March 9, 2016

"The truth is that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are two sides of the same coin," says Carly Fiorina, endorsing Ted Cruz.

"My fellow conservatives ... you have a very important job on Tuesday and I say to you it is time to take our party back.... It is time to take our government back. It is time to take our country back and so it is time now to unite behind the one man who can beat Donald Trump, who can beat Hillary Clinton."

Now that Carly has endorsed Ted...
 
pollcode.com free polls

141 comments:

J. Farmer said...

I wouldn't seek Fiorina's advice in choosing a new PC, let alone a new president.

Daniel Richwine said...

Too bad conservatives either are losing or have lost control of the party, otherwise this might mean something.

Bay Area Guy said...

It's good that she's endorsing Ted, but, jeez Louise, how on earth are Hillary and Trump two sides of the same coin?

Trump has gotten inside these people's heads. Just endorse Cruz and shut up about Trump, jeez.

Nonapod said...

Some deal was struck, obviously. She's not wrong though. If you don't like Trump, support Cruz. For all his faults, I sorta liked Rubio a bit better than Cruz, but it's time to face reality.

Big Mike said...

@Bay Area Guy, stop listening to Trump's tone and start reading his position on the issues. Once past immigration, he's more of a Democrat than a Republican.

Lauderdale Vet said...

I was originally for a Walker/Fiorina ticket.

I presently intend to vote for Cruz in the primary, but will be keeping an eye on things right up until the moment I vote.

If Trump is the nom for the GE and running against Clinton, I will pull the lever for him.

rehajm said...

All the wise old sages of the GOP have losing records.

n.n said...

So, they have diametrically opposite outlooks?

That implies that Trump does not support:

progressive wars.
liberal (i.e. variable or unprincipled) morality.
class diversity (e.g. racism, sexism).
anti-native policies.
refugee crises.
social justice humanitarian disasters.
selective exclusion.
debasement of capital and labor.
abortion rites.
cannibalistic trials.

That's probably a good thing.

coupe said...

Carly who?

There's no place for a Canadian citizen in the Executive Branch.

rehajm said...

Eric Cantor gave the same spiel this morning. If ever the need for an irony mark...

Sammy Finkelman said...

Carly Firina is showing herself to have bad judgement again (I mean this idea that people opposed tp Trump must get behind Cruz. Cruz isn't really all that popular, or good.)

The argument for Cruz is that if Donald Trump is the delegate leader (at the end of teh primaries? going into the convention?) and does not get the nomination, he will walk out if he but if he is not the delegate leader he will not walk out, and that Ted Cruz is the only person who might have a chance of becoming the overall delegate leader. It's very self-serving. He knossx he probably would not be picked by a contested convention, but Marco Rubio or John Kasich, or somebody else altogether might be. The best candidate might be picked from a contested convention.

For once someone who isn't the delegate leader should get the nomination. This didn't happen with Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 with the Democratic Party and the country was the worse for it.

And as for Donald Trump walking out, he may or may not walk out, but it doesn't matter if #2 or #3 or 4 or somebody else altogether gets it. And no matter what happens it is hard for Donald Trump not to be the delegate leader at the end of the primaries, especially if he wins Florida and Ohio.

Hagar said...

Nobody cares who New Mexico will vote for in the primaries and probably not in the general election either, but I will (if I live that long) vote for the Republican candidate, whoever and whatever he or she is, on the simple idea of getting the existing agency heads out of their offices and preventing Clinton, Inc. from moving back into the White House.

tim in vermont said...

It's good that she's endorsing Ted, but, jeez Louise, how on earth are Hillary and Trump two sides of the same coin?

They are both crony capitalist insiders. Trump just figured out all he had to say was let's get a handle on immigration and he could get the nomination. Other than that, he is pretty indistinguishable from Hillary.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bay Area Guy said...

how on earth are Hillary and Trump two sides of the same coin?

Yes, they are.

If we were to make a graph of all possible Trump presidencies and all possible Hillary Clinton presdences, I would say that the median of Hillary is worse than the median of Donald Trump, and the distribution is skewed bad, but the standard deviation of Trump is larger, and when you get 3 standard deviations away, it's worse.

Gahrie said...

Carly was my first choice, and she's still my choice for VP.

tim maguire said...

I was interested in Walker, would have like to see Fiorina do better (but didn't form an opinion on supporting her), fell back on Rubio as a safe choice. Now I don't know. I'd consider Clinton over Trump, but would prefer Sanders because he would be harmless. He'd afflict the comfortable while locking up government so it couldn't do anything. And gridlock is good.

Sanders in 2016!

surfed said...

The two parties are opposite sides of the same coin. You can't have Big Business without having Big Government. Mutual reach arounds to apply a vulgarism.

traditionalguy said...

The only thing Ted has to sell is the Conservatve Lost Cause self pity emotion. To frame that mental illness he first has to paint Trump as a liberal that Abused Conservatives by being a Real Estate Developer in Sodom and Gomorrah.

That makes no sense unless you are weak minded and want to live under a self pity spell. Even if there was a Pure Conservative, you are not one, and neither is Lying Ted.

The Evangelicals came out from under the God Wants Ted spell.and it is about time the rest of the Cruzbots wake up.

Bob Ellison said...

That's well said, Sammy Finkelman.

Gahrie said...

Too bad conservatives either are losing or have lost control of the party, otherwise this might mean something.

Conservatives have NEVER been in control of the party. There hasn't been a conservative presidential candidate since Reagan, and we had to fight to get him. It is precisely because the establishment has ignored the conservatives that we are in the fix we are in.

cubanbob said...

Hagar said...
Nobody cares who New Mexico will vote for in the primaries and probably not in the general election either, but I will (if I live that long) vote for the Republican candidate, whoever and whatever he or she is, on the simple idea of getting the existing agency heads out of their offices and preventing Clinton, Inc. from moving back into the White House.

3/9/16, 10:51 AM:

Amen. And a straight ticket downstream as well.

Robert Cook said...

"Two sides of the same coin"? Heck, they're all just the individual heads of the great Hydra that comprises the two major political parties. They all serve the interests of the financial elites who own this country and none serve they interests of American citizens.

BDNYC said...

A majority of Republican voters do not like or trust Donald Trump. They know he's not a conservative. They know he's a con man and a short-fingered vulgarian. They know he can't be trusted to do what's right for America. One-third of Republican primary voters are either brain dead or not really Republicans. Carly should have added her voice to the effort much earlier.

