Home » Trump and jailing Clinton: how will it play in Peoria?

Comments

Trump and jailing Clinton: how will it play in Peoria? — 100 Comments

  1. The wild and vehement reaction of the Dems tells me that they are concerned about this. And, of course, idiots like Joy Reid can assert that this is how things are done in the Congo.

    The FBI’s faux investigation and destruction of Cheryl Mills’ laptop computer tells me tons. More importantly, it is obvious to me that the Clinton Foundation is a bribe taking enterprise and should be prosecuted under RICO.

    Hillary should not be immune from prosecution simply because she ran for president. No one is above the law.

    My biggest fear is that if she wins, she will be completely unchecked. Queen because she is immune from impeachment. Paul Ryan is toothless. The graft she will be able to collect via the Foundation will be enormous.

    Peoria is the home of Cat and the Bradley Braves. The people of Peoria are not idiots. They can figure this out.

  2. God knows I’m furious with Hillary and Obama and Lynch and Comey. Since Hillary’s email server without a doubt served up four years of SecState emails to Russia, China and probably other enemies, I consider her not just a lawbreaker but a traitor.

    Count me down with Trump on this one. After a trial of course, Hillary should be in jail.

    However, since Trump’s achilles heel in this campaign is that voters don’t consider him as “presidential” as Hillary, he may have crossed a line speaking so frankly of jail and canceled out any good he did when enumerating Hillary’s lawbreaking.

    “Presidential” is where Trump was penalized on the sex tape. Yes, we know Bill and JFK were pigs, but they were careful or lucky not to be caught talking like a pig.

  3. The biggest downside in prosecuting Hillary would be that it would consume political capital and burn up air time. But only Trump would just say screw that and let a jury decide.

  4. It’s mildly amusing that Ezra Klein’s careful choice of authority is the phrase “democratic norms”, rather than to cite that confusing and ancient (over 100 years old) apparently unintelligible document which repudiates democratic norms in favor of republican norms. Y’know, the US Constitution. Ain’t it though?

  5. Back in July, 56% of Americans polled thought Hillary should have been indicted over her email shenanigans. So I’m thinking Trump wasn’t much hurt, if at all, by the jail line last night among those “middle of the road undecideds”.

  6. ‘Or aren’t they paying much attention at all?’

    I vote for number 3 because it was said at a debate and debates usually have very little effect on elections (according to most political scientists and even FiveThirtyEight.com). The first debate may have perhaps a small effect, subsequent debates even less.

    For the most part people watch these things for entertainment. Personally, I think banging my head against the wall is a whole lot more fun than watching a political debate but it seems not everyone agrees with me on that.

  7. Klein should tell us how we should feel about the film maker going to jail after Hillary claimed he was the cause of the Benghazi disaster.

  8. “However, since Trump’s achilles heel in this campaign is that voters don’t consider him as “presidential” as Hillary, he may have crossed a line speaking so frankly of jail and canceled out any good he did when enumerating Hillary’s lawbreaking.” – huxley

    Right. It is one thing to say he believes she broke the law and that we ought to have an independent special prosecutor investigate, and quite another to say she would be in jail if he were president.

    Like obama has done in the past, and many here likely abhorred, trump is signalling the outcome of a process that is supposed to come to it’s own independent conclusion.

    This probably did more to feed trump’s “base” than actually swing votes his way. That may be what trump was after.

  9. When Trump responded, “Because you’d be in jail”…

    Could he have meant that her guilt is so far past the “reasonable doubt” standard that, only under the most corrupt of administrations could she have escaped jail. Inherent is the implication that his administration would not be so corrupt as to allow her to escape justice.

    No of course he couldn’t have meant that.

  10. “You’d be in jail.” plays well in Peoria. Most of Illinois outside Cook County and the collar counties is conservative to varying degrees. IMO there is little djt can do that will sway the vote at this point. The dnc-msm axis will pull out al stops from here on out.

    Post election analysis of voter turn out will be of interest. Will blacks turn out for hrc as they did for bho? Will millennials favor the Greens and the Libertarians? Will 90% of the trumpian horde actually vote? And, will this bizarre election grow ever more bizarre over the next 30 days?

  11. I am at a loss to understand how Ezra Klein has so much clout. Yes, I’ve heard he’s “really smart.” But, I am just not seeing it. He’s more “too smart by half.” Or, perhaps the kind of whiz kid that Robert McNamara surrounded himself with – for all that good they did.

  12. Hillary should have been prosecuted for what she did, and the fact that she wasn’t is a sad testament to the way we’ve become a country where the ruling elites disdain the rule of law.

    Trump is still a scumbag who I’ll never vote for. Not because he wants to put HRC in jail (that’s a normal reaction to anyone who’s familiar with her history of mishandling classified information). But I’m pretty sure he’ll just continue the Obama practice of using the power that he wields to go after his opponents. Trump has been doing that all his life with the (relatively) limited powers of his celebrity, his riches, lawsuits and insults. Giving him the astronomical powers of the Executive – well, we haven’t seen anything yet.

    The good news is that in less than 30 days this election will be over . . .

  13. Tom Murin,

    Anyone who can string together a few coherent sentences in support of the left’s narrative and memes will garner accolades. Factual truth is of course deemed counter-productive..

    Bill,

    FDR’s quip applies, “He may be a bastard but he’s our bastard”. Tragically, insistence upon acting according to the prior, political ‘Marquis of Queensbury’ rules has become a suicidal strategy.

    The dems have brought a gun to our former knife fight. They’re not going to stop shooting. Which makes your apparent belief that some kind of normality will return after the election…problematic.

  14. GB – he’s *your* bastard

    I’m tired of hearing the Queensbury rules talking point. It’s a dumb piece of propaganda

    Another dumb piece of propaganda is the idea that the only way to win elections is Trumpian loutishness. He was and is Hillary’s favorite opponent. Plenty of evidence is coming out which substantiates that. It seems more accurate to say that Trumpian behavior is a good way to LOSE an election. She’s probably glad she didn’t do so great against him last night as it kept him in the race (not that I think she planned that)

  15. Big Maq Says:

    Right. It is one thing to say he believes she broke the law and that we ought to have an independent special prosecutor investigate, and quite another to say she would be in jail if he were president.

    The innocent until proven guilty schtick is polite fiction in this case because a simple recounting of undisputed facts leads to a guilty verdict.
    The existence of the server (and the contents therein) have never been disputed. Hillary used the system tens of thousands of times. Intent is not required.

    Hillary is GUILTY.

  16. Bill,

    There may be a better analogy for the lawlessness of the Left versus conservatives trying to engage in civil, factual debate but if so, it escapes me. Labeling it as ‘propaganda’ is an attempt to dismiss without substantive rebuttal. The GOPe choose Jeb Bush as their candidate, he would never stoop to Trump’s loutishness and conducts himself in a gentlemanly way. The Left would have had him for lunch.

    I am not asserting that Trumpian loutishness is now necessary. I am saying that frank, straightforward, take no prisoners language is now essential. That it be done skillfully is of course desirable. That Trump is appallingly loutish is undeniable. But there is no substitute for telling it like it is, in terms that the average voter can relate to… a military axim applies, “you go to war with what you have not with what you wish you had”

  17. Bill Says:

    GB — he’s *your* bastard

    I’m tired of hearing the Queensbury rules talking point. It’s a dumb piece of propaganda

    I agree.
    Trump supporters like to complain that they aren’t listened to, but then go on to ignore the complaints of others.
    The squares in the party told you they wouldn’t vote for an immoral man. You didn’t listen.
    They said the media was pumping up Trump in a replay of Todd Akin. You didn’t listen.
    They said there was no argument you could make that would change their mind. You didn’t listen.

    Trump will most likely lose because a MINORITY OF THE GOP nominated a clown. There were other candidates who met most of your needs, but Trump supporters weren’t interested in compromise or the needs of other factions within the party.

    They didn’t listen.

  18. GB Says:

    The GOPe choose Jeb Bush as their candidate
    Another favorite dodge of Trump’s supporters. Jeb left the race with between 5% and 10% support.

