“Why are the polls tightening up?”
…asks Michael Barone. His explanation relies heavily on voter turnout models that might favor Republicans this year because of lack of enthusiasm for Hillary in the Democratic camp, as well as Trump’s recent more presidential presentation of self.
I can offer my own answer, though, and it goes like this:
(1) It was the widening of the polls not too long ago, when Clinton pulled way way ahead of Trump after he hit a rough patch, that was the aberration. In fact, she’s led in the national polls all along and still does, but her lead hasn’t usually been altogether huge except for that recent bump. You might say that this is the correction. She’s still favored to win, but not by odds that are quite as huge (238 now says Trump has a 33% change of winning).
(2) This presidential election has been described as a race to the bottom, and it is. The pattern seems to be that Trump falls more behind by saying or doing something repellent to a host of voters, and then a new and awful revelation comes out about something Hillary did during her tenure as Secretary of State and he comes closer again—close, but so far no cigar. Back and forth, back and forth. Trump, just by reading a speech off a teleprompter and sounding relatively normal as he does it, reassures people that he might not be the raving maniac Hillary’s ads portray him to be. And Hillary, by laying low for a while, tries to give Trump enough rope (and time) to hang himself.
As for me, I sometimes spend my time imagining how I’d feel after a Clinton victory or a Trump one. Unfortunately, both prospects fill me with dread. The dread is different, though, with each one. With Trump, it’s the dread of a loose cannon in the highest office in the land (perhaps the world), a man I have grown to deeply distrust on almost every level. With Clinton, it’s the dread of another leftist presidency, not unlike the one we’ve just experienced since 2008, minus the charm (not that I find Obama all that charming, but he’s charm itself compared to Hillary).
America is doing something similar, with many many voters asking themselves which one it is they dread more. The final outcome will rest on how many say they dread Trump more and how many say they dread Hillary more on the day the election is held.
And there are still two months to go till then. Feels like it could be a long two months. Will the debates happen? Will they matter? I must say I’m looking forward to the debates more than I usually do. I can’t quite imagine how they will go; we’ve never seen Trump in a one-on-one debate situation (he wisely backed out of the GOP debates when it came down to just him and Cruz). One thing I think we can safely predict is that the Trump/Hillary debate will be a contrast of styles and approaches—probably more sharp a contrast than we’ve ever seen before in a presidential debate in this country.
[NOTE: It wasn’t a debate. But if you want to watch yesterday’s Commander in Chief Forum featuring Clinton and Trump fielding questions from Matt Lauer, here’s the video.]
Hillary is slipping. There is nothing that will cause her numbers to improve. As more Wikileaks hit and the FBI information is endlessly analyzed it will become obvious that she won’t win.
When that happens her campaign will collapse.
Choice is what holds the Democrat base together.
Johnson and Weld are both pro-choice. They have been elected and re-elected in Democratic states. They have no negatives to most Democratic voters. They can surge to 34% plus and win.
Once a movement to Johnson/Weld begins it will become a stampede.
Richard I.
They have have the Not HRC/Not DJT factor in their favor. Will their position regarding abortion be a too offensive to no Democrats since DJT is squishy on that position as well? Not being a crook or a con man is unique at this point in the election.
Preference cascade, will it happen?
Hope springs eternal, in the hearts of those, in denial of reality.
Preference cascade – look it up if you want to stay on the high road, Mr. Reality.
On a positive note, the liberal media is starting to sober up.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/06/the-mainstream-media-has-a-donald-j-trump-sized-blind-spot.html
Interesting that you find Obama more charming by comparison. I don’t like Hillary’s voice, but I don’t find her charmless. I just don’t like the cold hard facts of what she has done. If politics were aside, she might be fun to drink with.
Obama still just gives me the creeps, even though I don’t dislike his voice or his appearance. He’s got a personality disorder, probably Narcissistic, and he’s just soul-sucking whenever I listen to him.
Gary Johnson said: “What’s Aleppo?”
I know a news person who was on Obama’s plane in 2007, when he still seemed a long shot, and he said Obama was/is the most arrogant politician he’d ever been around.
This from someone who’s black, and who found John McCain to be a regular guy.
My friend changed his tune later on, by fixating on Sarah Palin’s deficiencies an by, when I pressed him, saying that he’d never voted for a Republican in his life and never would.
Neo:
“Unfortunately, both prospects fill me with dread. The dread is different, though, with each one.”
The either/or dread overlaps at the overarching social cultural/political corruption from either the (further) advancement of the Gramscian march by the Democrat-front Left or the elevation of the Gramscian march of its cousin, the Left-mimicking, JV-graduating Trump-front alt-Right.
Either way, it’s urgently incumbent on center-right conservatives and center-left liberals to collectively rally as activists to compete sufficiently throughout the social spectrum versus both inimical activist movements.
OM,
The term “preference cascade” is self-explanatory but not having encountered it before, I did look it up.
Such a cascade is possible, especially in this election but IMO would be far more likely to occur in favor of Trump, than of Johnson. Every terrorist attack boosts Trump’s chances. Iran is angling to create events in the Strait of Hormuz in hopes of creating an excuse to cancel their ‘deal with Obama. Those are the only outward events I foresee as creating a cascade and no, I do not think of myself as omniscient. Feel free to suggest other possibilities.
I base my assessment of Johnson’s chances on a lack of name recognition, electoral inertia and coming up empty when imagining what outward events or circumstances could lead to such a cascade resulting in a turning to Johnson.
Trump can dig the hole he’s in deeper but Hillary keeps him from permanently burying himself.
It would take something truly unforeseen and massively impactful to occur to create a cascade of voters so large as to win the electoral college for Johnson.
Possibly, such a cascade may occur in favor of Stein. Hillary still can fall much further. But that would not put Stein over the top either.
“the elevation of the Gramscian march of its cousin, the Left-mimicking, JV-graduating Trump-front alt-Right” Eric
What institutions does the “Left-mimicking, JV-graduating Trump-front alt-Right” threaten with a Gramscian March through the Institutions? What actual inroads have they made into which institutions?
Judging by the news… Not academia. Not the mass media. Not the federal bureaucracy. Not Congress or the Courts. Not the military. Nor State and local institutions…
Arguably, only internet blogs have been invaded by that “Left-mimicking, JV-graduating Trump-front alt-Right”.
The media has an interest in this being a horse race. At times they don’t cover what they should about clinton. At other times, they seem more than happy to poke a toe into the pond and create ripples.
It seemed not much different during the GOP nomination race.
I figure Trump will end up winning. Not a prediction, just preparation. Hillary is so awful.
He’s awful too. it will be hard to take either way. I think in his win the fact that the thuggish and frightening Alt-Right also wins and gains power will be the most depressing, followed by the fact that the pseudo-conservative media (Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, Rush) also will “win”.
