The Peaceable blog
Yesterday commenter “T” wrote:
One of the things that attracted me to this site years ago was the ability to agree to disagree and to use that disagreement to sharpen and refine my own thinking on a topic. Quite frankly, this seems to have all gone to Hell as proponents of either side just can’t seem to get away from snark attacks.
The two schools of thought seem to be A) Hillary is death warmed over and will lead the country to perdition. Trump may not. And B) Trump will lead the country to perdition and discredit conservatives. Hillary is bad, but not end-of times bad. Is it possible that the truth may lie somewhere in between?
We have allowed these two faulty Pied Pipers to lead us to vehemence on a site known for its considered discussion. To quote Walt Kelly: “We have met the enemy and he is us!”
Well, it has gotten much worse, not just here but all around the blogosphere, and in non-cyber conversations as well, and is one of the many profoundly distressing phenomena this election season. In my case, there’s a very small plus side, which is that my friends I are are mostly united in dislike of Trump. But we differ mightily on what we think of Hillary, and I think my angst and my dilemma are therefore far greater than theirs.
My answer to “T”—and to everyone else who bemoans the former halcyon days here—is that I feel your pain (and I’m not being sarcastic there, either). But believe it or not, this site is about a million times better than the vitriol you can find at most other sites that don’t do as much policing of comments.
The Trump candidacy and the 2016 Trump vs. Clinton election have effectively poisoned discourse all around the right side of the blogosphere, while the left celebrates. People are exceedingly upset and emotional, and the viciousness is incredible at most other sites (except blogs that have become complete Trumpian echo chambers, which is a great many). Disagreement and discussion is fine here—we have a mix of original Trumpers, enthusiastic late-adopters of Trump, reluctant Trumpers, uncertains (that’s me), and NeverTrumpers (and every now and then a liberal Democrat comes to visti, too), and all are welcome if they remain (relatively) civil and (relatively) cerebral.
Compared to most other blogs these days, this one is a veritable Peaceable Kingdom.
It’s also rich for Trump supporters (reluctant or not) to cry about incivility. How were dissenters supposed to remain civil when pro-Trump people accused them of supporting Hillary?
As I’ve said for a long time, this is emotional bullying. It doesn’t make me reconsider my positions, it just makes me angry.
Being as civil as I can, it is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is a criminal of the first order. For the life of me, I can’t understand why people don’t see that. Do the American people want The Godfather times 100 running this country?
The Godfather (Brando and Pacino) at least were human. They loved their family. (Recall the scene in the tomato patch and on the steps of the opera.) Does Hillary love anyone besides her daughter? Maybe Huma.
And as I pointed out on my blog, Hillary as President will be immune from impeachment. The press is in the bag (as we can now clearly see) and Dem Senators would never vote her out.
So we either keep our Republic or become a Mafia-like monarchy.
Capish?
Cornhead:
It’s really quite simple: many people see Trump as the same or worse, particularly if he gets power, and as a nearly insane loose cannon as well.
A combination they feel is potentially more dangerous, not less.
You don’t have to agree. I know you don’t agree. I’m not even sure how much I agree, although I come much much closer than you.
But I think their position should at least be clear by this time.
It’s all about predicting the future, and each side believes their people are more reasonable than the other side’s people, even if they’re not wild about their people.
So I imagine that for Democrats, this is again about the “lesser of two evils,” it’s just that their hierarchy of evil is prioritized differently than the right’s hierarchy.
neo-neocon wrote,
How would you describe those like me, and I believe Cornhead, who realize, based on the failures of and the actual actions performed heretofore by Hillary and her liberal minions (e.g., Patrick F. Kennedy and Lois) Lerner), that the bar of expected evil and malfeasance has been set so “high” by Hillary et. al. that Trump is nowhere near reaching it.
Ira:
Either “enthusiastic late-adopters of Trump” or “reluctant Trumpers.” I think Cornhead is close to being in the first group, and I’m not sure about you. Perhaps the second? Both believe Trump is the lesser of two evils.
A new take on Hillary, aka, the sub-human mobster, with a little sexual inuendo. Not quite the same as Satan-in-a-pants suit. Why is there the need to posit a new devil when all the other devils were unpersuasive? I know about her history and characteristics. I my assessment Donald is no better, ALL CAPS won’t help.
Ya know there is still room for civil discourse, just not on the internet; and maybe not about politics.
This morning I was overtaken on my walk by a young woman who asked me a question about my hiking poles. She was clearly Muslim by her head dress; and made some comment about moving to the area recently. So, I inquired as to where she was before–she was born English, of Pakistani descent. A Lawyer–formerly a Solicitor.