    HE WAS NEVER GOING TO BE THE NOMINEE.

    Let’s stop pretending he was, okay?
    The disqualification of most of the others was specious and based on self-serving logic:
    Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Fiorina, Paul, Jindal, Walker, Perry.

    Any one of them could’ve won easily against Hillary, and without dragging everyone through the mud.

    Please, recount why they would’ve lost to Hillary. Make it good.

  19. The “locker room tape” of Trump and Billy Bush was SOP for the Dems. Remember the attempt to smear McCain with an affair with a reporter? Remember how they implied bad motivations to Mitt Romney for having a ‘binder of women’s resumes? It’s the politics of personal destruction. They especially like to use sex related information because the GOP is generally more circumspect about that sort of thing. (And the GOP used sexual impropriety against Bill Clinton.) It’s Alinsky’s rule – “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”

    This is probably not the last Trump impropriety they are going to bring up. Their main goal is to alienate enough women to ensure Hillary’s election. And it’s working. In the meantime the e-mail dumps are very bad for hillary, but unless the MSM reports on them extensively, it’s like they never happened.

    The people who are anti-Hillary know the facts about her e-mail scandal. They know the FBI investigation into it was rigged. They would all like to see a Special Prosecutor because they know it’s the only way a truthful investigation can be conducted. So, I think Trump kept the hopes of anti-Hillary voters alive with that promise to appoint a Special prosecutor. What he failed to achieve was to attract college educated white women to vote for him.

    The GOP needs a straight talking candidate who will fight back (as Trump does, clumsily) with complete sentences, well formed ideas, and the ability to show both toughness and humility. Trump isn’t the one. But he’s what we have. The angst continues.

  20. J.J.,

    There were IMO two candidates who are no nonsense, articulate straight talkers: Cruz and Fiorina. But they were not obnoxious and too nuanced and well informed. The plurality of voters wanted a con artist, reality tv buffoon; and that is why we will have the Shrew Queen and Slick Willy once again occupying the White House.

  21. Parker:

    Some have posited that “we” have or are being “played” WRT Trump’s “words.” It appears that the Dems have just who they wanted to run against, so who actually got “played?”

  22. Why would anyone say the good news is the election will be over in 30 days? The only good news is if the globalists lose. Are there commenters here that want those globalists to continue? That is the definition of insanity.

    bookwormroom says it much better than I:

    “Globalists
    -who don’t care that jobs are being lost in America, as long as jobs are being gained in India;
    -who don’t care that illegal aliens are pouring into America because the globalists think borders are irrelevant;
    -who are comfortable with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the First World because they think American corporations (aka, employers) shouldn’t have an unfair advantage against other worldwide corporations, including those propped up by socialist governments;
    -who think the Constitution is burdensome and antiquated;
    -who believe that government is the answer, no matter the question;
    -who judge people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character;
    -who refuse to defend America against unnamed terrorists because it’s morally wrong for America to act in her own defense without UN pre-approval, and who therefore accept endless low-level terrorism;
    -who think that the biggest threat facing the world is climate change, never mind that the bulk of the apocalyptic climate change predictions have been proven wrong; and
    -who generally think Americans are rubes, Europeans are the gold standard, third world nations must be kept helpless, and Muslims are victims of unemployment (which makes it kind of ironic that these same people are so comfortable with keeping Americans unemployed).”

    “On the other hand, the Trump hand, you have people who, while not lacking in compassion when they see Third World struggles abroad, think that, in airplane parlance, you must first secure your own oxygen mask before taking care of those less able than you. These are people
    -who insist that America, as a sovereign nation, can secure its borders so that Americans are safe from predators, terrorists, resource hogs, and unfair job competition;
    -who make sure that American employers, large and small, are competitive so that American workers can have jobs – at which time we teach those skills to other nations that need to help their economies grow;
    -who name America’s enemies so that we can fight them (something that is a truly internationalist approach because, in this existential war, America’s enemies are the enemies of freedom, security, and decency in every corner of the world);
    -who refuse to see America become subordinate to the UN;
    -who judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin;
    -who are certain that the American Constitution is the gold standard for governance because it elevates individual liberty over government control, an ideology that, until attacked from the Left, created the most free, most wealthy, most powerful, most generous nation in the history of the world (and I mean generous in terms of money given and in terms of blood spilled to help those less fortunate around the world);
    -who have noticed that the climate change predictions that the Left has seized upon to force redistribution of wealth both inside and outside of America fail to pass minimal tests for scientific relevance and trustworthiness; and
    -who know that, overall, the American people are damn fine people who have an inalienable right to a government that supports their liberty, rather than one that subordinates them to the career politicians’ endless dreams of perpetual power.”

    Patriots not globalists.

  23. Trump should come out with a statement that at this point a special prosecutor should be appointed just to look into the case to clear up the questions about the FBI and malfeasance.

    But step back and look at what the topic of the pundits is. It’s Hillary and jail. Sure its that Trump said something, but the association is Hillary and jail.

    Mon dieu, Trump said if he was in charge of law enforcement in the US, Hillary would be in jail? But, then Hillary is/was under investigation. Even the FBI director, when declining to recommend prosecution, said she did wrong, just in his, curious, opinion, not enough wrong for someone like her to be prosecuted. But wait, others, less politically connected people, have been prosecuted for the same? yada, yada, yada.

    So what is on people’s minds when they head to the polls? Hillary for jail? Hillary must win to avoid having a special prosecutor appointed? Nice.

  24. Very true about Cruz and Fiorina. But they would have been subjected to the same sort of attacks as Trump. Both may well have fought back more effectively.

    When I was in the Navy I was in a squadron with a CO who was a warrior and a leader. We all loved him and would have followed him into hell itself. He was replaced by another officer who was a nit-picking martinet with just average aviator skills. Morale dropped significantly. And then the air war over North Vietnam began. We had to go to war with the CO we had, not the one we loved and admired. We still did our duty. Of course, in the end, it didn’t matter because we had a bunch of weenie politicians who abandoned the South Vietnamese – Democrats one and all. Fate often dictates strange twists and turns with unwanted outcomes. This is apparently another of those times.

  25. Matt_SE,

    Remaining unpersuaded is not proof of “not listening”.

    “Jeb left the race with between 5% and 10% support.

    HE WAS NEVER GOING TO BE THE NOMINEE.

    Let’s stop pretending he was, okay?”

    I asserted that he was the GOPe’s choice, not that he was going to be the nominee. In fact, when he entered the race, I agreed with others on this blog that he had no chance and wondered what the GOPe was thinking.

    But that he was their choice is irrefutable. No better metric of the GOPe’s regard exists than to whom they ‘donate’ their money.

    Washington Post, February 13, 2015

    “Jeb Bush’s money juggernaut is far eclipsing the efforts of his would-be rivals for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, putting his two political committees on pace to amass an unprecedented sum of tens of millions of dollars by early spring.”

    Nor is it “specious and self-serving logic” to point out the various reasons why neither Kasich, nor Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Fiorina, Paul, Jindal, Walker, Perry could win the nomination. Evidently you’ve ‘forgotten’ the endless discussions we’ve had on this blog as to why that was so.

    Of the above, the only ones who could have beaten Hillary in the general election were Rubio and Walker. To reiterate; the appeal of Kasich, Christie and Paul is too limited and they all manage to grate on the nerves. Carson and Fiorina lack the needed resume. Jindal and Perry lack the gravitas to be taken seriously. Cruz is hated by the GOPe even more than Trump.

    But it matters not whether those assessments are accurate, what matters is the aggregate perception of the electorate and their lack of support confirms that to be the perception of the electorate.

    None of those other candidates could attract enough support to overcome Trump and whatever the reasons why, we are where we are and we have to make do with what we have.

    Otherwise, your “strategy’ is to hope for the best. But hope is not a strategy, it’s a prayer.

    As I age, it’s been my observation that God rarely rescues those whose plight is of their own making. And like it or not, as a society we’re all in this together.