The conservative movement will lose, either way we go. With Hillary it will lose an election. With Trump it will lose itself entirely for a generation, except in small, powerless pockets.
GB: “Arguably, only internet blogs have been invaded by that “Left-mimicking, JV-graduating Trump-front alt-Right”
Until he wins. Then they are going to invade the highest levels of power.
“Until he wins. Then they are going to invade the highest levels of power.” Bill
Yes, Trump can appoint people in the executive branch to the highest levels of power. He can affect SCOTUS and federal judicial appointments to the degree that the Senate… cooperates. But a Gramscian March through the Institutions takes generations to accomplish.
To do it in the time frame you imply prompts the question; how do they do that legally? Revoke the media’s broadcasting licenses? Control the internet? Upon what legal basis? Fire all the teachers? Revoke tenure in the Universities? Fire all the federal bureaucrats? Again, how do they legally do that? How do they get rid of the plethora of activist liberal judges that now infest the federal judiciary?
The best Trump can do is make a start, at best the way Reagan did and we saw how transitory were those changes.
This is part of why I can’t see how Trump can, beyond a certain point, constitutionally deliver on his promises. Nor are executive orders a panacea, as they are revocable by any future President.
What happens to a liar when he dies? He lies still. I believe exactly this will happen to Crooked Hillary quite soon.
Gary Johnson really did step in it when he was asked what he would do about Aleppo. His face was blank. He really had no idea what Aleppo was. Along with his boasts about smoking weed almost daily, how many people are going to want him making foreign policy? We think Obama has been a master of uninvolvement and disengagement. This suggests that Johnson would double down on Obama’s foreign policy. Arrrggghhhh!
It’s a binary choice. And both candidates are badly flawed. Whatever your choice at the top, don’t neglect to vote for Republicans down ticket. That might, just might, preserve the Republic for a bit longer.
Hillary is a conventional corrupt politician but Trump seems to drag everyone down to his level. Look at the level of commentary on the Internet where people who could make sound, cogent arguments now sound like goon squad leaders. Trump betrays and corrupts everyone he works with or touches.
I’ve been reading Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations again after learning Adm. Stockdale relied on this while a POW and quoted it in his VP run with Perot. Most people didn’t get the references and thought he was insane. Trump has no higher goals in terms of personal integrity or service to the republic.
We are truly screwed and deserve it.
Geoffrey Britain:
Any ideology ruthless and determined enough that gains the reins of power can influence all institutions quite quickly, and can effectively propagandize the majority of a population. The slower Gramscian March through the institutions is utilized by movements not yet in power.
neo,
In theory yes and under certain conditions in the real world too, as Hitler proved. Perhaps those conditions could arise under a Trump but I don’t see the prerequisites in place to effect such a transition here in America. IMO, the country is too polarized AND balkinized for the alt-r to succeed in such a fast March through the Institutions.
I also do not see a coherent ideology in the alt-r comparable to the Left. The alt-r radicals are much more anarchic and anarchy abhors organization.
And for the alt-r to pull off such a necessarily ruthless coup they would need the backing of a military that had been persuaded that their oath of allegiance to the Constitution required them to support a dictatorship.
I can see that happening on the Left at some future date but do not see the preconditions needed for it to happen on the right. And I can only see that happening on the right in reactive rebellion to a coup initiated by the Left.
Eric Says:
Either way, it’s urgently incumbent on center-right conservatives and center-left liberals to collectively rally as activists to compete sufficiently throughout the social spectrum versus both inimical activist movements.
That’s what America needs: activists on the hard left, hard right, and in the middle. Activist, activists everywhere.
I think I see a flaw in your plan, Eric.
Exaggeration of risks posed by HRC and minimizing risks posed by DJT in support of oft stated position. While heaping scorn on any consideration of any other options, because “I do not see…”
OM,
It would be greatly helpful in my seeing the alternative you see if you would articulate it.
That you dismiss as “exaggeration”… 25 million new ‘undocumented’ democrats, a permanently liberal/leftist SCOTUS majority and ever deeper indoctrination of current and future generations into the Left’s memes and narrative… is an indication of willful blindness. If you dispute that, offer evidence or at least a reasoned rationale as to why under Hillary those factors will not eventuate. Otherwise, all you’re doing is whistling past the graveyard.
I have NOT minimized the risks inherent in electing Trump. In fact, I have repeatedly specified them. It’s fine to dispute my conclusions, fine to dispute the facts but dishonest to erect strawmen.
Only in your ‘fevered imagination’ is stating that I see no other factors or rational conclusions… “heaping scorn on any consideration of any other options” in fact, I’ve asked you, more than once, for you to provide other options and other than silence, all I get is your continual contempt and innuendo. If not a troll, you certainly emulate their methods.
25 million new ‘undocumented’ democrats
How? Obama has been thwarted, so how does Hillary get away with what Obama couldn’t accomplish? By what legal authority can she do this without Congress?
a permanently liberal/leftist SCOTUS majority
There are several ancient leftists on the court right now who could step down while Obama was still in office (or at least they could a year ago). They didn’t.
Who says ANY of them are going to die/retire in the next 4 years? You can bet the conservatives won’t retire.
indoctrination of current and future generations into the Left’s memes and narrative
Why are so many young turning away from Hillary? I don’t see this situation getting any worse than it already is.
Everything will be fine. Get over yourself.
Honest question GB – why do you assume that all immigrants will be democrats?
Follow up – is there any way the GOP can sell a vision of conservatism, limited government, personal responsibility to new arrivals, or should we just assume there’s no hope there and keep chasing the illusion of (I guess) no illegal (or even legal) immigration from non Europeans? Only white people are conservatives?
I’m for enforcement of immigration law. But I see no way that the current GOP stance of desperately trying to cling to a white majority future is realistic, sustainable (or moral).
Geoffrey Britain:
You seem to suffer from a failure of imagination about what the alt-right is capable of (you don’t seem to lack imagination about the left; just the alt-right).
And I don’t think you’re familiar enough with the alt-right, and with what a significant number of them believe and want.
Nor would it be a fast Gramscian march. A Gramscian march is by definition slowish, and accomplished by outsiders infiltrating institutions and taking them over, and gaining power that way (by affecting people’s beliefs and minds) before they gain much in terms of numbers in public office. What I’m saying is that no such march is necessary once tyrants get the reins of power. They just take over, period, whether people are simpatico to their point of view or not. They imprison or exile or kill those who won’t get with the program.
It is my strong and distinct impression that many on the alt-right would be only to happy to do this if they ever got power. Constitution? What’s that? Trump may not be one of them, but they think he is their useful tool, and one of his many advantages is that he has no reverence for the limits set by the Constitution (if he even knows what those limits are).
“for you to provide other options and other than silence, all I get is your continual contempt and innuendo. If not a troll, you certainly emulate their methods.”