If I were in an anti-Trump PAC, I would reach out to John McCain ASAP and ask him to do an ad skewering Trump for his Vietnam draft-dodging and his shameful comments about McCain's military service. Having a war hero like McCain attack Trump's honor should resonate in the Florida panhandle and the Jacksonville area, I would think. Trump is expected to have strong support in these areas because of the closeness to Georgia and Alabama, but appealing to the military's sense of honor just might cut into that support. The smart play then would be for Ted Cruz to focus his Florida efforts in these areas, as he would be the logical choice to pick off Trump supporters who suddenly realize what an ass clown he is.

Qwinn said...

We need a new poll. "Does every single post by traditionalguy make you more likely to vote for Cruz?" I'll vote Yes right now on that one.

Humperdink said...

She should call the guy from Queens the Deceiving, Doubtful, Dubious, Deadbeat Donald. Or maybe Tuhao, Toubab, Tosspot, Teuchter Trump. Labels seem to work in this campaign.

Gahrie said...

They all serve the interests of the financial elites who own this country and none serve they interests of American citizens.

Because everywhere else in the world, especially under Communism, the elites sacrifice their self interests in order to provide for the underclass.

B said...

Write-in answer: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is making me vote for him to stop Trump.

Ted Cruz is the devil, and I'm voting for him.

Dude1394 said...

I like Ted okay, as a senator. As POTUS, he doesn't have the chops to get it done.

Dude1394 said...

Oh I am unashamedly for Trump. Republican, Conservative purist tests be darned.

eric said...

Blogger Big Mike said...
@Bay Area Guy, stop listening to Trump's tone and start reading his position on the issues. Once past immigration, he's more of a Democrat than a Republican


We actually can read his positions, on his website. On guns, taxes, healthcare, immigration, maybe more.

Please quote from these positions that we can read and explain to me how these are even remotely the same as Democrat positions.

Thanks.

Gahrie said...

One-third of Republican primary voters are either brain dead or not really Republicans

Way to alienate your base! Well at least it's a change from "shut up and vote for the Establishment candidate you ignorant hick"

One of the reason that Trump exists is because the Establishment Republicans hate their base more than they do Democrats.

If I were in an anti-Trump PAC, I would reach out to John McCain

Well we tried Romney, and that didn't work, and after we try McCain we can drag Dole out of his retirement home and prop him up.

Explain to me again how dragging the Establishment's electoral failures out of the closet is supposed to persuade people who are mad because they've been forced to support Establishment candidates.

Michael K said...

"f I were in an anti-Trump PAC, I would reach out to John McCain ASAP and ask him to do an ad skewering Trump "

McCain may not even be able to hold his Senate GOP nomination. He has an attractive primary opponent. I suspect that Arizona is Trump territory and that McCain ad might be enough to sink him.

On second thought, go ahead. Make my day.

Curious George said...

"tim maguire said...
I was interested in Walker, would have like to see Fiorina do better (but didn't form an opinion on supporting her), fell back on Rubio as a safe choice. Now I don't know. I'd consider Clinton over Trump, but would prefer Sanders because he would be harmless. He'd afflict the comfortable while locking up government so it couldn't do anything. And gridlock is good.

Sanders in 2016!"

Dude the next POTUS will decide the SCOTUS. Harmless? I would rather lose congress.

Michael K said...

"Please quote from these positions that we can read and explain to me how these are even remotely the same as Democrat positions."

Yes. The more mindless Trump bashing I see, the more I am drawn to him.

amielalune said...


Four years of Trump/Cruz and then four more of Cruz/Rubio. I want Trump first for any of the revenge persecution he can to do the Obamabots; and then Cruz to take over and restore our Constitution.

-Only half joking.

Curtiss said...

"Explain to me again how dragging the Establishment's electoral failures out of the closet is supposed to persuade people who are mad because they've been forced to support Establishment candidates."

Simple: No true Republican would support a candidate who isn't willing to lose honorably.

BDNYC said...

You guys are totally missing the point. Whatever his faults as a politician, McCain is a bona fide war hero. He sacrificed for his country, he comes from a very distinguished Navy family, he is respected across the political spectrum and no one can seriously question his honor or his patriotism. Military people understand this.

There are so many compelling arguments to be made against Trump that if you use the scattershot approach you risk losing the audience's attention. So pick one argument at a time and focus like a laser on it. In north Florida, I think it makes sense to hammer Trump for his lack of honor and his disrespect for the military. Point out that he's a draft dodger, remind voters that he said despicable things about POWs and argue that his supposed support for vets is a damned lie. Forget about his ridiculous policies or Trump University or any of his business failures and scandals. That stuff would be more useful in other places.

MadisonMan said...

If Trump is the nom for the GE and running against Clinton, I will pull the lever for him.

Same. I won't like it, but what choice do I have?

You can't spell 'vomited' without 'voted'.

Hagar said...

I may be sticking my neck out here - or rather Trump's - but how many of Trump's past close associates (this being NY and NJ we are talking about, incidental acquaintances don't count) have gone to jail for reasons connected to the partnership, committed suicide, died in jail, or otherwise disappeared under not quite clear circumstances?

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

I think it makes sense to hammer Trump for his lack of honor and his disrespect for the military.

Cool...you might be right. But there are plenty of people who can give them that message besides an Establishment loser.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

(...Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court...)

Henry said...

Robert Cook wrote: "Two sides of the same coin"? Heck, they're all just the individual heads of the great Hydra that comprises the two major political parties.

Looks like we need a bigger coin.

Gahrie said...

Simple: No true Republican would support a candidate who isn't willing to lose honorably.

They've certainly gotten good at it.

Mike Sylwester said...

Although Fiorina did not succeed in this election race, most Republicans liked and respected her. Her endorsement of Cruz will influence many Republicans who have been undecided.

Bobby said...

Gahrie,

"Conservatives have NEVER been in control of the party. There hasn't been a conservative presidential candidate since Reagan, and we had to fight to get him."

Assuming that is true-- and given that Trump's supporters are drawn to him despite his not being an "authentic" conservative and lacking consistent conservative positions on many issues-- perhaps that is precisely why the conservatives have "NEVER" been in charge of the party and haven't been able to get a conservative presidential candidate since Reagan: conservatives were not as significant a plurality (much less majority) of the Republican Party as they believed.

traditionalguy said...

Rubio. Oh Rubio. Wherefore art thou Rubio?

Little Marco is not being interviewed anymore. Is he still alive. Or has he been thrown into the trash by his Donors, credit cards revoked and cell phones cut off.

This is sad. He was so cute and talked so good in English.

BDNYC said...

So Trump fans would rather the GOP lose elections dishonorably. I mean, they don't actually think Trump can win the election, do they? If so ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh man, that's rich.

Fabi said...

Why are we still talking about Trump? Have none of you heard? His steaks are fake!!1!1!Eleventy!1!11!!