  26. Matt_SE,

    Thank you for your comment. I get so sick of Trump supporters claiming that anyone not in the tank for Trump from the beginning must have been for Jeb. Jeb never had any real support. Jeb and Trump are the only two that Hillary had any chance of defeating, and it’s the diehard Trump supporters that got us into the mess that we’re in.

  27. HRC and the rest of the Clinton gang have been corrupting our government for more than a generation. The GOP should make that one of its major points going forward.

    By the way, the Republican nomination process ended in the middle of the summer. Most of us didn’t get the gal or guy we wanted as the nominee. It’s long past time to start making this a campaign against Hillary and to minimize the grieving over the loss experienced during the primary season.

  28. GB,

    I agree that the very thought of Cruz as POTUS makes for poopie diapers in DC; rnc, dnc, and msm alike. But I disagree about Fiorina. She has more worldly experience, a superior grasp of the issues, and much more of the desire for “gravitas” than djt. IMO she could have sold herself to the general populous as a competent leader and destroyed hrc in the debates. My first impulse was to work for her in the caucus, but in October 2015 I realized she could not win so I worked for the Cruz campaign.

    Oh well, that victory in Iowa was short lived. Now we have the greater evil versus the greater evil.

  29. Per Neo,Ezra Klein wrote:
    “…[W]e believe that political disagreement should be legal.”

    Oh, that’s good.
    I guess it’s tolerance of those abominal (and oh yeah–can’t leave out deplorable, can we?) disagree-ers that gets him all tied up in knots resulting in the supercilious, holier-than-thou Leftist goop that delights his employers and their readers who regard him as the true Boy-Wonder.

    He was way over-rated as a kid journalist.
    Not much changed.

  30. Most of us didn’t get the gal or guy we wanted as the nominee. It’s long past time to start making this a campaign against Hillary and to minimize the grieving over the loss experienced during the primary season.

    Ira: I think it’s long past time that Trump supporters, early and late, start feeling terrible remorse for backing this ignorant, bully dirtbag entirely unfit to be Presdient, then grow a spine and agitate for this loutish loser to step down ASAP so we can beat Hillary in November.

    But that’s probably not how Trump supporters will go. Fine.

    In the meantime, Trumpsters, you can keep your advice for us, the brave reluctant few, to yourselves.

  31. “Of the above, the only ones who could have beaten Hillary in the general election were Rubio and Walker.”

    You forgot the “IMO,” because that’s all it is. And unfortunately Walker left the process before most anyone else. Rubio had some issues of his own in the primary process as was discussed. I am glad he is in the Senate and Walker continues to serve admirably in WI, BTW.

  32. @Dan Well said. Can you please find someone who isn’t a totally shameless, narcissistic, sociopathic, lying, thin-skinned, despicable, ADHD afflicted, sycophant-adoring, unbelievably arrogant, amoral, vulgar con man and weasel to credibly bring these ideas to the forefront of the electoral discussion in 2020?

    (Not to mention the despicable company Trump keeps and counsel he seeks).

  33. huxley:

    Sounds like Ira is fighting the last war (against the non-Trump traitors) and in denial regarding Donald’s actual prospects of victory. The conservatives who don’t support Trump can’t compensate for Donald’s performance with the rest of the electorate. It’s all on the Trump. IMO

  34. I find djt and hrc both comfortable in a flaming basket of deplorables. Both are liars, both abuse women, both want to ban evil assault rifles, both want to silence any who disagree, both want to expand the power of the executive, both are elitist maggots, both sanction the abortion of the innocent, so on and so forth.

    I agree that djt is a few microns less evil than hrc, simply because he is more stupid than hrc.

  35. Trump will lose by millions of votes (unless there’s a miracle), and only a fraction of those will be NeverTrump. The vast majority will be independents and Dems who were disgusted with his boorish behavior and other foibles.

    I agree with the others: those who voted for Trump in the primaries are responsible. Strangely, it’s already become very difficult to track these people down…all I can find are former Cruz supporters.

  36. Matt_SE, would it surprise you to find out that a core organizing group of alt-Right bloggers and activists is composed of far left Netroots types who set about purposely to create a 5th Column to elect Hillary?

    Or is my paranoia coming to the surface? It’s that I have not encountered any of these people in real life in my years of interacting with, socializing with, attending political events with Republicans and conservatives. They seem to have popped out of nowhere, fully organized and funded and with one single purpose in mind. Very strange.

  37. Mark Martel: No, every politician ambitious enough to pretend for the highest office in the country (and, by consequence, in the world) by definition must be alpha-male. And such men as a rule are totally shameless, narcissistic, sociopathic, lying, thin-skinned, despicable, ADHD afflicted, sycophant-adoring, unbelievably arrogant, amoral, vulgar con men and weasels. This actually is job description for the office, do you like it or not. The same applies to Bill Clinton, all Kennedy, LBJ, Obama and many other allegedly successful POTUSes. And those who lack these qualities usually are considered failures (Carter, both Bushes and many losers in presidential elections).

  38. Many commenters here obviously look for ideal ruler, traditionally described as philosopher-king. Sorry, but this is oxymoron. Philosophers usually do not seek power, and those who do are not philosophers. This especially applies to leaders of peasant’s rebellions against ruling class, the category to which Trump objectively belongs: they all are boorish, loud-mouthed, arrogant and aggressive, unscrupulous and suffering from Tourette syndrome. 99% of all they talk should not be taken seriously, this is just peacock-tail demonstrations, empty alpha-male boasting having nothing to do with reality or actual intent.

  39. It’s funny how among the latest defenses of Trump is the one that states that no lesser Republican can survive the MSM onslaught so let’s get one like Trump because “he fights”

    Ridiculous. Trump has been doing the MSMs job for them. He’s given them so much material with video footage, audio, etc of his long vapor trail of outrages, much of it stored forever on the internet. They haven’t had to come up with quaint, creative things like Romney was mean to a gay kid in high school, Bush got a DWI decades ago, binders full of women, dogs on the car roof, fake Word documents from the 70s, etc. All they’ve had to do is turn on the mic and let ‘er roll.

    Yeah he fights. He fights to be dispicable. He fights to make himself unelectable. He fights to completely ruin the reputation of the GOP for a generation and substantiate everyone’s worst characatures of conservatives. He fights to get Hillary elected, basically.

  40. “The innocent until proven guilty schtick is polite fiction in this case because a simple recounting of undisputed facts leads to a guilty verdict.
    The existence of the server (and the contents therein) have never been disputed. Hillary used the system tens of thousands of times. Intent is not required.

    Hillary is GUILTY.” – Matt SE

    You and I may agree on her guilt. But, then let it be proven in a federal court, not in the court of public opinion, and certainly not by presidential pronouncement. We have had that from obama. No need to perpetuate that.

    One of the worst things about clinton winning is that she seemingly gets rewarded for all her incredibly immoral, if not illegal, behavior.

    Would love to see her go down on this email server business, along with obama for abetting it. But with all the downside and potential for the unthinkable with trump, it is not worth it.

  41. Serge: We’ll have to disagree. There are degrees here, and Trump is beyond the extreme end of these character faults in a way that’s unparalleled by other Presidential candidates I’ve seen or studied. I accept others have their own views, but to me, character, judgment, and policy matters. Presidents are cultural icons and their behavior and disposition have ripple effects and real consequences.

  42. @Mark Martel – well said. Speaks for where I am at.

    To paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke, we don’t expect perfection, but a politician who lives within acceptable parameters. trump is well beyond normal parameters.

  43. I’m trying to figure out why this column has an image of a youtube with Bill Murray in it (Stripes perhaps?) when I look at it in feedly. I can see no reference anywhere.

  44. Many commenters here obviously look for ideal ruler, traditionally described as philosopher-king.

    Sergey: Oh, come on. Who here has been arguing for a philosopher-king? No one.

    The problem with Trump is not that he fails to measure up to an ideal or even high standard, but whether he clears the bar separating ordinary people from psychopaths and serious criminals.

    What level of abnormality is acceptable for the President of the United States? How low will Trump defenders go? Is there any bottom to their NeverHillary postion? Would they vote for Charles Manson if they liked his immigration talk? They won’t say.

