclusion that trump is “much closer to your founding fathers ideals than any other current US politician”

    Couldn’t be further from the truth. It either ignores what the Founders thought important, and/or ignores the sorts of things trump has been saying and behaving like.

    Fact is, neither trump nor clinton represent the Founder’s ideal candidate.

  81. geokstr Says:

    Jim Miller Says:
    “Here’s a bit of data that has fascinated me all year. The most disliked candidates were, in order: Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.”

    If you go back to last summer, Cruz and a couple other Republicans had positive ratings with not only the Republican voters but in general, and all of them beat Clinton in the polls. Then, Trump began his non-stop scurrilous, totally dishonest character assassination of Cruz and his family, citing his citizenship status, his wife’s looks and employer, the New World Order, the Council on Foreign relations, Cruz’ likeability in the Senate, smeared and distorted his record, called him a RINO, and pushed the ridiculous National Enquirer “stories” run by Trump’s own BFF. It was as vicious as what happened to Palin and her family in 2008.

    The media ate it all up. All you heard was endless, 24/7 coverage of Trump saying “lyin’ Ted” over and over, without anyone asking Trump for examples of the so-called “lies”, because there were none. And Cruz’ rebuttals ended up on the cutting room floor.

    And whatever lies and slander wasn’t started in the first place by Eric’s beloved sicko Alinskyite alt-right, they immediately picked up and amplified with hundreds of thousands of comments demonizing Cruz on every conservative website, drowning out Cruz’ supporters.

    I could be wrong, but I don’t believe anyone’s popularity could withstand that. Even reasonable people like you don’t seem to realize what an assault like that could do a person’s favorability rating.

    Instead of showing America why they should like him, Trump and his cult instead cut Cruz off at the knees, bringing him down to Donnie’s own level. The only reason a despicable scumbag like Trump has a shot is that Hillary is just as unloved as he is, but mostly for the criminal and treasonous acts she committed. On the other hand, Trump is hated just for being the vile excuse for a human being that he is.

  82. Bob_CA Says:

    I noticed that both posters ‘Sharon W’ and ‘Geoffrey Britain’ offer Trump’s illegal immigration stance as a reason to support him. Indeed this is the sine qua non for Trump support.

    But Trump’s position on this, like all his positions, is murky. Here is my recollection although I must admit I have not followed all the twists and turns. First, he was going to build a wall on the US-Mexico border. Later, he was going to get Mexico to pay for it. Then, he said, he would put in a ‘beautiful door’ to let in the deported illegals. I interpret this as touch back amnesty since AFAIK the newly deported illegals would not have to stand in line behind other people from Mexico who had already applied for permission to emigrate to the US.

    Recently, newly minted Trump supporter Rick Perry made it clear that building a complete wall is not going to happen–it does not make engineering or economic sense. So they will use drones, sensors etc. for some portions. As an aside, a lot of the border in Texas is on the Rio Grande flood plain and there are treaty restrictions with Mexico on building anything on it. Of course, a little thing like a treaty mean nothing to our new Caudillo.

    BTW I agree with ‘Geoffrey Britain’ that amnesty is an existential threat to the US as we know it. I am Hispanic and grew up on the border with Mexico and my observation is that the new amnestied citizens will vote for Democrats in proportions greater than Jews but maybe somewhat less than Blacks i.e about 90%. Republicans will not win any national elections for decades and most state governments will be Democrat.

  83. Outsidelookingin Says:

    Nick: The press isn’t hostile to Trump,

    The media in practically every story on Trump describe him in one of the following ways: Evil, Hitler, Tyrannical, Despotic, Nasty, Vile, Criminal, Mad, Comical, Racist, Stupid, Horrific, Despicable, Vulgar, Warmongering, etc, etc.

    That hostile rhetoric seems to be the defacto requirement for all stories in both the US press and the World media. If that is how they aren’t being hostile to him it is going to be interesting to see what they are like when they are truly hostile to him.

    The only thing further they can do to Trump is actually physically attack him; although their current rhetoric is already geared to encourage others to try.

    If this isn’t hostility to Trump what would you regard as actual hostility by the Media to him?

    The Media is confused in how to deal with Trump, as they have had previous dealings with him as a showman like businessman. They are now forced to deal with him in a different arena and they have resorted to their rote method of dealing with Republican Politicians and so get caught by the showman aspect of Trump stealing their thunder. They cannot ignore him. This is not the same as supporting him. They still don’t grasp the twist that being hostile to a showman can be made to work in the showman’s favour.

    Geoffrey Britain: Some disagree with the specifics Trump proposes, like building a wall and some distrust him given his history but it is Trump’s personal qualities that most find unacceptable.