When Johnson, or French, or anyone else besides Trump is raised as an alternative or is brought up you respond with “I don’t see it,” or some high handed put down for being blind, delusional, a fool, or of low character, a slanderer. Then you retreat to the high road and play the victim. Poor Geoffrey.
This isn’t a university where I pay to hear your wisdom, and learn from someone who is recognized as an authority on the basis of credentials or accomplishments. It is a forum of opinion, some wise and some otherwise. It is rare that anyone provides citations or references to substantiate their opinions.
To whoever:
Cascade preference?
https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/09/08/wapo-poll-gary-johnson-takes-double-digits-in-42-states/
Inconceivable!
Matt_SE,
You don’t think they’ve given up on “comprehensive reform”, do you? How Hillary gets what Obama couldn’t is through cumulative, repetitive pressure until finally the logjam breaks. The GOPe is salivating at the prospect of ‘reformed’ immigration legislation. All the major corporations want it. Only the House stopped it before but Ryan wants it and he’s much smarter than Boehner. They’re going to try, try, try again until they get it. What both party’s want, eventually happens. They just haven’t found the right ‘packaging’ to sell it yet.
As for SCOTUS, they don’t need for conservatives to retire. If Hillary’s the Pres. a 5/4 majority is in the bag without Roberts. And, eventually Thomas will either retire or die.
It’s true that many of the young are turning away from Hillary… but toward Bernie ‘I love Castro’ Sanders.
“It’ll be fine.”
Famous last words… reportedly heard aboard the Titanic.
Bill,
Actually, I don’t think they’ll all vote democrat, just enough to tip the balance. 70+% of immigrants vote democrat. Best explanation I’ve seen is that the vast majority today come from socialistic societies. Open borders with immediate benefits that exceed what most veterans get are an irresistible incentive. Illegal immigration will continue at excessive levels as long as nothing substantively changes.
Sure the vision can be sold, to the exceptional who expect to exceed. But for the average person of modest talents, it will only find fallow ground having been raised in a culture where the qualities embodied within that vision are inculcated from a young age.
It’s human nature to take the easy way unless contrary values have been ground into the individual’s soul from an early age and repetitively reinforced by parental and societal expectations. It’s much easier to blame others than to accept personal responsibilities. Much easier to feel entitled than to earn what we claim. Much easier to say, contraception is her responsibiity since it’s her body and her choice.
You’re right that a whites only society is neither achievable or desirable. But it’s NOT the color of the skin, it’s the cultural values embraced. Which is why it’s so frustrating to hear blacks rant on about racist America, rather than examine the cultural values they reject and/or neglect. The foremost ones being the father’s familial obligations and both parents presenting a united front in promoting the value of education.
Racial socioeconomic success is not possible when the values that result in success are neglected and/or rejected, no matter how much reparations they are given. All reparations do is deepen the dependence. But that is a truth that they do not want to hear. Which is why the sale is so hard.
OM,
I list the reasons why I don’t see it. Rather than respond substantively, it is you that issues personal attacks and when called on it, ignores it and then pretends you never did it. That’s basically dishonest and then to compound the offense, you accuse me of that which you are guilty of. That’s a fine emulation of Alinskyite tactics, perhaps you could offer a seminar in it? Nor have I ever asked for citations to substantiate an opinion. That’s an “appeal to authority”.
Sorry neo, once they had the reins of power, I just don’t think it possible for Trump and the alt-r, to imprison, exile and kill those who refuse to get with the program. I don’t dispute that some would like to do so, I just don’t see the ability for them to carry that off.
That’s because as presently constructed, neither the US military, federal agencies, State and local forces in America are going to support a right-wing dictatorship. And, given the momentum toward the left in those orgs, I’m very doubtful that creating that support could be accomplished in less than a decade.
To persuade otherwise, show me where the logistical and organizational resources reside to accomplish such a scenario. When Trump starts to create his brownshirt thugs and his SS, then I’ll be open to that scenario.
Why polls tighten? Because the main Trump’s negative is that he is an unknown figure, while Clinton’s main negative is that she is crooked. As campaign goes, Trump becomes less and less unknown, but Clinton looks more and more crooked.
“ruthless and determined enough that gains the reins of power can influence all institutions quite quickly,”
<<
I'm sure a Pres. Trump will try use his power against his opponents in a personal, unseemly way. But really, unless he is firing hundreds, or thousands of University Presidents, he is not really going to have influence on Academia — and it's hundreds of thousands of K-12 teachers that would have to change significantly for him to have a significant change on gov't schools.
The polls will get closer because a) Trump's words are being compared to Hillary's words — while b) Hillary's actions show her words are lies. And c) Trump has no gov't actions, but Hillary has lots of past failures.
What will (lyin') Trump do? His words do NOT bind him — I don't know what he'd do, tho I do believe he'd appoint conservative SCOTUS. That, alone, is enough to decide me.
See Instapundit — the US Civil Service has become a Dem election machine, willing to accept illegal acts by candidate Clinton rather than use their power to enforce the laws.
Neo, you claim w/o US evidence that a Trump (R) could be just as lawless as Hillary has already been. But with gov’t, media, and academia all filled with anti-Reps, I sincerely don’t believe it.
Yes, the elite Reps have been spineless — when it came to pushing a conservative, small gov’t agenda. But if Trump had a similar scandal of national security, and the DOJ (D) and FBI (D) were pushing for indictment and claiming he had done illegal stuff, with the media shouting; I’m certain that most Reps would be happy to “take the moral high road” and dump him.
Checks and balances — only a Dem/ Socialist (like Hitler was a Socialist) can get the bureaucracies to support their take over. Like in Venezuela — starting with offering free (gov’t) money to all friends / allies, plus some to the poor. Which Works! Until the gov’t runs out of other people’s money…
Hillary’s worst stuff will NOT be checked, but Trump’s will. As more folk think about this, they’ll see that America can survive and recover from the worst Trump actually does — but may not from what Hillary actually does.
GB – please keep up the good work.
Neo, I think your fear of the almost powerless alt-r, who as yet have not even had real violence against any Dem political rally, unlike Dem violence against Trump supporters; your fear and distaste of these racists & anti-Semitics is exaggerating their influence on Trump.
Plus — Brietbart TV folk are now working with Trump. So he’s already improving the folk around him, and they don’t seem like tyrants to me.
Tho, yes, they probably support Hillary, like I do:
Hillary For Prison << the button I think Trump should start wearing.
Sergey:
Trump is not an unknown figure. He’s one of the most known figures in the US.
It is unknown exactly what he what DO as president, because he’s never held political office and because he expresses alternating views and contradicts himself. But as a figure, as a person, his character is well known.