    Apparently Trump doesn’t bother millions of people all that much. OK. But Trump makes my skin crawl. Expecting me to vote for Trump is close to expecting me to vote for Charles Manson. No matter how much I might prefer Charlie’s picks for the Supreme Court, I won’t vote for him.

    Sergey, in the future provide quotes from the commenters you claim to be criticizing.

  45. Personally, I think banging my head against the wall is a whole lot more fun than watching a political debate but it seems not everyone agrees with me on that.

    Some of us do, but we don’t talk about since it might get us voted off the island. Not that we fear getting kicked off, but it’s unnecessary to Rock the Boat at this time.

    Sergey: Oh, come on. Who here has been arguing for a philosopher-king? No one.

    I would describe what people are looking for as a Hero King or Savior. Like Leonidas or Washington. They know that’s impractical and too idealistic, which is why they’ll settle for Trum, but that’s why they tolerate Trum and says, off handedly without responsibility or accountability, that Trum is okay because Congress will hold him responsible for unConstitutional actions.

    Americans don’t even hold Trum to the same sexual morality conduct and honesty standard, why do they expect DC Congress, who are worse in values and ethics, to hold Trum accountable when the people themselves are willing overlook things for Political Power?

    Because they desire a Messiah so badly they don’t care that they are eating sand in the desert, so long as to them it looks like water. The Left also desired a Messiah, and they got Hussein Obola.

    And those who lack these qualities usually are considered failures (Carter,

    Carter had the same arrogance, he just made it look pretty on the outside due to his Southern Baptist background. Compared to Kennedy, though, Carter put his neuroses to more productive work. Carter’s vendetta streak can be seen in his fight against Iran’s last Shah, in favor of the Left’s favored Khomeini.

  46. They seem to have popped out of nowhere, fully organized and funded and with one single purpose in mind. Very strange.

    They don’t come from the conservative side. They come from the marginalized wings of both Republican and Democrats.

    KKK, white supremacist, storm front look alikes, for Democrats. The various factions kicked out from the Republican party awhile ago.

    Online, people can set up organizations without anyone noticing. They can become self funded, a forum board is all they need to get started as a community. If wikipedia can be funded mostly by donations of users and if Kickstarter can produce venture capitalists funded by investors, then it’s not such a stretch to think that there have been communities online that have self perpetuated themselves below the mainstream political radar.

    I know of several survivalist and defense communities that are like that, although they aren’t self funded, they’re just business networks.

  47. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/interview-with-john-derbyshire.html

    VoxDay’s interview with John Derbyshire, which I think is connected to VDare.

    They’re the intellectual tie in between the initial Alt Right movements, such as from reddit/4chan/Gamergate, and the later intellectual DNA eugenicist philosophy that gained precedence and influence.

    I don’t know how indicative VoxDay is of the average Alt Right member, but he’s probably somewhere in the middle.

    Also in the US, there is the Traditional Workers party, you can view their declaration of goals on youtube.

  48. I am saying that frank, straightforward, take no prisoners language is now essential. That it be done skillfully is of course desirable.

    Think global, act local GB. Americans can already speak straight and mean what they say, using social media. They no longer need the President’s bully pulpit, although it would work.

    I, for one, didn’t need Trum to talk about Clinton’s rapist history of the Left’s Demoncrat founding members or anything else from 2007 to 2012, or from 2012 to 2014.

    The idea that the American people are helpless to resist evil unless they get a Hero King savior in the US Throne, is part of the problem the Leftists entrapped us with.

  49. Sergey @5:05 am
    Many commenters here obviously look for ideal ruler, traditionally described as philosopher-king. Sorry, but this is oxymoron. Philosophers usually do not seek power, and those who do are not philosophers. This especially applies to leaders of peasant’s rebellions against ruling class, the category to which Trump objectively belongs: they all are boorish, loud-mouthed, arrogant and aggressive, unscrupulous and suffering from Tourette syndrome. 99% of all they talk should not be taken seriously, this is just peacock-tail demonstrations, empty alpha-male boasting having nothing to do with reality or actual intent.

    Odd, that this so precisely mirrors my thoughts this morning, Sergey.

    You must be deeply pondering the cultural and political parallels that led to the fall of the Roman Republic too, than?

    It all seems so …stupidly avoidable …and predictable …and yet, here we are. Gripped in cultural, and dare I say, civilizational madness, rushing headlong towards what is rapidly becoming inevitable.

    I confess to despair this morning.

    I’m fairly certain this is my “last” election.

    Maybe I’ve read too much dystopian sci-fi over the years. Maybe I was too affected in my youth by the terrifying predictions of Orwell and Huxley. Maybe my intellectual beliefs of the doctrinal outcomes of the written source of my faith impinge upon my more typical core optimism. Maybe I understand the conceptual applicability of “water kingdom” all too well.

    The Tragedy of the Commons plagues me.

    I am unable to not draw conclusions from the disparate data so easily available these days: blissful ignorance escapes my ken.

    I can’t get historical parallels out of my head.

    …I escaped the madness of California’s electoral dysfunction five years ago. But I’m older (and at 65, the five additional years have made a …significant …difference), and that option is now, realistically (and sadly) now closed.

    Where would we go?

    History is closing in on me. On us.

    I despair.

    ——
    A note on voting, and influence.

    If #nevertrump was only about your vote, you’re right: the numbers are too small to matter.

    But that could be said about the terrifyingly corrupted members of the media, too, couldn’t it. (Not a question.)

    If all that mattered was their vote, their influence would be vanishingly small, and irrelevant.

    But. What matters is words, not individual votes, isn’t it. Words matter.

    Do you recall why the pen is mightier than the sword?

    It’s about influence. Lasting influence.

    That’s the deep power words wield.

    You are generally all far too so obviously intelligent to be so immersed in such callow disingenuousness as not to recognize this.

    It puzzles me, your moral equivalency: the sociopathic criminal (you all realize she’s a classic sociopath, right?) vs. the culturally uncouth braggart.

    I confess I don’t get it this time ’round. I’ve held my nose and voted for someone I thought inferior to the office so many times. Civic responsibility, duty, loyalty-if-nothing-else and all that rubbish.

    …and how anyone could disagree with Sergey? Remarkable.

  50. “It puzzles me, your moral equivalency: the sociopathic criminal (you all realize she’s a classic sociopath, right?) vs. the culturally uncouth braggart.”

    The explanation is : Boundaries, personal and otherwise.

    Some, as long as they are in the magic circle, even if it is corrupt and stinking, take great emotional satisfaction out of enacting the little dramas they have constructed in their heads … sacrifice, solidarity, redemption, marching together toward the future … even if haltingly.

    Others, want to be and to maintain the freedom they had inherited categorically. It is not for them a matter of trade-offs.

    I will say again, that Bill has done all of us a great service (and I mean this sincerely even though I profoundly disagree with him) by forthrightly stating that some altruistic considerations are – per the hypothetical scenario – more important to him than an immediate restoration of the rule of law and his heritage of republican freedom: just as long presumably, as he still feels pretty darn free, or better privileged, when it comes to many of the the daily choices of personal and political life.

    You have quite a lot of life left before you. We might see some fascinating and even violent social conflicts develop. It’s worth sticking around for just to see the heretofore hidden lines emerge into the open.

    It at the very least will provide a certain amount of intellectual satisfaction as one sees the moral veils stripped away, and the pretenses dissolved.

    Huxley has already gotten a taste of it and he doesn’t seem to like it much. He should be celebrating. He knows where he stands.

  51. parker,

    I think Fiorina would have been an outstanding VP nominee. I don’t think she would have done well as the GOP Presidential nominee because she’s too vulnerable to the lack of experience charge. Yes, Obama was also lacking in experience but that charge, like so much only applies to Republicans. Just one more deceitful ploy on the left’s part where anything is justified by the end sought.