    As most of Donald Trump’s public appearance is Media driven either as promotional for his business or detrimental by the MSM it is very difficult to determine what the real Donald Trump. The only exception appears to be for those that have personal dealings with him. Those that do seem to appreciate him more, which is a good sign.

    One other thing about Donald Trump that does stand out – aside from all the talk – is the fact that he has succeeded despite having had failures (all in the glare of the spotlight). He is a leader that has turned his past losses into subsequent wins. That is a quality that is more valuable than gold dust.

    How many leaders with that on the world stage would give their right arm to have that quality to their credit?

  84. Bob_CA Says:

    I left off my conclusion. As has been said here many times, we do not know what Trump will do regarding illegal aliens. I doubt whether he knows himself. Paul Ryan is a strong supporter of amnesty and we know there are Republican votes in the Senate for amnesty with the Republican senators voting in lockstep with the Democrats to kill all the poison pill amendments offered by Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions against the Gang of 8 bill. AFAIK Trump was totally silent on this issue during the fight in 2013. It is obviously unusual for him to be silent on anything. We do know he supported Gang of 8 leader Chuck Schumer’s senate election campaigns. So my prediction is that he will make a deal and we will get the usual amnesty with the promise of stopping illegal entries in the future.

  85. Jim Miller Says:

    Outside – You should look for some of the formal studies on how Trump was treated by the media during the primary campaign.

    (As I recall, a group at Harvard did a pretty good one.)

    Some of the alternate media — Drudge, for instance — have been covering for Trump, refuisng to run interesting and important stories on the many, many Trump scandals.

  86. Big Maq Says:

    @Bill – your comment on July 24th, 2016 at 9:03 am – excellent!

    trump may or may not become authoritarian (some seem to argue like they WANT him to be – cough, GB, cough – since “any president cannot work within the Constitution”, etc. to restore adherence to the Constitution), BUT the precedent he will set will lay open the opportunity for a future Dem to speed up that process.

    So, trump ain’t the answer to halting the “long march to Marxism” we are supposed to fear from clinton. The more he works at bypassing Congress, the better he makes it for the Dems to continue, but perhaps (likely?) at a faster pace later.

    Will clinton pursue it as aggressively? IDK. trump seems to have greater latitude with his own mindset, as he makes absolutely no bones about the constitution or separation of power.

    The core of the issue is just how risky is trump?

    How much does his profound lack of knowledge and disinterest in advice risk a disastrous choice? How much does his vanity and quickness to “return fire” risk a wrong reaction? How much do his ad-libbed statements risk serious loss of credibility and weakness abroad, encouraging our enemies to test our resolve? How likely is he to follow through on his most extreme statements, and what risk does that pose to us economically? internationally?

    If we have some crisis (assuming he doesn’t create one himself), what is the likelihood that he will navigate that to a good safe resolution vs quickly escalate it to disaster? If we get to that point, is there even an “America First” position possible? If not, how much will he “give away” to avoid disaster, in some kind of “deal” he “negotiates”?

    These are the types of questions the Dems will put forward, and they are not comfortably answered.

    Calling clinton a liar, corrupt, cronyism falls flat vs trump.

    How does “four more years of Obama” hold up to the risk issue in the voters minds?

  87. Jim Miller Says:

    It took me less than ten seconds to find this article on one of those studies.

  88. The Other Chuck Says:

    GB, it wasn’t my intent to label you unreasonable. I was referring to Kolni’s description of the electorate and Trump supporters, and to a lesser extent your general take on the electorate. I believe you are very reasonable. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.

  89. Jim Miller Says:

    BTW, Les Moonves has admitted that his coverage was helping Trump — and boasted about all the ads Trump was selling for him.

  90. parker Says:


    The media does not control my opinion of djt. Djt’s actions, words, and demeanor ‘control’ my opinion of the donald.

  91. Outsidelookingin Says:

    Jim Miller: Outside – You should look for some of the formal studies on how Trump was treated by the media during the primary campaign.

    (As I recall, a group at Harvard did a pretty good one.)

    Cheers Jim – I took a quick look at that study via the Washington Post just now and it appears that it weights positive and neutral coverage as being generally positive.

    I would go even further and say that a good showman can in the long term convert most negative coverage into at least neutral or even positive coverage.
    As the study says:
    “Positive coverage is always ‘good news’ for a political candidate, but so, too, is neutral coverage in the pre-primary period because it elevates the candidate’s profile,” the study’s authors conclude.

    This means that the “positive coverage” deemed to be given to Trump by the media isn’t necessarily because they like Trump, but that he is wily enough to convert negative and neutral coverage into positives.

    He most definitely is playing the media to his advantage – but whether they like it or more difficult to tell. It wouldn’t surprise me if the reporters sub-consciously like it merely because he doesn’t treat them the way Hillary does.