Geoffrey Britain (also Tom G):
I used “imprison OR exile OR kill” as examples of what such regimes have done in the past. I did not say that it was necessary to do all three (you use the word “and,” which I did not), or that the tactics of the alt-right would be limited to those things. There are plenty of other ways to intimidate people and threaten them, some overt and some covert (economic, job-related, blackmail, lawsuits, investigations, all sorts of things). It’s not hard; most people are rather easily intimidated.
There are also two different arguments on two somewhat different but related issues going on here. The first is can it happen here at the hands of the alt-right, and whether they would like it to happen (answers: yes). The second is will it happen. As to that one, I don’t know. But it definitely could happen, and I think your failure to see that is a failure of imagination. There’s no need to see the brownshirts now. Once it is clear that something like that is actually happening, it is already too late.
I suggest that you delve deeper into how it happened in Germany. I have read most of an extraordinary book that describes that process in minute detail, and it is very plausible how it could be extrapolated to here. People thought they could stop it in Germany, actually, and the book describes step by step why they could not. The book is called The Nazi Seizure of Power, and if you read one book on the subject, read that. There are others, of course.
To Tom G—don’t think the alt-right are influencing Trump. I think they are aligned with him and plan to use him as a steppingstone.
Tom G:
“…(the alt-r) racists & anti-Semitics…
The alt-right were instrumental in first taking over obscure conservative sites like conservativetreehouse.com and then turning a powerhouse like Breitbart.com into Trumpbart.com, for which Andrew Breitbart is spinning in his grave. Then, from these sites, through the perpetuation of lies, smears, innuendo, distortions and rumors, amplified if not started by Trump himself, nearly managed to destroy the reputation and career of a damned good man, a solid conservative like Ted Cruz, for the sin of being Trump’s closest competitor.
Without the alt-right and their vicious on-line presence, Ted Cruz would, and should, be the nominee, with Trump dropping out halfway through for lack of support. So, are you proud that “racists & anti-Semitics” are one of the major reasons we have an unprincipled, unscrupulous liberal Democrat attention-whore as our nominee instead?
geokstr:
But he (DJT) is the only viable alternative to HRC, and some weep that it is so, some truly do weep that it is so. /s
The Gateway Pundit is another site that is part of the alt-right Trump train.
Not to quibble, but the correct appellation for the only viable alternative to HRC is Mr. Democrat Attention- Whore. 🙂 /jk
So-called “fascists” in Europe (actually, nativists and euroskeptics) are now the main firewall against unholy alliance of Islamonazists and leftists, and our only hope to save true european values and culture from annihilation. In coming decades, political triumph of these far-right parties will be the best option, considering alternatives. I wonder if analogue dynamics can be applicable to USA as well to reverse all the ruinous consequences of neo-Marxist destruction of traditional society, Judeo-Christian moral and personal freedom. Call me neo-fascist, if you like; I would not object. Always has a sympathy for Franco and Pinochet, and even Mussolini looks for me not as bad as leftists portrait him. His political opponents were much worse.
geocostr: Solid conservatism has zero chance to win general election in today USA, its appeal is too narrow for that. Much better chances has populism augmented with libertarian streak, states rights and, let us not close eyes on it, white suprematism of the working class. Such mixture can not be ideologically consistent, as all protest movements usually are not, it is full of contradictions and demagogy as well, but it is a winning combination.
neo,
Sorry, there is indeed a difference between OR & AND, it was unintentional I assure you.
I do agree that it can happen here. I just don’t agree that it could happen under Trump. As, the evidence of the needed logistics, resources and organization to accomplish it are not evident.
Yes, by the time brownshirts and SS appear it may well be too late but the pre-conditions of needed logistics, resources and organization to support those thugs must first exist.
That said, I’m not disputing that the alt-r couldn’t greatly strengthen itself and lay the organizational resources to use Trump as a springboard into dominance. In fact, I’ve directly alluded to that scenario with my prior reference to both Caesar and Pinochet.
Truth and justice are always threatened from both the left and the right. Tragically, it’s part of the human condition.
More evil ideology imported from Europe (alt-right). As if the home grown progressives (Teddy, Hoover) and democrats (Wilson, FDR) from the early 20th haven’t been destructive enough.
Those dead white slave-owning males from the 18th and early 19th century just haven’t got the solutions needed in these modern times./p That’s been the propaganda since the 1890’s.
Republican party has now a stark choice: becoming an ideological sect permanently losing elections and gradually fading into irrelevance, or reinvent itself as a wide tent for everybody who hates Progressivism more than anything else. If second alternative were chosen, alt-right would be an organizing kernel for that. It would become not a party of Abraham Lincoln anymore, but rather a party of Andrew Jackson.
Sergey
If the GOP continues to morph into a freaking WHITE SUPREMACIST party, they can screw any chance of ever getting a single vote from me, up or down ticket.
I’m already thinking of just voting all third party. Or perhaps only voting for Republicans that actively opposed Trump.
What you are presenting as the thing that will save the Republican party results in it being a party I can’t be a part of. So – lose, lose.
So, step 1 – Trump has got to lose in November, and take his thuggish Alt-Right movement (it is his. He’s not an innocent bystander) and all the false-conservative pundits with him. I realize that he probably won’t lose, and if he does they’ll probably stick around, but my dearest hope is that Trumpism will truly pass and the Alt-right with it. And good riddance.
The conservative movement doesn’t have to lose it’s soul. It has to lose it’s fear. Conservatives are losing because they are afraid of brown people, black people, etc. Not trying to convince, not trying to reason people into the better vision of conservatism (limited government, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, freedom, etc). No – they’d rather erect walls (I’m not even talking here about THE wall, which I’m kind of on the fence about, no pun intended) between themselves and the dusky heathen.
I’m ex-GOP. But I’m still a conservative. I have to hope there are a lot of us out there, and that fascism (your word to describe what’s happening) won’t win here.
P.S. – GB – Like the company you’re keeping?
Weimar Republic of 1930 is a poor comparison to modern USA. Classical fascism and Nazism belong to industrial era, first half of 20th century, in postindustrial societies and America especially such things are not possible. Even in pre-war Britain Nazi movement could not take root, just as American Nazi was a marginal phenomenon. To identify hard-right or alt-right as analogue of Nazi is a leftist smear campaign, a bogeyman with no evidence in reality.
Bill: It makes sense to be afraid of black people, brown people, etc., because of their proclivity to violence, hooliganism, poor self-restraint and general backwardness. Would you voluntary walk into inner city ghetto at night? Probably, no, and most white people in USA (still 70% of population) would not also. That is why at first possibility they flee into suburbs, and if they can afford, into 100% white gated communities.
Sergey:
“To identify hard-right or alt-right as analogue of Nazi is a leftist smear campaign, a bogeyman with no evidence in reality.”