    OM,

    Of course IMO applies. That applies to every comment made here that can’t be factually proven. Why point out the obvious? Stating that it’s ‘just an opinion’ doesn’t disprove that opinion. But it is a way to discount it without offering logical, reasoned rebuttal.

    brdavis9,

    “It puzzles me, your [the] moral equivalency: the sociopathic criminal (you all realize she’s a classic sociopath, right?) vs. the culturally uncouth braggart.”

    Well said. Though Trump’s faults extend past simple braggadocio. Some here think his flaws portend a probable similar sociopathy, some do not. None of us can know what he will do.

    So it’s a case of uncertainty vs certainty. Clarified by the logistical resources and ideological momentum of the Left vs fears that America will fall prey to a fascist alt-r. Fear of what might be vs the demographic certainty of a permanent one party dominance in governance. Fear of the possibility of nuclear war vs the certainty of another walk down the same path that Chamberlain walked.

  52. brdavis9: Trump is Nero. You don’t vote Nero to defend the Constitution.

    If by your standards Hillary as a sociopath, there’s no reasonable argument that Trump isnt as well.

    “Psychopathy (/saɪˈkÉ’pəθi/), sometimes also known as sociopathy (/soÊŠsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder[1] characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits.”

  53. Matt_SE:

    (In response to your comment at 1:51 AM)–

    It’s hard to track them down because they were all at Woodstock.

  54. DNW:

    “I will say again, that Bill has done all of us a great service (and I mean this sincerely even though I profoundly disagree with him) by forthrightly stating that some altruistic considerations are — per the hypothetical scenario — more important to him than an immediate restoration of the rule of law and his heritage of republican freedom: just as long presumably, as he still feels pretty darn free, or better privileged, when it comes to many of the the daily choices of personal and political life.”

    *sigh*

    Remind me never to answer a hypothetical from you again.

    You asked me if I would be willing to deport 11 million illegal aliens immediately, causing great suffering to them, so that my freedoms would be restored today.

    I said no. I also tried to communicate that I don’t at this point share the apocalyptic viewpoint of a number of commenters here and so don’t feel like the stormtroopers are at my front door just yet. I tried to expand on that but you didn’t listen, let me be more forthright.

    “Illegal immigrant” to the Trumpian right is today’s “Jew”. It’s the same deal Hitler made with his countrymen – I’ll get rid of them and we’ll make Germany Great Again!

    Deporting every single illegal immigrant in this country would *not* restore a single freedom to me or you. It *might* make us *safer* (but I don’t think our biggest crime problem is with illegal immigrants). It *might* give us *more jobs* (but most people who know about this stuff say it would cause massive economic disruption. The process of deporting them would almost certainly *cost a lot of freedom* because our Government can no longer do big things like this without having a thumb in its eye and getting the rest of its appendages somehow lodged in its behonkus.

    So your hypothetical did not connect the dots for me. Ever since I said “no” I’ve become your poster child for “the problem with Americans – they don’t love freedom”

    Makes me mad. Illegal immigration is a big problem. But it’s not what ails us. It’s propaganda for the new right, because every violent, disgusting movement in the history of earth needs a devil. Like I said – it’s the new “jew”. You want me to align with that kind of hatred? No way. Not now, Not ever. So glad it looks like Trump will lose and now I want him to lose all 50 states if only so that this poison might be discredited, at least some.

    You know what I’d vote for? Here’s my short list:

    1. Executive who agrees to abide by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, or work to amend it if that’s not good enough

    2. Legislative branch that agrees to abide by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, or work to amend it if that’s not good enough

    3. Judicial branch that agrees to abide by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, or work to amend it if that’s not good enough

    4. Every bill submitted to Congress must be about what it’s about – in other words, no riders, amendments, pork-barrels, etc that have nothing at all to do with the bill’s main subject

    5. In order to put our forces into any kind of major military action, Congress must declare war, formally.

    6. Enforce the laws of the land (including immigration laws). But this assumes the laws are enforceable. If Congress passes a law that proves to be un-enforceable (a lot of our immigration law falls in this pile) void the law, lock them in a room, and force them to come up with something that is enforceable. (I haven’t figured out yet how to put metrics around this but would love it if we tried)

    7. Government should promote the *general* welfare. I realize this is vague – but it needs to be a standard. We have certain general standards in our society. One is we don’t let people starve to death, die of thirst, or die of disease/injury on our streets. If we quite promoting *specific* welfare of our congresspersons/president’s cronies we’d be able to do this without breaking the bank

    8. Every welfare law has to take into account that what people most need is a. Moms, b. Dads, and c. Jobs.

    Finally

    9. Not sure this is constitutional, so pass a constitutional amendment that states major campaign activities can’t start until 6 months prior to an election. That amendment would pass easily, I believe.

  55. GB:

    “But it is a way to discount it without offering logical, reasoned rebuttal.”

    You argue in circles and state that your opinions are logical, reasoned, reasonable and of course state that others aren’t. Been around this bush before, Maybe you should try all caps to make you opinions more logical, reasonable, and reasoned. Just an opinion.

  56. Huxley: “he clears the bar separating ordinary people from psychopaths and serious criminals.”
    This bar was smashed long, long ago. I can remember several Presidents in my lifetime who can be called psychopaths and serious criminals. JFK was alcoholic and sexual predator. His brother Ted should be in jail for manslaughter, at least, if not worse. LBJ was drunkard who held orgies on the board of his plane, and Bill Clinton … everybody knows who he is. And any ordinary person will be at jail for a fraction of lawlessness Hillary committed. Does any of this ever comparable to a boorish talk in locker-room 11 years ago?

  57. @ The Other Chuck:

    would it surprise you to find out that a core organizing group of alt-Right bloggers and activists is composed of far left Netroots types who set about purposely to create a 5th Column to elect Hillary?

    That almost sounds persuasive, except that I know alt-right sites like Vox Popoli have been around for years. Just like accusations of sock-puppeting support for Trump, I’ve been around long enough to have seen supporters before Trump, back when they were still sane.

    No, I’m afraid that most of this is a real thing and it won’t disappear when Trump loses. There are still dead-ender holdouts for McGovern, who look fondly on his candidacy as a crusade rather than a joke. I’m sure the same will be true for Trump.

  58. We all, probably, underestimate the real scale of the trouble we now are and have been for a very long time. No Constitution, no legal framework and residual noble traditions can save a society in a grip of progressive moral decay, comparable with that which led to decline and fall of Roman Empire. Since Woodstock your Ivy league universities are not anymore fabrics of gentlemen, they produce destroyers of public moral and hollow men with headpieces filled with straw. There are still quite intelligent and moral individuals, just not in corridors of power; in ancient Rome they also were, but political power belonged to the likes of Nero and Caligula. Your political class is beyond repair, every decent man avoids being involved in this morass. Where the hope can be? IMHO, only Jacksonian political rebellion can restore sanity and moral responsibility into Washington, and I do not expect leaders of such rebellion to be polished and well-mannered.

  59. Bill Says:
    October 11th, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    DNW:

    “I will say again, that Bill has done all of us a great service (and I mean this sincerely even though I profoundly disagree with him) by forthrightly stating that some altruistic considerations are — per the hypothetical scenario — more important to him than an immediate restoration of the rule of law and his heritage of republican freedom: just as long presumably, as he still feels pretty darn free, or better privileged, when it comes to many of the the daily choices of personal and political life.”

    *sigh*

    Remind me never to answer a hypothetical from you again.

    You asked me if I would be willing to deport 11 million illegal aliens immediately, causing great suffering to them, so that my freedoms would be restored today.

    I said no. I also tried to communicate that I don’t at this point share the apocalyptic viewpoint of a number of commenters here and so don’t feel like the stormtroopers are at my front door just yet. …”

    No, they are not at your door they are in your mail box.

    Anyway, you don’t like the hypothetical? Fine. So what? It was a hypothetical involving stipulated human costs (severe but not fatal) and stipulated political benefits: the return of the rule of law.

    The hypothetical doesn’t have to be the actual solution in order to coax out the limits of your sensibilities and values. It just has to describe a scenario in which certain conditionals are in place.