    With regard to alternative media, I was aware of the Drudge thing – it was very interesting. Drudge being a news aggregator makes his pulling in the interest of one candidate a very risky thing for his business.

    Without having access to Drudge’s sources it is difficult to understand him taking such a risk. The fact that he did makes me think he judged losing Trump at this stage would be disastrous enough to require his taking action in Trump’s favour.

  92. The Other Chuck Says:

    BigMag, not to get into a conspiracy mode here, but your sentence structure, syntax, word choice, and logic remind me of someone I used to read. I’m not prying, am probably wrong, but nevertheless it’s interesting how people who write for a living have their own style – which is sometimes like a sign hanging from their shoulders. Oh, and I agree with your analysis.

  93. Big Maq Says:

    @Chuck – Thanks – I take it as a complement, as I don’t write professionally (if you exclude normal communications within a business and with clients, proposals, contracts, etc.).

    Fresh out of college, had a Brit (whose biggest pet peeve was the writing skills of college grads) who mentored me early in my career. Hit a “style” then, and have been that way since.

    Curious. Who is my authorial doppelgänger?

  94. Jim Miller Says:

    Big Maq – Before I forget — some days ago, you said there is no Republican establishment.

    I think that’s obvious, and am grateful to you for saying it, because, as Orwell said, “we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men”.

  95. Bill Says:

    Trump using the Presidency to enrich himself and his family would certainly be unethical. Is it your contention that the Clinton’s will be less so? If not, what’s your point? That only a Washington is acceptable?

    I don’t support Hillary, as a reminder. But she has a foundation and I’m pretty sure it will be in a blind trust. It’s way easier to do that with a foundation. I have no doubt her use of foundation donations in the past has bought her influenc and that’s criminal. But he has an entire global business. I don’t know how you unwind that. And we’re talking about a lot more money.

    But, bottom line, if elected he should sell off all his shares, and his family’s. Of course he won’t. So there will be a lot of corruption.

    Finally, if both A and B are bad, I can be against both of them. Ok?

    As for the media loving Trump, the major networks run negative coverage of Trump every night and as positive as possible coverage of Hillary.

    To Trump, all publicity is good publicity. And certain very big news outlets (Fox) shill for him 24×7. Let me put it this way – the MSM hasnt hurt him so far.

    How does any President, working within the Constitution, create lasting change for the better when the entire edifice of government is either dedicated to ‘fundamental transformation’ or clings to the status quo?

    Well, he has to understand and believe in the Constitution, for starters. I still believe that positive change can happen. I’m not yet ready to throw in the towel and assume we’re going to have a tyrant so it may as well be our tyrant.

    For starters, quit rewarding the parties with our votes when they put up these cr@ppy candidates.

  96. Big Maq Says:

    @Jim – Right! Still, STILL, hear/read a lot of criticism of and aspersions on “the establishment”. Don’t want to spend a page or so to explain why it doesn’t exist, but just want to say that there is a self organizing aspect to our society and that media / politics are no exception. The fact that so many couldn’t coalesce and defeat trump is about as clear a case as one can make on the illusion of some monolithic, organized “establishment”.

    @Bill – So right…
    “quit rewarding the parties with our votes when they put up these cr@ppy candidates”
    …with just one modification… We have a colossally cr@ppy candidate, not a run of the mill cr@ppy one. It is on a historical scale cr@ppy.

    It is like one big sick episode of “Let’s Make a Deal”: we see what was behind door #1 and it is a cat, but we are severely allergic to cats – not good at all; we see the box that was behind door #2 and, even though it has pictures of a dog on it, we don’t really know what is in it (but we keep hearing dangerous sounding grunts and occasional blood thirsty howl coming from within, accompanied by plenty of stomping, crashing and chains rattling within – all prompting several in the audience to cheer wildly); and everyone adamantly refuses to consider door #3 (presumably since it is traditional for everyone to chose door 1 or 2 only).

  97. Bill Says:

    Big Maq

    with just one modification… We have a colossally cr@ppy candidate

    Well said. I’ve heard lots of Trump supporters say things like “Hey, in 2012 I held my nose and voted for Mitt Romney, now it’s your turn to fall in line!”, as if the flaws of Romney (who I happily voted for) and the flaws of Trump are in any way comparable in scale.

  98. Nick Says:

    Yes, the press calls Trump racist. But they don’t talk about his proposals and what they’d do.

    Now, admittedly, I’m a policy junkee, so maybe I overestimate the importance of this. But I’m working on a unified field theory about this election that goes like this: The Republicans have been called racist for everything they do for so long, that they’ve stopped caring when someone accuses one of theirs. So they nominated a guy who’s dangerously close to racism. The Democrats have been likewise called socialist at every turn, so this time around they didn’t even notice the accusation and came close to nominating an actual socialist.