Anyway, we got on the subject of the EU, and disagreed. She is pro-EU, and tried to convince me that it is beneficial. I admitted that the theory may be sound, just as Marx’s theories may have been sound; yet unworkable in the human experience. At one point she said something about “articulating a position”. I picked up on her word usage and responded that the problem today is that so few people articulate a position or belief, they shout or scream it.
She told me that while her Father remained in England, her Mother had returned to Pakistan, which opened the door to discussing life for women in a Muslim country. She left me with this: “Islam is a beautiful religion, the problem is with Muslims”.
It was a civil and pleasant conversation with someone with whom I disagree on several topics.
And unfortunately this is going to get worse after the election, whatever the result.
Well, I walk around with a “Trump-Make America Great Again” button because I am a very ENTHUSIASTIC neverhillary. I believe that the best way to defeat Hillary is to promote Trump. With that being said, I think there should be an additional category: NeverHillarys.
Here’s something that some people don’t realize.
Trump might not be any more conservative, on any issue, than Hillary Clinton.
Trump in 2013: US Needs to Leave Borders Behind
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-in-2013-u-s-needs-to-leave-borders-behind-embrace-global-economy/
Why would a Trump victory be worse for conservatives? Because Trump would be doing the Left’s work in the name of conservatives, since he is nominally a Republican.
If we are going to have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one we can oppose and one we are not responsible for.
Hillary went along with lying about the reason for the uprising in Benghazi, complete with jailing a man (ruining his life), which I have believed from the moment it happened was the “Plan A” should there be any issue in the Middle East prior to the 2012 election. Other than killing this man outright, I can’t think of a more flagrant misuse of public office and position. This is right up there with King David sending Uriah to the battlefront so he can have his widow. And as we all know, there are voluminous other issues of her proven corruption of office, let alone character. Plus, she is aligned with George Soros (the man behind Obama) so she represents the Left in all its totalitarian bent. I join Cornhead in not understanding doing anything one can to prevent this travesty.
Oldflyer–I’ve also had excellent personal encounters in the last couple months with people with whom I disagreed. Conversations…respectable. I think the internet has played a role in lowering the bar of discourse, as well as taking the place of face-to-face discussions. Facebook indeed.
” I think the internet has played a role in lowering the bar of discourse . . . .” [Sharon W @ 3:59]
I agree. I suspect that commenting anonymously has something to do with it. Is it kind of like the first person in a mob throwing a stone because they can’t be identified, or wearing a mask while doing an unseemly thing? Don’t both of those acts tacitly admit to doing something wrong? And if so, what does that say about the commenter, that relies on such anonymity to spew insults and venom and bile (Oh my!)?
I write anonymously for some very specific professional reasons and there are times when I want to just reach through the internet and grab a throat (so-to-speak). It is difficult, but not impossible to be civil when one is not held to account. I guess it’s the human condition; but to quote Katherine Hepburn in The African Queen: “I thought the human condition was what we were put on this earth to overcome.”
Cornhead Says:
“Being as civil as I can, it is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is a criminal of the first order. For the life of me, I can’t understand why people don’t see that. Do the American people want The Godfather times 100 running this country?”
The Marxist Party has become a big tent, including 20% of the population that always self-identifies as “liberals” in annual surveys. Arcane principles like honesty, legality, morality, ethics and other values have been Alinskyed out of them long ago. Power is all they care about.
Then there’s some high % of minorities (blacks, latinos, LGBTQWERTY, feminists, Muslims) who have been convinced with indoctrination in the media and those propaganda mills we used to call universities and schools that Republicans/conservatives are evil and want to see them all re-enslaved, outlawed, sent back to the kitchen with no shoes, or deported and their handouts, preferences and victim status cancelled tomorrow. What does it matter to them if their heroine is not perfect, as long as she can be relied on to deliver the goods for them?
I haven’t run the numbers, but even without the LIVs or the crony capitalists in it for the money, that is already pushing the magical 50%, which is why the election always comes down to a handful of swing states that seem to get more purplish every cycle.
I’m afraid all those who can see Hillary’s criminality, or find it disqualifying are on our side already.
I agree with neoneocon. This blog site features mostly very civil debate. Does it occasionally get a little bit nasty? Sure.
But for the most part, people make their arguments and counter arguments. Personal attacks are rare here.
This is not the case on other web sites.
In response to the question of why would I (and, perhaps, others who see trump as much an awful choice as clinton) came here to post comments …
“There is an audience beyond the commenters here being responded to. They read the back and forth.
This is probably one of the few places they will get a fairly honest discussion about both (all?) sides of the “conservative” / Republican view wrt trump.
It has definitely NOT been all trump or all nevertrump here.
Sites that have catered exclusively to one of those views seem to have less discussion, valuing the pithy (or not so much) snarky attack instead.
Folks don’t get much “informational value” out of reading those comments, if they were ever seeking that by going to those sites.
