April 28, 2016

"She is a woman, she is playing the woman card left and right. Frankly, if she didn’t, she would do very poorly."

"If she were a man and she was the way she is, she would get virtually no votes," said Donald Trump about, obviously, Hillary Clinton.

Now, of course, ironically, Trump — whose very name suggests a card game — is playing the woman card. He's playing the woman card on her, even as she, of course, plays the woman card over and over. He's trying to get the power out of the card, by making the playing of the card have the meaning: This is the only card I've got.

The question is whether this is a good move for Trump. I'm seeing some columns playing with Trump's statement — is there, literally, a card? But it might be a good move. He's setting it up so that every time she tries to excite us with the idea that we could have the supposedly great thrill of the first woman President, he'll be positioned to say: There she goes again — it's all she's got. Or he won't even have to say it. We'll think it.

Here's the joke Hillary's people wrote for her in response: "Mr. Trump accused me of playing the 'woman card.' Well, if fighting for women's health care and paid family leave and equal pay is playing the 'woman card,' then deal me in." Interesting key word: deal. That's the key word of Trump's campaign and Trump's life.

I must say that — whatever happens in this crazy Trump v. Clinton phase of the game — I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail. In fact, I will not be surprised to see Trump undercut Hillary in the Women card game.

217 comments:

1 – 200 of 217   Newer›   Newest»
Tank said...

Here's the joke Hillary's people wrote for her in response: "Mr. Trump accused me of playing the 'woman card.' Well, if fighting for women's health care...

Whenever I hear the words "women's health care" from a politician I think of Rush Limbaugh's blender. Those were the days when he had a truly entertaining show.

"Women's health issues" = killing little unborn yet human beings. There is no actual issue about "women's health care." It's just the killing thing.

Brando said...

I think it was a good move--mostly because it's true. If Hillary was a man, what would she really have? A muddled centrist record, plenty of failures and no successes, corruption, and an incredibly weak campaign style. Some might say "hey that's discounting all women!" but that's a hollow response--he's discounting Hillary, and he's right--and a lot of female Bernie voters (generally younger ones) have made the same conclusion about her.

Hillary might have responded smartly--something like "I understand Trump is confused by women being successful..." or "maybe Trump thinks he'd do better than me if he were wearing a dress..."--but instead she's further polarizing men by proudly genderizing this race. That's a dumb move--right now she has a chance to convince male voters that she's a moderate, and a safer bet than Trump, and if she can peel off just a few of them she'd have a majority locked up. But again, her instincts are poor as ever. This is why Trump has a small, but possible, chance to beat her.

Daniel Richwine said...

Clinton should get herself better writers. Her joke is predictable, unfunny, and uninspiring. If you asked me to write a response to Trumps attack for her, it's the kind of thing I'd come up with.
This leads to one of the main assets Trump has over Clinton. Everything Clinton has to say has been said to death, she's predictable, and therefore boring. Trump is not, and therefore is interesting. While the elite possibly will scoff at the underlying message behind his loose cannon act, millions of voters will continue to be spellbound by his rhetoric

EDH said...

I must say that — whatever happens in this crazy Trump v. Clinton phase of the game — I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail. In fact, I will not be surprised to see Trump undercut Hillary in the Women card game.

Women getting "secure economic support from government"?

So you mean playing the Sugar Daddy/Mama Card?

Brando said...

""Women's health issues" = killing little unborn yet human beings. There is no actual issue about "women's health care." It's just the killing thing."

I'm sure they're tossing in more money for breast cancer screenings and consider health care in general more a woman's issue because men don't need health care or something, but it all amounts to the same--leftist pandering to the base. It's this country's Fabian socialist option for the fall.

Brando said...

"Clinton should get herself better writers. Her joke is predictable, unfunny, and uninspiring. If you asked me to write a response to Trumps attack for her, it's the kind of thing I'd come up with."

It's also her poor delivery. This is a person who probably has never told a joke in her life, and it's unnatural for her to do this.

Frankly, if she can't play this game (and I don't think she can) she may as well just try a strategy of ignoring everything from Trump for the rest of the campaign. The less people think of her, the more they'd be okay with voting for her. Stealth campaign!

Henry said...

Maybe Trump will double down.

Gusty Winds said...

...the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail.

Why are women so bent on securing economic support from the gov't? They wanted equality and to free themselves from economic reliance on men and the nuclear family. Now they just want it from somewhere else; indirect payments from the former structure from which the feminists claim to rebel.