    Are we all just so burned out by accusations that we don’t even think about their content? Do we not realize that some policies really are socialist, really are racist? Did we ever care about actual policies? Is this all ignorance, or ill will, or fatigue? I don’t know. The point is, at least for the time being, that when you get called a racist for cheering for the Redskins, you don’t notice getting called a racist for hanging out with Klansmen.

    So the press doesn’t attack Trump; they just call him a malicious racist buffoon.

  99. Nick Says:

    Bill – Why were people holding their noses voting for Romney? I thought it was because he was rich white male RINO with little political experience. At least, those were the reasons I heard most often. How is Trump more palatable?

  100. Ymarsakar Says:

    Trump could also be testing his supporters, to see what they can tolerate, as well as trying to make good on any prior promises and deals to Clinton.

  101. Ymarsakar Says:

    The idea that the enemy is so horrible and evil, that one must circle the wagons and Obey the Leadership without question, is a trick nationalists and other power hungry megalomaniacs have used over some time, since humans keep falling for it. Demoncrats used it before.

    Now Republicans fall for the same trick. The Alt Right learned to use the trick, but they didn’t learn the antidote to the trick. Democrat voters for Trump are hopeless to begin with.

    The key is to suborn a person’s ability to discern truth from fiction, by using fear and hopeful wishes to sideline critical and independent thought. It’s not something as effective as hypnosis, but it is a kind of mass crowd hysteria or brownian motion.

  102. Ymarsakar Says:

    Regardless of what Americans gain in the short term by compromising long term prospects with these tactics, they’ll end up as white trash welfare on the X plantation. The same way blacks ended up on slave lord plantations in 1830 and Indians ended up on reservations, hand to mouth being cared for by the Federal gov.

    It may take 40 or 50 years, but hey, slavery didn’t happen in this country in just 10 years. There’s a progression and a lot of work that goes into the system, creating institutional slavery.

  103. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    “Cruz as an Obama plant and secret Democrat/leftist super secret agent.”

    Insults (eyeore) and strawman arguments say far more about you than they serve as rebuttal. But by all means dig your hole even deeper.

    “You are doubtful of most everything except your own opinions”

    As anyone who frequents this blog should know, I frequently state my agreement with opinions I find valid and I rarely find myself in disagreement with our host. As if I don’t state a specific disagreement, my silence may fairly be taken as agreement.

    “As others have pointed out you argue a tautology.”

    Not ‘others’ just Ymarsakar and when I engage in a tautology, it is generally in hopes that something stated another way will get through thick skulls, evidenced by their evident inability to address the relevant points.

  104. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Media have informed everyone that both Trump and the Trump methodology is evil, vulgar, stupid, anti-social and therefore destructive and bound to fail.

    Too much watching CNN and MSNBC, thinking they do our thinking for us. Not enough insider perspective of the bottom ups.

  105. Ymarsakar Says:

    Not ‘others’ just Ymarsakar and when I engage in a tautology

    No, that’s just you saying that me accusing you of having a tautology is a personal attack and thus you classify it as not worth responding to. You reply that you want someone to target your points, but the fact that your point is repeated in a tautology, is in and of itself, the criticism.

    Merely repeating your claim over and over again isn’t a tautology.

  106. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “So voters in each party preferred the candidates least likely to win.” Jim Miller

    I take this as a reflection of the current state of the public. While anger at the GOP is certainly a major factor (as neo points out) that doesn’t explain why so relatively few gravitated to Cruz.


    “Trump’s illegal immigration stance”???

    Evidently you don’t think that as many as 25 MILLION new democrat voters, ensuring one party rule is a major threat?

  107. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “No, that’s just you saying that me accusing you of having a tautology is a personal attack”

    Actually, the one prior time you used that term is the first time that anyone has accused me of engaging in a tautology. It wasn’t that long ago and I clearly remember it. And I DIDN”T respond. At all.

    So, I COULD NOT label it as a personal attack…

    Nice try but no cigar.

  108. Ymarsakar Says:


    That’s the comment in question, in case people start claiming my memory is inferior to theirs.

  109. Ymarsakar Says:


    And I DIDN”T respond. At all.

    Your problem, GB, is that you need the internet to back your memory up. Having your own facts, doesn’t work with this kind of record keeping.

    Do I need to quote your phrasing too…

  110. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “You reply that you want someone to target your points, but the fact that your point is repeated in a tautology, is in and of itself, the criticism.”

    As should be obvious, it’s an attempt at communication, rather than a contest of egos.

    But rather than reiterate a point that they’ve either missed or purposely avoided, I should just… what?

  111. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    I stand corrected, I’d forgotten that use. I was referring to the comment you made just the other day. Which changes your past sniping not in the least.