Thanks to Neo for clearing a space in the “conservative” blogverse for this.” – me
http://neoneocon.com/2016/10/18/trump-on-the-ropes/#comment-1795380
Seems relevant to this article and worthy of referencing, given T’s comment in the above article.
.
There has been hyperbole on both sides of the argument, though I think the case for trump depends more heavily on the hyperbole of the “flight 93” “not clinton” type case.
I have tried to be careful to use words such as “likely”, or “possibly” vs the definitive “will be” – maybe not always so, but definitely in part because we just cannot know some things with certainty.
Yet, I’m finding the lack of acknowledgement of the lack of clarity /details / consistency on just what trump would do particularly disturbing.
Too many speak with too much certainty on just what trump will do, while others implicitly acknowledge the problem, but “hope” the GOP, Congress, MSM, etc will be able to stop trump from going too far.
.
That said, I do see that BOTH candidates are beyond a threshold of acceptability, and that both give all kinds of indications that they are essentially leading in the same direction, with trump being, in my judgement, the riskier / more volatile of the two, for several reasons stated elsewhere.
.
” I join Cornhead in not understanding doing anything one can to prevent this travesty” – Sharon W
Picking one awful to save us from another awful does not prevent a travesty, it creates one.
This is still the best place to read/comment. Very civil – any spats are really just that – sharply worded disagreements (for the most part).
The level of emotionalism here is minimal, which is why I love reading the comments. I normally wait 3 days or so before visiting to read the whole column. I have tweaked my opinions based on some of the writings here.
“Picking one awful to save us from another awful does not prevent a travesty, it creates one.”-Big Maq
I guess that is where we truly disagree. The concept of “one” doesn’t even enter into my mindset. For me, it is about “the Left” and opposition to “the Left”. Ronald Reagan said he was shocked at how little a President could actually accomplish. But here we are and Obama has been VERY SUCCESSFUL in accomplishing his task to fundamentally transform our country as he promised. And that is because it is about the Leftist cabal that makes up his and Hillary’s support. Donald Trump will NEVER have the kind of assistance that the Left promulgates; unless he has Soros (and the like) support that I’m unaware of.
“Either “enthusiastic late-adopters of Trump” or “reluctant Trumpers.” I think Cornhead is close to being in the first group, and I’m not sure about you. Perhaps the second? Both believe Trump is the lesser of two evils.” – Neo
Instead of “enthusiastic late-adopters of trump”, maybe we just call them “trump converts” to reflect their change from another candidate but their recent “enthusiasm” for supporting trump.
Chalk me up to enthusiasm in opposing the Left. In every case of public discourse (Facebook and so forth), my sister’s evangelical family (one a Pastor of a successful church) have chided Trump alone. I have never heard a single negative comment specifically about anyone on the Left. There is no question in my mind that her brother-in-law, kids, nieces and nephews want to appear above it all and “cool”. I compare that to my own kids that are normal, descent people with taste and style who will never become “virtue signalers”, so they can fit in with the “in crowd”. They are sound conservatives that see what’s ahead in the near future with a continuation of these Leftists assaults on their liberties. These liberties were paid for in blood and God only knows what it will take to keep them.
” Donald Trump will NEVER have the kind of assistance that the Left promulgates; unless he has Soros (and the like) support that I’m unaware of.” – Sharon W
It is sort of academic now, but this is an assumption that not sure holds.
If trump is willing to significantly extend executive over-reach – well beyond what Obama has done (and he has given indication he is not beholding to any limitations), and he has a GOP majority in Congress, very hard to say he needs much more to do damage.
And, a good chunk of what he could do damage on is already within the purview of the POTUS – trade deals, alliances, foreign affairs, military placement and priorities, intelligence.
Just on opening up to “renegotiate” trade deals with China, NAFTA, etc has the potential to be a giant hit economically (something most people won’t see coming – then who do they blame?).
Then there is NATO – will it become pay to play for protection like he has indicated it should be on several occasions? If you are a foe to the USA, you’d be dancing the happy jig if trump starts down this path.
Those are only two areas with potentially huge consequences that don’t need Soros or any such type of support to implement.
We are repeating ourselves–all over again, as Yogi might say.
I suspect that there is no one who visits this forum who does not know what the stakes are. Nor anyone who does not know how unattractive the choices are.
November 9th cannot get here soon enough for me. Then we can change the subject to the blame game. Of course Trump is out in front on that–already blaming everyone but himself that his campaign is mired in mud (to use a self constructed euphemism).
Sharon W at 4:34 pm: Exactly.
I’m a “reluctant Trump voter” (not really a supporter) because I sincerely believe that it’s the only choice available that would leave us with a chance – – mere though that chance may be- – to slow down the relentless march of the Left and preserve what we can of the tattered integrity of our Supreme Court.