Gov't economic support is something in my life, and even in my upbringing, which was dominated by women, that I was never taught to expect.

If there is true equality in the upcoming race, Hillary should be able to take all the same political 'punches' that men take when seeking office. Palin did. She was never defended as a woman.

What is interesting is I don't see women creating alliances in the office based on gender, like they are expected to do in left wing politics.

Mike makes right said...

I guess i was wrong that women are fighting for "equality." They're fighting for someone else to provide it. How special. "...the interests of women getting secure economic support from the government will prevail" ??? There's a slogan sure to advance "equality."

Tank said...

Thinking about it, if The Vagina were a man, and she were running for President, and she was married to Bill Clinton, that would work pretty well. I guess that would be the Gay Card. Or she could go tranny with the Tranny Card. Confusing.

Laslo Spatula said...

"... and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail. "

Is there anything women can't expect from the government?

Is there any need they have that they can't expect the government to fulfill?

I know, I know.

I am Laslo.

Henry said...

I think Althouse is right that in the long run the women's hand will win the game, but this little call and response points out again that Ms. Clinton is utterly lacking a record on which to run. She can't run on accomplishing any of the things she claims to fight for because she hasn't accomplished any of them. Her entire campaign is based on a kind of reverse Peter Principle. The Presidency is her promotion out of incompetence.

David Begley said...

I saw Hillary deliver that "deal me in line" in Clear Lake. It brought the house down. It works great with the Dem base: leftover 60's hippies, hardcore leftists and feminists.

We had our historic first Black president and by any objective measure he has been a failure. Why risk an Obama third term with a historic first woman president? And a corrupt one to boot.

Hagar said...

Hillary! is no Maggie Thatcher.

And I am sick and tired of politicians proclaiming that they are going to "fight" for me or you or whoever.
How about letting me mind my business, and they just pay some attention to governing this country?

Luke Lea said...

She also plays the race card.

wildswan said...

Our first trannie (transparently corrupt) President. Wish I could say, "deal me out."

"interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail"

The question to be solved is how a heavily indebted country can provide economic security to half its citizens when it can't provide it for itself.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Hillary's biggest problem (outside of corruption, dishonesty and incompetence) is the fact that her biggest lifetime achievement was marrying Bill. Every significant position she has held is directly related to that one event. Without Bill there would be no senate seat, no SoS, and no Presidential campaign.

rhhardin said...

When that call comes in at 3 in the morning, Trump is ready. He's already up taking a pee.

DrMaturin said...

Notice that again and again Trump is setting the terms of the debate. Whether it be her saying "America is already great" or "Love Trumps hate" or this latest example Trump acts and she reacts. And when you're reacting you're losing.

Brando said...

"I guess i was wrong that women are fighting for "equality." They're fighting for someone else to provide it."

That's the big lie the left has been peddling for years. Take struggles for women to have basic rights (right to vote, right to divorce) which are no longer in debate, and lump them in with the usual leftist grab back of forcing someone else to give you more money. Then when libertarians push back with "hey why am I paying for your goodies again?" tie them in with puritans of old who just want women in the kitchen making sandwiches.

Sadly, this seems to work on a lot of people.

chickelit said...

Gusty Winds said...Why are women so bent on securing economic support from the gov't?

Because they don't stop to think that they're taking from themselves and their sisters -- they honestly believe that taking from government is taking from (mostly) men. So long as there is a residual patriarchy, this will largely seem true to them.

Anglelyne said...

I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail. In fact, I will not be surprised to see Trump undercut Hillary in the Women card game.

You can "[get] secure economic support from the government" in a period of stability and prosperity. "In the long historical run", periods of that kind of stability and prosperity are anomalies. (Which are not conjured into existence by rhetoric and goodthink, btw.)

Here's the "joke" Hillary's people wrote for her in response:

FTFY

Alexander said...

When resources are plentiful, the public trough is full, and it's good to have a government sugar daddy.

When resources aren't plentiful, then women will - assuming thousands of years of human history across all cultural divides wasn't just a fluke - seek out a man and exchange sexual access/offspring for resources and protection... and then fight like wild animals to ensure said resources don't get thrown into the trough.

I leave it to the reader to determine which event they see occurring "in the long historical run".

M Jordan said...