  112. neo-neocon Says:


    At the beginning of the Trump candidacy, I wrote a post on why it is not practical or even possible to build a wall across the entire border. This information was easily obtainable (not just from me) and in the public domain, but Trump and his supporters were bent on ignoring it and/or pretending it wasn’t so, and convincing other people that it wasn’t so.

  113. neo-neocon Says:


    I don’t know whether you’ve seen this post of mine before, but I think it will interest you.

  114. OM Says:


    When you go down a rabbit hole and make veiled statements about Cruz and Obama flying to Dallas on Air Force One, and the significance of it, I was mocking you. But you got that right? it wasn’t a strawnan, you supply plenty of those.

  115. OM Says:

    Speaking of rabbits holes:

    Here’s Donald!

    “Donald Trump says that people from France and Germany could face “extreme vetting” before entering the United States because their countries have been “compromised by terrorism.”


  116. Bill Says:

    Neo, yes, I read that post when it came out. I think you got it exactly right.

  117. Big Maq Says:

    “The key is to suborn a person’s ability to discern truth from fiction, by using fear and hopeful wishes to sideline critical and independent thought.” – Ymarsakar

    Rather astute point.

    Recipe for Dear Leader’s Authoritarian Treat:

    1 doz Stawmen
    1 doz Red Herrings

    Cake Mix:
    1 c Conspiracy Theory
    1 c Victimhood
    1 c Identity Politics
    1 c Villains
    1 c Blame (maybe kick it up a notch with Demonization)
    Roughly equal parts, varied as needed for consistency.

    Hyperbole – to taste
    Lies – to taste

    Sweet Promises – as much as required.

    Form a base with the strawmen and red herrings. Gradually mix the equal parts of the remaining ingredients in the media blender. Pour the mixture on top of the base in alternating layers with generous sprinkles of hyperbole and lies (to taste) before baking. Bake in the fire and brimstone oven. Don’t forget to cover with a thick layer of delicious promises, to complete the treat!

    Following this recipe you are sure to have a Yuge! cake sufficient to feed a frenzy!

  118. junior Says:

    Here’s a link from Ace that explains why Reagan didn’t endorse Ford.


    I figure that will be useful to have around when Trump continues to attack Cruz.

  119. parker Says:

    Very late return to this long, interesting thread of comments, bare with me…

    GB and others of like mind,

    I hear you, I do not doubt the sincerity of your opinions, nor the thought you have invested in coming to the conclusions you stridently promote. However, you tend to dodge and weave, and never actually address the arguments that those who disagree. I will not offer specific examples because that would be tedious. I will say from my POV you are engaged in wishful thinking about djt being the lesser evil.

    OM and others,

    While I often agree with your opinions, you often take the opinions of others personally and that is petty and does not serve you well.

    Bill and others of like mind,

    Always follow your conscience. You know what your gut and your eyes and ears tell you.


    Thank you for being a graceful host and providing a ‘safe place’ for discussion.

    Finally, excuse my awkward attempt to seek reconciliation.

  120. OM Says:


    Not that you don’t have plenty to do and think about already, but the blog’s “War On The Rocks” editor was on today’s Midrats podcast (cdrsalamander.com) discussing the coup in Turkey.

    Both blogs are pretty interesting for a national security topics.


  121. blert Says:


    Trump is not going to change his spots or his stripes.

    Which I take to mean that he’ll govern — voluably — as a classic New York Liberal.

    If this nation could survive Andrew Jackson and FDR — it can survive Donald Trump

    It CAN’T survive the unlimited immigration that HRCGS will continue to permit.

    The trade war that Trump is supposed to be starting — has been running unchecked for twenty-five years… something that TOTALLY eludes the Washington punditry.

    John Stossel, I’m talking about you.

    Trump CAN’T go any further in describing the restrictions he MUST place upon Muslim immigration — for obvious electioneering reasons.

    Indeed, I rather chuckle at the fellows DEMANDING specifics from Trump that no candidate can possibly proffer.

    In contrast, few deign to question Hillary’s specifics.

    Her supporters ( yes, I have family ); describe her positions in the MOST soft, namby-pamby way.

    Such is cognitive dissonance.

  122. parker Says:


    I think you read me wrong. We can survive AJ, WW, FDR, LBJ, WJC, BHO, or when the time comes DJT or HRC.

    Trump will do nothing to address the problems that beset us. He is the more flamboyant establishment candidate. This also applies to the Shrew Queen who lacks flamboyance but walks the same road. Rotten peas in the same pod from my pov.

  123. Nick Says:

    Big Maq – Good recipe, but it’s not “lies – to taste”. You always want to add a little more than that. They’re the spice in the recipe. If people start getting used to a certain level, you need to kick it up some. People like that; they want the lies to make their eyes water a little while they’re on the way down.