    You apparently are so emotionally invested in the pretend antecedent that the artificiality of the scenario becomes unacceptable to you as a permissible hypothetical.

    I did not say children would be abandoned and die as orphans and blah blah blah; nor that it would work in the real world. It was simply a question to measure the point at which your emotional investments might overwhelm the option (severe but not fatal consequences; but both lawful, and moral) to restore your (supposed) political and legal allegiances.

    Well, you certainly answered that question, and then some.

    If I could have thought of another scenario off the top of my head other than those tired third-rail tropes, I would have done so. But, I imagine that I would have gotten pretty much the same response.

    In fact, my guess is, (and it is only a guess at this point since neither you nor Maq nor any other never-Trump folks seem interested in the case) that all in all, you would prefer to see Hillary in office than Obama Care instantly abolished, and the system erected on the shambles of our law, swept away all at once … in order to restore the principles of limited law.

    But that is just a guess at this point.

    Would that be too high a human cost in order to get your freedom (and possibly and money) back?

    If you wish to take that as a substitute values-weighting hypothetical, please, feel free.

    So, in order to get your freedom back, we: instantly abolish Obama Care and all its mandates and allow the marketplace to reset on its own; make social security privatization a partial option; and end mandatory emergency room admittance.

    Too high a price for a conscientious conservative to pay?

  60. Abolish ObamaCare – yes
    Privatize social security – yes
    Refuse to treat people who need medical attention if they don’t have insurance. You already know my answer

    What did you think of my nine points above?

  61. Matt_SE: “No, I’m afraid that most of this is a real thing and it won’t disappear when Trump loses.”
    No, it won’t, it is so real thing that it does not depend on Trump anymore and will grow and grow with or without him, until all politics and governance will be completely deadlocked and the fate of the country will be decided not at ballot box but on the streets and public squares. This is hardly better way to clear Augean Stables, but history always find a way to do necessary thing, when all traditional and legal ways are blocked.

  62. “I will say again, that Bill has done all of us a great service (and I mean this sincerely even though I profoundly disagree with him) by forthrightly stating that some altruistic considerations are — per the hypothetical scenario — more important to him than an immediate restoration of the rule of law” – DNW

    Let me be forthright here on this… what a load of crap!!!

    You work very hard at misrepresenting Bill than try to understand him, and you give nothing to explain yourself.

    1) what is your plan for moving 11M (or 30M) illegal immigrants out?; Is Bill misunderstanding your position? You’ve given him no reason to see any nuance on how your “hypothetical” is supposed to work!

    2) what is your plan B, should / when clinton wins? You readily mock the lack of a “plan” (to the standard you hold) for those not on board with supporting the awful trump to stop the awful clinton. Yet, you won’t articulate anything that would meet your own standard as a plan to deal with a clinton win.

    Do you even have such a plan (instead vesting all your hopes in a 1st order trump win)? Or, will you just take the same action that led to this situation – sit back and not help, so that you can take “a certain amount of intellectual satisfaction” that the G-march continues, like you “predicted” (ignoring all the hyperbole that doesn’t come true)?

    DNW, you liken yourself to some great thinker, but, as I saw a long time ago, your style obfuscates meaning, leaving others to guess (and them blame them for that misunderstanding), and ask questions in a way that are not really about truly understanding and being understood, but a means to trap one into some strawman argument you are looking to make, and drag them into.

    You prey on the naivety of others in this regard.

    Unfortunately, Bill, in his good nature, had to learn this for himself.

  63. Bill Says:
    October 11th, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    Abolish ObamaCare — yes
    Privatize social security — yes
    Refuse to treat people who need medical attention if they don’t have insurance. You already know my answer

    “Know”? No, I don’t officially know your answer, but I suppose I could hazard a guess.

    And if I hazarded a guess, I would say then that you value some of the unlimited and unconditional services – which led us to the emergency room crisis precipitated by illegal aliens in the first place and which led thence to Obama Care – which have driven us into the situation we face now, more than the freedom you had prior to the situation.

    So, by 1, not enforcing one law that maintains the integrity of the polity and thus undermines very raison d’etre for the state, and 2, enforcing instead a law which burdens citizens with a progressive notion of altruism, while relieving the altruists themselves of the personal costs of their altruism (personal or corporate bankruptcy for example) the rest of us wind up both less free and taxed exropriatively. But you know, “There’s so much human need!”

    Just for the record, very few were dying for lack of timely treatment; and we once had municipal hospitals until civic mismanagement killed them in many places.

    Remember the first principle of economics: “Demand is unlimited” and this goes thrice for “frequent flyers” and those with an entitlement attitude. They think that you exist for their benefit. And you are doing little nothing to dissuade them of it by drawing lines and boundaries that may pinch them when they presume.

    What did you think of my nine points above?

    Nice list of points. It tells me what you would vote for; not the hard choices you would make, (even given that they were stipulated as legal and moral) in order to gain your lost freedom back.

    A different issue, I think you would agree.

  64. “Let me be forthright here on this… what a load of crap!!!”

    I’m not the one stopping you from being forthright. That is a problem that originates within you, yourself: as your fabrication of “quotes” (a phenomenon not unknown to those closely sharing your positions, it is interesting to note) has repeatedly demonstrated.

    Which is why I don’t bother with you.

    Bill at least has the courage of his convictions, and does not hypocritically demand of me in triplicate what I have already done, and which he has himself refused to perform.

    You would be better off trolling some of those “Alt-righters” or whatever they are, than trying to annoy me.

    When I look at you I just see a guy who get his panties in a bunch over the respect he is not getting, and then makes stuff up without so much as a cite or evidence, in the hope of being taken seriously.

    “DNW, you liken yourself to some great thinker “

    See what I mean?

    Got a cite?

    Naw … didn’t think so. No cite. Just emotionalism.

  65. Big Maq – Thanks

    DNW: enforcing instead a law which burdens citizens with a progressive notion of altruism, while relieving the altruists themselves of the personal costs of their altruism (personal or corporate bankruptcy for example) the rest of us wind up both less free and taxed exropriatively.

    There is truth to this – it’s easy to be “altruistic” when the cost is shared (or picked up by others). So I get where you’re coming from. I do believe in (and try my best to practice) personal charity. I’m just trying to figure out how you would calibrate things: there’s overwhelming womb (or, rather, with the left, birth) to tomb socialistic nanny-statism on one side and what OM called the “state of nature” every man for himself on the other. Where would you put the needle were you in charge?

  66. OM Says:
    October 11th, 2016 at 12:24 am
    huxley:

    Sounds like Ira is fighting the last war (against the non-Trump traitors) and in denial regarding Donald’s actual prospects of victory. The conservatives who don’t support Trump can’t compensate for Donald’s performance with the rest of the electorate. It’s all on the Trump. IMO

    Since what I wrote is this:

    . . . the Republican nomination process ended in the middle of the summer. Most of us didn’t get the gal or guy we wanted as the nominee. It’s long past time to start making this a campaign against Hillary and to minimize the grieving over the loss experienced during the primary season.

    I think it is fair to say that I’m trying to get the folks who are still anti-Trumpers to stop fighting the last war (i.e., selecting the Republican candidate).

    HILLARY DELENDA EST!

  67. IRA:

    I didn’t vote for Trump in WA primary and wont vote for him in the general.

    I consider him a liberal New York democrat who is “loosely hinged’ and of dubious character, at best.

    His actions may well cost the republican control of congress. So much for stopping Hillary. Get ready for The Nancy and Chuckie show, running rampant for two years at least.

  68. Ira:

    One of the main reasons many of them continue to fight that war is that they believe Trump’s loss to Clinton is inevitable.

    They believe it so strongly that they believe is YOU who are fighting the last war, not them. Because they believe this election was over the moment Trump was nominated.

    That makes them angry, very very angry, at those who originally backed Trump when there were much better alternatives, and who try to shame and badger them into voting for him now. They blame the Trump backers, and if and when (for them, it’s not “if,” it’s “when”) Hillary becomes president, and for her entire term, their anger is not going to go away.