The real value for Trump in pre-emptively playing the woman card is he shows, once again, his ability to go where no man dares go. Let Gov. Chistie's wife roll her eyes (even though she didn't) because here we see again the appeal of Donald J. Trump in a world where the man who started Mozilla is forced out because of a political contribution he had made years prior to a propisition that went on to win by popular vote ... and this man left without a whimper. Trump would not have slunk off into the night, that I can tell you.

Play that card, brother. Play it like a real man.

Brando said...

"Hillary's biggest problem (outside of corruption, dishonesty and incompetence) is the fact that her biggest lifetime achievement was marrying Bill. Every significant position she has held is directly related to that one event. Without Bill there would be no senate seat, no SoS, and no Presidential campaign."

For anyone who applauds the idea of the first woman president, do we really want our first woman president to be someone who married her way into power? Aren't we at a point where we can at least have a woman president who didn't get there because of her husband?

Say what you will about Palin, Fiorina, Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi--whatever support their husbands provided (and every good spouse supports a person's success) we all have to admit they are more famous than their husbands and came to prominence more on their own merits than through marriage. Hillary cannot really say this and her election should be seen as a slap in the face to everything feminists said over the years.

And that's not even getting into the fact that her husband is a sex predator and likely a rapist who she enabled.

Limited blogger said...

Go watch Trump say it again. It's not nasty, it's not sexist. It's just factual. Clinton is going to have trouble with all the facts Trump presents about her.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

There's probably some way that Hillary's "joke" can be taken as something other than a tacit admission combined with a proffer of justification, but I'll consider the matter no longer.

Goldwater had better writers, in any event.

AllenS said...

I'm not sure if it will happen, but can you imagine Trump telling Hillary that if she had been a better woman, her husband wouldn't have had to go find love with a lot of other women.

Sometimes, the truth hurts worse than anything you could make up.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail

This bums me out so, so much. I was raised with real feminism which taught me that as a woman I have the right and responsibility to care for MYSELF. And "the government" is not a thing. You can't get secure economic support from "the government." You get it from taxpayers. Who are supposed to be men AND women.

Hagar said...

Without Hillary! there would not have been any President Clinton. Her husband is her biggest accomplishment.

MadisonMan said...

Notice that again and again Trump is setting the terms of the debate. Whether it be her saying "America is already great" or "Love Trumps hate" or this latest example Trump acts and she reacts. And when you're reacting you're losing.

Agreed. And I think a big problem of Hillary's is that she really can only react. I think it's very hard for her to initiate a discussion, an original discussion -- and that's just one more reason she's only a shadow of the politician her hubby is.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Since the long-term tendency is for everyone trying to get Free Stuff to prevail, Althouse's prediction is a sound one.

tim maguire said...

Gusty Winds said...
...the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail.

Why are women so bent on securing economic support from the gov't? They wanted equality and to free themselves from economic reliance on men and the nuclear family.


It's the distinction between what women think they want and what they actually want. You might have heard it in other forms--for instance, the truism that no woman ever fantasized about being ravaged by a hippie. Woman want a strong man to take care of and protect them, they want a knight in shining armor. They say they want a sensitive man, one who is happy to be one of the girls, but who do they go for when they're in their prime child-bearing years? They go for the bad boy.

So they arrange society to make it neigh on impossible to find a man both willing and able to care for them the way they want to be cared for and then demand that the government step in and do all the things they used to look to men to do. Because empowerment!

Mike said...

This is shaping up to be the most interesting presidential election in my lifetime, with extremely high stakes for both parties. Brings to mind the old Chinese saying about "living in interesting times." God help the USA!

AprilApple said...

If Hillary were a Republican, (male or female) the media would have destroyed her a long time ago.

Lyle Smith said...

Gender shouldn't matter to who should get the job. That's Trump's trump card.

mikee said...

Trump is trumping the women's card. That is the correct card playing analogy here.
Sheesh!

Lyssa said...

Pants said: This bums me out so, so much. I was raised with real feminism which taught me that as a woman I have the right and responsibility to care for MYSELF.

Ditto. You and I are the same age, I think. I don't even understand how that is in contention. So much of what constitutes "feminism" seems to me to be the exact opposite.

Mike said...

tim maguire said: Because empowerment!

Awesome summation, Tim.

One would think, given the Althouse bio, that she would not write about the need for "secure economic support from the government" and believe in it. Is that what feminism has been reduced to by progressives? Freaking welfare! Who exactly does Althouse thinks receives the bulk of government support now? Who are the intended for AFDC, WIC, EITC etc.? Who lives the longest on Social Security? Who obtains the bulk of college degrees, teaching positions and professorships?