/Chuck

Robert Cook said...

"Because everywhere else in the world, especially under Communism, the elites sacrifice their self interests in order to provide for the underclass."

Gahrie,

Must you always be obtuse?

We are not talking about other nations of the world, but about America, the "indispensable (sic) nation," the most free and (separate-but-)equal land ever 'twas, the land where "we, the people" rule, (or so we keep telling ourselves). Doesn't it cause you a smidgen of concern, an iota of ire, a dollop of fury that our representatives--most of them--do not represent or serve us, but serve only their corporate and Wall Street masters, that no matter what a majority of Americans want, Americans don't get it?

Bay Area Guy said...

I don't think Trump and Hillary are "two sides of the same coin".

Hillary is a leftist creature of Government. She wants to control as much as possible, tax as much as possible, and redistribute as much as possible, as long as she can rich in the process.

Trump is more like PT Barnum. You don't like Trump Steaks, don't buy 'em. You don't want to enroll in Trump University, go bowling instead. You don't want to play on a Trump Golf Course, go play on a public course.

Trump doesn't exercise control over me or anyone. Hillary can't say this.

I trust Trump a heluva lot more than Hillary -- but, Yes, I am grading on a curve.

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...
Must you always be obtuse?

We are not talking about other nations of the world, but about America


Why is the extreme left so obtuse? They constantly compare us to other countries [although only when such a comparison is to our detriment]. But when anyone else does the same they act as if their own tactic is out of bounds. Bizarre.

Robert Cook said...

Rick @ 11:51 AM--I have no clue what point you're trying to make.

Gahrie said...

So Trump fans would rather the GOP lose elections dishonorably. I mean, they don't actually think Trump can win the election, do they? If so ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You guys all believed that Dole, McCain or Romney could win.

You actively oppose Tea Party candidates even when the establishment isn't running anyone against them.

We gave you two Congressional landslides, and all you managed to do was insult conservatives and cut deals with the Democrats.

Rick said...

Bay Area Guy said...
It's good that she's endorsing Ted, but, jeez Louise, how on earth are Hillary and Trump two sides of the same coin?


They're both interested in what the Presidency can do for them.

Robert Cook said...

This is what our great servants have wrought, in their obeisance to the parasitical financial class that is destroying the world.

Michael K said...

"remind voters that he said despicable things about POWs"

I wonder if you are aware of the rumors that McCain and Kerry signed on to a deal that left some American POWs behind and declared them all dead ? I have no idea if there is any truth to it but that story is out there, The next time you see an older guy with a POW MIA shirt or hat, ask him. One sits in front of me at my grandson's Little League games.

I was a McCain volunteer in 2000 but he is too old now and too compromised. I think he may lose the primary.

Trump is what he is but Clinton was an obvious draft dodger and lied to his reserve commander. He was elected twice.

Rick said...

Robert:

Too many words. If you had stopped at I have no clue we could have found common ground.

Gahrie said...

Doesn't it cause you a smidgen of concern, an iota of ire, a dollop of fury that our representatives--most of them--do not represent or serve us, but serve only their corporate and Wall Street masters, that no matter what a majority of Americans want, Americans don't get it?

Yes.

Which is why I understand the Trump supporters. The Establishment of both parties govern in the interest of the political elites and ignore their base.

Which is why Trump and Sanders exist.

I just don't pretend that this hasn't been true for every nation that has ever existed.....and that it was much worse under Communism.

whswhs said...

None of those is my reaction. I don't particularly favor Cruz, given his views on moral issues, but I already thought he was less bad than any of the other candidates. But Fiorina's statement makes me think better of HER.

damikesc said...

The argument for Cruz is that if Donald Trump is the delegate leader (at the end of teh primaries? going into the convention?) and does not get the nomination, he will walk out if he but if he is not the delegate leader he will not walk out, and that Ted Cruz is the only person who might have a chance of becoming the overall delegate leader. It's very self-serving. He knossx he probably would not be picked by a contested convention, but Marco Rubio or John Kasich, or somebody else altogether might be. The best candidate might be picked from a contested convention.

According to the rules passed at the 2012 Convention, the winner must have won the most delegates in at least 8 states. Unless they change the rule --- and, man, that'd kill them if they actually did it --- only Trump and Cruz will even qualify. Kasich and Rubio will not qualify.

Gahrie said...

There are only two possible solutions. One is to break the large banks up into smaller and local entities such as existed prior to the concentration that deregulation fostered.

I would agree, except that I would posit that the concentration was actually the result of overregulation and government/corporate cronyism making it impossible for smaller banks to compete.

The other is to nationalize them and operate them solely in the interest of the general welfare of the population.

1) Yeah...because nationalization works so well every where it is tried....why would you want the same people who run the DMV to be in charge of your money?

2) Who decides what is in the interest of the general welfare of the people.....usually the same elites the people are rebelling against now.

Humperdink said...

TradGuy said: "Rubio. Oh Rubio. Wherefore art thou Rubio?

Little Marco is not being interviewed anymore. Is he still alive. Or has he been thrown into the trash by his Donors, credit cards revoked and cell phones cut off.

This is sad. He was so cute and talked so good in English."

You have about as much class as the guy you support.

Bay Area Guy said...

I still think Rubio would have the best shot against Hillary in the General (my sole criteria for voting), alas, I have been soundly out-voted in the primary:)

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Simple: No true Republican would support a candidate who isn't willing to lose honorably."

Bollocks. I want a candidate who will happily shank his opponent from behind in the dark rather than hand this country over to that slimy piece of shit Hillary.

Humperdink said...

@TradGuy. Question(s) for you. Do you think Rubio supporters will fall in behind Trump in the general election? Jeb supporters? Cruz people, should Cruz come up short?

IMO, if his scorched earth campaign is successful in the primaries, he will be DOA in general.

Jane the Actuary said...

The message is this (OK, I'm assuming):

If you support Trump because you like that he tells it like it is, and bucks the establishment, Cruz does that too but is't a charlatan of questionable moral character of few principles and less understanding of the economics, global affairs, federal spending, etc., underlying policy-making, so choose Cruz.

If you support Rubio or Kasich, we'll, good for you, but not only do neither of them have any chance, but voting for them rather than Cruz in your local primary is highly likely to produce the outcome that Trump wins a winner-take-all primary or gains the plurality in a proportionate primary, and it's a fantasy to think that Trump supporters will quietly accept someone whose gotten measurably fewer delegates than Trump becoming the nominee.

At least, that's my approach. I don't like Cruz but he seems to be the only viable alternative to Trump. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janetheactuary/2016/02/so-cruz-because-its-looking-pretty-desparate.html)

On the other hand, there's also something to be said for the approach of, "look at the most rcent polls and vote for the strongest non-Trump in your state."