Even a leftist can recognize a threat and danger, and the Left’s goals are dangerous and a threat too. There is evidence to support the alt-right as a threat and danger.
I’m not a leftist, nor is Neo, nor is Jonah Goldberg.
Sergey, just curious, are you form the USA or from elsewhere?
Just asking because of your name.
Also – why do you assume I’m white?
Bill, I am a Russian Jew from Moscow. And I do not assume you are white: black ghettos are just as dangerous for blacks as for whites, at least criminal statistics from Detroit and Chicago attests so.
In modern USA even non-leftists often uncritically accept some propaganda cliche of the Left. For example, many non-leftists believe in AGW, in equal value of different cultures, in normality of homosexuality, in possibility of radically improve human nature and do not believe in biological reality of human races. Only hard-right are free from these ideological illusions.
Sergey – thank you.
Racism is a particularly un-American value (as I measure what it means to be an American). We have many racial sins in our past and much work still to do and I have no interest in re-committing past sins.
I’ve been in inner-city neighborhoods – in the daytime. I was warned by the inhabitants there not to be on certain streets at night. But that’s a poverty issue/fatherlessness issue/generational neglect issue, not a race issue. People are people, and I won’t follow someone who is pitting the races against each other (regardless of their color. Obama has done this too).
Also – extremely not interested in a hard-right/alt-right future. Will do everything I can to stop that (very little though I can do).
I stand by what I said – if the GOP thinks it will win by appealing to/hoping for/encouraging/hallucinating about a white-supremacist future, it’s cr@pping in its own hat.
One reason I’m ex-GOP. Amazing how a party can go down so quickly. Stupid party . . .
Among Trump supporters are such pundits as Roger L. Simon, David P. Goldman, Andrew Klavan and many other reputed conservatives, whom nobody can accuse of anti-Semitism or racism. Recently, Trump opened his campaign offices in several Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria with high numbers of USA expats who are eligible voters. Most of them by American standards are hard-Right or far-Right.
“P.S. — GB — Like the company you’re keeping?” Bill
I’ve repeatedly made it very clear how unhappy I am with the rationale that has led to the conclusion that we have to vote for Trump.
So, I enjoy their company no more than the leftist company you’ll be keeping… having done your part to usher in Hillary.
Evidently you’ve forgotten that “politics makes for strange bedfellows”? Not to worry, no doubt your leftist bedfellows plan to remind you.
See? I can make snide remarks too.
Sergey,
Many conservatives will not support racism in either direction.
There will be no party worth keeping, if the GOP ‘reinvents’ itself “as a wide tent for everybody who hates Progressivism more than anything else”. A party of NO! has no future. A party with only, what’s in it for me? Hasn’t a future either. “You have to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything” (various attributions)
Race-bating did not began with Obama, it has been for decades a standard tactic of Democrats. I agree that in its origin social ills of black ghetto are products of poverty/fatherlessness/generational neglect, but this was a consistent policy of Democrats to perpetuate this situation and block any measures to improve it – from school choice to welfare reform. Actually, as Frencis Fukuyama demonstrated in his book “Great Disrupture”, this situation was created by Democrat polices in 60-es. So Trump was right to ask black voters: what are have to lose by voting Republican?
“See? I can make snide remarks too.”
GB – the difference is you are voting FOR this.
I’m not voting for Hillary and you know I’m not voting for her.
So after you vote: Trump +1, Hillary +0
After I vote: Trump +0, Hillary +0
You’re helping him. I’m not helping either of them. You and I aren’t equal in this.
And I wasn’t trying to be snide. The mask is slowly coming off the Trump campaign. Admiration from the candidate himself for dictators. Repugnant racism from the vile alt-r, white supremacist wing.
I don’t recognize this party anymore.
Sergey:
“Among Trump supporters are such pundits as Roger L. Simon, David P. Goldman, Andrew Klavan and many other reputed conservatives, whom nobody can accuse of anti-Semitism or racism.”
Yes they have concluded that DJT is less a risk than HRC. That is their decision, not mine; no to DJT and no HRC is my position.
That is not the same as supporting the alt-right or condoning DJT’s coy flirtations with the alt-right.
Keep the apples and oranges separate, please./j
“So, I enjoy their company no more than the leftist company you’ll be keeping… having done your part to usher in Hillary.”
Over the top again.
“That is not the same as supporting the alt-right or condoning DJT’s coy flirtations with the alt-right.”
OM, I hear what you’re saying (and I know this is what GB is saying as well) – but I’m not so sure. I think voting for Trump is supporting the Alt-right, because I think they will completely take over the GOP if he’s elected.
Also – I don’t think Trump is coyly flirting with them. I think he is himself Alt-R and he’s surrounded himself (including his current campaign manager) with Alt-R thugs.
A party of “NO” to Progressivism has a bright future of a party of return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for traditional gender roles, coupled with a libertarian or otherwise conservative approach to economics. Such ideology is called neoreactionary movement, or Dark Enlightenment, and while liberals often smear it as neo-fascist, this is the most probable future for Europe and for USA as well. History often has pendulum-like motion, and this is a high time for reversal of all fallacies originated from French Enlightenment. Watch for electoral successes of Front Nationale by Marine Le Pen.
Bill:
Hard to believe that I gave DJT the benefit of the doubt. Can DJT lie 100% of the time, I don’t know?
GB says a lot but it’s best to quote him or be accused of slander.
And I agree with you regarding DJT’s alt-right toadies and staff. It’s another indication of his character, hiring only the best you know.
Alt-right is not monolithic group with clear-cut ideology, they are very diverse and actually are a party of “NO” both to Progressives and to traditional mainstream conservatives. Some are really disgusting, other are quite reasonable and moderate. As history of European far-right demonstrates, in order to transform themselves from marginal status to a party which can win election, they need to purge themselves from odious members and ideologies and became more respectable to masses while harness popular disgust of these masses to establishment, as a revolutionary counter-cultural force. French FN is the best example of this transformation.
Bill,
“GB — the difference is you are voting FOR this.”
No and yes. No, I’m voting to avoid Hillary’s Presidency, through the only means that I believe will work. Again, I don’t believe there’s any other viable choice, so yes I’m voting for what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils. And, of course I could be wrong about that but lacking 20/20 hindsight… I have to go with where logic and reason leads.
Obviously you disagree.
As for voting, you’re insisting that a refusal to vote for Trump will not assist Hillary. But in a closely contested state, your refusal reduces Trump’s vote total by one. Cumulatively, those add up and could easily hand a critical swing state to Hillary.
Johnson currently has 10%+ in 42 states. That may throw the election to Hillary, as surely as those who voted for Perot threw the election to Bill Clinton.
You’re arguing that a refusal to vote just reduces the overall vote total, so it doesn’t affect the count. But it does affect the count because it effectively changes the percentage of those on the right and left, especially when cumulative percentages are considered.