Feminists got the world they asked for. They just weren't successful in re-engineering men to act and think like women, with few exceptions.

Amadeus 48 said...

"...the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail." Althouse may be right about this, but what a depressing day that will be. No more pressure from the real world on either men or women to act responsibly.
"In the Carboniferous Epoch, we were promised abundance for all/ By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;/ But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,/And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said, 'If you don't work, you die.'"

shiloh said...

No Hillary's in trouble tag so logically Trump must be in trouble. ok, one doesn't naturally lead to the other.

btw, do you have a "Trump's in trouble" tag. Since this is all a game to him anyways and afterwards he'll still be a billionaire there's probably no need for an opposing tag.

Trump's playin' w/house $$$ so what's to lose ...

Paul said...

Trump will be inside her OODA loop from now until the election. I can't see her surviving this.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Well, I'm sure that if Hillary is elected, it will force women to take responsibility for their actions.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
exhelodrvr1 said...

"Thinking about it, if The Vagina were a man, and she were running for President, and she was married to Bill Clinton, that would work pretty well. I guess that would be the Gay Card. Or she could go tranny with the Tranny Card. Confusing."

Or she could Huma few bars ...

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
coupe said...

If Hillary was a better lay, her husband wouldn't have had to go into a closet with a fat Jewess that jiggled when she walked.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail

So feminism is just a scam? All that rhetoric about equal rights and women being able to compete with men was just a way to replace fathers and husbands with the government? You may be correct, for the short turn. But as another blogger has stated, "what can't go on forever won't."

"Government" doesn't produce wealth, it can only take it. The end result of taking from the productive to give to the unproductive because they support the government has been demonstrated time and time again.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...I must say that — whatever happens in this crazy Trump v. Clinton phase of the game — I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail.

Hooray, I get to pay for women--I get to fund a government that'll be designed to provide economic support for women in the name of equality! Women are so equal they deserve to take money from me (by force) for their own benefit, and nice feminists like the Professor are just fine with that.

Women can't provide for themselves so they have to be given economic support from the government, but that's just equality in action. I DESERVE to have my money taken because I'm not a woman. You don't even have to be a splooge stooge to get this kind of treatment--it's enough to not be a woman.

Hmm, I wonder if a lot of "men" will start self-identifying as women if doing so gets the "economic support" from the government? Naah, that couldn't possibly be a problem in the future.

Paul said...

" This bums me out so, so much. I was raised with real feminism which taught me that as a woman I have the right and responsibility to care for MYSELF."

The problem is it runs counter to biological nature. For all of human history the woman's responsibility was to carry and care for children thus necessitating the need for men to care for them. It's simply wired into females to seek sustenance and protection from males or male figures. This is expressed in a perverted way in the cold, unloving providence of government subsidy. It also undercuts the male need and drive to provide for and protect women and children. It's the same unnatural pathological mess that results from all Marxist-radical equalist schemes.

shiloh said...

As always, it's fun to watch a 95/5 con blog psychoanalyze Hillary.

The Clinton's were invited and attended Trump's third wedding so they must be close friends.

And 70% of women have an unfavorable opinion of Trump so he is obviously stacking the deck! [sarcasm off]

AprilApple said...

Hillary-Fluke 2016.

holdfast said...

", and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail"

Maybe in the medium term, since they are a "protected minority" that happens to be the majority of the population. In the long term, women are replaceable with technology. Once we have acceptably realistic sex-bots and reliable artificial wombs and gene-splicing, women won't really be bringing anything special to the table, and they will have to compete head-to-head on their own merits. And good luck with that - slower, weaker, in need of more healthcare spending, and less creative and capable in the STEM fields. Maybe we'll keep some around as pets?

Yes, this analysis is reductive, harsh snf over the top, but that seems to be the game that Clinton and other womyn like her want to play. They see their mission as to extract more "free stuff" from the rest of us (i.e. men). If they want to play that mercenary game, we can play too. And we'll be playing to win.

Michael said...

A stopped clock is right twice a day, and a blind pig finds an occasional acorn. Trump is right about Hillary - the woman card is the only card she has.

Alexander said...

I predict that a Hilary presidency will prove as healing and beneficial for intersex relations as Obama has been for interracial ones.

Of course, I believe that Hilary is going to be railroaded by the Trump Train. Choo-choo!

BDNYC said...