Larry J said...

tim maguire said...
I was interested in Walker, would have like to see Fiorina do better (but didn't form an opinion on supporting her), fell back on Rubio as a safe choice. Now I don't know. I'd consider Clinton over Trump, but would prefer Sanders because he would be harmless. He'd afflict the comfortable while locking up government so it couldn't do anything. And gridlock is good.

Sanders in 2016!


A Sanders presidency could still do a lot of damage via executive orders and supreme court nominations.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"@TradGuy. Question(s) for you. Do you think Rubio supporters will fall in behind Trump in the general election? Jeb supporters? Cruz people, should Cruz come up short? "

Do you think the general will be won with these people or with the vast swathe of apolitical and low-information "independents"? If the latter, then Cruz has already lost the general. He is not liked by Joe Sixpack.

Oso Negro said...

Cracker Emcee, with all do respect, who do you think sent Cruz to the Senate from Texas?

Gahrie said...

Most Rubio supporters would be willing to settle for Cruz, but not the reverse (amnesty)

Many Trump supporters would be willing to back Cruz, but not the reverse. (You can't trust Trump)

Many Establishment voters would be willing to back Cruz (now...at least he's not Trump)

Cruz isn't the first choice for most people, but he is the obvious consensus candidate.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Texas's "vast swathe of apolitical and low-information "independents" is markedly different from Ohio's or Pennsylvania's.

Fabi said...

@Humperdink: You make some valid assertions. I don't think that Trump will have any trouble picking up Cruz supporters, since they also tend to disfavor the establishment. Jeb doesn't have enough supporters to be concerned about, and I'm not being sarcastic. Rubio voters seem to be the most unstable this primary season, but he had about five and ten percent of the vote in Mississippi and Michigan, respectively, last night, so that may be of some consequence.

However, from Michigan's primary yesterday: Trump had about 480,000 votes versus Romney's 409,000 from 2012. Total votes (last update I read) was well over a million versus less than eight-hundred thousand in 2012. Bottom line -- Trump may not need the Rubio crowd.

cubanbob said...

BDNYC said...
So Trump fans would rather the GOP lose elections dishonorably. I mean, they don't actually think Trump can win the election, do they? If so ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh man, that's rich.

3/9/16, 11:40 AM"

You know what's rich? The smug certainty that if Trump becomes the nominee the champaign communist grifter and felonious traitor is guaranteed to become the next president.

Is Trump a conservative? No. Is he a leftist like Clinton? No. He won't be rolling back the government but then again he isn't going to expand it, or raise taxes and he may lessen some of the regulatory load. That alone is far better than any outcome from a Democrat in the White House. If the Republicans were smart they would stop this circle-jerk idiocy and start focusing on the fact that the Democrats have two nominees, one is a communist and the other a criminal and while not picking favorites for the nominee they instead should work on getting as many downstream candidates elected. Trump with a Republican Congress will not be harmful under any circumstances and the man is 70 years old and very, very wealthy. He's a one term president. At age 74 he is going to realize that what energy he still has won't last long and whatever he could have accomplished as president would have been done in the first term.
If Trump is the nominee then who he picks as his running mate will be key. With a good control of the Congress and the right VP he will have a successful term, a real economic recovery and plenty of legitimate bragging rights. Although I'm voting for Cruz next week, I can vote for Trump and be quite happy with the outcome I described.

Robert Cook said...

"If you had stopped at I have no clue we could have found common ground."

In other words, you had no point and were just typing.

Michael said...

Robert Cook

The author of the linked article is a crank, a 9-11 truther. IOW a nutcase.

Robert Cook said...

"2) Who decides what is in the interest of the general welfare of the people.....usually the same elites the people are rebelling against now."

In a functional democracy/representative republic, the people.

Dan Hossley said...

She's right about Trump. He's a progressive. He thinks government is here to help...Trump. He has manipulated the levers of government, bankruptcy courts, civil courts, political payoffs, to his advantage and to the disadvantage of the average person throughout his career.

It's pretty funny that so many so-called conservatives are flocking to his banner. I guess they want their time at the trough.

Henry said...

He won't be rolling back the government but then again he isn't going to expand it, or raise taxes and he may lessen some of the regulatory load.

I don't see any basis for these assertions. Trump is acquisitive and attention-seeking. There's only one way to express these traits as president.

With a good control of the Congress...

It's certainly not cast in stone, but there's a lot of reason to be worried about Trump wiping out down-ballot candidates. Every one of them will be asked to answer for his worst behavior.

a real economic recovery...

I'm pessimistic, no matter who is president and have zero belief that who is president creates economic recovery.



Robert Cook said...

"I would agree, except that I would posit that the concentration was actually the result of overregulation and government/corporate cronyism making it impossible for smaller banks to compete."

In this you would be mistaken.

Fabi said...

Dan Hoseley said:

"I guess they want their time at the trough."

I don't recall Trump ever offering his supporters "their time at the trough" or anything remotely close in nature. Where are you getting this notion, other than speculation?

Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook

"The author of the linked article is a crank, a 9-11 truther. IOW a nutcase."


I'm aware of his views on 9/11. He's also the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan, and is a respected economist. Referring to his views on 9/11 as if they warrant an a prior dismissal of anything he might have to say about our economy or financial system is simply to avoid addressing his argument. His column is a plain description of what is happening now and is not a fantasy of what could happen sometime in the future.

The banks have usurped the sovereignty of the people and of nations, with the assistance of politicians here and abroad who serve the financial parasites and not their citizens.

R. Chatt said...

I get that Carly was insulted by Trump so there is no way she would ever endorse him. She's smart but also human. Comparing Trump to Clinton is irrational. Since she wants to be involved in the next government I also suspect that she was offered some position by Cruz.

What I don't get are all the so called conservatives who have not looked at the websites of Trump and Cruz to make their choice. I'm not a tax expert, and even I can see that Cruz's tax page looks juvenile and amateurish compared to Trump's. Cruz's "issues" look half baked and emotional while Trump's "positions" look well thought out, practical, and substantive.

AprilApple said...

I've been saying as much for a while now.

Trump was frustrated and confused when Obama didn't pick Hillary as his VP.
Trump has given Clinton and her bogus money laundering foundation all sorts of money.
Trump has openly stated his high opinion of Hillary - that he likes her.

Fiorina said: "Hillary has made millions selling influence in Washington, DC, and Trump has made billions buying politicians like Hillary.

AprilApple said...

Sean Hannity wants Hillary to win.

Trump will lose to the un-indicted felon. Why? Because while he spouts nice sounding lies, he is full of sh*t .

mccullough said...