    I’m not saying you were an original Trump backer. To be honest, I don’t remember.

  69. “Get ready for The Nancy and Chuckie show, running rampant for two years at least.”

    And that is scaring me!

  70. “I’m just trying to figure out how you would calibrate things: there’s overwhelming womb (or, rather, with the left, birth) to tomb socialistic nanny-statism on one side and what OM called the “state of nature” every man for himself on the other. Where would you put the needle were you in charge?”

    The first thing I would do, is to stop drilling holes in the bottom of the boat and stop anyone else from doing so if they wish to be considred anything but enemies.

    Once we stop sabotaging ourselves, the bailing may become less frantic and exhausting.

    So, if illegal aliens have precipitated a crisis in not only the areas of the rule of law and national integrity, but also a “health care” crisis which has spilled over to taint and corrupt the very predicate of our political association, and destroyed our freedom as citizens to choose or not choose medical insurance, then we do have a big and expansive problem with illegals, and one that needs to be solved if there is to be a country worth living in.

    One of my secretaries is a part timer with another full time job. Her monthly health insurance costs are now over 600 a month with a $6,000.00 deductible; one which will go from a consolidated family figure, to a deductible per each. And a 20% increase in rates are being projected.

    Now, her health is good, and her two kids are healthy; and, her personal insurance with a 3 k yearly deductible 4 years ago would probably have been under 200 a month.

    So where is her money going? To insure drug addicts and fence jumpers, and the like; and it will soon be to a point where this goddamned law which illegal aliens and drug addicts have brought on us, will make social continued relations with each other pointless, if not openly suicidal.

    So while I don’t know what planet you are living on, go ahead and weep for the illegal alien and drug addled if you like. But they are costing a woman I know $4k a year and will soon cost her more, not to mention her already lost freedom.

    So what’s the point of maintaining such a project? You think that this is a deal? I think it’s a deal breaker.

    Better that it crash than enslave us all.

    At what point do the laborers on the bureaucrat’s tax farms wake up, and realize that public employees and their client class, have eaten away not only at their lives but at whatever stored capital or reason for peaceable association, they once had?

    She would be – to put it brutally – personally better off if they were gone … or dead. And they can do nothing at all for her, except offer the promise an unending spiral into government driven immiseration and serfdom.

    In comparison with that, it seems a small thing to enforce the laws on the books by deporting those who come to the attention of the authorities. Family or no.

    After all, if those laws aimed at our security, liberty, and national integrity are too much to enforce or respect – what reason can you, Bill, offer the rest of us for respecting any other laws which you personally might like to see enforced?

  71. 1. “I’m not saying you were an original Trump backer. To be honest, I don’t remember.”

    I’ve told the story either here or on Power Line, or both, that as a conservative, I had always declined to state a party in my voter registrations because even the Republicans weren’t representing my point of view. But this year, with it appearing that the California primary might actually have an effect on the nomination, I updated my voter registration to Republican so that I could vote for Cruz. Alas, it never mattered.

    Also, both here and on Power Line I suggested several times many tickets that I preferred. These tickets included combinations, in no particular order, Carly, Walker, Perry, Rubio and Cruz. Commenters on both blogs echoed my sentiments.

    2.

    One of the main reasons many of them continue to fight that war is that they believe Trump’s loss to Clinton is inevitable.

    They believe it so strongly that they believe is YOU who are fighting the last war, not them. Because they believe this election was over the moment Trump was nominated.

    How can I be fighting the last war when I’m among those saying we need to fight the current war (i.e., the war against Hillary) with what the results of the last war gave us?

    3. “That makes them angry, very very angry, at those who originally backed Trump when there were much better alternatives . . .”
    So, they’re taking their balls and going home?

    And:

    Gmar Chatimah Tova!
    May you and all your readers be inscribed in the Book of Life for Good!

  72. “That makes them angry, very very angry, at those who originally backed Trump when there were much better alternatives, and …”

    How the — do they even know who to be angry with?

    Nobody has conclusively demonstrated how he even got there in the first place.

    Not a single Trump first man on your blog.

  73. “How can I be fighting the last war when I’m among those saying we need to fight the current war (i.e., the war against Hillary) with what the results of the last war gave us? “

    One can fight with the resources at hand, or one can whine.

    You like another few here, have picked up the cards in front of you, and decided to see how it plays out. Good for you.

    There might not even be another meaningful game after this.

  74. DNW:

    As I wrote earlier, they believe the war you are fighting is over. Finished. Outcome a certainty: Trump loss.

    Whether that is true or not remains to be seen. But that’s how you are seen: as fighting a war that is over, and lost.

  75. DNW:

    Untrue.

    “Yankee” is a Trump first man, I’m fairly sure. He’s certainly been a Trump guy since before Trump won the primaries. Ditto several other commenters. There also were many many many early Trump supporters who came here in droves last summer, fall, and winter, right into spring. They pretty much are all gone now, because their work is done here.

    Some of them I even had to ban, they got so abusive. You didn’t even necessarily notice that; I can be pretty quick on the draw, if the offense is bad enough.

    In addition, there are commenters all over the place at other blogs, as well as the bloggers themselves. There are many sites like that. And don’t forget people like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, etc. etc.—pundits who were early Trump adopters.

    There’s no dearth of people to be angry at for supporting Trump early on, when there were plenty of alternatives.

  76. “As I wrote earlier, they believe the war you are fighting is over. Finished. Outcome a certainty: Trump loss.

    Whether that is true or not remains to be seen. But that’s how you are seen: as fighting a war that is over, and lost.” – Neo

    Very true.

    It is time to give up on how the great trump will save us all. That is practically over and done with short of something truly shocking coming to light on clinton.

    More email releases? Meh! If the “best” hasn’t yet made it out, then it better this week to turn things around for trump. This election has been full of surprises, so we cannot count this out, but it is very doubtful there is anything more. The concrete is nearly cured.

    I surely hope there is enough GOP voter turnout to retain both chambers of Congress, but who knows at this point. I don’t have much hope in the trump GOTV efforts. We may well only have a good chance of retaining majority in the House.

    We need the folks arguing for trump here to get past the arguments and hyperbole for trump and work together to figure out the path forward after this election.

    We actually need good answers to the question – what is plan B?

    I doubt we can all solve it all here, but we can talk about what actions we as citizens can do to help, and what actions at the party level that might be politically realistic to expect and achieve.

    But with trump looking likely to lose big, is there a will to do this?

  77. We can’t be sure how Trump will do with immigration, supreme court and second ammendment, but we know what will happen with Hillary, don’t we? Are there really differences of opinion there? I committed the day trump won the nomination, because I want my republic to survive and the stakes are greater than Trump’a baggage.

  78. Dan:

    The problem is—and this argument has gone on and on here—Trump’s unknowns go in both directions. In other words, he could indeed be better than Hillary on many things, and he could be worse. Some of the Trump “worse” could also be very dangerous indeed, particularly in foreign affairs but not limited to that.

    Trump is a loose cannon.

    See also this.

  79. Bill:

    To summarize some of the responses to your patient inquiry:

    Useless mouths – let them die (drug addicts and fence jumpers first, Medicaide recipients, they can die later). It (whatever that is) will be better after the herds of undesirables are culled.

  80. Neo:

    It seems that Ace has taken the Trump catastrophe pretty hard in the last few weeks, much angrier and over the top most of the time. The prospect of four years of Hillary has taken an early toll?

  81. OM:

    I noticed that.

    I think anyone and everyone who expected something better this election cycle is very frustrated and angry, and we all react to those emotions differently. I went through a very very bad period this winter through spring, but I tried not to show it on the blog. Around April 15 or so I realized Trump would be nominated, and to me that meant Hillary would be our next president. So I’ve probably been adjusting to it for a longer time, although I can’t say I’ve really adjusted.

    But we all have different ways of dealing with our frustration.

    Also, I think that Ace was originally–for a couple of years actually—part of the “Burn it down!” contingent. So although he’s really not a Trump fan (he went from “Trump curious” to “anti-Trump” to “Trump is better than Hillary and I’m NeverHillary”), he has been very very anti-GOPe. I think that’s coming out a lot now, in his frustration, as he sees the chances of a Hillary presidency grow.