Ironically, or maybe not so ironically, Althouse is playing the woman card against Trump playing the woman card against Hillary playing the woman card. Apparently even mentioning the woman card is playing the woman card.

I am playing the woman card, right?

Phil 3:14 said...

It's gonna be a long summer... and a much longer next four years.

Bill Roberts said...

"Trump will be inside her OODA loop from now until the election. I can't see her surviving this."

Yeah, because he's playing five dimensional holographic chess while the rest of the world is playing four-square checkers. Because he's *brilliant*. /SARC

I agree people shouldn't underestimate Trump. He's shrewd like the playground bully who keeps doing the "why are you hitting yourself" game with the people arrayed against him. That works for awhile.

Hillary is a very poor politician, so Trump has a chance. I don't make predictions. But the world of Trump supporters is becoming an echo chamber in which every move their man makes is hailed as amazingly brilliant. For example, to quote Ann Coulter, his foreign policy speech was the best one since George Washington.

Hillary is a bad candidate and a very bad politician and will be a bad president (although whether she'll be as bad as your man I'm not sure. No telling when he might play the "why are you hitting yourself" game with the nuclear triad), but she shouldn't be underestimated either.

If Trump wins this whole thing he will have proven that he's perhaps the best politician in the last 50 years. There are too many disadvantages for Republicans even in normal years.

Of course, he's a Republican in name only so maybe he has a chance . . .

Amadeus 48 said...

Feminism circa 1972--"I am woman. Hear me roar!"
Feminism circa 2016-- "I am woman. Give me secure economic support!"
Yech.

Alexander said...

I understand that 1 out of five woman will play the women card. Unfortunately, when we compare women playing the women card and men playing the women card, what we find is that women only get 77% of the mileage from it.

Women - and only women - have the right to stop playing a particular woman card. Some men would like to limit a woman's right to stop the woman card - either by making it illegal to stop a woman's card already in play, or that the card must be withdrawn within the first X weeks of being played.

These men are hateful misogynists. Probably can't/never have/need to get laid and have tiny penises.

In a representative form of government, in which the whole bloody point is that one individual effectively acts as an avatar for a larger group of people, unless that avatar has the correct genitalia, it may not play the woman card. Even if, acting in that capacity, it represents many members of the public who may play the woman card.

Karen of Texas said...

It irritates the whiz out of me that there is even a thought in my gender pool that we females should look to the government to secure any damn thing.

My mom, God rest her soul, grew up poor as dirt. Father a brilliant, uneducated man because he couldn't behave in class. They kicked him out in 8th grade. His workshop contained books on every subject you could imagine, but most especially electronics/math/engineering. He became the youngest lineman in Oklahoma. Was a ham radio operator. Built his own. Was an alcoholic and died when my mom was 17.

She worked from the time she was 13 until she was 70 when she began to suffer from dementia and knew she couldn't do her job any longer. She expected nothing from no one, least of all the government. Her mom didn't either. Grandma cleaned the church, the bank, and was the best self employed seamstress in the area. They did whatever it took to take care of themselves and their family. My mom mowed the yard, learned to repair plumbing, hammered, nailed and generally did what it took to help her mom maintain a house. You do that when you're poor. She taught me by example that I could do whatever I wanted. My dad encouraged that.

THAT is what real women do. Screw the "I am weak and need the government to take care of me" pansies who call themselves feminists.

Theranter said...

Boehner at Stanford, his take on HRC & the "woman" thing, Cruz, and that Biden may end up being the D Nom:

"On Clinton, Boehner’s reviews were more mixed. Early in the talk, the speaker impersonated Clinton, saying “Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” to a negative crowd reaction. Later, he added that he had known Clinton for 25 years and finds her to be very accomplished and smart.

Boehner also speculated about surprises that could come closer to the Democratic National Convention if Hillary Clinton’s emails became a larger scandal “Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen,” Boehner said.

“I could [feel] the tension in the room when Boehner said certain things, namely claiming that Clinton was leveraging her gender or discussing South Carolina bathrooms,” Lee said."

When specifically asked his opinions on Ted Cruz, Boehner made a face, drawing laughter from the crowd.
“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”"

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/comment-page-4/#comments
John Boehner talks election, time i

walter said...

I can't think of more successful example of a woman getting secure economic support from the government/government by-products..than Hil.
But Trump may have parlayed some of those $200/k per speech dollars into a nice wedding gift.
Such a deal.

Balfegor said...

I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail.

Well when you frame it that way, that might be true in the short historical run, and maybe even the medium run. But the long historical run will, I think, look rather different.

Wayworn Wanderer said...

"the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail"

Yeah, I know, I'm late with this. But how about women do what we men do and get secure economic support by working? My wife does it. What's wrong with all the Hillary voters?

AlbertAnonymous said...

Yesterday I heard Hillary! Respond to Trump's comments by saying this:

"I'm not asking women to vote for me because I'm a woman. I'm asking women to vote for me based on the merits, and one of the merits is that I'm a woman."

WTF? Seriously WTF?

EMD said...

getting secure economic support from the government will prevail.

Like women don't already suckle at Uncle Sam's teat in record numbers.

walter said...

Albert,
It must depend on what the meaning of woman is...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

When all you have are cards, everything looks like a card game.

Comanche Voter said...

Well our host missed the obvious joke that Trump sometimes sounds like he is playing with a full deck of cards. And the local fishwrapper, the Los Angeles Times commented on Trump's statement with a front page headline "GOP Gender Problem Widens". I think they were sniffing about a form of political manspreading--or whatever. I can't tell the difference between their op ed pages and the "news". It's been so long since the LA Times--aka the "Daily Dog Trainer" has been a serious newspaper that I can't remember.

But I must admit that our host shocked me when she revealed her inner Julia--the need and right of a woman to expect secure economic support from the government. Well a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle I suppose. That's true in a world where a woman expects to be supported by her government.

Comanche Voter said...

Oops--the Trumpster is playing with less than a full deck. My bad.

Brando said...

"Hillary is a very poor politician, so Trump has a chance. I don't make predictions. But the world of Trump supporters is becoming an echo chamber in which every move their man makes is hailed as amazingly brilliant. For example, to quote Ann Coulter, his foreign policy speech was the best one since George Washington.

Hillary is a bad candidate and a very bad politician and will be a bad president (although whether she'll be as bad as your man I'm not sure. No telling when he might play the "why are you hitting yourself" game with the nuclear triad), but she shouldn't be underestimated either."

That's exactly how I see it. If Trump stuck to well honed attacks like this, and made listeners ask the obvious question of "what does Hillary really bring to the table here?" it undermines her support, and if he could follow it up with "here's what I bring to the table and here's why it will work" he could systematically take her down--ruthlessly efficient, like Patton. However, so many of his attacks come across as irrelevant, childish, or pointlessly cruel (justifiably cruel, of course, is a different matter) or even missing the mark. (E.g., the point about Cruz isn't that he "lies" but that he's a schemer, trying to play an establishment that plays him). It comes across as undisciplined and often backfires.

Where I think Trump shouldn't be underestimated is where he drifts from conservative orthodoxy--in the general election it gives him room to maneuver if we're talking about where he can pick up more votes than he loses (e.g., a foreign policy freed from association with neoconservatism, or going to the middle or even left on gay rights, maybe legalized weed?) and he does have an ability to command attention that few can replicate. But mostly why I wouldn't discount him completely (even though I think Hillary's the strong favorite) is that Hillary is an awful campaigner and she probably can't shake most people's opinions of her.

And why Hillary shouldn't be underestimated is because the Dems have some natural advantages in national elections, her party is more united, and Trump has that discipline problem. So ultimately I think she goes into this a heavy but not unquestionable favorite.

Big Mike said...

I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail.

@Althouse, can you define what you mean by "secure economic support"? Perhaps we can simply negotiate this right now instead of playing the never-ending culture wars game that you and other lefties enjoy so much and the rest of us got fed up with a long time ago.

But purely as an aside, can you tell me anything the government does that it doesn't massively screw up? Does the EPA protect the environment? You might want to check in with the Navajo Nation after the EPA polluted one of their important sources of water and tried to cover it up. Healthcare? You might want to check in with people who under Obamacare are paying more for worse coverage -- and who are contemplating higher premiums to come. Not to mention the one significant group of Americans covered under single payer -- our veterans receiving medical services via the VA. Maybe the CIA? You know, the folks who told George W. Bush that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a "slam dunk." How about the FBI? That would be the same FBI whose crime labs routinely misinterpreted forensic evidence, especially in using junk science to convict American citizens based on bogus hair matches, would it not? Let's face it, Madam Professor, the federal government under Barack Obama couldn't even stand up a simple web site despite having years to get ready.

Limited blogger said...