The choice has been painful to make but to me, at least, it’s crystal clear. It’s equally clear from comments on this blog that some (many?) of you disagree. Fair enough; I don’t doubt your bona fides at all but I do not understand the reasoning.
The race is as tight as a drum.
The media is rigging the game to make it seem that it’s a Clinton blow out.
This is, itself, but a gaming tactic.
Pre-Suasion, Robert Cialdini
ISBN 978-1-5011-0979-9
This is the Master Mind that’s running the psy ops of the Hillary campaign.
Yes, he’s on staff.
With time, you’ll come to understand that this text is as important as The True Believer, Animal Farm, Brave New World, and 1984.
The game plan is to manipulate the public with relentless character assassination against Trump.
To many minds, this is a slam dunk, as the campaign is working with Confirmation Bias run amok.
Neo is surrounded by such souls. This has caused them to entirely shut their minds to what Wikileaks is pouring forth.
Yes, they are NOT reading any of it.
They can dial in the Clinton News Network and receive endless Ministry of Truth pablum — with cut-aways every time that Wikileaks is brought up.
Scott Adams has much more to this on his blog.
It’s a pretty short quick read.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152024526021/i-wake-you-up-for-the-presidential-debate
For the skinny on Hillary read:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264499/clinton-record-john-perazzo
The FULL Clinton record is horrendous.
She and he are not even in the same solar system.
At worst Trump’s a blowhard and chronic civil litigant.
She’s a flat out chronic felon — and probable traitor to the nation should all the facts really come out.
Neo:
“The Trump candidacy and the 2016 Trump vs. Clinton election have effectively poisoned discourse all around the right side of the blogosphere, while the left celebrates.”
From what I gather, this effect is the purposeful product of a strategic design.
As a suggested post subject, I’d be interested in your blog mistress-eyed analysis of your observations of the Trump-front alt-Right (and Democrat-front Left) according to the “The Russian “Firehose of Falsehood” Propaganda Model”:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
Of course, this goes to the axiomatic the activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is, which includes the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game, in which narrative is elective truth and the actual truth is just a narrative that must be competed for like any other.
Maybe we need to change te terminolgy. How about Republican supporter or Conservative supporter, both of which leave Trump out of the definition? I would define these terms as applying to people who want to preserve our country and not weaken the only office holders who can do this. I am certainly willing to listen to reasonable debates about specific policies among this group. Being a bottom-up person, I don’t see Trump as a saviour, nor do I find him morally fit for the presdency. I simply don’t want to sacrifice the governors, state office holders, and congressmen by giving Hillary free reign. Trump needs to stop trashing our side. Many of us here were initially attracted to Scott Walker. He didn’t make the cut, but I sure don’t see him as a loser.
carl in atlanta:
“I sincerely believe that it’s the only choice available that would leave us with a chance — — mere though that chance may be- — to slow down the relentless march of the Left”
The only chance for that is a collective zealous, aggressive, all in, full on, zero sum competitive activist movement by conservatives.
As yet, NeverHillary conservatives who’ve hooked onto the Trump-front alt-Right have avoided establishing the essential activist measures on the Right and thus resigned themselves to the same competitive impotence as NeverTrump conservatives who’ve similarly hooked into the Democrat-front Left in a dead-end dependency.
Neither the alt-Right nor the Left, who are sides of the same dys-civic coin, is on the side of conservatives of the Right.
The dynamic of conservatives depending on a more ruthless activist faction to do their competing in the arena looks reminiscent of German conservatives losing themselves with the national socialists and Iranian radical progressives losing themselves with the religious fundamentalists.
Of course, above-LIV NeverTrump or NeverHillary conservatives know the historical dynamic they’re risking. But they evidently value their aversion to activism above any other principle or love of country.
Using terms such as Left and Right is one thing.
Using the phrase “NeverHillary conservatives who’ve hooked onto the Trump-front alt-Right” is an example of the lack of civility referenced in this thread.
Eric–“Of course, above-LIV NeverTrump or NeverHillary conservatives know the historical dynamic they’re risking. But they evidently value their aversion to activism above any other principle or love of country.”
Or we are busy living our lives, fulfilling our roles as mother, father, daughter, son, sister, brother, friend, neighbor, citizen; many of us doing corporal and spiritual works of mercy as well as staying abreast of the issues. Perhaps you have a website where you have unfolded all these activist measures we are suppose to be doing, but I haven’t seen it. Even if I did, working a 4 day/week job with myriad weekly deadlines, watching my granddaughter one day each week and then doing all the other personal and civic things I do keeps me plenty occupied. My youngest has the personality and looks that could bring him far politically and he is conservative and sharp. Provide a link with your answers and I will send it to him
Some have argued, Mark Levin specifically, that the Federal Government (executive (and alphabet agencies, legislative, judicial) have gone far beyond what is permitted in the constitution. Activism on the state level is required through a Convention of States (Article V) to enact amendments (see the Liberty Amendments) to the Constitution. This would require a long hard political battle.