HP's products are manufactured in China and Mexico. Carly has been part of the problem. The Dems are going to redistribute her assets when they pass the wealth tax.

AprilApple said...

Trump gave money to Charlie Crist in FL because they had a mutual money making golf club they wanted to build.

Must of sprouted a wonderful friendship-- they both use the same orange tanning cream.

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...

In other words, you had no point and were just typing.


We both know what my point was. Lefties have no objection to comparing America to other countries, this comparison was in fact their primary case for Obamacare. You made no objection to their tactic. You personally have compared America to Scandinavian countries. Yet somehow when there's a comparison to another country that doesn't show America negatively you claim it's inappropriate.

As I recall my sister used to act like she couldn't understand criticisms, it seems a more appropriate tactic for 13 year old girls.

Rick said...

Fabi said...
However, from Michigan's primary yesterday: Trump had about 480,000 votes versus Romney's 409,000 from 2012. Total votes (last update I read) was well over a million versus less than eight-hundred thousand in 2012. Bottom line -- Trump may not need the Rubio crowd.


He can win the primary without the "Rubio crowd", which I presume means mainstream Republican moderates. To think he can win the general without it is delusional.

sydney said...

Cruz can't beat Hillary. He's too much of an unknown to the general public. I expect Trump will govern like a Bloomberg. But he'd still be better than Hillary, so I can't support Cruz at this point, or any of the other Republican candidates.

mccullough said...

Trump doesn't need to win the general. He's broken off 1/3 of the GOP for good. They ain't going back. The GOP is done at the national level. Low taxes for the wealthy while killing the working class with their stupid trade and immigration policies has done them in. It will be country club white republicans (who are about the same as country club white Democrats) and those for who social issues are important that make up the national coalition, until the social issue conservatives realized they got played as well, which judging by Trump's support among evangelicals in Mississippi they are starting to do.

Fabi said...

@Rick: I could have been more precise and said that he may not need all of Rubio's supporters. He'll claim some of those, of course, but his crossover appeal and organic growth of voters may far outweigh any loss from Marco's holdouts. All my opinion based on voting patterns so far -- not making any hard predictions and continue to avail myself of may.

FullMoon said...

Hagar said... [hush]​[hide comment]

I may be sticking my neck out here - or rather Trump's - but how many of Trump's past close associates (this being NY and NJ we are talking about, incidental acquaintances don't count) have gone to jail for reasons connected to the partnership, committed suicide, died in jail, or otherwise disappeared under not quite clear circumstances?


Hundreds, if not thousands ! haha! They sleep with the fishies. Trump is the capo de capo. Watch for cruz to have an"accident" under not quite clear circumstances. Just sayin.......

Gahrie said...

In this you would be mistaken

Just like when I believed the sign said "Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy", when it clearly said "four legs good, two legs better".

Gahrie said...

"2) Who decides what is in the interest of the general welfare of the people.....usually the same elites the people are rebelling against now."

In a functional democracy/representative republic, the people.


Cite an example.

Rick said...

Fabi said... He'll claim some of those, of course, but his crossover appeal and organic growth of voters may far outweigh any loss from Marco's holdouts.

General election voters don't look like primary voters, so you can't apply his percentage of primary voters to the general Republican voting population and take that as his starting point. Every cohort is going to be much harder for him to earn, and to win he has to get 10-12 times the votes in the general he will have in the primary.

traditionalguy said...

@Humperdink...Worrying about getting the General Election support out of disappointed Rubio lovers is not what guys with Trump's class, like me, do. We only win and take another case.

It has been a long time since I have naively fallen for other people's hints they will destroy themselves if faced with reality, as if that creates the duty for me to jump in and save them from themselves. It's your country too, unless you are not a Natural Born Citizen either.

All I can do is observe with eyes that can see what games are afoot and give wise counsel.

I predict that two things will be true about Trump. 1)Many, many mistakes, gambles and failures that he has made over 45 years of learning curve during struggles to survive and grow wealthy in NYC and environs will be touted as if they disqualify him. And 2)he will admit the truth, but no one will care, and he will go on to win the election and become the greatest leader we have ever had because he has mastered himself and TV Communication.

Our problem with Trump will be how many assassination attempts will be made by crazy loners sent by his enemies that see no other way to STOP him.

Fabi said...

@Rick: I'm also factoring in the significant primary voter gains on the Republican side versus 2012 -- an increase of almost 40%. I've seen a few comments trying to minimize its impact vis-à-vis the general, but those increases continue to be steady in spite of the hotly contested Democrat primary, i.e., I'm not satisfied that the increased R primary turnout is mainly driven by D crossover.

Big Mike said...

@eric (11:07) I'm always up for a challenge, and I admit that Trump surprised me. Make that flabbergasted me. For instance I had read online that Trump has spoken approvingly of single payer healthcare. With the example of the VA (and European single payer systems) in front of us, I can't imagine anything more frightening to me as a Medicare recipient. However the positions on healthcare one finds on the Trump website are very reasonable, indeed, might have been written by myself after a bit of research and reflection.

Ditto the Trump website's position on personal defense. "The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway." True that!

Tax simplification! Great! Our tax code is riddled with loopholes and exemptions that, if one traces it back to the sponsors, benefit a small number of business and individuals who contribute large sums of money to campaigns. Those loopholes are usually worth tens, sometimes hundreds of times what the campaign donors paid in, but what cares the legislator about that?

The only place I would fault Trump is his position on the VA, which strikes me as a lot of window dressing and magical thinking. That agency isn't corrupt because of a handful of people at the top; it's a disaster all the way down to the janitorial staff. Put the veterans on some sort of enhanced Medicare plan (which covers PTSD and provides additional physical therapy). That's better than letting the veterans die waiting for care.

For all that, I still prefer Cruz. I think President of the United States needs to think before he speaks and he doesn't always seem to do that.

eric said...


For all that, I still prefer Cruz. I think President of the United States needs to think before he speaks and he doesn't always seem to do that.


I'm with you. I prefer Cruz as well. However, Trump isn't a Democrat, or, even, the other side of the same coin. He has stated his judicial philosophy is sympathetic to Thomas and Scalia.

I just think during this primary season, people have lost their heads a little because they aren't used to losing control of the Republican nomination. This causes them to lash out at Trump.

Hopefully, if Cruz doesn't win and it is Trump, they will come back to their senses when confronted with the possibility of a Hillary presidency.

Big Mike said...

@Rick, I know some Floridians and I'm quite surprised at how vehemently opposed to Marco Rubio they are. And I'm not exaggerating when I use the word "vehement." I have wondered whether Marco is running for president because he couldn't get reelected to the Senate. Well, the filing deadline for the US Senate in Florida is June 24th so we'll see whether Marco finally drops out before then to try to hold his own seat. I'm guessing that he won't because he couldn't.