    One more thing—he’s on a big big lo-carb diet. I think dieting and deprivation tends to make people generally much crankier.

  82. Well I hope he recovers soon! And survives the diet and gets beyond the 185 lb (?) barrier intact. 🙂

  83. The first thing I would do, is to stop drilling holes in the bottom of the boat and stop anyone else from doing so if they wish to be considred anything but enemies.

    Once we stop sabotaging ourselves, the bailing may become less frantic and exhausting.

    If DNW considers me and those like me an enemy, I’ll gladly put em on the shoot to kill ROE list. But I don’t think it’s going to do much good for them.

    Part of the problem with freedom is that you can’t prevent people from disagreeing and pulling in different directions, even if that means the boat gets full of holes. That’s why the military is a DICTATORSHIP, since it needs to carry out missions without questioning orders, to win victories.

    But if people really think victory against HRC is so important, then treat it as a war and nuke DC. Problem solved. If you don’t have a nuke… well, people can figure that out on their own.

  84. Also I don’t recall when DNW went Apocalypse now all of a sudden.

    It didn’t seem like many commenters here in 2012 was talking about Civil War 2 or DoomsdayAmerica or Survival Prepping or any other signs.

    I just find it ironic that people are castigating Bill and B for not believing in the Apocalypse. After all, plenty of people thought just like them barely a few years ago. I may have cause to complain about Americans ignoring the signs, but why does anyone else have a problem with them.

  85. Ymarsakar Says:
    October 12th, 2016 at 1:59 am

    Also I don’t recall when DNW went Apocalypse now all of a sudden.

    You’re reading too much into what I’ve said.

    I have clearly and multiply stated that the name United States of America, will not suddenly disappear.

    I have clearly and multiply stated that the predicate of our political and social association was fundamentally, if somewhat covertly changed by Obama Care.

    I have numerous times, and without what seemed to me any emotional investment, suggested that the social divisions and hard feelings in this polity will continue to escalate as two (or more) fundamentally incompatible lifeways and worldviews struggle in the same geographic and political space in a non-reciprocal dynamic wherein one [the conservative] neither needs nor wants from the other, what the other [the progressive] unceasingly demands, and apparently cannot live without, from it.

    I have also I think noted that while I want nothing to do with it, I don’t particularly care if social violence erupts and redounds upon the hysterical; though I believe that many of those mentally unbalanced who are pushing and playing at it will come to regret their hot headed insistence on shoving others to the brink.

    “It didn’t seem like many commenters here in 2012 was talking about Civil War 2 or DoomsdayAmerica or Survival Prepping or any other signs.”

    I am not talking about prepping. If I were prepping, I would not talk about it anyway. If I have indicated anything, it concerns choosing your friends more wisely, and investing commitments into people who actually reciprocate.

    Perhaps my use of the term “goddamned” to describe the political product of progressivism is what has you disconcerted. I may regret using it, but not for the social etiquette reasons one might suspect.

    I have for example noted that many people are sensitive to the idea of one human being shrugging at the idea of another ostensible human being, being consigned to Hell; even if they do not believe in it. Whereas the most vulgar epithets bother these secularists much less.

    Must have something more to do with that Bonobo solidarity impulse that meanders through the human population; and less with any real spiritual insight or conviction.

  86. “If DNW considers me and those like me an enemy, I’ll gladly put em on the shoot to kill ROE list. But I don’t think it’s going to do much good for them.”

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

  87. ” neo-neocon Says:
    October 11th, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    DNW:

    As I wrote earlier, they believe the war you are fighting is over. Finished. Outcome a certainty: Trump loss.

    Whether that is true or not remains to be seen. But that’s how you are seen: as fighting a war that is over, and lost.”

    Well, there is losing and there is losing. Just because you lose, doesn’t mean you have to become “friends” with the trimmers again. LOL

    Until something like the government’s actively interfering with family structure and all voluntary associations occurs [and Z-net is not directing all civil life yet], the losers will be free to regroup, and have the benefit of knowing better who to exclude from their rebuilding program, and why it is necessary. That is of course, if they have any interest in doing so.

  88. “Nobody has conclusively demonstrated how he even got there in the first place.

    Not a single Trump first man on your blog.”

    neo-neocon Says:
    October 11th, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    DNW:

    Untrue.

    “Yankee” is a Trump first man, I’m fairly sure. He’s certainly been a Trump guy since before Trump won the primaries. Ditto several other commenters. There also were many many many early Trump supporters who came here in droves last summer, fall, and winter, right into spring. They pretty much are all gone now, because their work is done here.

    “Yankee” might have been, and there were several unnamed others.

    Well, I’m not sure who Yankee is, but if you say he might have been, then I will acknowledge that he might have been.

    As for the unnamed others, I cannot say one way or another never having noticed.

    You do however make a point that you banned Trump activists and spoilers who came to your blog to maraud and disrupt.

    That reminds me that I was – probably unjustifiably – assuming the persons I was referring to would be understood as long-time commenters.

    I’ll try to be more careful in formulating class statements next time.

  89. Something just occurred to me. A commenter took a remark of mine and responded thus:

    “Ymarsakar Says:
    October 12th, 2016 at 1:57 am

    The first thing I would do, is to stop drilling holes in the bottom of the boat and stop anyone else from doing so if they wish to be considred anything but enemies.

    Once we stop sabotaging ourselves, the bailing may become less frantic and exhausting.

    If DNW considers me and those like me an enemy, I’ll gladly put em on the shoot to kill ROE list. But I don’t think it’s going to do much good for them.

    Is it possible that the lengthy thread and exchange context concerning the rule of law, and its enforcement, both as to immigration and other matters, and its sabotage by elected and appointed officials for political ends, somehow escaped his notice?

    Because, again, I cannot for the life of me imagine what he actually thinks he is responding to.

  90. DNW:

    From the mouth Tsar DNW comes such wisdom and profundity!

    Nope, just arrogance and condescension, “not a bug its a feature.” 🙂

  91. “It seems that Ace has taken the Trump catastrophe pretty hard in the last few weeks, much angrier and over the top most of the time. The prospect of four years of Hillary has taken an early toll?” – OM

    “I think anyone and everyone who expected something better this election cycle is very frustrated and angry, and we all react to those emotions differently. …

    Also, I think that Ace was originally—for a couple of years actually–part of the “Burn it down!” contingent. So although he’s really not a Trump fan (he went from “Trump curious” to “anti-Trump” to “Trump is better than Hillary and I’m NeverHillary”), he has been very very anti-GOPe. I think that’s coming out a lot now, in his frustration, as he sees the chances of a Hillary presidency grow.” – Neo

    Used to get caught up in the day to day rants in the “conservative” blogosphere / media, but came to the conclusion that those who spout off like “know it alls”, and speak “loudly” and “angry” are probably the least credible to listen to, and are, overall, poisoning (as promoting anger like that is blinding). The anger may help bring in eyeballs, but it doesn’t help moving the ball forward.

    Ace was / is one of those. It is not surprising he flip flopped on trump to the two extremes.

  92. Dunno how it’s playing in Peoria, but gotta say, it’s playing like gangbusters on CNN:

    AMANPOUR: Can I just try one last question? One last question. A bit cheeky but I’m going to ask you. Russia had its own Pussy Riot moment. What do you think of Donald Trump’s pussy riot moment?

    LAVROV: Well, I don’t know what this would… English is not my mother tongue, I don’t know if I would sound decent. There are so many pussies around the presidential campaign on both sides that I prefer not to comment on this.

  93. DNW:

    Actually, although some of the people I banned were newcomers, some were oldtimers here—or at least, had come significantly before Trump announced his candidacy. Some were bona fide old-timers here.

    And not all were actually banned. Some left of their own accord many months ago.

    My traffic had been fairly stable for many years, but this year it went down about 15-20%. I am almost certain that most of it was pro-Trumpers who left. Some of them informed me of that fact.

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>