Trumpism, the alt-right are no solution, and are a waste of time, given that Trump is likely to revert to form (liberal democrat for whom most (all) things are negotiable even if he were elected. And that doesn’t look likely based on polling trends.
carl in Atlanta wrote:
The choice has been painful to make but to me, at least, it’s crystal clear. It’s equally clear from comments on this blog that some (many?) of you disagree. Fair enough; I don’t doubt your bona fides at all but I do not understand the reasoning.
Let’s put it this way.
What if Trump was still, in his heart, a Leftist New York Democrat?
The same Leftist New York Democrat who donated money to Jimmy Carter, supported Bill Clinton when conservatives were demanding his impeachment.
Supported Hillary Clinton in her 2007-2008 presidential race? Praised socialized medicine? Supported the assault weapons ban?
Praised President Obama’s economic stimulus plan in 2009? In other words, what if we have been given a false impression of what Donald Trump’s political views really are?
Back in 2012, after Romney lost his race against Obama, Trump in an interview on Fox said that Romney lost because Romney’s immigration stance was too restrictive.
So, what if Trump’s pro-deportation stance, as he delivered it in his 2015 speech announcing his intention to run for president, was simply a con game?
After all, if Trump really did convert from Leftism to conservatism, why did he, in the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015, praise socialized single payer medicine as practiced in Canada and Scotland? Why the donation to Harry Reid’s US Senate campaign in 2010?
Of course, conservatives do not want to see Hillary Clinton elected president. But then we are told that the only way of preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president is to elect Donald Trump.
A conservative who knows about all of Donald Trump’s pro-statist, pro-Leftist deeds and statements over the years has a hard time making this decision.
It’s like choosing between Chuck Schumer (Trump) and Elizabeth Warren (Clinton). It’s really no choice at all.
That’s why so many conservatives have decided to abstain from supporting Trump.
You also have to add in all of Trump’s other deficiencies too. Like Trump’s belief that the National Enquirer deserves a Pulitzer Prize for its investigative reporting. Like Trump’s argument that the press should look into Rafael Cruz’s role in the JFK assassination. The Trump University scam and a whole host of other issues.
Sure, you can digest all that information and still conclude that maybe Trump would be better than Hillary by a centimeter or two. But not all conservatives have made that determination.
If you only listen to certain news outlets (Laura Ingraham, certain Fox News shills) you get the sense that Trump is the 2nd coming of Reagan. But when you read about Trump, the real Trump, it leaves you cold and unwilling to vote for him.
OM
That Trump is far from my ideal is beyond question.
I didn’t get my favorite through the primary. He dropped out right in front of our primary.
Perfection is oft the enemy of the good-enough-will-do.
And that’s what we’re dealing with.
You need not troll this blog with Trump’s faults.
These are stuffed silly in every media broadcast.
EVERYONE gets that message.
It’s the 2-Minute Hate, for sure.
But, the VAST bulk of the Clinton Machine’s argument is pure, absolutely pure, ad hominem.
Known to be the weakest logical position to push.
Not that such slumming and slamming does not work.
Read Robert Cialdini.
He’s the Master Mind that’s running the Clinton Machine’s psy ops.
Yup. The man behind the curtain.
Except he published most of his notes in:
Pre-Suasion
ISBN 978-1-5011-0979-9
This text is an astounding read.
It’s impact must rival The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer.
It’s a hard book to put down.
Within its pages you’ll see the thinking behind the MSM manipulations you see popping up on your TV screen.
I doubt you’ll look at the world the same way.
Spiral- Who said Trump is a conservative? Or even a real republican? Not me; that’s for sure.
carl in Atlanta,
Spiral- Who said Trump is a conservative? Or even a real republican? Not me; that’s for sure.
Good. We agree that Trump is neither a conservative nor a Republican.
What we perhaps don’t agree on is that Trump is a Leftist.
If Trump is, in his heart, a New York Leftist, than this election is a choice between Leftist Hillary Clinton and Leftist Donald Trump.
In that case, conservatives should not feel compelled to support either.
Blert:
“You need not troll this blog with Trump’s faults.” This isn’t your blog to police, or to be thought police.
If pointing out the obvious is trolling, get yourself a clue. If you don’t like other opinions and assessments stick to Trumpbart “Trumpblert’.
Blert:
Is he one of Scot Adams’ meat puppet masters?
I’ve certainly engaged in plenty of low argument, attacking people rather than policies, statements, their history, etc. But I find that my posts wherever are more effective when I stick to the facts and let my reader make conclusions about the personalities involved.