Big Mike said...

@eric, I agree that a Hillary Clinton presidency would witness corruption on a scale not seen since the Harding administration -- perhaps not seen since Grant's. The difference being that Harding and Grant were not themselves part of the corruption, but based on her performance as Secretary of State I picture Hillary as the ringleader.

traditionalguy said...

After he loses, serious Cruz supporters will spend their time tuned in to Glen Beck (fresh back from another stay in Detox) and Levin and send in more and more money for more books and subscriptions that will keep telling them they are the only ones who know the deep insider secrets of True Conservatism, with Charles Atlas ads and Herbal Viagra coupons on the back.

But the kind Rush Limbaugh will gently expose the errors of the Cult of Cruz, and many will be rescued. Then President Trump will appoint Ann Althouse to an open SCOTUS seat, but she will face trouble being confirmed after Senators hear about commenters that she has refused to disavow.

William Chadwick said...

I am probably repeating myself, but for me in any election the key question in evaluating a candidate is, "Is this person good for liberty?" Unfortunately, as the republic cannonballs down the road to serfdom, the question morphs into "is this person better or worse for a free society than the other creep?" As I've posted before, I try to determine where a candidate lies on the Statist Scale, to wit:

Imagine a horizontal line with eleven has marks, from 0 at one end to 10 at the other. Zero would represent the purist form of pacifistic anrcho-libertarianism, embodied by Robert LeFevre. One might be the anarcho-capitalism of Murray Rothbard who did believe in defensive force, unlike the pacifist LeFevre. Ten would represent outright tyranny, as embodied by Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. State-shtuppers such as Hillary and Bernie and the Red Diaper Baby in the White House at 7 or 8. The big challenge for me is determining where Trump falls on the Statist Scale. He certainly seems closer to 7 or 8 than Cruz.

(Re the Statist Scale some of you may remember that the last time I offered this measurement of who is for the Free Society and who is for the Command Society--using Leonard Read's terminology--garage mahal actually wrote that he was a 5 and that Scott Walker was, as I recall, a seven. If anyone needed further proof that gm is either a loon or a dissimulator--or very, very, VERY stupid--that pretty much settled the case.)

Robert Cook said...

Rick,

No wonder I didn't see your point. As a response to me, your comment is a non-sequitur (or shows a complete misunderstanding) of my point, which was: Gahrie completely evaded my remarks about the usurpation of the American people's sovereign power by "representatives" who don't represent us by pointing fingers at what goes on in other countries.

So what?

That's like shrugging off the ugly reality that one's father beats one's mother by saying, "Look at what the guy next door does to his wife!" The ugly realities extant in other domains are irrelevant to discussions of the ugly realities prevailing within one's own immediate domain.

cubanbob said...

Blogger Henry said...
He won't be rolling back the government but then again he isn't going to expand it, or raise taxes and he may lessen some of the regulatory load.

I don't see any basis for these assertions. Trump is acquisitive and attention-seeking. There's only one way to express these traits as president.

With a good control of the Congress...

It's certainly not cast in stone, but there's a lot of reason to be worried about Trump wiping out down-ballot candidates. Every one of them will be asked to answer for his worst behavior.

a real economic recovery...

I'm pessimistic, no matter who is president and have zero belief that who is president creates economic recovery.




3/9/16, 12:53 PM

First why do you assume after the past seven plus years the Democrats are going to do well in the Congressional elections? They haven't been covering themselves in victory at the congressional level in the last three congressional elections and there is no reason to think they will this fall. Also you have to assume that if Trump wins the very same voter is also going to vote Democrat for the congressional election. Some no doubt will but that will most likely be in Blue districts that would vote Democrat for Congress even if the Republican presidential candidate carries the district so no net difference but in swing areas it is more likely the Republican presidential, even Trump could get the Republican congressional candidate elected. For all of Trump's vices he does know when to cut his losses and declare victory which is what he would do with a Republican congress that keeps him from getting to far astray. The question then becomes can Ryan be to Trump what Newt was to Bill Clinton? If the answer is yes, then rest easy.Presidents don't create economic recoveries, they create impediments to recoveries or remove the impediments to recoveries. You really think that Trump is going to add regulatory and tax impediments to the economy, the one thing he is truly running on and has credibility with millions of voters? One thing is for sure, Hillary will add impediments to the economy.

Robert Cook said...

"Lefties have no objection to comparing America to other countries, this comparison was in fact their primary case for Obamacare."

Such comparisons show up the grievous shortcomings of Obamneycare as a solution to the unaffordability and high costs of American healthcare, (even if it provides a margin of accessibility to healthcare for some Americans). Obamneycare is a gift to the insurance providers, who gain a captive audience for their over-priced, under-provisioned coverage plans.

holdfast said...

Baron Wolfgang von Strucker: "HYDRA, S.H.I.E.L.D., two sides of a coin that's no longer currency."

So the Dems are Hydra (obviously) and the GOP was supposed to be SHIELD, but it turns out that the hierarchy has been thoroughly infiltrated and it's really just another Hydra front.

Hail Hydra! I guess.

Rick said...

Fabi said...
I'm not satisfied that the increased R primary turnout is mainly driven by D crossover.


I don't think any significant portion of his voters are Dem crossovers, I think they're irregular primary voters. But this doesn't support the view that the growth from primary voters to general voters is easier for Trump than it was for other candidates. The existence of irregular voters for him is offset by regular voters antipathy. And since his most enthusiastic fans are already counted among the core group there is no evidence his fans exist in similar numbers throughout the remaining electorate.

cubanbob said...

@ Sydney: astute observation. I'm voting for Cruz but the equivalent of a first term Bloomberg outcome beats the hell out of what a third term Obama term will be if Hillary wins.

Blogger traditionalguy said...
After he loses, serious Cruz supporters will spend their time tuned in to Glen Beck (fresh back from another stay in Detox) and Levin and send in more and more money for more books and subscriptions that will keep telling them they are the only ones who know the deep insider secrets of True Conservatism, with Charles Atlas ads and Herbal Viagra coupons on the back.

But the kind Rush Limbaugh will gently expose the errors of the Cult of Cruz, and many will be rescued. Then President Trump will appoint Ann Althouse to an open SCOTUS seat, but she will face trouble being confirmed after Senators hear about commenters that she has refused to disavow.

3/9/16, 2:17 PM

These guys are going to make their money no matter what and if Trump is the nominee Levin and Beck will urge their followers to hold their nose and vote for Trump if for no other reason than to see Hillary prosecuted and with the resulting outpouring of corruption in the process that will keep these guys in business for years to come.