I think a lot of women pull the lever for Trump, even if they go right into the voting booth saying otherwise.

Brando said...


"I'm not asking women to vote for me because I'm a woman. I'm asking women to vote for me based on the merits, and one of the merits is that I'm a woman."

Good lord if she actually said that then she needs to fire her speechwriter and self-impose a "ten second rule"--take ten seconds to think over your statement before you say it. Obama did this with his "...er..." speech patterns and it made it look like he was really thinking about what he was discussing.

mccullough said...

The local, state, and federal governments don't have money anymore. They can't afford the existing programs. They could defund certain programs to give women more economic security or any group more economic security in the short term, but in the long term the money isn't there. So a widespread culture of dependence on any level of government is doomed. Best to teach kids self reliance as a practical matter. The money won't be there in the long run so the dependents will be even worse off.

Hagar said...

The 19the Amendment was ratified August 18 1920.

Big Mike said...

As an aside, I wonder when -- if! -- Trump will play the Clinton is a war-monger card. She voted for the Iraq war, and as Secretary of State persuaded Barack Obama to get involved in Libya and overthrow Qaddafi -- leading to an unstable North Africa. As President of the United States who would she start a war with next?

mccullough said...

What are Clinton's specific ideas to get women "equal pay." JFK signed the equal pay act in 1963. Is it to require employers to disclose their compensation to all employees so women can more easily sue under the Equal Pay Act? Does she want to require restaurants to pay waitresses the same as truck drivers make? Pay nurses the same as doctors? Pay grade school teachers the same as oil and gas workers?

What kind of havoc will her plans cause the economy?

Oso Negro said...

It seems that Professor Althouse is self-identifying here as a vagino-socialist. I suppose it will workout great as long as men play along.

campy said...

I think a lot of women pull the lever for Trump, even if they go right into the voting booth saying otherwise.

I think a lot of people who pull the lever for Trump will never find out their votes actually went to Hillary.

Brando said...

"As an aside, I wonder when -- if! -- Trump will play the Clinton is a war-monger card. She voted for the Iraq war, and as Secretary of State persuaded Barack Obama to get involved in Libya and overthrow Qaddafi -- leading to an unstable North Africa. As President of the United States who would she start a war with next?"

He'd be nuts not to do it, the only question is how. If he could position himself as a non-interventionist (and he's been so all over the map this cycle that he could really pick any of the positions he already has) and play up the idea that it's insane to topple secular dictators who nevertheless are more threatened by our Islamist enemies than we are (because we may suffer attacks, but they could actually be toppled) and her policy has been Bush 2.0. It might lose the Bill Kristols of the right, but Clinton's inability to figure out how to defend against that (embrace the neocon label, or unconvincingly deny that?) would make it a net gain.

Dan Hossley said...

Trump's best response to Hillary's claim that she is fighting for equal pay is to simply ask her why her campaign pays women less than men (using progressive arithmetic). It's a fair question. When she has the power to pay women the same, she doesn't. Feeds the Crooked Hillary narrative.

Nonapod said...

Balfegor said...

Well when you frame it that way, that might be true in the short historical run, and maybe even the medium run. But the long historical run will, I think, look rather different.


Add to that the gradual technological progression towards post scarcity and the idea of "secure economic support from the government" becomes irrelevant in the long term (assuming you're an optimist anyway).

Brando said...

"What are Clinton's specific ideas to get women "equal pay." JFK signed the equal pay act in 1963. Is it to require employers to disclose their compensation to all employees so women can more easily sue under the Equal Pay Act? Does she want to require restaurants to pay waitresses the same as truck drivers make? Pay nurses the same as doctors? Pay grade school teachers the same as oil and gas workers?"

I was a toddler at the time, but never understood that about the ERA--what would it accomplish that existing law (which prevents gender discrimination in jobs, etc.) does not?

If Hillary were ever subject to a real interview it would be nice to hear her explain what her new law would do that existing law does not, and why her changes wouldn't be either pointless or devastating, or both.

holdfast said...

@Big Mike - I think he could play the "she's a sh*tty war monger" card. Essentially that a lot of folks, GOP and Dem, supported the invasion of Iraq, but that the post-invasion phase turned out to be much harder than everyone expected. He can then say (true or not) that smart people learned from that experience, but dummies like Hillary and Obama didn't and instead toppled Ghaddafi and created chaos, with even LESS plan for stability than Bush had in Iraq, and that now, thanks to Hillary and Obama, Libya is a chaotic nightmare which serves as a logistical base for ISIS and a killing ground for American Ambassadors. That approach acknowledges the problems of Iraq, without starting an civil war within the GOP, and pins the blame for Libya on Hillary. And the unspoken message is "Hillary is even dumber than Bush!"

exhelodrvr1 said...