  124. OM Says:


    “Nobody knows what events will bring. Not even Putin, who to hear either side tell it, wins by a landslide whoever triumphs in November.”


  125. Big Maq Says:

    BOTH candidates have surpassed the threshold of “worthiness” for the position they seek, or as some of us have been saying “unacceptable”.

    “Survivability” depends on the range of decision paths / actions either of these candidates may make, the consequences of them, and the time frame of the impact of those decisions.

    (What is “Survivability”? Our country effectively retains in large portion the kinds of laws and institutions that maintain the foundational ideas of our country – our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, without strife or other major impact (e.g. major loss of wealth). Perhaps sloppy, on the fly, but you get the idea)

    trump seems to have a far wider range of possible decisions / actions (some of which he has given us signals towards – it won’t be a surprise for those paying attention), with several more paths that conceivably land us into disaster (if not just “big hurt”) territory some time WITHIN the next four years.

    clinton seems to have a narrower set of paths, and the disaster scenarios seem to lean more into the future, beyond the first term.

    While we may loath the clinton long term consequences, keep in mind that trump seems to ALSO have scenarios that have post-term consequences that perhaps rival clinton’s, running in the same direction!

    Many have argued that we have the structure (in the Founder’s design) between Congress, SCOTUS, the media, and people of good conscience, that would stop the worst case scenarios from taking place.

    At this point, that is a wild bet, given the recent history we have seen, and particularly with people’s willingness to continue down a path with an unacceptable candidate to counter another unacceptable one. If we behave that way, how can we expect people in positions of power, facing far greater temptation, to take the high road?

  126. Ymarsakar Says:

    Big Maq Says:
    July 24th, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    The Japanese might take to that recipe, at least the early 20th and late 19th century Japs.

    The issue, as people here including Parker and GBritain have noted, are the voters. H RodDamn Clinton and John Fing Kerry and Trump may die in 10 years or 30 years. Or just tomorrow. They aren’t the source of the problem. The problem is the voters who support Kerry and Clinton, who cover for them, who do the evil work of their bureaucracies. Faith and good, require works, or else they are empty. Evil, if it is merely malevolence, violence, and hate, is not enough to serve the goal of evil, one must have henchmen and bureaucrats to do the actual leg work.

    So the issue isn’t whether Trump or Cruz is a totalitarian wannabe megalomaniac. The issue is the voters, they, we will always have with us. Even if this generation totally dies out, the next one can be renewed or replaced by Muslims or Europeans. They’ll still be the same, human Poison at large.

    Once the voters become obedient Democrats on the human farm plantation… well, then it’s all over. Not even God will be capable of extending a hand over that mass of human trash. But becoming a Demoncrat doesn’t mean joining their religion, it means becoming like them, closer to them, using their methods, understanding their hate, subliming their free will and conscience under the dictates of Power, Victory, Elections, and Fear.

    To become like evil is to copy evil. To win elections or wars may mean copying the enemy, as US operators did with Mao’s insurgency manuals in the Phillippines. To win against evil, however, and H RodDamn Clinton may indeed be evil just like all your family and friends who voted for Hussein Obola killing American children with a toast and smile on his face. But fighting evil requires that you not be evil. Once you become like evil, whatever you think you are doing, is now for them. The House of Evil is not divided, although it appears so.

    Free will and moral agency, once given up, you cannot get back. Doesn’t matter what your leaders call themselves, Crusaders, establishment, elites, Trump blue collars, Cruz, or anybody else. They are all human. They are all mortal. I do not consider them gods, not anything even close.

    That is why America and the world will Burn. Not merely the USA but all of the Americas. Because that is what humanity deserves. People can only learn to value what truly matters through adversity and pain. That is not my fault, that is your nature’s or creator’s fault.

    I, personally, feel honored to be at the bonfire. While terrorists and communists have burned their enemies, while the enemies of Charles Martel’s descendants and Charlemagne’s descendants burned Jean De Arc, I wasn’t there to see, or think, or do anything about it. Now that people who truly are responsible for the evils of this world, can feel the heat of the fire, I do not regret missing out on all those historical events. For we also live in interesting times, where we may glorify our own lives and souls by picking good or evil. Whichever team people may be on, let us continue to fight, until the Last Battle.

    It will be a fun battle, one full of meaning, fate, and justice. Even God is allowed to be bound by the results of this war. A Kardashev 2 or 3 type civilization or entity bound by the events on a Kardashev .6 civilization on one planet… ironic.

    If evil exists in HRC, Hussein and Leftists, what then opposes evil? If light exists, what is darkness? As there is matter, opposed by anti matter, this universe is strangely balanced between black and white. The grayness is more of a mixing, of supernovas and battles, contests of will. The black can turn white. The white can turn black, just like a Go board. The brighter the day, the darker the shadows. The more powerful good becomes on Earth, the more people will fall into evil and hateful unrighteousness. The more evil there is on this planet, the more people begin to understand what good is.