As for our hostess, besides being tarred with some of us disreputable commentators I doubt that at this stage in life she would want to endure the process of being selected for the court and if nominated having to move to DC.

tim in vermont said...

Trump: Open up the libel laws

Hillary: Citizens' United has to go.

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...
That's like shrugging off the ugly reality that one's father beats one's mother by saying, "Look at what the guy next door does to his wife!"


This is nonsense. His point was that government everywhere suffers from self-interest dealing, your preferred style included. Yet you single out economic freedom as uniquely corruptive of democracy even through socialism / communism is worse.

Your position is like criticizing American cars for achieving 20 miles a gallon instead of 500 and thus we should buy European, without noting they only get 18.

Fabi said...

@Rick: I understand your observation. I am still analyzing the data not only per primary, but also in extrapolation to the general. It's very challenging to normalize the dynamics of apathy and enthusiasm in a temporal relationship, yet the early conversion appears to be in his favor. We shall see. I appreciate the polite and informative exchange.

rhhardin said...

Fiorina analyzes like a woman.

Robert Cook said...

"Yet you single out economic freedom as uniquely corruptive of democracy even through socialism / communism is worse."

I point out that we don't have economic freedom, and that the financial institutions have usurped our sovereignty and is raping our economy. Your analogy trying to describe what I'm saying shows your complete lack of understanding of what I'm saying.

The financial institutions, untethered--as they are--are uniquely corruptive and destructive of the entire world's economy. Pointing to anachronistic boogeymen of "socialism/communism" is simply hiding one's head in one's security blanky.

hombre said...

She's right. Hillary and Trump are both accomplished liars supported primarily by unthinking idolaters. Both support crony capitalism. Both are greedy egomaniacs. Neither has any sound religious belief to offset their moral relativism. Each blows with the wind on issues. Both support single payer healthcare. One enables a serial adulterer and the other is a serial adulterer. Both have supported prominent progressive politicians and neither understands geopolitics.

There's more, but why bother?

tim in vermont said...

Trump: Bush knew about 9-11
Hillary: Holding a newspaper above her head with the headline "Bush Knew!"

James Pawlak said...

I would rather vote for her: A "lady" rather than a "Feminist".

tim in vermont said...

Pointing to anachronistic boogeymen of "socialism/communism" is simply hiding one's head in one's security blanky.

When you get to the part about the big banks opening death camps and gulags, let us know Bobby. Until then, I am going with "socialism/communism' as the main bogymen of the past century. Until you can find a way to explain why totalitarian dictators are able to solidify power at the top of the state once it has been made all powerful, and what your specific plan is to keep it from happening again, don't expect people to take you seriously.


And yes, Hitler was of the left. You could disprove that pretty simply, were it possible, you could go through Mein Kampf, or more accessibly, Mussolini, and find central tenets of their philosophies that skew right, rather than left. That would be an interesting thing to see. All you will find is nationalism, and who is the more nationalistic party now? The one that condemns every person of color who doesn't toe the line of what that party declares as in their interest as a race traitor? Or the one that wishes policies to be color-blind?

mccullough said...

Are the GOP really less statist than the Dems?

Who created the department of Homeland Security? Who pushed for NCLB's more intrusive involvement of federal government in education? Who signed the Patriot Act? Medicare Part D? TARP? Who doubled the number of pages of federal regulation in 8 years? Who relied on the commerce clause to regulate abortion?

Whose administration created the EPA?

Who signed the Americans with Disability Act?

Who signed the huge increase in Social Security taxes?

Gimme a break. The GOP is chock full of statists.

Michael K said...

Cookie is upset that some are not taking his points seriously. Soon he may quit posting stupid comments.

" I don't like Cruz but he seems to be the only viable alternative to Trump. "

I don't mind Cruz but he is going to have a hard time getting cross-over votes. He is very polarizing and will not get Democrat vaotes, which I think Trump will get.

"I just think during this primary season, people have lost their heads a little because they aren't used to losing control of the Republican nomination. This causes them to lash out at Trump."

I agree and have a number of posts at Chicgoboyz about Where I think he came from.

I wish there was a more conventional candidate who took up Trump's issues but there isn't.

Mr. Fabulous said...

Respectfully, you are wasting your time, tim in vermont. Unlike Garage "You Can't Fix Stupid" Mahal, Mr. Cook is not dumb by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, he lives in a deep blue city, surrounded by people who think just like he does, and they all agree that the rest of the country - no - the rest of the world, is wrong about the basic knowledge and principles of politics and economics which he and his neighbors agree on and discuss daily.

Unlike others of his ilk though, Mr. Cook has the personal courage to come to a site such as Professor Althouse's. A site whose commentators' ideas and philosophies are non-homogeneous, so he exposes himself willingly to different ideas, which I suspect is more than the vast majority of his fellow New Yorkers would care to experience. (Else there would be more of them commenting here.)

This doesn't mean that, despite his intelligence, he will realize that his economic ideas and philosophy don't match up with what both history and current events tell us about how finance and economics actually work in the real world. It is even more difficult for an intelligent person to admit that they have been just plain wrong for decades than it is for the average person to admit that history has shown their ideas to not match up to reality.

Mr. Cook, please don't misconstrue what I am saying. While I also don't like the big banks and big corporations, I do have a sense of history, and it is just a fact that at this time in history, mankind as a whole is better off economically and socially than EVER before in history. Yes, capitalism, market economics and representative democracies, as currently practiced in western societies, have significant flaws. They are still better than any of the alternatives we currently have to choose from. Some of the alternatives have lead to horrible repression, genocide and mass murder, and some of the things you seem to advocate have in the past led directly to such consequences. So take care what you wish for. You just might get it. (They got it in Venezuela.)

tim in vermont said...

you are wasting your time, tim in vermont. Unlike Garage "You Can't Fix Stupid" Mahal, Mr. Cook is not dumb by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, I don't think he is dumb either, but he is kind of narrow minded in an interesting sort of way. I agree he comes out and defends his ideas, to the best of his abilities, anyways, and that is to his credit. I just notice that you can bring him to the edge of an insight, and then he scurries back to the safety of his dogma and his security in the knowledge that what we have in the west is greatly flawed. Maybe he believes in God? Maybe he believes that the universe did not arise out of randomness, but rather was created by an intelligent designer who created it in such a way as to leave us humans rules to live perfectly by in a political economic system without significant flaws if only we could believe in his prophets like Karl Marx? I don't know.

I don't think most people really appreciate how deeply atheism cuts. I am an atheist, and it can be terrifying to realize that there are no rules for us. Bobby can't accept that, is my theory.