Here’s an illustration; take the Senate with 100 Senators, 51 GOP to 46 democrat. If five on the right abstain, it reduces the total votes to 95 but changes the percentage from 51 on the right and 49 dem… to… 46 right to 49 democrat. If the dems are united, they carry the vote.
The same dynamic applies in any swing state.
So the correct illustration is; After I (refuse to) vote: Trump -1, Hillary +0… which effectively puts her up one vote on Trump.
“I wasn’t trying to be snide.”
My mistake, correction accepted, apology offered.
Thanks GB, no apology needed. I wasn’t “trying” to be snide, but I can certainly see how what I said was offensive. So let me extend my apology to you.
But on this:
“So the correct illustration is; After I (refuse to) vote: Trump -1, Hillary +0… which effectively puts her up one vote on Trump”
No it doesn’t, not even a little bit. It only does if somewhere in the US constitution or election law I am required to vote GOP and I don’t.
This idea that as a citizen who normally votes conservstive the GOP owns my vote and if I don’t offer it I’m somehow ripping off the GOP candidate is strange to me. I’m not buying (with my vote) what he’s selling because his product is cr@p.
So for you’re analogy: the Hillary store is selling used diapers and the Trump store is selling intestinal parisites. I give neither my money and they both net $0 gain from me.
Your analogy only makes sense if I break into Trump’s Parasite Paradise and steal five bucks from the till. Which isn’t what I’m doing.
… sigh, grammatical mistakes, use of “analogy” when I meant “example” (within my larger analogy . . .)…
Bill
Please address and if possible, disprove my example using the Senate. Specifically, how if enough refrain from voting it changes the percentages of right to left, throwing the vote to the other side.
Here’s how the analogy breaks down.
Senators are elected to represent their constituents, almost always as either a Democrat or a Republican (Left or Right). So if my Republican Senator does not vote on an important bill where a conservative vote is needed I have a right to be angry at him/her and suggest that by not voting they were supporting the other side.
These people are representatives sent to do a job – sent to represent the wishes of their constituents.
I represent (with my vote) only myself. Just because I voted for Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2, Bush 2, McCain and Romney doesn’t mean that I owe the GOP my vote this year.
If I was contractually, legally, or morally obligated to vote R and I decided not to vote R you’d have a case. But thankfully I’m not (although plenty are arguing the morality of supporting or not supporting Trump with our votes)
Does that make sense? Help me see where I have this wrong.
“As for voting, you’re insisting that a refusal to vote for Trump will not assist Hillary.” – GB
With this and other similar posts you have made, you are confusing mathematical operation with moral imperative.
If a wife insists on divorcing her husband, even though he threatens suicide, is she “responsible” for his death by following through with the divorce?
According to your “logic” she would “own” it.
Common sense would say that while her decision / action may end with that result, she does not “own” that result, as it was someone else’s choice to take that action.
Guys,
I’m talking about electoral consequence. Bill, I used the Senate as a mathematical example of how abstained votes can affect the outcome, due to the percentage changing in the right vs left of the total. I’m arguing that the same dynamic can apply in a closely contested election and used Perot as a historical example of just that dynamic.
I agree that no one owes anyone their vote. The Senators having an obligation to vote either as their constituents wish or as their conscience dictates is an entirely different issue.
Nor am I arguing that it is a moral imperative to vote for Trump. Certainly an argument can be made that we have a moral imperative to vote to stop Hillary but that is not what I’m addressing here.
@ GB:
You don’t think they’ve given up on “comprehensive reform”, do you? How Hillary gets what Obama couldn’t is through cumulative, repetitive pressure until finally the logjam breaks.
I think that before the bill even got debated, some alt-right/Trumper would assassinate a GOP Senator. That would put the whole thing on ice, forever. Senators are cowards. Once THEIR OWN LIVES are on the line, they’ll fold instantly.
Of course, all this assumes it isn’t Trump pushing the amnesty.
As for SCOTUS, they don’t need for conservatives to retire. If Hillary’s the Pres. a 5/4 majority is in the bag without Roberts. And, eventually Thomas will either retire or die.
A 5/4 majority, for 4 years. Yawn.
If Hillary is out of office after that, it can easily be recovered from.
As far as the youth vote goes, we’ll see how that shakes out in November.
Actually, I don’t think they’ll all vote democrat, just enough to tip the balance. 70+% of immigrants vote democrat. Best explanation I’ve seen is that the vast majority today come from socialistic societies. Open borders with immediate benefits that exceed what most veterans get are an irresistible incentive. Illegal immigration will continue at excessive levels as long as nothing substantively changes.
I agree with this part, and even Milton Friedman said open borders wasn’t possible with a welfare state. The reason can only be the different behavior of the immigrants, and AFAIK the stats bear this out: immigrants (especially illegals) use social benefits much greater that the general population, although that’s probably less true now that Obama has fairly ruined the economy.
70% is about right, but it really doesn’t have to be more than 51% to be a net benefit to Dems. That’s not even counting the chaos of a Cloward-Piven scenario.
The problem I have with the core alt-right is that talk of “social differences” is really just code for racism among them. Same with enforcing the rule of law.
But I guess I can’t do anything about intent, or doing the right things for bad reasons. We’ll just have to watch them.
Tom G Says:
But really, unless he is firing hundreds, or thousands of University Presidents, he is not really going to have influence on Academia.
All he has to do is end the Dept of Education. Either that, or the federal government’s backing of student loans. Once the money is gone, you’ll be amazed how fast the rotten educational edifice crumbles.
Sergey Says:
So-called “fascists” in Europe (actually, nativists and euroskeptics) are now the main firewall against unholy alliance of Islamonazists and leftists, and our only hope to save true european values and culture from annihilation.
Probably true, but Europe’s right has always been different than our right. At least until recently.
They are more nationalists and unconcerned with individual liberty. I can easily imagine this whole scenario ending as a duplicate of WW II, including America’s involvement.
Sergey Says:
Weimar Republic of 1930 is a poor comparison to modern USA. Classical fascism and Nazism belong to industrial era, first half of 20th century, in postindustrial societies and America especially such things are not possible. Even in pre-war Britain Nazi movement could not take root, just as American Nazi was a marginal phenomenon. To identify hard-right or alt-right as analogue of Nazi is a leftist smear campaign, a bogeyman with no evidence in reality.
Wrong, sir. Wrong.
“The Nazi Party’s electoral appeal in the declining years of the Weimar Republic, when it gathered the mass support essential to its bid for power in 1933, was based not least on the vagueness of its programme, which sought to be all things to all voters. Students of the Nazis’ stunning electoral victories of the early 1930s, when they succeeded in winning over a third of German voters to their cause, generally agree that they were gained by a deliberate avoidance of specifics, combined with the projections of an image of ceaseless dynamism and purposefulness, as well as constantly reiterated promises of national renewal, economic recovery, and the re-establishment of social peace and order after the violence and instability of the later years of the Weimar Republic. Some electors even praised the Nazis for their lack of a concrete political programme, since, in their view, the previous years had demonstrated that politicians who made specific promises were all liars.”