Even if we think someone is really stupid, telling him so is not the most effective way to change his mind. I think most philosophers learned this a long time ago, and this is why the development of philosophy’s various branches has been able to develop so well over the centuries. Philosophers are not known for ad hominems.
Neither of this year’s candidates is an angel. Big issues are at stake, however, and those issues, like the future of Obamacare or of social security or gun control or the makeup of the supreme court or whether or not immigration law will be enforced ARE important, but they are being forced to the side of the stage by all this noise about the characteristics of two people. A national election is being turned into a soap opera.
Sharon W Says:
October 19th, 2016 at 4:34 pm
“Picking one awful to save us from another awful does not prevent a travesty, it creates one.”-Big Maq
I guess that is where we truly disagree. The concept of “one” doesn’t even enter into my mindset. For me, it is about “the Left” and opposition to “the Left”. Ronald Reagan said he was shocked at how little a President could actually accomplish. But here we are and Obama has been VERY SUCCESSFUL in accomplishing his task to fundamentally transform our country as he promised.
* *
Two points here.
Firstly, one I hadn’t framed quite this way before, is that we often see the election as a contest solely between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and the arguments over which one of them is worse than the other have takers on all sides (pushed by the media, BTW, who have a great interest in you not seeing the man behind the curtain); only occasionally does someone point out that we have a contest between large groups of people: Clinton’s supporters (the Left in all its generic progressivism and in all professions) v. Trump’s supporters, who are all over the ideological map.
Yes, a Trump win will bring in some “undesirables”, but also some true conservatives; a Clinton win will bring in nothing BUT undesirables.
And they already hate you in Washington, regardless of political party.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/washington-versus-the-people.php
Number two, Ronald Reagan said he was shocked at how little a President could actually accomplish — when he was ethical, reasonably honest, and committed to Constitutional government including (most of) the limits on executive power.
Take away that perspective and you get Obama and Clinton — and probably Trump, but he won’t have the traction Clinton will.
Shorter blert:
Here is a list of Trump’s faults; it is long. I’m going to overlook all of that because I don’t like the alternative. I didn’t consider that nominating this clown would guarantee Hillary’s victory.
Now here’s a bunch of kooky conspiracy bullshit that sort-of supports me.
Matt_SE Says:
October 19th, 2016 at 10:36 pm
Shorter blert:
Here is a list of Trump’s faults; it is long. I’m going to overlook all of that because I don’t like the alternative. I didn’t consider that nominating this clown would guarantee Hillary’s victory.
Now here’s a bunch of kooky conspiracy bullshit that sort-of supports me.
&&
Man you’ve got a short memory.
It was I that advanced this very point — on this blog — many months ago.
I believe I was the first,… or second … to advance this point… practically alone at that moment.
That my political opponents were jamming Trump down my throat to grease Hillary into the White House was crystal clear to me — over a year ago if my memory holds.
Trump is FAR from my ideal. (Ted)
But Cruz is not on the ballot.
It’s Medusa vs Trump.
Bring a mirror.
And reflect on it.
OM Says:
October 19th, 2016 at 8:49 pm
Blert:
“You need not troll this blog with Trump’s faults.” This isn’t your blog to police, or to be thought police.
If pointing out the obvious is trolling, get yourself a clue. If you don’t like other opinions and assessments stick to Trumpbart “Trumpblert’.
&&
Repeating the MSM’s talking points// HRC’s talking points — it’s NOT necessary.
AFTER HRC gets through changing the demographics of this nation — you won’t have a vote… ever.
You’ll have the illusion of relevance.
Elections will be ethnically decided, forgone conclusions.
There will be no issues to debate — no policies — only personalities. PERIOD.
That’s what a one-party state means.
That’s not a prospect with Trump.
I’m not thrilled with Trump. Not by a LONG shot.
But Game Theory tells me that a vote for ‘other’ — or abstention — is a vote for the Clinton Machine as a practical matter.
I’m going to be biting my belt when I pull the lever.
But pull it I MUST.
At least Trump is not as bad as Lincoln — the anti-Christ.
Man, you would not believe how bad he would be as president.
He’s a heathen rail-splitter, too.
Spiral Says:
October 19th, 2016 at 8:16 pm
carl in Atlanta wrote:
The choice has been painful to make but to me, at least, it’s crystal clear. It’s equally clear from comments on this blog that some (many?) of you disagree. Fair enough; I don’t doubt your bona fides at all but I do not understand the reasoning.
&&&&
I may have to crawl over broken glass, but to preserve the nation I HAVE to vote for the less damaging Liberal.
Trump is a flaming Liberal — in my book.
Hillary is a flamingly corrupt, statist, globalist, who is certified to open our borders to hostile aliens — for the express purpose of statistically taking your vote away from you forever.