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...
"Yet you single out economic freedom as uniquely corruptive of democracy even through socialism / communism is worse."

I point out that we don't have economic freedom,


You don't know what freedom is. Your personal freedom doesn't include the right to sex with someone of your choosing but against their will. Similarly your right to economic freedom does not include forcing someone else to deliver something you want at the price you desire. Freedom includes both parties, if you don't want what they offer don't buy it. Freedom is the ability to say no, which we have except when government is involved. The Cook solution: more government.

Pointing to anachronistic boogeymen of "socialism/communism" is simply hiding one's head in one's security blanky.

Lunatics have been complaining about financial systems for thousands of years, but socialism is anachronistic with Bernie Sanders running a close contest for President [of the US, not some Banana Republic or Central Asian Stan].

damikesc said...

Cruz can't beat Hillary. He's too much of an unknown to the general public

Simple reality. In a fraction of the time she has been in the public eye, Cruz has accomplished far more.

Rick said...

Mr. Fabulous said...
This doesn't mean that, despite his intelligence, he will realize that his economic ideas and philosophy don't match up with what both history and current events tell us about how finance and economics actually work in the real world.


He's already shown how he deals with the dysfunction, by supporting only counterfactuals. By opposing both parties (absurdly claiming progressives aren't left and widely deploying the no True Scotsman defense) he can simply deny the obvious costs and weaknesses of his plans. Since they only exist as fantasies how can anyone produce empirical evidence to deny their success?

cubanbob said...

Props to Mr. Fabulous observation. Cook isn't nasty and earnestly defends his straw men.
Tim in Vermont one thing about progressives I find fascinating is that they believe in the arc of history,central planning, the laws of Nature, predestination in the form of the class struggle but not in God.

Michael K said...

While I also don't like the big banks and big corporations, I do have a sense of history, and it is just a fact that at this time in history, mankind as a whole is better off

I have to agree but I think the Dodd-Frank bill was an awful piece of crony-something. I'm not at all sure it is capitalism.

The 2000 internet bubble was replaced by the 2008 housing bubble and now we have the Dodd-Frank bubble.

Now, we have financial lunacy squared. We are skating along the edge of the abyss. I don't see how we get the world economy back on the track toward reality.

Robert Cook said...

"The Cook solution: more government."

No. More government is what you get when you allow it funding to keep on with baseless, pointless, criminal wars of aggression.

We need government that is responsive to and serves the citizens at large, and not the tiny wealthy parasitical cohort to whom the government is wholly subservient.

Robert Cook said...

"Cookie is upset that some are not taking his points seriously. Soon he may quit posting stupid comments."


Hahahaha! The reason I post here is to act as a corrective to the prevailing nonsense that is spouted here by supplying some facts. (There are a few others who post rational comments.) I find it fun! There's no point in spending a lot of time posting comments somewhere where everyone else has views similar to mine. That's boring.

JackOfClubs said...

I switched my support to Cruz as soon as Fiorina dropped out. But this was a very moving endorsement and I have never been prouder to be a Fiorina supporter. I am glad to see that the candidate that I supported agrees with my choice of her successor for my support. This is what principled conservatism looks like.

tim in vermont said...

and not the tiny wealthy parasitical cohort to whom the government is wholly subservient. - Robert Cook

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. - Mussolini (Please note that liberalism in this context refers to free market capitalism)

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. - Mussolini

So remember people, fascism is "RIGHT WING!" because it says so in a Wiki definition.

BTW, Mussolini never said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Or at least it has never been found in an original text of his in Italian. He almost certainly never said it because it goes against everything he believed about the primacy of the state, just like Robert Cook here.

Robert Cook said...

Speaking of fascism: This is part one (of four) of a talk by Michael Parenti on "The Function of Fascism." The whole talk is just a tad over 30 minutes, each of the four segments being only about 8 minutes. One can just let each segment run to its end and the next segment in sequence will start playing automatically. It's quite interesting, and well worth the modest investment of time it requires to listen to it.

Robert Cook said...

"All you will find is nationalism, and who is the more nationalistic party now?"

???? The Republicans, of course.

Robert Cook said...

In case the segments of Parenti's THE FUNCTIONS OF FASCISM don't play automatically one after the other, here are the links to each one:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Rusty said...

Do not engage the militant pacifist.

Rusty said...

According to Parenti's description of fascism it is indistinguishable from communism. He fails however to tell us the roots of fascism are firmly rooted in socialism. Both Nazi fascism and Italian fascism were attempts to make socialism palatable to the middle class. Without which no revolution can succeed.
Anyway. That's too much verbiage wasted on mr. cookes self absorbed paranoia.

tim in vermont said...

???? The Republicans, of course

Nationalism: ... Also, the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation.

Which party talks about race traitors Bobby? I will give you a hint, it is the same party that calls Clarence Thomas, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, and Ted Cruz "inauthentic."

I know this concept is a little subtle and requires a stretch of your mind just a little to grasp, and remember, you need to actually grasp it before you can reasonably reject it, but when you talk about "authenticity" you are talking about membership in a nation, as described above.

Robert Cook said...

Tim, I've frankly never heard either Democrats or Republicans say anything about "race traitors." What does "inauthenticity" have to do with Thomas, Rubio, Fiorina, Palin, or Cruz,(except to the extent they are all loyal servants of the financial elites who run this country, while pretending to be interested in representing "the people")?

Robert Cook said...

Rusty, you either listened to Parenti's talk inattentively, (or not at all), or you heard it through big balls of cotton in your ears. He makes the point explicitly that fascism is a protector of capitalist interests, (which is one reason so many western industrialists, including American ones, funded Hitler and the Nazis throughout the 30s).

tim in vermont said...

He makes the point explicitly that fascism is a protector of capitalist interests

So your argument is based on the authority of this guy rather than the texts of fascist leaders themselves? You do realize how sad that is, don't you? Mussolini clearly makes the point, and governed, as did Hitler, that as long as capitalists served the interests of the state, and did as they were told, they were allowed to continue to own their companies. How is the owner of a company any different than a Commissar under Communism who controlled the Auto industry, or Steel, for example? They enjoyed huge special privileges, special hospitals, freedoms, luxury goods from the west that were unobtainable to the ordinary comrade. Your distinction between fascism and communism is a distinction without a difference.

As for Race Traitor, let's look at the kinds of questions it has been demanded that Thomas answer:

How does Thomas embrace an "originalist" view of the Constitution when the framers would have considered him a slave?

The premise is that Thomas is acting against the interests of his race and should not. This is nationalism. I would be happy to find many many many more examples if I thought for a second you were serious about not knowing.