Richard J. Evans, Short Oxford History of Germany: Nazi Germany, 2008, pp. 28-29.
Then, there’s the brawls between Nazis and communists, the fact that the Nazis won because of a split opposition vote, paranoid explanations about Germany’s previous failures and conspiracy theories, the collusion of conservative elements, and the aggravation of racial grievances and the “othering” of racial out-groups.
In all the broad strokes, the same elements are already playing out. All of the analogues are there for anyone to see.
Going to have to call you Machine Gun Matt! /jk
GB
Mathematically, voting for neither leaves both their percentages exactly the same.
If I vote for neither, I’m not in the equation at all.
The point you are, I think, making is that if I normally vote Republican and this year I vote neither, then the percentage is skewed more D than it would have been if I had voted as I normally do. True and self-evident as far as it goes but I really, really don’t want him to be President so guilty I guess.
Sergey Says:
Alt-right is not monolithic group with clear-cut ideology, they are very diverse and actually are a party of “NO” both to Progressives and to traditional mainstream conservatives. Some are really disgusting, other are quite reasonable and moderate. As history of European far-right demonstrates, in order to transform themselves from marginal status to a party which can win election, they need to purge themselves from odious members and ideologies and became more respectable to masses while harness popular disgust of these masses to establishment, as a revolutionary counter-cultural force. French FN is the best example of this transformation.
The alt-right will not be “purged” of its extremist elements any more than Islam will be, and for the same reason: the extremists ARE the ideology. It is the MODERATES who are the pretenders, and the ones with less authority.
Or if you prefer, you can substitute in academic feminists vs. women who only think they’re feminists.
The extremist group in each case controls the institutions, and is the one that makes official pronouncements of dogma. What the moderates think is irrelevant.
For all those here despairing of the state of the GOP, realize that the alt-right are like SJWs in their tactics. That includes puffery of their popularity.
There are scads of people who are holding their nose this election, and the alt-right has a huge incentive to claim these votes are affirmative instead of under protest.
In short, the alt-right is full of amoral liars. Many of the other erstwhile members may not realize or may deny the nature of their other party members, but it will become clear over time.
My current position is that it would be better for conservatism if Trump were to lose outright (and the bigger the margin, the better), but it may also be acceptable if he wins but then governs like an idiot.
The only thing that has to happen in either case is for supporters to realize they made a mistake.
I will note in closing that we’re now seeing activism on the right, but maybe not the kind Eric envisioned. That’s the problem with revolutions, Eric.
“Among Trump supporters are such pundits as Roger L. Simon, David P. Goldman, Andrew Klavan and many other reputed conservatives, whom nobody can accuse of anti-Semitism or racism.”
I don’t know much about the others, but to rank Klavan amongst the trump supporters is spurious at best, if you truly understand Klavan’s argument.
There are many here who SAY they are “reluctant” to vote trump, but they don’t argue like they are “reluctant” at all on trump, hardly recognizing the downside risk of trump. Klavan does, and gives significant voice to it.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/4079/klavan-im-angry-and-so-im-voting-donald-trump-andrew-klavan
There are a few things he and I disagree on, one of which is the influence of the alt-r that would be emboldened with a trump win. He believes they are small and insiignificant, though says that trump does “wink” to their bigoted attitudes to gain their support.
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2016/07/31/whos-worse-trumps-neo-nazis-or-clintons-press/?singlepage=true
“My current position is that it would be better for conservatism if Trump were to lose outright (and the bigger the margin, the better), but it may also be acceptable if he wins but then governs like an idiot.
The only thing that has to happen in either case is for supporters to realize they made a mistake.” – Matt SE
Yes to the first part, but no to “governs like an idiot”.
Back to Neo’s post earlier, will voters learn from their mistakes? I don’t think so, in the short term. (e.g. How long has it taken for people who were cheering OJ Simpson’s murder exoneration to change their mind – better than 20 years)
I’d like to wish that trump would prove to be all bluster, but I fear he is likely to very active as POTUS, and, thus, cause a lot of damage, so much so, that we end up further down the destructive path than clinton would ever take us, as bad as she would be. Or much, much worse – Autocrat / Authoritarian! (or as some say “Pinochet”)
Big Maq:
You are correct regarding Klavan. (andrewklavan show on soundcloud is a free podcast available M – Th at about 10:45 PST). The show starts with 5 min political satire that is generally quite funny. He views DJT as the lesser of evils.
Roger L. Simon has been on the Trump train for months now, he’s not a reluctant supporter.
Roger Kimbal (pjmedia,com) is a reluctant Trump voter. He noted the Roderick Spode ’30s dictator-lite aspects of DJT a few months ago.
“IMO, the country is too polarized AND balkinized for the alt-r to succeed in such a fast March through the Institutions.
I also do not see a coherent ideology in the alt-r comparable to the Left. The alt-r radicals are much more anarchic and anarchy abhors organization.” – GB
I doubt, arguably, many saw this in 1933 / 34 either.
That is the problem with toying with this group.
I can see it moving rather quickly.
My G0d, how the GOP, and over half of the punditry media just fell like dominoes behind trump after May 3rd. Shocking!
“I have to go with where logic and reason leads.” – GB
There is a certain arrogance in announcing this. As if nobody else is using “logic and reason”.
This has been the constant refrain from Republican “vote for the lesser of two evils” establishment figures for my entire lifetime. If you believe it, you should certainly vote Trump. That’s not facetious. If that’s your risk calculation, you have a moral duty to vote Trump.
So in other words, screw conservatism, let’s get the Big Government corporatist ad hoc blue dog Democrat in here. The guy who donated to Hillary Clinton will surely fix things better than founding ideals ever have.
But many believe that the world won’t end if Hillary’s president. Sure, she’ll be a historically awful president, but that there will be another election in four years in a heavily divided country. That is like the battle of Dunkirk, not the end of the world, and conservatives had best save their army for a later date when the reinvasion of the continent becomes possible.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8985/widely-praised-flight-93-election-essay-dishonest-ben-shapiro
Sickening is another apt description.
Big Maq:
““I have to go with where logic and reason leads.” — GB
There is a certain arrogance in announcing this. As if nobody else is using “logic and reason”.”
You among others have noticed this, but it could just be his style of prose. Plausible?
“You among others have noticed this, but it could just be his style of prose. Plausible?” – OM
No. More than style. If one has to broadcast this, perhaps they are rather unsure of themselves, putting on a good face, and are looking for approval from others.