It’s plain from your posts that you’ve never lived in a wholly one-party state.
You are in for a fright.
In a one-party state, elections are a farce, simulacrum of real elections.
More like elections in the USSR// Iran// et. al.
Policy issues — so oft debated here — become wholly irrelevant.
MOST of the world is run in this manner — for most of history.
Hillary is all FOR it.
Trump is all AGAINST it.
That decides it for me.
If I hadn’t damaged my rotator cuffs, I’d still be patting myself on the back.
Went to a dinner recently where the hostess was going on and on and on about…Hillary’s the most lied-about woman in history, global warming’s racing ahead like nobody’s business, and on and on.
I said nothing. Didn’t even roll my eyes…where anybody could see me.
Thus, we had a civil discussion.
Were it a stranger on the ‘net, things could have gotten really, really hot.
Sheesh.
There is what I used to call the gasp level. Somebody says something so out there that you can’t respond because you’re still trying to breathe.
The timing of web discussions allow for reordering one’s respirations before responding.
As I see it, the various civilities which allow real jerks to get away with being jerks in live conversations do not protect them on the ‘net.
WRT the above. The jerks complain about it.
Blert:
Trump is for Trump alone, that is all he cares about. You wish to be a tool for him, that is your choice while you have it. Follow the gold-plated shiny idol.
“It’s plain from your posts that you’ve never lived in a wholly one-party state.” – blert
Explains the conspiracy theory themes and the dilblert theory of “master persuaders” to all others who are mere “meat puppets”.
Only, those who tell us such theories have unexplainable special powers of insight to the “master’s” persuasive techniques that otherwise lulls and overcomes the rest of us.
BM…
Read Pre-Suasion — from the master puppeteer — who is on staff to the Clinton Machine.
You’ll discover that mass audiences — and tiny ones — can be manipulated BELOW the level of rational thought.
Having a high IQ, advanced education, is absolutely no defense against such devious scheming.
Yes, it’s a jaw-dropper.
You will NOT be able to look at this campaign the same way after reading it.
The master’s unexplainable techniques are fully explained in terms that a non-specialist can easily fathom.
From the jacket:
“An utterly fascinating read on how the most important drivers of persuasion aren’t the words we chose in the moment, but how we set the stage beforehand. You will never look at persuasion in the same way again.” Adam Grant
Robert Cialdini’s earlier tome, Influence, is a blockbuster seller.
This text will change the way you persuade, too.
OM Says:
October 20th, 2016 at 9:02 am
Blert:
Trump is for Trump alone, that is all he cares about. You wish to be a tool for him, that is your choice while you have it. Follow the gold-plated shiny idol.
&&&
Boy, you said it.
He’s just a man.
And at 70 years of age, is no intrinsic threat to the Republic.
The Clinton Machine — and its VAST army of hangers on — will roll on and on and on.
Unlike a mortal man, it’s appetite for expansion has no natural limits.
BTW, the heart of your objection turns on ad hominem: he’s a nasty piece of work — and so forth.
While the worst possible argument to make on matters of substance — you must agree that it is often entirely persuasive — especially with LIV — hence its use at this time.
&&&
BTW, as a function of his extreme vanity, he’ll absolutely want to do the best, so that he will be immortal.
He can’t be in it for the fame or the money. He had both in spades before all this. He was so famous that he had name recognition wherever he went. Having tens of thousands of employees, he had plenty of social power.
All that can remain for him is to ‘go out on top.’
It’s plainly an irresistible lure.
The idea that he’s going to loot the Treasury to make himself more money is ludicrous. His entire economic empire is based on real estate development. How is he supposed to plop down more resort casinos while he’s fully occupied in the White House?
Real estate development is a LOCAL game — decided by mayors, city officials, unions, and other players. It does not proceed at the Federal level. You just don’t see real estate developers running to Congress for this or that project. ( Tax breaks is another matter — but they apply to the entire industry. )
No small number of his business connections are die hard Democrats. Poof. Those bridges have been burned. He has mentioned this from the podium. Perhaps you missed it.
Trump’s ability to borrow big from American banks has totally evaporated. (!!!) Yes, they are scared stiff that the Clinton Machine will punish them.
Think about that.
Major media properties have squelched stories — like Wikileaks — because, at a fundamental level, they are afraid of the Clinton Machine. This is spineless pack behavior at its worst.
The skewed poll numbers go VERY far towards enforcing this behavior, which is why the Clinton Machine bought and paid for the NBC//WSJ poll. They own that dude.
He was cheap, only $250,000 a month.
Such is the nature of media and polling corruption.
Hillary is DOING right now everything you must fear in a Hillary Administration.