    Predicting CW 2 for the USA is easy, even 7 years ago. Trying to see into the fate of all things, that we know of, is far more difficult.

  127. Ymarsakar Says:

    I know, I know – some of this sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But I think these questions need to be asked.-Bill

    If Wikileaks or some other kind of leak, were to put emails down that hurt Cruz for Trump, then it would get a little too obvious. Even to the non operatives. Snowden went to Hong Kong, but because of extradition threat, went to Russia. Russia has a lot of access to other leaked documents as well. Their information and disinformation capabilities are as strong as ever, if not stronger due to online cultures. Most of them would speak Russian, not English, but they would still retain capabilities to transfer that to English online sites.

  128. Ymarsakar Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    July 24th, 2016 at 7:30 pm
    I stand corrected, I’d forgotten that use. I was referring to the comment you made just the other day. Which changes your past sniping not in the least.

    Which is another wrong statement. You sit incorrect. Not stand corrected.

    I don’t correct people, it’s pointless as they merely internalize their fault as a virtue and blame it on others via displacement or projection.

    My comment the other day, was referring to the “first time” I used tautology as a description of your Caesar views, GB.

    My “past sniping” is no different from my currently pointing out that you are wrong. You being wrong, is interpreted by your old dog mind, GB, as “sniping”.

  129. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    I can’t speak for others “of like mind” but I am certain that I do “actually address the arguments” of those who disagree with me and have done so repeatedly. I often agree with the arguments of those who disagree with me and state so, while pointing out that it is irrelevant compared to the larger issue; the Left’s continued progress toward the cliff’s edge that looms ahead. Pointing out an obvious failure to see the forest for the trees is NOT “dodging and weaving”.

    And, I too will not offer any of the many specific examples I can offer because that too would be tedious.

    Yes, Trump may well do nothing to address the problems that beset us. But… that does NOT also apply to the Shrew Queen, who does NOT walk the same road. They are NOT ‘rotten peas in the same pod’ proven by the people who support them, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

    That repetition, i.e. “my stridency” is foolish frustration with those who refuse to see. A dictator demands, at the point of a gun, obedience and ignores other’s rights. But a Marxist is unsatisfied with anything less than your mind and soul.

  130. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    “I sit incorrect” on the prior use, not on the latest, which is the one that I was referring to, not remembering the prior.

    displacement or projection? Look in the mirror, oh perfect one. When have you ever admitted to error?

    In no way did you indicate that you were “referring to the “first time” you “used tautology as a description of your Caesar views”. I responded to your latest use as that is all I remembered, when you evidenced otherwise, I immediately admitted to my error. Would that your ego permitted that degree of honesty.

    We all recognize ‘sniping’ comments when directed at us and egotistic denial, compounds the dishonesty. Get over yourself and I will endeavor to do the same.

  131. Big Maq Says:

    “That is why America and the world will Burn. Not merely the USA but all of the Americas. Because that is what humanity deserves. – Ymarsakar

    Such self-loathing and blame loaded into this line of thinking.

  132. Jim Doherty Says:

    I am late to this, but just $.02 from a Texan. To beat Cruz you would have to primary him here in Texas. One on One, with no free fox news running propaganda for you. Good luck.

  133. Nick Says:

    “Two Cents From A Texan” is great name for something. Blues album? Segment on a cooking show? Something with college football? I don’t know. But I like it.

  134. parker Says:

    “Irevelerent”… “who refuse to see”


    That sounds like a one way street. I respect your take, consider you to be a gentleman, disagree with OM’s sniping, but you sometimes do not address specific comments that differ from your pov. I may well be guilty of the same.

    Yet, the question remains the same… what evidence exists that djt will not behave as a NYC liberal as POTUS? If the answer is none (which I believe to be more than likely) how does he differ from hrc?

  135. OM Says:


    To speak for GB, because a gulag is worse than a concentration camp, ask any zek.

  136. Big Maq Says:

    Neo has not commented on it (yet), but what are we to make of the Russian/Putin – trump connection?

    Don’t have time to dig into it, but wonder how much is really just speculative spin vs reality.

    It is remarkable how significant statements by trump are rather putin friendly.

    Can that be ascribed to some “relationship”, or is it really just how a narcissist who values strength and power rolls?

    If the latter, nothing new. If the former, rather alarming.

  137. Ymarsakar Says:

    Such self-loathing and blame loaded into this line of thinking.

    If you can’t argue logic, use personal attacks. That’s not necessarily always effective, but in this political season it’s gotten overly popular.

    To be clear, I am not responsible for humanity’s ills. I did not create humanity nor did I create nor contribute to this situation, in this country nor any other.