There are others who cheer this on, though sometimes they get the same treatment, depending on the issue.
Matt, history of far-right parties in Europe demonstrate that they actually changed their ideological platforms to win votes. For a decade I was monitoring some of their media: Brussels Journal, blogs of prominent euroskeptics, and results are consistently the same. Flemish Interest had to ditch its White Suprematist rhetoric and completely ban anti-Semitism from its ranks. French Front Nationale did the same. Dutch Freedom Party became one issue party, opposing immigration and islamization of Holland. New political philosophy of European far-right concentrated on rejection of multiculturalism, politcorrectness and uncontrolled immigration, opposition to Islam and defense of traditional family values, restoration of national sovereignity, dismantling of supra-national institutions like EU, border control and protection of national industries and agriculture from dumping and other forms of unfair competition. All these are real problems important to millions of voters, and constructive solution to them are badly needed.
Interesting point Sergey.
Don’t know enough about European political parties to comment one way or the other, but will keep an eye out on this.
One thing I do know is that “dumping and unfair competition” is a bogeyman. It is a forever argument, as everyone thinks any competition from somewhere / someone else is “unfair” for any number of reasons. It is usually those “national industries” (and their allied unions) that make these rent seeking arguments to prevent competition.
If the US is anything to go by, most of the manufacturing jobs lost (the real issue) are really due to investments in technology (e.g. think robots on auto assembly lines). US Manufacturing as a sector has been increasing output steadily for generations (but for a blip in 2008, 2009).
http://mercatus.org/publication/us-manufacturing-output-vs-jobs-1975
“I have to go with where logic and reason leads.” — GB
“There is a certain arrogance in announcing this. As if nobody else is using “logic and reason”. Big Maq
Logic 101: premise – extension – conclusion.
Logic’s major flaw is it’s inability to disprove it’s premise. That said, if the chain of logic is consistent without internal contradiction, it is valid. But ‘valid’ does not make it ‘true’, which only the reality of events can determine.
So, when I can say that the premises that I have previously concluded to be true and the consequent conclusions that I arrive at are internally consistent with the premise, then if I’m acting rationally, I have to follow where they lead until persuaded otherwise by a reasoned rationale that disproves or supersedes the prior logic.
There’s nothing arrogant about that, no matter how convenient that would be in argumentation.
Because I say so.
Big Maq Says:
I don’t know much about the others, but to rank Klavan amongst the trump supporters is spurious at best, if you truly understand Klavan’s argument.
Yeah….I thought I remembered that piece from Klavan. So whoever said he was a Trump supporter was at least lying by omission.
Klavan put his finger on it in the video, a point I’ve recently been making too: “I’m voting for Trump because I’m angry, and when I’m angry I make bad decisions.”
Trumpkins are whipping everyone into a frenzy so that they’ll make bad decisions. I’ve seen quite a few formerly-reasonable people fall for this, and now they’re almost unhinged.
Ho-hum. Just another sleazy used car salesman tactic from a sleaze.
@ GB:
The problem with your arguments is that they rely on predictions of future behavior THAT YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW FOR SURE. In that case, what you’re really basing your arguments on are OPINIONS.
The reason this is galling to both OM and Big Maq (and a little to me) is that you are trying to pass this off as based on FACT.
It is not.
Hillary may be worse than Trump. She may be better.
You can make arguments about why you think one is more probable than the other, but you cannot make definitive statements like THE COUNTRY WILL END IF HILLARY IS ELECTED!!1!!1!1!!!!
Once again, quit with the hysterics and get a hold of yourself.
Matt_SE,
NO. Of course it is an opinion. It is an opinion based in consideration of what history and the current domestic dynamics indicate.
Of course Hillary and the Left may stumble.
However, events and history in the last 100 years and… the inarguable momentum the Left is and has achieved in advancing toward its goals… strongly argue otherwise.
That is what I’m arguing NOT that it is ‘fact’.
While we cannot know what Trump will do, we do know what Hillary will try to do.
So the issue is the certainty of the mortal threat that Hillary and the Left embody toward individual liberty VS the uncertainty that Trump presents. Along with the forces that stand ready to assist them. And again, the alt-r ability to deliver is uncertain, whereas the Left’s ability is fully established.
You might consider that when your side strongly advances an argument, you see it as reasonable but when I do the same, you characterize it as presenting opinion as fact. This despite my offering specific rationales for why I believe, as I do.
GB:
“While we cannot know what Trump will do, we do know what Hillary will try to do.”
I think this is the first time you have used a qualification “try to do” instead of “will do” in your assessment of HRC’s future actions. That takes the edge off and makes your opinion less dogmatic IMO.
You can not win an ideological battle if you allow the enemy to frame and define you. What conservatives were doing last two decades was a passive defense: they tried to convince masses already biased against them that they are not bigots, and failed at this. It is time to challenge the false premises of opponents and go into frontal attack: to be proud homophobes, Islamophobes, white suprematists and sexists, but define these notions themselves in positive light, reject their false definitions by liberals and progressives. This means racial realism, recognition of reality of biological differences between human races, biological background of different gender roles for men a women, normality of heterosexuality and abnormality of homosexuality, world-wide supremacy of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian moral, inherent inequality of different cultures, and so on. This is an uphill battle, of course, but eventually it is winnable because of self-destructing nature of opposition to it.
“It is time to challenge the false premises of opponents and go into frontal attack: to be proud homophobes, Islamophobes, white suprematists and sexists, but define these notions themselves in positive light, reject their false definitions by liberals and progressives.” – Sergey
Two wrongs don’t make a right, even with newspeak thrown in.
“Logic 101: premise — extension — conclusion. … There’s nothing arrogant about that, no matter how convenient that would be in argumentation.” – GB
Now this is gratuitous.
Standing alone, one can argue that those words are true.
However, to point it out, in the course of one’s own argument, that one is using “reason and logic” IS like arguing someone else isn’t.
No doubt everyone here feels they have a “reasoned and specific rationale”.
The discussion / debate should be about their points not peacocking about how one’s own argument is “unimpeachable”.
http://neoneocon.com/2016/07/18/here-goes-the-republican-national-convention-begins-today/#comment-1415158
@ Geoffrey Brittain
“Johnson currently has 10%+ in 42 states. That may throw the election to Hillary, as surely as those who voted for Perot threw the election to Bill Clinton.”
This is actually true, insofar as Perot didn’t throw the election to Bill and Johnson won’t throw the election to Hillary. While Perot supporters were drawn more from Bush than from Clinton, dispersing them back to their next-preferred candidate in a two-way race would only have resulted in a tighter win for Clinton.
And poll after poll this election has shown that Johnson pulls in roughly equal proportion from both candidates — with a slightly larger number actually coming from Clinton. So from what we can see, Gary Johnson’s leaving the race would actually slightly hurt Trump.