Whereas, you’re speculating as to how bad, bad might get with Trump. The folks planting such fear in you are paid pros on staff with the Clinton Machine.
By your posting, the Machine is thrilled with its approach. The smears and allegations are WORKING.
After the vote, you’ll discover that suddenly Trump is not such a bad fellow… kind of like Romney, McCain, even Bush.
Blert:
“BTW, the heart of your objection turns on ad hominem: he’s a nasty piece of work – and so forth.”
Bovine excrement, Blert. Trump’s actions and words need no exaggeration. Your opinion differs obviously.
“After the vote, you’ll discover that suddenly Trump is not such a bad fellow… kind of like Romney, McCain, even Bush.” Is this intentional parody?
Well, it has gotten much worse, not just here but all around the blogosphere, and in non-cyber conversations as well, and is one of the many profoundly distressing phenomena this election season.
It is merely a symptom of America’s decline and lack of righteousness. It is not, unfortunately, a temporary trend like say, Bush II going on about McCain’s personal problems via surrogates. McCain had a lot more beef with that, than he had with the media calling him a “maverick”. That stroked his ego and was good instead.
All nations because of humans, are susceptible to factionalism, lack of righteousness, sin, decadence, and decay. We are not always going to go up in the food chain or the pyramid of success. That would be true even if America was as exceptional as people believed.
A symptom of America’s decay and decadence, but not its source. Even if all the Clintons, their apparatchiks, and Trum as well, were wiped from the face of existence via total nuclear annihilation, I would still guarantee the existence of evil in the US, factionalism, and US Civil War 2. It’s not something that can be avoided using average humans means, not at this time at least.
There will be no issues to debate – no policies – only personalities. PERIOD.
Elections will be ethnically decided, forgone conclusions.
That’s a justification for war, not for electing Trum.
After the vote, you’ll discover that suddenly Trump is not such a bad fellow… kind of like Romney, McCain, even Bush.
Many in the ALt Right, VoxDay included, have severe criticisms of Republican policies and administrations and are in fact bitter, if not personally perceiving a betrayal. Bush II was even criticized for not fighting against the Left via propaganda.
Trum, if elected, will be expected to FIGHT, as in FIGHT the Leftis tallaince not Cater to the Leftist alliance. Even Bush II’s proposed deal with Qatar was shut down. So either Trum will fight, or he will not, and be criticized dramatically for it. Not that criticism will do much good once Democrats win the Republican nomination, it’s another example of them being better at Gramsci than people reading Gramsci.
The Alt Right wants to out Gramsci the Leftist Gramsci institution marchers, but it’s an insurgency vs super power occupation. Their chances of success and odds of success for the ALt Right, is not as good as they think. The Leftist alliance is not solely made out of sub human trash called SJWs. The Left’s allies, Islamic Jihad, aren’t SJWs either, except when they pretend to be for deceptive war.
People who say a Presidential result won’t be “as bad” are perhaps hedging their bet or don’t actually believe in their Doomsday fake prophecies.
And at 70 years of age, is no intrinsic threat to the Republic.
The Clinton Machine – and its VAST army of hangers on – will roll on and on and on.
Unless Parker and Spiral are more right than you, and the Clinton Machine is puppet mastering Trum. Then this 70 yo is of no intrinsic threat on the same scale as Clinton being of no intrinsic threat.
Btw, the so called Clinton Machine, is less than 10% of the Leftist alliance’s strategic power.
Keep that in mind, for those that think annihilating the Clintons equals strategic victory over the Left. It is no Salvation for America.
Sharon W:
“Provide a link with your answers and I will send it to him”
Start here:
http://doingdemocracy.com/
From there, the rest is iterative.
There’s plenty of material, a lot of on-line like the Moyer website, and observable real examples.
My best advice for beginners is use Moyer’s basic framework to get your team started, then just commit to the game, engage the competition, and learn your arena.
When I played, I didn’t have as much as Moyer’s basic framework to get started. I didn’t know what I was doing. My team started out simply by copying what I saw Left activists doing in the open. (Not the gross stuff, just the basics.)
Like any other skill mastery, once you begin, you’ll learn progressively how to do activism through experience, a lot of it being failure against superior activists. It’ll hurt when you lose because leftists play rough.
As you gain the perspective of the arena, the game opens up. Again, just like any other kind of competition or social endeavor. Your network expands. Better teammates join. Opportunities multiply as they’re seized.
Once you’ve gained experience and footing in the arena, then you can better sort through activism reference materials while learning what works and developing what works for your team.
At step 1, the Moyer basic framework and observation of the arena should be enough to get you started. If it’s not enough, then you’re just rationalizing your aversion to activism.
Eric–Thank you for your response. We will look at it.
Seems the book is available in PDF form here:
https://www.indybay.org/olduploads/movement_action_plan.pdf