    You are abrogating personal responsibility to some mythical and godlike level, if you consider me to be placed such highly that I would blame myself for humanity’s transgressions against x,y or z.

  138. Ymarsakar Says:

    “I sit incorrect” on the prior use, not on the latest, which is the one that I was referring to, not remembering the prior.

    Does any of your complaining have a point to it or are you just trying to create a snipe spot?

    Your memory problems are your responsibility, try not to push them on me. I won’t be held responsible for your bad memory and or x string of erroneous statements.

    I merely point them out, because I feel like doing so. I do not care to consider nor read, your complaints about your own behavior as a way of justifying yourself. You can do that without me, just as well.

  139. Matt_SE Says:

    Bob @ July 23rd, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    Bob is correct. Cruz is being attacked for two related reasons: Trump is a narcissist, and Cruz is a threat to his bullshit persona.
    Cruz has moral authority and that is the chief threat to Trump, who is a vain and petty little man.

  140. Matt_SE Says:

    I won’t submit Says:
    July 23rd, 2016 at 10:23 pm
    Ted Cruz asking money from the DNC to help fund him in Cleveland??

    See that strikethrough? That’s what your linked article has about the allegation, saying that they need confirmation. Which is odd, since we’re talking about emails. Either they have emails which state this, or they’re full of shit.

  141. Big Maq Says:

    @Ymarsakar – look, it was not a personal attack, it was about the message you are sending.

    To think humanity deserves destruction IS a form of self-loathing for our species, which has an underlying assumption of blame, as it MUST (in your mind), ironically, be the “others” that deserve it, but not one’s self.

    Elsewhere, using similar “logic”, you said we “need” CW2 – a second civil war!

    You now want to make an argument about not using logic, yet you believe that arguing logic is evidently ineffective, and your thoughts should be imposed on others from behind a gun.

    Not only is that argument not even “logical”, it is messed up, dude!

    Don’t expect to have a response to any rejoinder you may have on this, as no wish here to comment further on this line of thinking.

  142. Ymarsakar Says:

    To think humanity deserves destruction IS a form of self-loathing for our species, which has an underlying assumption of blame, as it MUST (in your mind), ironically, be the “others” that deserve it, but not one’s self.

    Under Christianity, Jesus Christ’s sacrifice allows that injustice to go through, because the price for humanity’s transgressions were paid by Christ. Although there’s always a limit, it was retro active, but doesn’t apply towards future actions. Although who knows how divine level entities treat time as a dimension. The future could very well be retro active to them…

    Islam has a slightly different interpretation though.

  143. Ymarsakar Says:

    Elsewhere, using similar “logic”, you said we “need” CW2 – a second civil war!

    Similar reason to why the South thought they “needed” a CW2. The Southern Baptist slave lords and their fellow white boys and girls that didn’t even own slaves, thought that the North were full of abolitionist cowards that couldn’t fight a can worth of beans. CW 1 was necessary to teach the Southern Baptists a lesson, and to deal with slavery in the US Constitution of course. America, as a nation Under God, cannot exist with things antithetical to God’s plan for humanity (test for humanity, free will for humanity).

    Don’t expect to have a response to any rejoinder you may have on this, as no wish here to comment further on this line of thinking.

    I didn’t ask for a response to begin with, B. All of these “arguments” you seem to contend with me, I’ve already seen a thousand times before.

    Your “don’t have a wish to comment on it”, is because that would require you to read my logical statements, which so long as you refuse to read and ponder on them, you can claim to yourself that I don’t have any logic for you to contest.

    which has an underlying assumption of blame, as it MUST (in your mind), ironically, be the “others” that deserve it, but not one’s self.

    Unfortunately for your train of logic, I have to consider myself human. I haven’t become a god, after all. You would have known this if you had used logic to question my thought process, instead of assuming things were true based on erroneous feelings or conclusions.

    Do you think I would preserve some Salvation for myself, and allow humanity to go to hell? If we’re all going to hell, we might as we all go together, because fighting is what allows certain things to come to light. And I like conflict. Even if for Christians, that conflict is one of evil vs good, and not nations or tribes.

    Only weaklings talk about damning evil political enemies to destruction, while thinking about saving themselves. I suppose B, you’ve never trained in an art or skill to such a degree that you can accept your own death as the price for achieving a goal… well, most Americans or Westerners would not have thought of such to begin with.

  144. Ymarsakar Says:

    See that strikethrough? That’s what your linked article has about the allegation, saying that they need confirmation. Which is odd, since we’re talking about emails. Either they have emails which state this, or they’re full of shit.

    It’s sort of like how Demoncrats and Leftists leaped to Dan Rather’s defense, when Rather came up with documents proving GW Bush (2 terms and II Bush to be President) had been AWOL.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge