↓
 
Home » The really really stupid party

The really really stupid party

The New Neo Posted on by

People on the right have had a long-standing joke about the GOP, which is to call it the Stupid Party.

But hey, it was a joke, fellas. We didn’t think you really were all that stupid. In fact, a lot of people alternated between thinking of GOP leaders (variously and un-affectionately called the GOPe or the Establishment) as stupid, and thinking of them as brilliant but ill-intentioned puppetmasters.

This election cycle it’s been difficult if not impossible to escape the notion that the joke about stupidity was no joke at all, but the absolute truth, and that it was the the evil puppetmaster thing that was the joke. As I see it, this GOP group would be hard-pressed to operate a single finger puppet.

Now, those of you of a more conspiracy-theory-minded bent will no doubt say that what has happened this year was all part of the GOP plot, all part of the GOP plan. And of course, certain elements of it were (although I see no reason to believe the conspiratorial notion that the GOP wants to lose; they are politicians and want to win, if only for the sake of power). For example, I believe that one of the reasons the GOP failed to fight Trump forcefully enough was its fear of nominating the man who turned up as the #2 people’s choice, Ted Cruz. For a while there, they supported Trump as the lesser of two evils (maybe most of them still do), the one they thought they could control. And maybe some of them also really believed Trump would later perform some fancy pivot to a more presidential persona; but if so, that only solidifies their status (in my eyes, anyway) as members of the Stupid Party par excellence.

If they really wanted Jeb at the beginning (and I think they did), that would make sense. But that desire was pretty stupid, too, because anyone should have seen even earlier that Jeb was going nowhere. After Jeb failed, they didn’t really consolidate behind anyone—which would have meant convincing or successfully pressuring the others to drop out, which never happened. If I’d been one of the GOP movers and shakers, I would have applied every ounce of pressure I could to get that to happen, to make the race into a head-to-head race by some Republican against Trump. If they failed to try that, then I think they were stupid. And if they tried it and failed, then they were incompetent as puppet-masters rather than all-powerful.

I see their greatest stupidity, though, as not having realized how dangerous Donald Trump would be to them. But they didn’t seem to see or understand it. He’s not a conservative, but he’s not even a Republican, and he seems to be running against them as much or perhaps even more than against Democrats. He will not listen to their advice, and there was never any indication that he would. He will hurt their chances for election to the House and Senate. If he loses, he will excoriate and blame them. Hitching their wagon to him in 2016 was one of the stupidest things they could have done, a case of throwing away their best chance to win the presidency since 2004 and probably even prior to that.

What should they have done if they were either less stupid or more of the puppetmasters that so many people think they are—besides what I’ve already mentioned, that is, the forcing out of many other candidates? One thing would have been to have changed the convention rules, fixed on an alternative candidate, and pushed that person at the convention. They weren’t ever going to do that, though, for fear of alienating Trump’s already-alienated supporters, and because they couldn’t seem to unify behind anyone. So there was really very little impetus for that.

I believe that the GOP has been loaded with wishful thinking and denial this year. It became clear some time in the summer of 2015 that Trump might very well get the nomination if the field didn’t narrow down, and it became crystal clear by March that there was grave danger of that happening, but they seemed in denial about that. It was always clear that he could harm the rest of the party’s candidates, but they seemed in denial about that, too. And it was clear that he was doing poorly against Clinton in the polls and that there was an excellent chance he would lose, but for the repetition they were in denial about that.

Or maybe they knew, but felt powerless to stop the Trump train or to derail it. Either way, same effect.

Well, maybe they shouldn’t have let Trump declare himself to be a Republican candidate in the first place. Maybe they should have said no, run third-party if you must. Clearly, though, they preferred having him inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in. What they didn’t seem to realize was that he’d be inside the tent pissing in.

Comments

The really <i>really</i> stupid party — 125 Comments

  1. The only thing the GOPe are really afraid of is losing their places at the government trough. With a Hillary victory, that gets to continue, business as usual. With Trump, maybe not so much.

    As for the GOP being the Stupid Party, they could go a long way in dealing with that if they got off the interminable cries of tax cuts for the super wealthy (who don’t vote R anyway) and wasting time trying to pass ever more abortion restrictions (Roe v Wade was 45 years ago, stop trying to rebottle the genie).

  2. I went to an early Trump rally in Reno and was struck — really struck — by his supporters. They did not seem like political animals, but they were definitely supporting him politically. The fact that he was self-funding made that easier than if he had asked them for financial support, as more traditional candidates would (and do).

    But his supporters were fired up more than any GOP supporters I remembered, even though they didn’t seem particularly political. And remember, this was early in the campaign, before any other candidate had come to Reno, and when they were not drawing large crowds wherever they went. This rally was PACKED! And on fire!

    That’s when I began to think Trump was not just a flash in the pan. More importantly, his appeal was across party lines, including especially people who were not political, or who had not been interested in voting before now.

    I recount this because I think if GOP party leaders had forced him to run on a third party ticket he would have pulled a very large block of voters with him. Remember, these are people who probably didn’t vote before, so their presence on a third party ticket is not a net loss to the general voter pool, as was the case with Perot, for example. So efforts to estimate his impact on primaries would have fallen flat, but he would have likely been able to get on the ballot in every state and he would ultimately have taken votes away from GOP candidates.

    I’m sure the GOPe realized this — or some of them did.

  3. “Remember, these are people who probably didn’t vote before, so their presence on a third party ticket is not a net loss to the general voter pool, as was the case with Perot, for example. So efforts to estimate his impact on primaries would have fallen flat, but he would have likely been able to get on the ballot in every state and he would ultimately have taken votes away from GOP candidates.”

    He would have inevitably had a Perot-like effect on the election, assuring a Clinton victory. There is a pool of Democrat voters who are potentially in play, who don’t like Clinton and are angry about the situation with Bernie, but they are repelled by Trump. If you have a lot of people like these who are your real-life friends, you’ll see that they are in the “hold your nose and vote for Clinton” camp because as much as they hate, hate, hate Clinton, she is better than Trump. (This applies to pretty much all of my real-life friends and left-of-center acquaintances, who uniformly believe that Trump is a cross between Hitler, Mussolini, David Duke and a circus clown.)

    However, Trump would have pulled voters from whichever candidate got the GOP nomination, leading to a three-way contest in which the D voters vote D, and some number of the R voters vote third-party to “get even with” the GOP. That, and the loss of some independents that the GOP desperately needs to defeat the D-bloc, assures a Clinton victory.

    In retrospect, I am starting to wonder if Rubio+ a nonscary VP pick would’ve been the winning ticket.

  4. I don’t find much of anything to disagree with.

    It is pretty clear that in the space created between the business as usual/Never Cruz supporters, and the “get serious about the rule of law” types, there was a populist space to be exploited by Trump.

    What I cannot understand is how anyone who had seen this moron on television for even 5 minutes plus read one article about his business practices, (and that more or less is about what I had done) could have taken his candidacy seriously.

    But they did. It seems that he said things they wanted to hear, and they had never heard him say anything else.

    So now, all he has to do in order to have a really good shot, if not walk away with the election, is to keep his goddamned incoherent motormouth shut except to stay on message: and at that, just long enough to let his opponent (a psychopath with enough health and political scandal baggage to bring down the entire Democrat Party) destroy herself.

    He doesn’t even have to debate her. Just get out and deliver scripted policy stuff and patriotic ad libs, and he’s quite possibly in.

    But instead, he just keeps effen yammering away like some wind-up egomaniac, who is determined to get himself off on stage even if it means delivering the republic to the vandals he supposedly wishes to battle against.

    Amazing.

  6. F:

    Yes, I think I even wrote a post about that, way back when (don’t have time to search for it now, though).

    My point is that I think that would have been far far far better than Trump taking over the party’s nomination, and I think they should have realized that. Keeping him outside the tent pissing in was much better than inside the tent pissing in. Much better.

    He would not have gotten as many votes, IMHO. But more importantly, he would draw them from both parties and from those who don’t usually vote. The model I always had in mind was Perot in 1992, who got about 20% of the vote. I likened Trump to Perot early on (for example, see this post from early August of 2015). Some people say Perot caused the Bush 1992 loss, but the consensus is that he drew from both parties fairly equally. In any event, he did not run as a Republican and taint the entire Republican Party. That’s what Trump is doing.

  7. “There is a pool of Democrat voters who are potentially in play, who don’t like Clinton and are angry about the situation with Bernie, but they are repelled by Trump. If you have a lot of people like these who are your real-life friends, you’ll see that they are in the “hold your nose and vote for Clinton” camp because as much as they hate, hate, hate Clinton, she is better than Trump. (This applies to pretty much all of my real-life friends and left-of-center acquaintances, who uniformly believe that Trump is a cross between Hitler, Mussolini, David Duke and a circus clown.)”

    Try to convince them it is Warren Harding against the She-Stalin. Sounds like a sure-fire grabber, doesn’t it.

    Anyway, seems like a sincerely believed scenario.

    So … in the interest (truly) of honestly understanding and exploring this a little further, do you think that you could fill in some of the blanks which were left open by several of Neo’s exchanges with me?

    First, do you believe that any of your liberal acquaintances, so willing, they indicate, to jump ship if given a chance, would have seen Cruz, as an acceptable chance? If so, what proportion?

    Did any of them actually say to you, in terms of a conditional if casual statement, that: If, given X Republican and Hillary, they would select X Republican ?

    Meaning, did any of them ever give a Republican name that they stated out-right contrasted favorably against Hillary?

    This is a sincere question.

    Answer it as you like, or not, on your own terms, or not.

  8. Kyndyll G:

    See my reply to “F.”

    Here’s a link to a discussion of the fact that Perot did NOT cause Clinton’s victory—that he took equally from both parties.

    And yes, I agree that Rubio would have won. I believed that from the start, and the polls consistently supported that idea. Of course, the polls did not mostly measure Rubio with a third-party run by Trump, but if I remember correctly some of them did, and Rubio still won.

  9. And now the stupid party offers up bald, single, CIA, Goldman Sachs Mormon Evan McMuffin in order to give Hillary Utah.

    This is the worst thing I have ever seen.

  10. “He will not listen to their advice, and there was never any indication that he would.” [Neo]

    . . . and yet Deroy Murdock, in the National Review notes:

    Supply-side heavyweights Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow, and Steve Moore helped craft Trump’s economic proposal. The man who Never Trumpniks say ‘never listens’ heeded these free-marketeers on taxes and the Heritage Foundation on judges.

    Of course no one really has any idea of what will happen if Trump is elected. This unpredictability is, IMO, one of the reasons we see such “pearl clutching” in all matters Trump.

    Why are we not agonizing over a possible (probable?) Hillary win with just as much angst?

  11. T:

    Incorporating some of their ideas in a scripted SPEECH designed to get him elected has nothing to do with what he actually intends to do.

    I have watched him, and I do not see him taking the advice of the GOPe leaders, which is what I’m talking about here.

  13. I hope Neo’s predictions about Trump are wrong. I don’t like Trump very much but for the first time he has given me a reason to vote for him. Trump has recently made an important speech in which he has tackled the problem of violence by devout Muslims for the first time. Hillary has risen to the defense of Islam.

  14. Dennis is right. No MSM coverage of Trump’s very important (and excellent) foreign policy speech. Instead more coverage of polls and GOP defectors; trivia.

    I was very much put off by Trump’s bombastic and blow hard style at the outset. Yes, he said some stupid stuff but I got over it.

    I heard an Admiral today (vetted by HRC to be VP) assert that it was unconstitutional to deny Syrian refugees admission to the US. Memo to Dems: We have no constitutional duty to admit non-citizens to our country; much less eighth century barbarians.

  15. DNW: Remember, we’re talking about progressives, so truth and reality are not only not relevant, but potentially harmful to the debate. I personally think that you nailed the truth: Trump is a yammering egomaniac who would win this election – a houseplant would win this election because Clinton is that damaged and weak – but he just cannot shut his mouth, target the negatives out of the tent (against the person he is actually running against) and let Clinton step in the dogpiles that surround her all by herself.

    But in debating with progressives, what matters is their perception, and what their friends will think of them, not what is, and their perception is that Trump is a stupidy-stupid racist bigot. The fact that he is not – for example, that enforcing existing immigration law is not racist – doesn’t matter. Progressive leftists don’t even recognize facts, so it’s pointless to engage them on that level.

    What Trump does that endears him to the subset of the population that likes him horrifies the rest of the voting population. He’s not really a Republican, much less a conservative, so what he’s doing is bombastically throwing stuff (that he thinks his audience wants to hear) at a wall, waiting to see what sticks. This process inevitably involves constant overreaching and missteps as he susses out a position, and he judges from the response he gets whether and how much to walk back. For whatever reason Trumpists love this, but for an audience that operates on edited five-second soundbites, and “right” and “truth” decided by consensus of social media, someone who is constantly saying cringeworthy things is a no-hoper. Every time he opens his mouth, he directly says something stupid that causes the lefty-left, still-crying-that-Bernie-lost social media set to laugh at it or be shocked by it. As you noted, Trump cannot stay on target, and cannot keep his mouth shut when he should.

    It’s less that the platform needs to be different than the message and messenger should. The messenger needs to be someone who is cool, not someone who looks like a clown and is constantly blustering. This election needs to be all about the disaster of the Obama regime and the dire damage that will occur if it continues with Hillary; and it needs to be about the damaged mess that is Hillary. It needs to be a campaign that focuses entirely on opposition to the standing regime, its failed ideas and laughable candidate. To get that message to the D voters who’d like to defect, it needs to be presented in a way that is emotionally recognized and accepted. As someone whose livelihood is based on dealing with facts and data, I’m particularly not suited to tell you how to do that, but after years of experience observing and dealing with these people, I can tell you that’s what has to be done. I don’t think any of the GOP candidates were likely to be worse at that than Trump.

    I don’t directly engage these people with politics – they think all people to their right are KKK members who dropped out of third grade and believe that the earth is either flat or 6000 years old, or both. I don’t need their political BS in my life, so I don’t invite it. But I can tell you what I see and hear, and that has been private consternation of who to vote for when Hillary is monumentally evil and corrupt. It’s my feeling now that of the GOP candidates, Rubio was the one who was, and would have been, most attractive to them, if he had managed to stay on target, and work out how best to eviscerate Obama’s unfolding disaster without being thought of as racist.

  16. I don’t imagine that the oligarchs who make up the GOPe are any more monolithic than is the base. Shared interests do not necessarily imply conformity in pursuit of similar goals.

    In order to deny Trump the nomination, there certainly was a point when coalescing around a single alternative to Trump was indicated. The failure to do so, rather than simple stupidity, may instead have simply been a reflection of a fractured leadership unable to reach consensus. Rubio was the obvious alternative to Jeb Bush but after the gang of eight fiasco, he polled badly, confirmed by his loss in FL.

    Once only Cruz remained, stopping Trump may have become, for the GOPe… a ‘non-starter’. As a large faction may have concluded that, “business as usual” under Clinton was much to be preferred to the uncertainty of Trump or the clear and present danger of Cruz. That is indicated by the GOP’s at best tepid support for Trump, which is not IMO, adequately explained as simply a reaction to Trump’s gaffes.

  17. Neo,

    You have one of the handful of genuinely thoughtful blogs…but this crying over spilled milk…honey you need help.

    Trump or Hillary? Our system ends with a binary option. You cannot re-rack history and break the balls more to your liking.

    You’re on record: a. you don’t like Trump and b. you’re wagering he’ll lose in November. We get that. Stop picking at that scab it’s just going to get infected.

    I should apply to T for copywrite license because T is again spot on: “Of course no one really has any idea of what will happen if Trump is elected. This unpredictability is, IMO, one of the reasons we see such “pearl clutching” in all matters Trump.”

    Yep and I personally believe WHATEVER Trump the unpredictable does when he is elected President is preferable to what I KNOW Hillary the unindicted felon would do if she were elected.

  18. It was a perfect storm of a variety of things:

    – GOP could not agree on any one (or three) candidate to focus on, early enough.
    – GOP did not want to risk losing that “angry” vote which they have been cultivating for some time – so, they attacked each other instead – even Cruz, who was best positioned to call out trump, tried to quietly ride trump’s wake.
    – All 15 other candidates but Cruz and trump decided they had a chance at winning by targeting essentially the same pool of GOP voters.
    – Most of the candidates stayed well past the point it was a high probability that they had no chance, Kasich being the worst example.
    – The open primary rules allowed for a LOT of non-GOP influence, particularly in the early races
    – The “debates” were a farce, as they effectively became a Twitter stage – very little time for serious or deeper discussion on policy – with little time to challenge each, nor for candidates to make their case – all to trump’s advantage
    – trump was a “4fer” for the MSM: a ratings bonanza; and a way to paint the GOP with charicature stereotypes; his extensive coverage muted most all other candidates; and, it bypassed bad news on clinton and obama.
    – Rules for winning delegates favored plurality over the best consensus candidate to represent a majority of voters – a HUGE issue with so many candidates vying.
    – The scheduling of the races (e.g. cluster of NE states near the end) demographically played to trump’s advantage at a critical point
    – A “conservative” media that were willing to change tune and cover for trump, if not promote him – definitely lack of criticism / challenge of trump, despite plenty of criticism for the other GOP candidates. It didn’t help that they amplified the anger to begin with.
    – A segment of the voting population whose anger allowed them to justify most anything for the sake of “change”.

    Probably a few more items could be added.

  19. “I personally believe WHATEVER Trump the unpredictable does when he is elected President is preferable to what I KNOW Hillary the unindicted felon would do if she were elected. – John G

    You can choose to believe that, or you can pay attention to what trump has said and what he has done, past or present.

    He’s been to the extreme too many times that unpredictability is NOT a virtue, it is a risk, and a big one at that, with little upside.

    The idea that there cannot be anybody or anything worse than clinton is a problem. It is THE problem, as it indicates that there really is no standard to make any judgement call by.

  20. Colonel Brighton: Look, sir, we can’t just do nothing.
    General Allenby: Why not? It’s usually best.

    –Lawrence of Arabia

    Granted, Jeb Bush’s candidacy and its high-level support were hideous mistakes in 2016.

    However, the rest wasn’t so stupid IMO. Trump is a bizarre candidate. It’s one thing to consider him a serious possibility. It’s another to know what to do about a wealthy, reality-tv celebrity with a solid bite on a sizeable angry demographic who manages to pull down hundreds of millions of dollars worth of essentially free media advertising.

    Leaving him alone to self-destruct wasn’t stupid — Trump is self-destructing now — it just didn’t work.

  21. T Says:

    “Why are we not agonizing over a possible (probable?) Hillary win with just as much angst?”

    Because Hillary is an infidel and Trump is an apostate. Those who reject the faith from inside the movement are always dealt with more severely than those outside it, because their rejection is an implicit threat to those who remain true. They reject not only the faith, but impugn the judgment of those who continue to believe.

  22. “but for an audience that operates on edited five-second soundbites, and “right” and “truth” decided by consensus of social media” – Kyndull

    There is much wrong in this statement.

    trump is (and has been all along) deliberately courting the media with such soundbites.

    To make this a point of differentiation (denigration) of those who do not vote for trump, is strange, as who then was consuming those soundbites that the MSM monopolized the airwaves with throughout the nomination?

    For conservatives, it seems clear that their sense of right is not merely from social media consensus.

    Perhaps you make too broad a statement and are referring to the left, though that may still overstate the case.

    “It’s less that the platform needs to be different than the message and messenger should.”

    The problem is discerning any platform that trump himself would stick to.

    When trump supporters say they would take “unpredictable” any day over clinton, that should send a huge red flag that there effectively isn’t a platform.

    It is not just the messenger here that is the problem, because… well… he would be the bl**dy POTUS if elected – not some mere “messenger”.

  23. Matt_SE: “Because Hillary is an infidel and Trump is an apostate.”

    Brilliantly stated. One of my reasons for opposing Trump is that he claims to represent conservatism, but he doesn’t. He has done an amazing job reshaping the Republican party into his image. I don’t want conservatives to be tarred with the result.

    My expectation is that an HRC victory will leave a chastened conservative movement in loyal opposition with a chance to revitalize. A Trump victory likely ends the conservative movement, replacing it with a nationalist party with white-supremacist overtones that is isolationist while stirring up trouble abroad – the old “speak loudly and carry a little stick” strategy. It will be for massive over-regulation in trade rather than for free trade, and will spend, spend, spend and drive us deeper in debt. Trump isn’t known for his frugality, All the while we will be moving in the opposite direction from what I want – a smaller government with less power and a much less powerful Executive branch. No – we’ll get just more of the same (both candidates offer Obama’s third term if you haven’t noticed) expanding Executive power, shrinking legislative power, etc.

    I don’t want to own that. I still have hopes conservatism is not dead. But only hopes.

  24. OK, this needs to be understood correctly for the honest and open question it is.

    Not a ploy, not a joke, I’m not being cynical here.

    But,

    Has anyone reading this blog, been approached not by a Democrat tormented with a fit of soul searching, and looking either for absolution, or for a low cost way out of the moral crime he is about to commit: BUT rather a Democrat who simply stated that if the Republicans nominated X for President, he would be happy to pull that lever instead of Hillary’s?

    One person, who you know the name of, and who stated it in plain language to you? Even one?

    You know, something like this, which a Republican might have said to a Democrat: “I don’t know about this Reagan guy. If the Democrats nominate Sam Nunn, I would certainly vote for him instead.”

    Simple declarative statement. No blood oath, but an actual candidate’s name, placed in an actually proffered conditional, rather than just a hand-wringing insinuation of a conditional which … trails off … into oblivion.

    Again: Did anyone here actually have a Democrat who was tormented by the prospect of another corrupt Clinton presidency, put a firm name to that mythic Republican whom they would have preferred to Clinton.

    I am not saying it has not happened. I merely seek an instance. One, clear, instance.

    And if Kyndyll is right, and these postmodernist butterflies are constitutionally, by their nature and character, incapable in principle of making these kinds of simple declarative or indicative comments … then …

    Then, what?

  25. You are correct that politicians want to win. However, there is a big reason the party can be okay with losing. Yes, they want their committee chairmanships but what they want most is power. What better way to accrue power than to preside over massive government? What better way to cement big government forever than 3 terms of a liberal Democrat president? There will be no going back now. What’s a few cycles out of power when all that power awaits your return. It explains why McCain and Romney didn’t give it their all during their campaigns. Romney threw that third debate. Just like the joke about being paranoid but they’re still out to get you – is it really tin foil hat conspiracy when that is how the party acts. Or they could just be that stupid. At all costs they were definitely not going to allow a freshman senator that called them a cartel to win. They are now paying that price.
    Saw a good comment from Sean Trende last night on twitter about an exchange with a friend. Friend said you can’t be insane and become a billionaire, Sean said Howard Hughes.

  26. Matt_SE:

    Do you believe you have fairly described our mindset, and that it’s about anger at some sort of betrayal of FAITH? If so, you are mistaken.

    Hillary is a known quantity, someone about whom we all agree. So there’s no need to discuss her much at this point. The focus has been on beating her, what went wrong in the fight against her, and why and how, so that it doesn’t recur. I believe part of it involved the failure of GOP leaders to see what was happening and to react in a way that might have prevented what I see as a now unavoidable debacle. That’s what this post is about, not about some sort of betrayal of a cult or a faith.

  27. Maq, the problem is, there is only a small part of the population which finds Trump’s message attractive or appealing, and that seems to be primarily limited to people who A) think it’s cool that a TV celebrity is running for president or B) love how Trump “sticks it to” the GOPe and the media … at least back when the media was tolerating his silliness to suit their agenda.

    His optics are positively awful among disgruntled Democrats who are actively considering an alternative to voting for Hillary.

    Do you even realize that over on the left side people are chastising each other about voting third-party lest doing so allow Trump to win?

  28. DNW, I have seen multiple non-negative references to Rubio. Cruz and Trump were disliked. The rest were mostly unknown, since 90% of the media attention went to Trump.

  29. KLSmith:

    I couldn’t disagree with you more. Romney did not purposely throw the third debate or anything else. Romney was merely being Romney, and he was trying to avoid a repeat of something like what Crowley had done in the second debate.

  30. “They reject not only the faith, but impugn the judgment of those who continue to believe.” – Matt SE

    Not so fast.

    A few comments above we have someone who is essentially saying that “whatever trump’s unpredictability he is better than clinton”… which nets out to “anyone or anything” is better than clinton. This is not an uncommon type of comment in this blog.

    It is not a matter of impugning anyone’s judgement, it is asking what is the limiting principle, what is the standard to make that statement by?

    Many are also asking the other necessary question: what is the positive case for trump rather than relying on “not clinton”.

    The upside should be that trump is beholding to conservative principles, at least as far as they were embodies in the original GOP platform. BUT, that has all be changed with trump, who openly says he is not beholding to those, and has made numerous suggestions to taking the opposite.

    Conclusion: there is little upside.

    Add to that how mutable he has been on much of what he says (as Kyndell says – throws it to a wall and sees what sticks, if it doesn’t walk it back – only he walks back stuff that sticks too), and the extremes to which he seems willing to go, and we now see some risk of authoritarianism.

    Add to that how undisciplined, vengeful, personal, petty, incendiary, and unpredictable he has been, and we now have a volatile temperamental risk.

    So, we are supposed to fear the worst case scenario outcome wrt clinton, but ignore all that wrt trump, and abandon any standard?

    The agonizing is not that clinton is awful, but what is for each of us that step too far, too big a risk, for the little upside (if any) that comes with trump.

    Folks want a choice, and so long as everyone is stuck on a binary choice, for anyone on our side of the aisle, it is whether or not to support trump.

    Is trump, and all that comes with him, “acceptable”?

    I’ve held out hope, been asking for that positive case, but have long decided Libertarian and GOP down ticket.

  31. Neo: may be. But he looked like he was trying not to lose, not trying to win. It was a weak and pathetic performance and I couldn’t watch more than ten minutes of it. Also one of the lesser points I was making. All moot now.

  32. “The idea that there cannot be anybody or anything worse than clinton is a problem. It is THE problem” Big Maq

    There is only one scenario where Trump could be worse than reaching the tipping point in the loss of liberty with Hillary and, that is Trump precipitating a Nuclear war. While I think that unlikely, I do admit to the possibility.

    That possibility is moot however, since Hillary or possibly her successor democrat President (amnesty and a path to citizenship will ensure that there are no more Republican/conservative Presidents) will inescapably lead America into being attacked with nukes. Whether Iran, N. Korea, China or ‘radical’ Islamic terrorists is less relevant than that democrats seek to appease and appeasement invites aggression.

  33. the Dems had to pay actors to fill up seats at their convention and now we learn they paid Khan??

    — Khan was paid $25,000 by the Clinton campaign to speak at the DNC. — the speech was not written by Mr. Khan, but by two campaign staffers.

    — the copy of the US Constitution that Mr. Khan held up was bought only two HOURS before his speech by a female staffer, to be used solely as a prop and Khan returned the book after speaking.

    — 5 Gold Star families turned down the opportunity to speak before Khan was contacted by the Clinton campaign.

    — All five families were paid $5,000 and signed a non disclosure.

    — Khan’s immigration law firm is in debt $1.7M and owes back taxes of upward of $850,000 plus penalties.

    — CNN paid Khan over $100,000 to tell his “story” and repeated interviews across networks.

    — Khan was given a bonus of $175k by the DNC for his effort in the media.

    — The IRS has since put Khan’s tax file on a “hold” status.

    The kid was a better man than the father will ever be.

  34. Bill,

    What you, I and everyone else here want — a smaller government with less power and a much less powerful Executive branch is not possible. Far too many other people want the opposite. Conservatism will never be dead, just relegated into irrelevance. Until… reality arrives.

    DNW,

    I know of no such person. I know many who would claim to agree but when push comes to shove… ideology rules them because their sense of self-worth lies in political correctness.

    “Romney did not purposely throw the third debate or anything else.” neo

    I agree. He was simply being his decent, civil self. He insisted on fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, despite his opponent using every dirty trick in the book. He did not lower himself to their level. So he has his pride and remained true to his principles, which along with $4-5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    “Many are also asking the other necessary question: what is the positive case for trump rather than relying on “not clinton”.” Big Maq

    He doesn’t intend to fundamentally transform us, while that is Hillary’s goal. He’ll settle for being the biggest frog in the pond, while Hillary and those at her side, will settle for nothing less than that we worship their idol… THAT is a huge difference.

  35. “There is only one scenario where Trump could be worse” – GB

    Only ONE scenario?

    For one, could there not be a “tipping point” under trump?

    I also asked, in prior comments, about what happens following trump?

    You see, when we have two big government advocates running for POTUS, both with a penchant to significantly expanding the powers of the office, they may well have created that “tipping point” from that alone, for any successor.

    trump doesn’t get a pass on this.

  36. There is only one scenario where Trump could be worse than reaching the tipping point in the loss of liberty with Hillary and, that is Trump precipitating a Nuclear war. While I think that unlikely, I do admit to the possibility.

    russia and china are building up for that war and it would not be trump that does that… would you blow up your own fortunes, your kids future, and for what?

    the idea you put forth is inane…

    but the fact that russia has been building up nuclear missiles, new tech, new ships, new drone submarines, and a ton more… to te point our own generals are ranting on how we are totally unprepared, should wake you up..

    you really think nuclear war is that easy to start?
    really?

    you watch way too many movies…
    way too many movies.

    do you even know what the process is to launch?

    he cant launch without others involved… even movies get that right…

    one, he decides to launch, so he calls the man over with the nuclear football… its opened, and he goes wild putting in the codes and things.. then what?

    nothing. nothing happens… why? because the codes are not just his…he ALSO has to get the Secretary of Defense to put in their codes… so right there your saying that just cause trump is president, the secretary of defense would be crazy too and launch…

    and what would the premise of this launch be that would convince the secretary of defense? a good time? invasion of the baltics? someone stubbed their toe?

    the cabinet has to be informed as well, and has the power to take the presidency away, by declaring him unfit… so if the secretary of defense doesnt agree, and the cabinet doesnt agree, and the asst sec defense dont agree.. well, not only does nothing launch, but he loses his office

    The chain of command, that requires the Secretary of Defense and others to relay such an order is robust enough to handle such a statistically-impossible scenario of a “rogue president” ordering a launch.

    so stop being a tool of the clintons and thinking that our whole system with all its checks and balances would not have chekcs and balances for nuclear codes

    and in fact, if he is trying to send a pre-emptive strike there is a long chain where the process would be negated..

    its amazing to think that you think that our state is that careless with nuclear weapons

    its more likely that a rogue captain of a submarine would do something and even he/she cant do anything either..

    duh…

  37. “He doesn’t intend to fundamentally transform us, while that is Hillary’s goal.” – GB

    Actually, that looks like…. aw, just another “not clinton” argument, with a bit of change up in the wording.

  38. neo…

    I wish I’d wrote that !

    I think I’m going to have to link it all over the Internet.

  39. Artfldgr Says:
    August 16th, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    the Dems had to pay actors to fill up seats at their convention and now we learn they paid Khan??

    — Khan was paid $25,000 by the Clinton campaign to speak at the DNC. — the speech was not written by Mr. Khan, but by two campaign staffers.

    — the copy of the US Constitution that Mr. Khan held up was bought only two HOURS before his speech by a female staffer, to be used solely as a prop and Khan returned the book after speaking.

    — 5 Gold Star families turned down the opportunity to speak before Khan was contacted by the Clinton campaign.

    — All five families were paid $5,000 and signed a non disclosure.

    — Khan’s immigration law firm is in debt $1.7M and owes back taxes of upward of $850,000 plus penalties.

    — CNN paid Khan over $100,000 to tell his “story” and repeated interviews across networks.

    — Khan was given a bonus of $175k by the DNC for his effort in the media.

    — The IRS has since put Khan’s tax file on a “hold” status.

    The kid was a better man than the father will ever be.

    art

    LINK please… I’d love to cross-post that tid bit — but I need a link, … or two.

  40. “So he has his pride and remained true to his principles, which along with $4-5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.”

    If the cost of being a winner politically today means being an amoral Alinksyite, count me out.

    I hate the way principles are treated like trash, by people who five minutes ago were conservatives.

    There’s no hope in any of this talk. The best I hear is that Trump might be a 95% disaster, versus HRCs 100% disaster. But this election is SO IMPORTANT that we have to give the blackguard the keys to the kingdom or we’ll all be in gulags (because HRC knows the way to a successful Presidency and fame in the history books is destroying her country, becoming the Soviet Union – because that worked so well – and imprisoning half the population. Look, I don’t like her or support her but even I know that’s a bunch of hyperbole. She wants us to be Sweden. And that would be very bad, but good grief. Trump wants us to be the Peoples Republic of Trumpistan).

    As if the next election won’t make this one look like the height of civility and maturity. Kanye 2020!

    I’m not rewarding these people with my vote, because doing so just results in more and worse of the same. When people already pledged to vote for Trump admit conservative principles are already in the trash, who cares who wins? Who cares if we have a permanent Democratic majority if the Republican winner will only be, maybe, 5% better (and could be a lot worse, although his supporters think that’s a mathematical impossibility)?

    I’m not giving up so easily, but I am surely not rewarding the GOP with my vote if this is what they’re offering. No way. And if you think I’m being some pearl-clutching purist . . . well, go ahead and think that, but this isn’t me complaining about one drop of urine in a gallon of water. This is me complaining that you’re asking me to drink straight from the sewer.

    Not doing it.

    Rant over.

  41. Maq…ok…you view Trump’s unpredictability as a greater RISK than the KNOWN ON-GOING CRIMINALITY of HRC.

    Your choice. But I’m going to apologise up front. That’s …exactly where the headline of this post starts…really really stupid.

    I do have a standard to judge by. All the 2016 candidates who will be on the ballot fall far short. But HRC is an unindicted felon who shows no thought to anything but doubling down. You may hate even the idea of Trump…but you might get her. Good luck with that one.

  42. Big Maq

    Your mileage may vary but that is the only one that came to mind. I’ve previously stated my expectation that a “tipping point” under Trump is entirely possible. IMO, what is most likely to happen following Trump is a South American style oligarchy. I’m not giving him a pass, just stating that the choice is clear.

    Art,

    China is building up for that war, not Putin. The scenario I offered is not only not inane, in a world of increasing nuclear proliferation with the West ruled by an appeasement minded left, it is a real possibility.

  43. “He doesn’t intend to fundamentally transform us, while that is Hillary’s goal.” — GB

    “Actually, that looks like…. aw, just another “not clinton” argument, with a bit of change up in the wording.” Big Maq

    Do you disagree that Trump doesn’t intend to fundamental transform America? (not that he might but as to his intention) Do you disagree that to be Hillary and the Left’s goal? Please address those points, rather than dismissively avoiding them.

  44. [Romney] was simply being his decent, civil self. He insisted on fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, despite his opponent using every dirty trick in the book. He did not lower himself to their level. So he has his pride and remained true to his principles, which along with $4-5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    Trump is clearly not playing by MQ Rules and it looks like he’s going to lose as badly as Romney, if not worse, against a far weaker opponent. That plus $4-5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks as well.

    At least you could keep your pride and principles when you voted for Romney, then hope to do better next time.

    Voting for Trump you get to lose the election and announce to the world that you and the Republican Party have no shame or principles.

  45. @ neo-neocon:

    I didn’t mean “faith” literally, but as poetic license for any deeply-held belief. At its core, opposition to Trump is because he doesn’t share our values but pretends to.

    You could call that apostasy or being a heretic.

    “Hillary is a known quantity, someone about whom we all agree.”
    That’s why she’s an infidel; a non-believer. We already know she’s beyond the pale so we don’t need to discuss her.

    “I believe part of it involved the failure of GOP leaders to see what was happening and to react in a way that might have prevented what I see as a now unavoidable debacle.”

    That may be the point of your post, but I wasn’t responding to your post. I was responding to T’s question: “Why are we not agonizing over a possible (probable?) Hillary win with just as much angst?”

    I do agree that most GOPe either didn’t understand what was going on, or had a variety of reasons to discount it. You could see for example how everybody wanted to attack Trump, few knew how to do it, and those who did were afraid to because they would fall in the polls along with Trump. That happened to Rubio, exactly.

    It was every man for himself, and that turned them coincidentally into cowards. A confluence of such events and motivations looks to many like a conspiracy when it’s really an “invisible hand” at work because individuals were pursuing their own selfish ends.

  46. huxley: “Trump is clearly not playing by MQ Rules and it looks like he’s going to lose as badly as Romney, if not worse, against a far weaker opponent. That plus $4-5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks as well.

    At least you could keep your pride and principles when you voted for Romney, then hope to do better next time.

    Voting for Trump you get to lose the election and announce to the world that you and the Republican Party have no shame or principles.”

    You just nailed it. Well said.

  47. At this point, it does look like Trump’s going to lose as badly as Romney, if not worse, against a far weaker opponent. And if he does lose that same $4-5 will still apply.

    “At least you could keep your pride and principles when you voted for Romney, then hope to do better next time.”

    That sentiment is predicated upon the naive belief that there will be a next time. Amnesty for 15 million undocumented democrats puts paid to that notion.

    “Voting for Trump you get to lose the election and announce to the world that you and the Republican Party have no shame or principles.”

    As a principle; I’ll put the greater likelihood of the survival of liberty before hubris. Accusing others who judge one threat to be the greater, as evidence of having “no shame or principles” is a low blow and itself evidence of taking the low road. Look in the mirror…

  48. Trump can not stop being trump. That was painfully obvious from the get go. The GOPe were truly stupid if they actually believed they could hobble him with reason or dazzle him with their self-assumed electoral ‘expertise’. The true trumpians love djt’s unhinged behavior and will be pulling out their hair come November 9.

    Some, not the fan boys, but those who insist trump might be less destructive than hrc, will need to reassess their POV if/when djt goes down in a McGovern/Mondale style defeat. For me, I will not vote for djt unless Iowa is extremely close, as in a hand full of votes might decide our 7 votes in the Electoral College. But I think the shrew queen will win in a landslide and if I am correct, the harsher trump’s defeat, the better.

  49. GB: your description of how Romney debated is long hand version of what I meant. “Threw the debate” is shorthand. Of course he didn’t have a plan of, I’ll start to really suck at this two minutes in.
    And don’t worry about the nukes. Obama already promised us we would be able to absorb a hit.

  50. There is some loose thinking posted here, IMHO.
    Among which is parker’s “I will not vote for djt unless Iowa is extremely close”.
    All of the people who despise the Donald because of his speeches have also read and thought about his position papers? I thought not.
    Instead, they welcome the ascent of the unindicted Hillary and a Democrat juggernaut in Washington DC. Under the theory that it will serve us right.
    But they will end up being ruled by the Dem Rulers and the RINOs, being crushed along with the rest of us.

  51. Frog,

    To put if politely, you are IMNSHO totally and perhaps willfully, misunderstanding my POV. “Loose thinking”? Really? Yes, I have read the position papers. That is rather humorous. Trump beholden to position papers when he exhibits he is beholden to nothing beyond his limited attention span? I could go on, but it would be futile.

  52. I have been thinking about what a Left controlled United States will be like.

    Amnesty and a government run medical system are a given.

    The main questions I have is whether the Left will overplay their hand. Some potential flash points:

    Their support of Black Lives Matter and their ilk leads to a race war. The audio of black rioters in Milwaukee calling for white car drivers to be pulled out of their cars and beaten was chilling.

    The Left tries to confiscate guns directly instead of doing it indirectly by choking off the supply of ammunition or choking gun ownership with regulations.

    Our foreign enemies sense our weakness and take the opportunity to attack us. They might attack us directly by stepping up terrorist attacks or indirectly by, for example, a cyberattack on the electric power system as described in Ted Koppel’s recent book, “Lights Out.” This could cause enough damage to large power transformers or other infrastructure that the damage could not be repaired for months or even years and would totally hamstring the US economy.

  53. Bill @ 5:17,

    If one believes that we are not @ a tipping point and that the Left only wants to fundamentally transform America into Sweden, then IMO your position makes perfect sense.

    On the other hand, if one believes that we are very close to a tipping point in fundamentally transforming America and has concluded that Sweden’s socialism is simply a transitional state in a process that must result in communism, then your position can only be regarded as whistling past liberty’s graveyard.

    I hope you’re right because it is the decidedly better future, while also hoping that you’re prepared to live with having chosen badly. If Hillary is elected, we shall learn whether Sweden or something much worse is America’s fate.

  54. Artfldgr Says:
    August 16th, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Thank you for the pause to introduce some reality.

    It seems that HRC and the Democrats have successfully convinced all manner of people, that Donald Trump is “dangerous”.

    As for Trump not listening to the GOPe. If the GOPe was what the GOP voters wanted Trump would not be the candidate.

  55. What I’m finding is that Trump suffers from the same defect as Boehner: he might have the right positions on some things, but is unable to make an articulate argument for it without the intercession of translators.

    There won’t be any translators if he is elected. It’s also questionable how seriously he holds his positions.

    If Boehner was a Speaker who couldn’t speak, Trump is a salesman who can’t sell outside of the customers who were already convinced.

  56. Bob_CA,

    “No go” urban zones, black and Muslim; already beginning to happen.

    Fundamental transformation of constitutional rights, already happening.

    Just a matter of when, not if we’ll be attacked. The Left’s reaction will be: declaration of martial law, which is when the gun confiscation will begin.

    History supports the conclusion that socialistic societies are inherently intolerant of both an armed populace and of strict restrictions upon the State.

  57. Matt_SE,

    Agree with the first assertion.

    Presidents have speech writers whose job it is to articulate for them.

    I suspect he’s very serious about his most fundamental position: top dog in the dominant pack.

    If he wins, it won’t be because he sold himself, it will be because events, led to Hillary being seen, by enough people, as an even more unacceptable choice.

  58. From Taranto’s WSJ piece today:

    “In a piece titled “Why the Press Feels So Free to Criticize the Republican Nominee”–a more accurate headline would have been “Why the Press Feels Even Freer Than Usual to Criticize This Year’s Republican Nominee”–Vox’s Ezra Klein makes this intriguing point:

    The press isn’t supposed to take a side because the audience needs the news delivered by institutions that will always, no matter what, deliver both sides–and who is the press to choose which side is right, anyway? . . .
    But Trump short-circuits all that. You can criticize him sharply and be applauded, both publicly and privately, by senior Republican figures. The most despairing, hysterical commentary I’ve heard about Trump this cycle has been from Republicans speaking off the record–including Republicans who have endorsed Trump! In this way, the “evenhanded” view of Trump that emerges from traditional reporting is that he’s a dangerous maniac–Democrats say it, and so too do many top Republicans.”

    Sounds like the most despairing, hysterical commentaries on this blog.

  59. @GB – to answer your question…

    My preference is a candidate who would dramatically decrease the size and scope of government. The less power, the less we have to be concerned of its misuse by anyone.

    So, from where I stand we will face fundamental change with either of these two candidates, neither of it good. They both ultimately lead to different shades of the same thing.

  60. I don’t agree with that premise Frog. The press feeling so free to attack Trump is a reaction to the common perception that his positions are so far “beyond the pale”.

    That perception is in turn, a perfect barometer of how far astray Americans, in the aggregate are from admittedly inarticulate, truth. As if a truth’s validity is determined by how well it is articulated. The focus upon Trump’s bombast and clumsiness is an excuse for many not to face the essential truth of his concerns.

    Any one of his major issues; the illegal immigration of millions who are culturally hostile to America’s founding culture, Muslim migration that is projected to double their numbers in less than a decade and an obscene trade imbalance hanging over our heads… are mortal threats to our republic and will destroy us, if left to half way measures.

    Yet Hillary, who supports those threats with the backing of the Left is seen as the more reasonable choice. Americans shall rue the day they let their priorities get so skewed.

  61. It is always a given the msm will run interference for the D and harass the R. The phoney R just happens to provide an extraordinarily large target. This was known well before djt was the nominee. Time for the trumpians and trump lite to stop whining about the msm. If you did not realize how easy it would be to lampoon and tag team the donald, what were you thinking?

  62. Big Maq,

    My preference is the same. Hold your preferences in one hand and spit in the other, then see which hand holds more.

    I agree that we face fundamental change with both of these nominees and agree that neither will be good.

    I strongly disagree that they lead to the same place. Pinochet pales in comparison to a Castro or a Chavez. Not only in numbers killed but most of all, in what they leave behind.

  64. I thought the whole purpose of the super delegates was to prevent the child vote from dominating the party and allowing them to nominate a version of Elvis for the Presidency? Apparently their power was underestimated, amazingly considering who they gave the Presidency to in 2008 and 2012.

    In any event the really important vote will be for congress, It is for congress to prevent Hillary from granting amnesty to illegals. If that passes the US becomes a one party state, that is, an embryonic dictatorship.

  65. “… rue the day…”

    That day was decided when djt became the nominee, that was the day hrc won the throne.

    Off to walk dogs, there are 80 odd days ahead, spend them well.

  66. Its been pretty clear the dems have long term plans to reshape culture their way and fight battles. The GOP does not.

  67. gracepc Says:
    August 16th, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    As for Trump not listening to the GOPe. If the GOPe was what the GOP voters wanted Trump would not be the candidate.

    * * *
    Everyone is so persuasive in their arguments, I think I will just flip a coin.
    After all, throwing lots is how the ancients let God decide.

  68. gracepc:

    As I’ve written on this blog several times before, many Trump supporters very much remind me (in their approach to criticism of their candidate) of Obama supporters.

    Obama supporters have consistently labeled criticism of Obama as originating in racism, and his critics as racists. It’s as though no one could find another reason that is legitimate for criticism of him, and therefore racism must be the cause. Of course, they are not necessarily sincere in making this accusation. But sincere or not, such accusations are the invariable approach, rather than dealing with the substantive issues for objection.

    Trump supporters don’t accuse Trump critics of racism, of course. Early in the campaign season, they uniformly accused Trump critics of being either in the pocket of the GOPe, or of wanting Hillary and the Democrats to win, or of being under the sway of PC thinking and PC speech.

    The “in the pocket of the GOPe” approach faded when the GOPe ended up supporting Trump. So then it became “you want Hillary to win” or “You’re listening to Hillary and are influenced by her” or “You’re listening to the MSM and are influenced by it.”

    I can assure you nothing is further from the truth. I think your desire to support Trump may make it difficult for you to see that the basis for much of what Trump critics say is observation of Trump himself.

  69. Back for a few minutes…

    Frog,

    You accuse others of being hysterical. Irony be thy name mister amphibian. Sleep well and I mean that sincerely. You are not my enemy, I simply disagree, its not personal, although you seem to take it personally if I and others do not see it your way. That is the D way, a dark path indeed.

  70. Many are fearful that Trump would be an authoritarian and maybe try to be a dictator.
    Spell out how he is going to accomplish that please.

    Our government is structured to prevent that. Obama has not been able to do it, even though he has exceeded the bounds of executive power. But he has had two things going for him.
    He’s the first black President and a Democrat, which has made him unimpeachable.
    Our MSM is his personal defender and apologist, which keeps most Americans in the dark. To impeach a President, the MSM has to be on board.

    Consider the situation of a President Trump. He would be very impeachable because Republicans do not hesitate to uphold articles of impeachment when justified pace Richard Nixon. Trump would be attacked as unmercifully as “W” was making it almost impossible for him to do anything untoward that wouldn’t be splashed across newspaper and TV headlines. No average American would be in the dark. Could President Trump get enough support from the military to carry out a takeover? The military that Trump would be inheriting is filled with flag rank officers who are perfumed princes of the Pentagon. They are more involved in social justice issues and making the military safe for LBGT and seeing that SEAL Teams are composed of enough females to satisfy the feminists. Is this a military that will back a “strong man” junta? In addition, the government bureaucracies (our hidden government) are packed full of progressives who have lifetime jobs, who will resist his plans at every turn.

    Yesterday I watched an interview with Dana Loesch on C-SPAN. For those who don’t know her, she is a conservative info-babe who has a new book out about the peeps in flyover country. She said something that struck me as extremely wise. (Paraphrasing) She recognized that conservatives have been too ideological pure (don’t support moderate Republicans) and too impatient, especially when thinking that having majorities in both the House and Senate was going to be able to rollback Obamacare and run over Obama. It didn’t happen because you have to have at least 67 votes in the Senate to override a veto. Too many were unwilling to accept that simple fact. Conservatives need to accept that the change we want is going to be a marathon, not a sprint, and we are going to lose a lot of battles. Government is the politics of the possible. Most of the time you have to compromise, work harder, make better arguments, look for openings, and keep running even though the finish line is far away.

    If I was the GOP-e, I would quit opposing Trump and try to get as close to him as possible. All with the idea of getting him to start pissing out of the tent. Great campaigns (battles) often require strange bedfellows. Remember Hitler and Stalin allying and then Stalin turning on Hitler to team up with the U.S.? And the U.S. teaming up with West Germany and Japan to oppose Communism? Sometimes you can make progress by working with people who don’t agree with you on everything.

    As to trump staying on message. I have done the difficult task of watching his speeches yesterday and tonight.

    His speech yesterday was about taking on radical Islamic terrorism. There was not much in the speech I would disagree with. He will be attacked because he wants to reintroduce the same kind of immigrant vetting for Muslims that we had during the Cold War, which aimed to keep Communists out of the U.S. as much as possible. He also mentioned deporting imams who are preaching Sharia Law and jihadism in U.S. mosques. (I’ve been talking about this for some time.) An encouraging thing was his plan to put together a commission on combatting radical Islam that would include moderate Muslims to get their input in the best way to attack the jihadi ideology. (Another thing I’ve been talking about.) He pledged to use the military, economic/financial power, improved intelligence gathering, interdicting social media that recruits terrorists, and ideological warfare to combat and eventually defeat the jihadis. He pledged to keep Gitmo open and to put more emphasis on capturing jihadis for intelligence purposes. This speech was pretty comprehensive and a marked contrast with the Obama/Hillary strategy (non-strategy?) to deal with radical Islamic terrorism.

    Tonight’s speech was written for him by Rudy Giuliani and some other GOP advisers. It was delivered using a teleprompter. It was mostly about dealing with the law and order problems in black neighborhoods in our major cities. I thought it was well-crafted. He pointed out that there were far more blacks suffering at the hands of other blacks and that their plight was mostly due to the failed policies of the progressives who have controlled Milwaukee, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. for generations. He told the black community that he would be their champion for better schools and better law enforcement in their neighborhoods. He pointed out that the only way jobs were going to return to the black neighborhoods was when they were peaceful and orderly. I don’t know how many blacks will listen to that line of reasoning, but it is far better than just taking a hard line about law enforcement. I thought it was a decent speech, but it didn’t rile up his supporters as much as his usual unstructured train of consciousness type talk, which usually has more red meat than this one did.

    Neither speech will be covered by the MSM because they don’t want to give any rational, substantial policy ideas any publicity at all. Both speeches were done to get him off the un-focused, rambling track and keep him on policy differences with HRC. Maybe it will work. We’ll see.

  71. Huxley-“Voting for Trump you get to lose the election and announce to the world that you and the Republican Party have no shame or principles.”

    This is insulting. My son will be coming home after 4 years serving as a Marine outside this country. To say that he is depressed that he is likely coming home to a Clinton presidency because of the “NeverTrump” crowd understates it. I don’t know you personally, but I assure you of our conservative bonafides. We (my husband, 2 sons and I) were all originally Cruz supporters and being that we live in California, voted for him in the primary, regardless. We do not share the fear that many here do about a Trump presidency for the same reasons expressed by JJ above and GB in many comments. Because of the framework of our Constitution, my gamble for the United States (NOT the Republican party) rests with a Trump presidency. But I’ve never been party over country.

  72. Sharon W:

    Clinton won the election the day Trump won the nomination.

    All the “neverTrumpers” could vote for Trump and it wouldn’t make a difference in the outcome. To win, Trump didn’t just have to win over the right. He had to appeal to people in the middle (Republicans and Democrats and Independents who are more moderate), people who don’t like Hillary and were ready to vote for someone else but not for Trump.

    This election was ripe for the winning by the GOP. If Trump loses, it will be because Trump lost it. Those who nominated him—however well-intentioned some of them were—put their weight behind a very poor candidate.

  73. Neo–You may be right. There is no way to truly know. I personally know a lot of liberals of every stripe. I do not know one that would have voted for Cruz. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I’m just saying from the LIV liberal, to the liberal members of the 1 percent and everyone in between, no way. But this is California.

  74. J.J. Says:
    August 17th, 2016 at 12:41 am
    Many are fearful that Trump would be an authoritarian and maybe try to be a dictator.
    Spell out how he is going to accomplish that please.,

    My recipe for the US, (not just a Trump) but anyone would be a combination of chaos, and a President who is capable of speaking directly to the people like Reagan did bypassing congress.

    Reagan used it for good purpose, but we saw the Turkish President do just that to bring people into the streets.

  75. “Clinton won the election the day Trump won the nomination.”

    Wrong.

    Hillary Clinton won due a combination of factors but the primary factor being she entered the race. And it was “her time”. What’re that means, to the MSM/liberal elite, is anyone’s guess.

    Romney was a principled man. And lost. Trump has no principles and will likely lose.

    The MSM Goliath will insure that no one who runs against their preferred candidate will will. It is especially galling and insulting to listen to people here talk as if only a different candidate had been chosen, everything would be different.

    Really?? Have any of you been paying any attention?

    Trump is who we have. Conservative? I don’t care anymore. Conservatism committed physician (GOP) assisted suicide long before Donald Trump.

    I stand against Hillary Clinton. That’s all I know. It’s futile. It’s a losing battle. But it’s all I know.

  76. Sharon: “To say that he is depressed that he is likely coming home to a Clinton presidency because of the “NeverTrump” crowd understates it.”

    Well, it depresses me too, and I’m neverTrump.

    Speaking of which, when did people like me become the reason he’ll lose? A month ago after he got the nomination it was being said, in this space and elsewhere, that “the Never Trump movement is dead”. We were irrelevant and our votes weren’t even needed. Now we’re the reason the big blowhard is going to lose. If he does, I’m not looking forward to all the threats of vengeance his most ardent supporters are gong to be making . Hopefully none of them will follow through.

    “…for the same reasons expressed by JJ above and GB in many comments.”

    I’m confused. GB has specifically predicted that Trump will be authoritatian, and perhaps very much so, but Caesar is better than Lenin, Pinochet is better than Mao, etc.

  77. About all the MSM talk in this thread. I also find this confusing. Yes, I know the MSM is going to be against the Repunlican. Everyone knows that, and a good candidate would be prepared do more than whine about it

    But the media is not a monolith. From a ratings perspective Fox News is no slouch, and it’s become the Trump Network.

    The media gave Trump billions in free advertising. Many of us predicted it would turn on him once he got no?nated. None of this is surprising. And he still has guys like Hannity shilling for him 24×7.

  78. Bill, since Trump has been the nominee I have consistently made my point that our vote for him is for the Constitution and a hope that the framework formed by our founders will be “rediscovered “. The errant press, lame duck (except to encumber us with more debt and regulations), Congress, and faciliatating Supreme Court will take a different approach with ANY Republican president compared to ANY Democrat president, let alone Soros-supported Hillary. Our circling squad party is responsible for every election loss up to now and will be for this one too. The Democrats are monolithic in their support, wheress we have the opposite approach. So for me, every ballot that is not cast for Trump is a tacit vote for Hillary. We can disagree, but that’s how I see it.

  79. Sharon_W

    Time to beat that old dead horse, not your point, but Trump seems to have little regard for the Constitution or to profess the need to restore the role of the Constitution in our government.

    On to another point.

    Why is Trump so interested in the “Bush lied people died” theme as evidenced in his foreign policy speech earlier this week? Trump read from the teleprompter in measured restrained cadence, not a rant this time, not a word salad, but full sentences for a minute or so. The Ben Shapiro Show podcast yesterday (available for free on Soundcloud) has it.

    Trump appears to have a particular hate for G.W. Bush and a propensity for conspiracies, but for the Constitution not a peep.

  80. Neo, you might want to read this article by Sally Zelikovsky in the American Thinker: What’s a Conservative to Do?

    For years elite Republicans and the conservative commentariat have cautioned the grassroots to be wary of riding their principles off a cliff, and now that is precisely what they do! If, by staying true to their conservative principles, they cannot in good conscience vote for Trump and ask us to do the same, haven’t they saddled up their principles and giddy-yapped all the way to the nearest precipice?

    Of course not, they clarify, as they don their superhero capes. By thwarting a Trump victory, they will be saving the GOP and conservatism from certain doom, not tumbling over the proverbial crag!

    Call me jaded but, hello? Conservatism is already on life support and some of the very people who whine about Trump are responsible for its demise and for basically two reasons: first, the lack of political will, that is, the reckless and feckless behavior of Republican politicians who fail to follow through on campaign promises; and secondly, lack of political savvy, that is, Republican candidates do not know how to fight and, when they do fight, they bring a plastic spoon to a cage match. They don’t have a message or the means to deliver one to targeted groups, they talk like egg heads walking on egg shells, they lack the creativity to hone a sound bite and repeat it over and over until it becomes part of the narrative, they’re afraid to talk to the liberal media and, when they do, they are almost always on defense and fail to connect with viewers.

    You’ve done a great job of pointing out all the things wrong with Trump and it’s hard to argue with what you’ve written. But Trump is the people’s choice and I think it’s now time for you to get over it and move on.

  82. “But Trump is the people’s choice and I think it’s now time for you to get over it and move on.”

    Some peoples beg to differ. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary and a tsunami doesn’t float many boats. Trump isn’t riding a wave to victory.

  83. “I strongly disagree that they lead to the same place. Pinochet pales in comparison to a Castro or a Chavez. Not only in numbers killed but most of all, in what they leave behind.” – GB

    You (and I) have NO way of knowing for sure if “Pinochet” is the limit, even assuming that knowingly choosing “Pinochet” is in some way “acceptable”.

    You (and I) have NO way of knowing for sure if “Castro or Chavez” is the end point of clinton’s four years, even if we would agree that assuming that is close to reality.

    It is one thing to see the path that liberal policies will EVENTUALLY take us, but knowing that doesn’t necessarily mean it is written in stone.

    Bottom Line: Once we rationalize ourselves into giving up our freedoms, or the things that help secure our freedoms, it is simply pure speculation that there is any way out in our lifetimes, and times can get rather dark and brutal for a long period before there is a mere glimmer of light to be seen for an end in that tunnel.

    And, remember, there WAS a wealthy and powerful United States of America and its western allies out there doing what they can to change outcomes in these countries.

    Who will there be if we go down this path, to push from the outside?

    Your proposition is both speculative on, at best, tenuous assumptions.

  84. “elite Republicans and the conservative commentariat… cannot in good conscience vote for Trump and ask us to do the same, haven’t they saddled up their principles and giddy-yapped all the way to the nearest precipice… the lack of political will, that is, the reckless and feckless behavior of Republican politicians who fail to follow through on campaign promises; and secondly, lack of political savvy, that is, Republican candidates do not know how to fight” – snoperecod – quote from American Thinker

    Ah… did you notice the transition from that author?

    She talks about “Republicans and conservatives” in her first breath then she talks about the weakness of the “Republican politicians” at the end of her breath. They are NOT one and the same.

    That is a clever trick that the left uses. So, she has evidently learned from them and lost her plastic spoon in this cage match.

    Reality check: Conservatives will express similar concerns about the GOP politicians.

    That is not an argument in support of trump.

  85. “Trump is who we have. Conservative? I don’t care anymore. Conservatism committed physician (GOP) assisted suicide long before Donald Trump… I stand against Hillary Clinton. That’s all I know.” – Emmit F

    That is called throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    You are conflating poor leadership in the GOP with results from following conservative principle.

    If conservatism isn’t the standard, what limiting principles are you employing in the pursuit of defeating clinton? Is there any limit?

  86. OM–My guess is Trump’s opinions about terrorism and how to deal with it will change now that he will have more “inside information”. Whereas his opponent for the presidency has been a principle player in desecrating the sacrifice of blood and treasure that has been our fight against terrorism by lighting a match to the Middle East with her comrade Obama et al, negating all gains that were handed off to them. Someone at Ace commented that our choice is not binary but the outcome will be. I look at it this way: If today I had to follow one of these people into battle (truly we are in a battle for our Republic), who would I follow? Hillary or Trump? There is no question in my mind that I follow Trump and I base this on Hillary’s proven behavior (unconscionable execution of public office and positions) and possibilities that pertain to Trump due to the public, press, Congress and Supreme Court that would likely figure in consequentially for the good if things go awry.

  87. ” I don’t like her or support her but even I know that’s a bunch of hyperbole. She wants us to be Sweden. And that would be very bad, but good grief. “

    Good grief … that your personal and political freedom means so comparatively little to you, that Sweden doesn’t seem worse than it does.

    Yet you speak of principles? What exactly do you think would be preserved if this polity turned into a big Sweden?

    Name, a liberty you would not lose. Tell me why the Individual Shared Responsibility Mandate is already not enough reason to let any son-of-a- **** – Bart Stupak for example – who voted for it drown in 6 inches of dirty ditch water than save him?

    You speak of principle? What bloody principle is being saved by allowing a psychotic She-Stalin in who utters “We came we saw, he died teehehe” so that a an embarrassing buffoon is kept out?

    What are your principles, exactly?

  88. “Speaking of which, when did people like me become the reason he’ll lose? ”

    You might well not be. It is difficult to figure out what your rationale or perspective is. I guess it is that the frog is not quite boiled yet, so we can stand a little more left fascism and fundamental legal and moral transformation, rather than let a clownish reality star and self-promoting egomaniac into the Oval Office.

    Because …. something.

  89. As I read through the comments here and at Ace, it occurs to me that in general there are 2 points of view that dominate the issue about casting a ballot for Trump. In one camp, the primary concern seems to be “conservatism”, saving the brand. In the other, (I’m in this camp), the concern is the “Republic”. I care not a whit for “conservatism” if there is no Republic in which to live its meaning. It reminds me of Lincoln during the civil war. The truth is he had one aim…saving the Republic. A quote: In the letter, Lincoln emphasized his primary goal: “I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.” IMO, Trump may be the impetus to bring about the serious changes in our federal government that need to take place, sooner rather than later.

  90. GB says:

    “What you, I and everyone else here want — a smaller government with less power and a much less powerful Executive branch is not possible. Far too many other people want the opposite. Conservatism will never be dead, just relegated into irrelevance. Until… reality arrives.

    DNW,

    I know of no such person. I know many who would claim to agree but when push comes to shove… ideology rules them because their sense of self-worth lies in political correctness. “

    Yeah, it’s a civic duty performance, and that is all, I am convinced. They know they know what is implied by their voting to elect a malevolent psychopath, and they therefore must make a show of being seriously conflicted.

    Better Hillary, than they face the terror of the mere threat, of eventually, and really, becoming more responsible for their own lives. This is demonstrated by the generally conceded point that no matter what his brilliance and personal integrity and his proven willingness to buck the old boy system, no matter what his commitment to theirs and everyone elses’ freedom, to the rule of law, and to constitutional governance … they would no more vote for Cruz, than they would Trump.

    Related to that: I have recently become utterly convinced that most conservatives are just that … merely drogue chute progressives or stodgy sorts who have almost no real grasp of the fundamental legal issues at hand.

    And therefore, when I characterized Trump’s most fervent supporters as formerly contented welfare state denizens who were mainly peeved that their social safety net patrimony was being taken from them and bestowed upon more putatively underprivileged others, I failed to account for the large number of “conservatives” whose conservativism had almost nothing to do with a radical and moral antipathy to the collectivization of life per se, but mainly with the way it was being done.

    We have been on this road a long time, well before you and I were born as Neo’s essay on the atrocity of Wickard v. Filburn reminded us.

    And now we have Obamacare. A train wreck in the name of social justice – a social justice which conceives of itself as so radically redistributive as to make everyone liable not just for exogenous health threats like say yellow fever or traditional public health concerns, but also for the costs of the autogenous and innate behavioral deficits of others. Jerry has the drunk gene… your insurance rates go up, cause Jerry the drunk cannot afford insurance unless.

    If so-called “conservatives” are not fighting mad over this principle, and don’t see it as one of the most fundamental transformations in the predicate of our sociopolitical life, then Pfft to these so-called “conservatives”. LOL

  91. ” They know they know what …”

    Revision fiasco.

    Just read it as

    ” They fully know what …”

  92. But hey, it was a joke, fellas. We didn’t think you really were all that stupid.-Neo

    I don’t look up to leaders as actual elites or those that have better capabilities than me, so I took that line at its face value. Since it was true, for certain representative populations.

    Stupid is relative, so DC is stupid only relative to some people, not all.

    A Trump victory likely ends the conservative movement, replacing it with a nationalist party with white-supremacist overtones that is isolationist while stirring up trouble abroad

    That’s no different than the Democrats getting their Southern Baptist slave lord plantation back under them, where they controlled poor white migrants, who were a few steps up from a black field slave.

    Everything returns to normal for the Leftist alliance. The homos under the Gaystapo know their place, the blacks under Nation of Islam and Black Panthers know their place. Everyone, even the poor whites, will know their place.

    As for an end of a movement, it’s not likely. If it happens, it’s more likely either result in an election will end or change the movement. One from without, the other from within.

    Do you disagree that Trump doesn’t intend to fundamental transform America? (not that he might but as to his intention) -GB

    A servant of evil serves evil whether they intend to or not.

    Regardless of who wins the election, the power of the Left will remain, and it is the power of evil that transforms America from a land of the brave and the godly, into Satan’s fortress on Earth.

    Trum could resurrect all the saints and heroes of humanity, and he will not be capable of saving human souls. It is humans turning to evil, that has already transformed the United States, into the left hand of Lucifer on this planet.

    Again, that’s not something people can brush past by saying “victory will be ours if Hillary is beaten” or “Trum will stall or save the Republic”. No election, no politician, can save humanity itself, especially not souls, when they don’t even recognize the existence of souls or the divine. Of course, even if they do recognize such existences, they don’t have any power over that. John Fing Kerry was “beaten” in 2004. Guess where he is at now. Keeping him from all of the US’ secrets did a lot of good, given he now has the same access as HRC did. “Beating” Hillary, doesn’t mean anything in that context. Defeating someone in war often requires killing them or breaking them. The Left is not killed. The Left is not broken. Nobody did anything to the Left, except talk smack online so far via Facebook propaganda posters. With some exceptional rebellious groups being an exception, of course.

    Nations and people who have forsaken the protection of the divine, won’t need to fear Marxists. Since half of the country will destroy the other half, under Satan’s rule.

    Not even a Hero King or Trum can do anything about that, using secular power. Since once the heart of the people are corrupted, there is no going back. Creating a civilization based on harmony and prosperity, is a lot harder than crashing one to zero.

  93. And therefore, when I characterized Trump’s most fervent supporters as formerly contented welfare state denizens who were mainly peeved that their social safety net patrimony was being taken from them and bestowed upon more putatively underprivileged others, I failed to account for the large number of “conservatives” whose conservativism had almost nothing to do with a radical and moral antipathy to the collectivization of life per se, but mainly with the way it was being done.

    Human nature applies to Leftists, Democrat white boys, and conservatives as well. People may not have ensured to remember that, because for the past few decades, the fight was between the Left’s lies and Bush II’s advocacy for truth and liberty overseas.

    Most humans are trash, because of the fallen nature of the construction or human nature. It’s easy to see the state of things from that view point.

  94. ” In one camp, the primary concern seems to be “conservatism”, saving the brand. In the other, (I’m in this camp), the concern is the “Republic”. I care not a whit for “conservatism” if there is no Republic in which to live its meaning. “

    I agree, and might even go further. I don’t really think that their calculus is: ‘We have time and losses to spend and can live to fight another day’, but rather that there are some political commitments that are fundamentally “social” and therefore, as they see it, greater and higher than a mere obsession with “selfish” liberty.

    In a sense the question is: Is Rome ours and of value to us only as a creation which effectively serves republican purposes and the preservation of our liberties; or, is it worthy of allegiance because so many, including friends and family have come to depend on it as it is, and to revel in its power and glory and security? And of course, if worse comes to worse we too can always join the parade of flatterers behind the new equine senator the emperor has appointed.

    Not such a bad life really … you get used to it. Still have the things you value most … kind of.

  95. ” Ymarsakar Says: …”

    I think I have failed to add uplift to my criticisms. Sorry to sound so bleak and harsh. Don’t mean to drag you down.

    Ok. Work keeps interrupting my distractions.

    Later

  96. I don’t think the GOP Establishment is stupid, they just don’t particularly care who gets elected president as long as it’s not Ted Cruz. Life in DC is quite good for the congressional leadership, corporate donors, lobbyists and consultants who comprise the GOPe. They know perfectly well that Jeb, Hillary or Marco would be happy to sign any donor-friendly crony-enriching Omnibus bill they put together. Cruz would have refused, and thus was pronounced the devil himself. Trump is unpredictable, and as such was not their first choice, but they think they can work with him.

  97. In your hypothetical, why choose Cruz as the alternative to Trump [your comment at 2:08 AM]? From my discussions on the subject with liberals and moderates, and from polls, I concluded that Cruz probably would have done somewhat better than Trump, but it’s not at all clear that he would have won the election, although he might have. On the other hand, I concluded that almost any of the others would probably have won against her, and Rubio or Kasich would have wiped the floor with Hillary.

    Of course we’ll never know for sure. We can’t experience an alternate history, unlike in novels. But this is my strong suspicion, based on my own talks with people and on polls that were taken during the primaries. I wrote about it quite a few times during the primaries, too, so this is not just me revising history. Trump was the worst possible candidate of all the possibilities, and that was obvious pretty much from the first.

    So here we are.

  98. Neo–I used Cruz as the example because he is the candidate we thought would be the best president of the lot and we voted for him. But I really could have put in any name, because among the liberals (many, many people I know of every ethnicity, socio-economic, education level) the truth is they are ideologues across the spectrum who have bought into (hook, line & sinker) every straw man about Republicans, in general. Among the highly educated, successful, “one-percenters” that make up our clientele (who outwardly live among the progressives) there are a couple conservatives, fiscal matters being the draw where they are concerned.

  99. Sorry to sound so bleak and harsh. Don’t mean to drag you down.

    Oh no, that should not be a worry. I’ve been thinking like that since 2007. I’ve gotten used to it, since human truths shine even through the constant deception of the world and its self serving propaganda.

    In fact, it encourages me that people are beginning to see and declare the true state of humanity itself.

    I’ve already seen numerous cases of “my tribe good”, “your tribe evil” thinking. It helps to spice it up every once in awhile.

    Conservatives and patriots in the US are indeed better than their political opponents. But they are not better than the rest of human nature combined. Thus they can win politics and battles, but they cannot win the battle between good and evil, except by being good. If humans could resist evil until the very end and become good, well we wouldn’t still need a battle for it. It is because they fail to do so, that the fight continues on.

    But this is my strong suspicion, based on my own talks with people and on polls that were taken during the primaries.

    Well you know what I think about polls and people, Neo, so I won’t use up more bytes.

  100. If today I had to follow one of these people into battle (truly we are in a battle for our Republic), who would I follow? Hillary or Trump? There is no question in my mind that I follow Trump and I base this on Hillary’s proven behavior -Sharon

    Now we’ve devolved back to feudalism, I see… not bad.

    In that case, if I was to follow a liege lord, I would do so only if the liege lord demonstrated divine or human virtues. I would not give my power, as a vassal, to a liege lord or promise oaths of fealty, merely because of some enemy I wanted to get revenge on but lacked the secular power to enact.

    After all, pledging your loyalty to evil, which is in collusion with the other evil, won’t end well. Who is to say that your master and leader won’t betray and sacrifice you, in favor of dealing with the evils of humanity? What can you offer your leader that the world cannot?

  101. Sharon W:

    I think you are ignoring the evidence that most of the other candidates would have won. That’s the best evidence we have. For me, it is borne out by my friends and their attitudes. I’ve written about this several times before.

    I liked Cruz, but I had no problem with most of the others, particularly as opposed to Hillary. Most of my friends are not doctrinaire, politically involved liberals or leftists, and most people who vote for the Democrats fit that same description as my friends. This year, a significant number of my friends were ready to vote for someone like Rubio, and they told me so. They are very unhappy with Clinton, but absolutely will not vote for Trump. In fact, they are determined to vote for her in order to stop him.

    He is the worst possible candidate of all of them, by far. And it matters. This was a GOP year for victory. His nomination probably took that away. Cruz was probably the next most iffy candidate for victory, but he was better than Trump.

  102. DNW,

    You wrote: “Good grief … that your personal and political freedom means so comparatively little to you, that Sweden doesn’t seem worse than it does.”

    I used the term “very bad” when I described it. But it’s a response to those who keep arguing that HRC wants to turn us into Siberia, complete with gulags.

    My political freedom is extremely important to me and includes the freedom not to vote for a candidate who I think will be horribly destructive. So I’m voting for neither HRC or Trump.

    “Yet you speak of principles? What exactly do you think would be preserved if this polity turned into a big Sweden?”

    Well, I don’t think it will, at least not over the next four years. We’ll edge more that direction. I am hopeful (as I’ve written ad-nauseum in this space) that a loyal conservative opposition will stand in the gap and help make that not happen. I know all the arguments – SCOTUS, etc. I know them all, But I don’t think just because Trump has an “R” after his name and Rush, Ingram, Coulter and Hannity love him makes him a good Presidential candidate. I don’t want him representing me or this country. It’s really, really unfortunate that the STUPID PARTY nominated him. Losing the Supreme court is going to hurt, a lot.

    It stinks that HRC will most likely be President.

    Stupid, stupid party.

    “You speak of principle? What bloody principle is being saved by allowing a psychotic She-Stalin in who utters “We came we saw, he died teehehe” so that a an embarrassing buffoon is kept out?

    What are your principles, exactly?”

    Principle 1: I believe that electing people with an obvious narcissistic disorder who are sociopaths with no empathy, who have a cruel and vindictive streak a mile wide, who are petty, thin-skinned, and entirely consumed with their own self-aggrandizement is a really, really bad idea. People like that should not be given their own military, state police, and nuclear arsenal.

    Principle 2: I think a vote is a precious thing, and shouldn’t be thrown away as a I scramble like a lemming over a cliff.

    Principle 3: I think a conscience is an very precious thing, and should be respected. I respect people who can’t vote for Trump, or Hillary, or Reagan, or whoever because they feel that it might be an immoral act. I also respect people who feel that the calculus of this year means voting for the lesser of two evils (I just may disagree with them as to which evil is lesser). I can disagree, without treating them like cr@p and assuming their motives are false or hypocritical.

    Principle 4: I try to steer clear of Alinksy tactics even though I know they work. I try to steer clear of propaganda, hyperbole, alarmism, etc. It bothers me that the party I’ve identified with for over 30 years is more and more using those tactics. I have faith that there is one only one Savior and I don’t look for that in a politician, there is One who steers history and I believe (truly) that we will survive either one of these candidates. I know I seem to be whistling past the graveyard at times but I like to think the governance principles we both (I’m sure) would agree on strongly will survive and may even revive over the next 2 years to midterms and 4 years to the next election.

    That’s the best I can do for you regarding my principles. I’m sorry that this is frustrating for you. Peace.

  103. No doubt you are right, Neo, since you actually know people that would have “defected” from the Democrat party. Another reason, I personally don’t have the fear about the Trump presidency is because I am a person that devotes a great deal of time to prayer based on my unwavering belief in the Judeo-Christian God. In January 2008 when I saw that George Soros was going to see to it that Obama was elected, my husband and I began fasting and praying for our nation every Tuesday. And here we are. I believe God is in control and in my “seeing through a glass darkly” understanding, I will throw my lot in with the party that holds to the most Judeo-Christian principles (even if it is only on paper). If our Republic goes down (whether it is in the near or distant future), I accept that God willed it. I’m only called to pray and believe. Results are entirely out of my hand.

  104. Sharon W:

    Well, we are all making our decisions as best we can in a difficult situation.

  105. Even now, people continue to support Trump based on internal fantasy of what THEY THINK he will do. Stand up to Democrats! Stop illegal immigration! The imagination has no limits.

    The problem, as it always has been, is that no one has any idea of what Trump, who has never held office, who has little past history of being a Republican, actually WILL do. He changes political affiliation to suit a new day’s needs, like others change underwear. The only thing anyone should assume is that he will do what he thinks is good for Trump.

    Up to this minute, Trump has viciously ravaged Republicans, and Republicans only, which makes me doubt that his internal belief set is remotely right of center. But, in order to continue to run his Trumpian business schemes, he needs the country to be in one piece, which gives him some incentive to not completely destroy it and its economy.

    The fact that, for the moment, I still plan to vote for this monumental bumbling douchebag is that what is good for Trump is probably a small bit better for me and all that matters to me than what Hillary is certain to do. But that takes steely determination and firm belief that Hillary is a certain disaster. Unless Hillary’s campaign completely implodes with health or investigation disasters, Trump is very unlikely to get the voters in the middle that will decide the election.

  106. Bill: “I believe that electing people with an obvious narcissistic disorder who are sociopaths with no empathy, who have a cruel and vindictive streak a mile wide, who are petty, thin-skinned, and entirely consumed with their own self-aggrandizement is a really, really bad idea.”

    You do realize, don’t you, that that description also applies to Hillary? She’s not quite as overtly narcissistic as Trump, but she has no empathy for anyone who can’t help her. She’s extremely petty, thin-skinned, and vindictive. You need to read the two books by Secret Service men who observed her in the Whitehouse. She is also obsessed with her own self aggrandizement. If she weren’t, she would not have spent all these many years, post her husband’s Presidency, in her quest to be the first female President.

    What is really awful about Hillary is that she is not only a narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, petty, vindictive person, but she has little loyalty to the United States. She and Bill sold technical information to the Chinese for political contributions during his Presidency. Post 2000, they went on a quest to sell their insider knowledge and access to the highest bidders. The Clinton Foundation was set up as a front for this operation. They are, like so many of the progressives, globalists who consider themselves to be citizens of the world. The U.S. is just their business address.

    Hillary used her Secretary of State position to put their money grubbing schemes on steroids. There can be little doubt that she opted for the personal e-mail server, in spite of all the advice to not do so, to hide the connections between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. By doing so, she jeopardized state secrets – a crime when most people do it. It is a reflection of how little regard she has for this country and its people that she would do such a thing.

    In her position as SoS, she ignored requests for more security in Benghazi. Four people died there and she participated in the cover up of who perpetrated the attack and the failures to send relief. Her response in a congressional inquiry was, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans. What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?” That is the statement of a person who has no empathy for those who work for her and no sense of responsibility for her failures in her job. She has no empathy for people who are beneath her exalted station in life, none.

    She may seem less of a sociopath than Trump on the surface, but that is because she has long practice at hiding her real self.

    As President she would be no more loyal to the country than she was as SoS. In addition to her being a grifter and sociopath, she avers that progressive policies actually work. She will raise taxes on businesses and the rich to funnel money into – drum roll please – infrastructure projects. And that will make the economy hum again? Oh yeah, just like the Porkulus Bill did back in 2009. You can also bet on the fact that some of the contractors who get infrastructure jobs, should any actually occur, will also donate some money to the Clinton Foundation. For that is how it works under a Clinton.

    She may seem like a harmless dowager. She’s not. Try to think of a female Scrooge when you look at her. That’s a more realistic picture.

  107. J.J. Says:

    Many are fearful that Trump would be an authoritarian and maybe try to be a dictator.
    Spell out how he is going to accomplish that please.

    I’ve already spelled this out in another thread, but here it is again: get 34 GOP Senators to never vote to convict for impeachment.
    You can’t say it’s far-fetched because it’s already happened with Obama.

  108. Matt_SE, you are out of line. Perhaps you should actually read my posts and then respond with some intelligence, instead of the nonsense you decry in others.

  109. There have been a couple of references to Pinochet as being not as bad as (insert Leftist dictator’s name here).

    Pinochet was the Colin Powell of Chile (the military chief of staff) when Allende was elected. Allende began a very rapid transition from socialism to communism. Pinochet led a junta coup-de-etat. Allende was executed and in the trouble that followed, about 2000 of Allende’s rabid running dogs were shot. That was it.
    Pinochet honored his word to step down, ran for President, was elected. His reforms, including the privatization of Chile’s social security (mirabile dictu!), did wonders for Chile. Pinochet was and is of course demonized by the Left, but he is a great man.

    Unfortunately, Chile has now resumed its descent on the slippery slope of resurgent socialism. But it is still the politically best counrty in South America. Don’t bring up Costa Rica, which is a Green socialist paradise supported by other peoples’ money (touristas).

  110. Sharon W,

    By saying “because of the ‘NeverTrump’ crowd,” you are assigning blame to us for something YOU did. As neo has said, every single NeverTrumper could vote for Trump and it still wouldn’t be enough.
    Trump has alienated too many people, and he did it mostly on his own. If you don’t like the consequences of your own actions, quit acting stupidly.

    And all that doesn’t even get into the question of selling out your principles for expedience, nor telling lies in the service of someone unworthy of such devotion.

  111. Frog: “Unfortunately, Chile has now resumed its descent on the slippery slope of resurgent socialism.”
    Sadly true. I was there two years ago and in Santiago there were student protests for free college education, Communist graffiti painted on buildings, and tension in the air.

    I don’t know why people don’t learn. We now have the same mindset rising here.

  112. Matt S_E: “get 34 GOP Senators to never vote to convict for impeachment.”

    Can you name those 34 Senators? I can name maybe 4 or 5. Under what scenario do you see that many Republicans going the route of the Democrats by endorsing executive Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
    They’re the stupid party, but thus far they have not yet been the party that endorses such activities when it is one of their own. Maybe you know something I don’t. Fill me in.

  113. “I’m relieved your son isn’t 6 years old and dying of cancer, but really wants to see Trump elected.” [Matt SE @ 7:45]

    You use the suffering and death of a child as a hyperbole? As a parent who has lost a child: Shame on you.

  114. “Take your emotional bullying and shove it, lady.

    You elected Hillary the moment you nominated Trump.” [MattSE @7:45]

    Neo, please take note. You have chastised some Trump supporters on several past threads for just such outbusts and ad hominem attacks as typical of many people who support him.

    It would appear that invective is a virus which infects the #Never Trump camp as well.

  115. I also recommend reading Roger Simon’s 8/16/16 essay:

    https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/08/16/game-changer-trump-makes-a-play-for-the-black-vote/?singlepage=true

    In his speech Tuesday night [Trump] the businessman had the temerity to hit them where they really live by going where no Republican on a presidential level has dared to go before.

    [snip]

    Like most on the right, I abhor identity politics. They are inherently divisive and racist in essence. But they are so ingrained in our culture that I suspect the only way to get rid of them is to go through them, to meet the communities head on with sensible and creative conservative proposals. Trump made a great start in this regard Tuesday night. If he continues to go forward with this and makes genuine inroads, it may well prove to be his, or anyone’s, greatest contribution to this campaign.

    And if, in the process, he is able to put a dent in the reactionary monoculture of mainstream media, we should take our hats off to him for a very long time.

    I mentioned Simon’s last point several days ago in my long discussion with Big Maq. If it seems anarchistic or subversive, well there ae more than a few of us subscribing to that goal as a worthwhile project.

  116. T:

    Well, previous GOP nominees have certainly made pitches to the black community. See this 2012 article:

    The NAAAA asked him to come address its members, so he graciously agreed (President Obama, invited, said “NAAAA.”) But Mr. Romney, to be sure an almost luminescent shade of white, wasn’t about to pander to the angry masses, to kowtow to the supposed leaders of the black community, to apologize, ingratiate, prostrate himself in submission or adoration. He went to make his pitch, to sell himself, to ask (directly) for blacks to just take a moment and give him a look before they pull that lever Nov. 6.

    He made clear why he came: “We have to make our case to every single voter. We don’t count anybody out, and we sure don’t make a habit of presuming anyone’s support. Support is asked for and earned – and that’s why I’m here today.” (Oddly, Mr. Obama is doing just that, presuming blacks will support him, no questions asked.)

    And then Mr. Romney got frank: “If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, then a chronically bad economy would be equally bad for everyone. Instead, it’s worse for African-Americans in almost every way. The unemployment rate, the duration of unemployment, average income, and median family wealth are all worse for the black community. In June, while the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent, the unemployment rate for African-Americans actually went up, from 13.6 percent to 14.4 percent.” By the way, it’s even worse for black teens: 39.3 percent….

    George W. Bush made a push for black support during his re-election campaign. He told them, frankly, that they were giving up their bargaining power by backing one party exclusively. Wouldn’t you, he asked, have more clout, leverage, if you played the field, said to Democrats and Republicans: OK, tell me, why I should vote for you?

    Mr. Bush won 8 percent of the black vote in 2000. Four years later, he won 11 percent – and election analysts say his strong support in Ohio (16 percent in 2004 versus 7 percent in 2000) tipped the election.

    So Mr. Romney’s address to the NAAAA, despite the boos, may prove pivotal. He spoke to them like adults – here are your problems and here’s what I’ll do to address them.

    During the primaries, there was a lot of hype about the idea that Trump would do better with black voters than most Republicans have. So far, polls do not support that contention.

  117. Quoting Roger Simon again:

    He declared aloud what almost everyone secretly knows, that the horrifying condition of black people in urban America is at least partly, probably largely, the fault of the media’s darling, the Democratic Party. Their failed liberal policies and exploitation of blacks have been making things worse for African-Americans for decades.

    You quote: “[Romney] went to make his pitch, to sell himself, to ask (directly) for blacks to just take a moment and give him a look before they pull that lever Nov. 6.”

    Trump, OTOH, said:

    The narrative that has been pushed aggressively for years now by our current Administration, and pushed by my opponent Hillary Clinton, is a false one.

    [snip]

    Hillary Clinton-backed policies are responsible for the problems in the inner cities today, and a vote for her is a vote for another generation of poverty, high crime, and lost opportunities.

    and you wrote: “Well, previous GOP nominees have certainly made pitches to the black community.” Do you really mean to imply that these two presentations, these two thoughts, equate?

  118. T:

    Roger Simon jumped aboard the Trump train early in the primaries. He isn’t hiding the fact. He may recover his judgement after November, time will tell./jk

  119. T:

    If I had meant to imply that the two pitches were the same, I would have said so. I did not.

    I was addressing the fact that other GOP candidates have made pitches to the black community. Rand Paul did, too, although he was not the nominee. It is hardly a novel idea.

    What’s more, each one of them made pitches based on what was in the news at the time. The whole Black Lives Matter movement was not ongoing in 2012 or when George Bush was running. Romney discussed (as did Bush) the fact that unquestioning black support for Democrats meant that Democrats didn’t have to do anything to earn black support, and both pointed out that in many ways Republicans were economically better for the black community, as well as better in terms of family values.

    It would take me hours to search their back speeches to see what they said on the topic of black crime. I would guess they actually did try to address it, but I don’t have time to do some sort of exhaustive search on the subject. Whenever anyone—Simon or anyone else—claims that a candidate is doing something that no one else has ever done before, though, I have found that generally, when I do a search, the statement isn’t correct and other candidates have indeed said similar things before. I’m not saying that’s true of what Simon wrote, but it’s certainly been generally true in the past.

    Trump said, “Hillary Clinton-backed policies are responsible for the problems in the inner cities today, and a vote for her is a vote for another generation of poverty, high crime, and lost opportunities.” Romney’s speech is not at all dissimilar. Here’s the text of his speech in 2012:

    I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African American families, you would vote for me for president. I want you to know that if I did not believe that my policies and my leadership would help families of color – and families of any color – more than the policies and leadership of President Obama, I would not be running for president.

    …I am running for president because I know that my policies and vision will help hundreds of millions of middle class Americans of all races, will lift people from poverty, and will help prevent people from becoming poor. My campaign is about helping the people who need help. The course the President has set has not done that — and will not do that. My course will.

    …If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, then a chronically bad economy would be equally bad for everyone. Instead, it’s worse for African Americans in almost every way. The unemployment rate, the duration of unemployment, average income, and median family wealth are all worse for the black community. In June, while the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent, the unemployment rate for African Americans actually went up, from 13.6 percent to 14.4 percent. …

    As you may have heard from my opponent, I am also a believer in the free-enterprise system. I believe it can bring change where so many well-meaning government programs have failed. I’ve never heard anyone look around an impoverished neighborhood and say, “You know, there’s too much free enterprise around here. Too many shops, too many jobs, too many people putting money in the bank.”

    What you hear, of course, is how do we bring in jobs? How do we make good, honest employers want to move in and stay? And with the shape this economy is in, we’re asking that more than ever.

    Free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class. We have seen in recent years what it’s like to have less free enterprise. As President, I will show the good things that can happen when we have more — more business activity, more jobs, more opportunity, more paychecks, more savings accounts.

    On Day One, I will begin turning this economy around with a plan for the middle class. And I don’t mean just those who are middle class now — I also mean those who have waited so long for their chance to join the middle class…

    More here:

    “Do these five things: Open up energy, expand trade, cut the growth of government, focus on better educating tomorrow’s workers today, and restore economic freedom, and jobs will come back to America, and wages will rise again. We have got to do it,” he said to applause.

    “I know the president will say he is going to do those things, but he has not. He will not. He cannot, and his last four years in the White House prove it definitively,” Romney said, followed by boos from the crowd.

    It’s certainly not identical to what Trump said. You wouldn’t expect it to be. But it was pretty hard-hitting and certainly in the same vein, and he was brave enough to get booed for it.

  121. Sharon_W:

    A post from 8 hours ago regarding Trump statements concerning the war in Iraq. I know and worked with the father of a Marine, killed in Iraq. His son was a crew chief on a helicopter shot down by Iraqi “insurgents” who figured out flight patterns and set up AA kill boxes. The pilot got too predictable, all those on board died. I remember the grief and pain Dick P., the father, showed in the work setting. So when Trump played “Monday morning quarterback”to attack GW Bush, and not to even mention HRC I found it especially loathsome.

    Trump’s record on the Iraq was is a proven case of inconsistency and convenient amnesia. Why he chooses to reopen those wounds and take up the Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan arguments is also despicable.

    Trump IMO will betray anyone, except maybe his children. He has betrayed wives, so even the family loyalty trait is pretty shallow.

    Trust who you will. It’s your vote. Heaven help us all.

  122. T:

    The point is that Roger Simon is a Trump supporter so you would agree with his positions, but I repeat myself. Many others were writing similar stuff at Trumpbart months ago, and may still be. I don’t give them the time of day or clicks.

    I read Neo and not Roger for a reason, she still has an open, active mind.

    I’m not looking for boosterism.

  123. I will throw my lot in with the party that holds to the most Judeo-Christian principles (even if it is only on paper).-Sharon

    The GOP doesn’t serve Jesus or God, in a covenant. They serve secular power, which is Lucifer’s domain.

    Abdicating your free will and moral agency, may feel good, but it’s merely promoting the power of Satan on this earth. Btw, I’m sure Hussein’s pastor, Rev Jackson and Sharpton, also pray. But they aren’t praying to Jesus or the Christian God.

    Supporting an earth bound organization that is not obedient to God in a covenant, what is the point of that?

    Christianity has been shattered and is a mere shadow of its former self in 1st AD. No wonder people’s faith are so weak. They have no spiritual connection to the godhead. They pray, yet no divine inspiration or revelation is revealed to them, they receive no orders from on high, merely only from Human Authorities. Now we have self proclaimed Christians like the Black Liberation churches, Hussein Obola, and Westboro Baptists. Plus a bunch of other Southern Baptist pro slavery split offs.

    If everything is in God’s hands, then what is the point of voting or fighting evil? One might as well submit to evil as the Quakers do, and leave everything in the hands of some superstitious power beyond human comprehension. That would be very convenient for Lucifer, if he was fighting a war of good and evil against something and needed to prevent his enemy from being reinforced by the spirit of good souls.

    It would appear that invective is a virus which infects the #Never Trump camp as well.

    How is Matt SE #NeverTrump when 1. There’s no proof he is on twitter in that faction and 2. when Matt said he would be most likely voting Trum…

    The virus that has infected humans is called human weakness. And I merely watch as they destroy themselves, using their own pitiful cries of enmity.

    As for HRC in reply to JJ. Anyone and their families who have supported the Demoncrats, who have voted once for a Demoncrat, are guilty of helping the Ascension of the evil of HRC. Just because you can hate HRC now, doesn’t mean a damned thing compared to the past transgressions of the American people, here included, who helped bring all of this about. To now complain and declare that now, of all times, it is time to band together to stop an evil that people have ignored for so long, is of a distance from hypocrisy.

    Maybe if people recognized the evil of the Leftist alliance years ago, something might have been done. Instead people cried out “Rule of Law”, and “obey the Law”, even as they knew that the Demoncrats controlled the Law using evil. They cried out that we shouldn’t use any “advanced interrogation” tactics against the Left, because they are our fellow countrymen and hey, they voted for plenty of Democrats, so the Demons Are Not the Enemy, they said.

    Well, actually they are. And that’s why Hillary Rod Damn Clinton has ascended as Hussein Obola’s successor, in this Regime.

  124. Also while the GOP would not have been able to copy Leftist tactics before, the new GOP will be the one reconstructed the GOPe’s ashes, reconstructed by the Alternative Right. They, aren’t necessarily “conservative”. They, are going to copy the Left’s tactics. So they will attempt, and perhaps fail, to get 34 votes that refuse impeachment.

    The old GOP is the stupid stupid party. The New GOP under Trum, Trumbart, the Alternative Right, and other band wagon followers for political power, will be something entirely unexpected by patriots, conservatives, and American voters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