Alexander,
"Unfortunately, when we compare women playing the women card and men playing the women card, what we find is that women only get 77% of the mileage from it."

So if a woman has a pair of tens, and splits them, do they count as 7s, or are they rounded up to 8s?

Paul from Minneapolis said...

We'll know the fight for women's health care has been won when the day comes that they live even longer than men than they do now.

holdfast said...

@Brando - It's unfair, really, to call Libya Bush Policy 2.0, since Bush was able to neutralize Libya as an external threat. Sure Saddam had abused "his" own people in horrible ways, but the case for invading Iraq was always based on the external threat he posed, as flawed as that case was. Khaddafi had given up his WMD (because he didn't want the Saddam treatment). The issue with Libya was internal violence - so more like Serbia 2.0.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Add to that the gradual technological progression towards post scarcity and the idea of "secure economic support from the government" becomes irrelevant in the long term (assuming you're an optimist anyway).

Most of the time I agree with Heinlein on this.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Do you WANT the "politics of resentment?" 'Cause that's hw you get the politics of resentment.

Professor A. is basically saying that the MRA jackasses have been right all along, no?

Can we make a list of the things I'm expected to provide for women (at, I hasten to add, no direct benefit to myself)? Healthcare, childcare, housing, and generalized "economic support," sure--anything else? Ooh, ooh, I get to be told I have to mind my own business and keep my laws off their bodies, of course, while simultaneously being responsible for paying for whatever they choose to do with those bodies.
Hooray for equality!

AllenS said...

Big Mike, Trump has consistently said that he thinks the Iraq war a mistake.

Brando said...

"@Brando - It's unfair, really, to call Libya Bush Policy 2.0, since Bush was able to neutralize Libya as an external threat. Sure Saddam had abused "his" own people in horrible ways, but the case for invading Iraq was always based on the external threat he posed, as flawed as that case was. Khaddafi had given up his WMD (because he didn't want the Saddam treatment). The issue with Libya was internal violence - so more like Serbia 2.0."

That's true. I'll add that one thing we can say about Bush re: Iraq vs. Obama/Clinton re: Libya is that when Bush decided to go into Iraq, he didn't already have the example of the Iraq intervention to consider.

Iraq in hindsight was a mistake, as we would have been better off coopting Saddam to use him against Iran and the terror groups (and despite Saddam's own terror ties, that was a marriage of convenience that could have been undermined as he had more to benefit from holding down a Shiite majority and securing his own rule in that region). Libya was already working in our favor pre-2011, and it's quite clear that our intervention there made things worse for the U.S., the Libyans, and the region. The GOP had a good case to attack that policy from a non-interventionist POV (and could have split the Left over it) but were too invested in the 2000s policies to do so. Credit where credit's due--Trump at least discarded that attachment.

Big Mike said...

And the unspoken message is "Hillary is even dumber than Bush!

@holdfast, well she certainly is. But Dubya was and is a very underrated person, not least of all in the IQ department.

@AllenS, yet another area where I disagree with Trump. Thanks.

Chuck said...

Back to Trump...

I wouldn't mind it a bit, if Trump had carefully defended the Lilly Leadbetter decision, or if he had attacked the substance of the Democratic left's proposals on gender "equity."

But that isn't what Trump does. I will bet anything that Trump couldn't even supply a good layperson's recitation of the facts and the holding.

What Trump does, is to attack Mrs. Clinton personally.

And then, he promises that he will be the best POTUS that American women have ever seen. How is that, exactly? Can any of the resident Trump-trolls describe what Trump would do for women specifically?

I wouldn't expect any great governmental giveaways to women from most Republicans. But Trump is the guy tossing around these promises. I don't understand what they really mean. Trump said it; who wants to defend it?

TCom said...

If only women are getting economic support from the Government, then the Government is stealing from men to pay for women.

How many hundreds of federal programs do women need? (Men have zero.)

How many medical procedures should be covered for women? How many are covered by the govt for men?

Achilles said...

Trump is going to crush Hillary. If hillary has to start listing accomplishments other than being a woman and marrying Bill she is done.

Trump will force her to do that and that is why I support him. I agree with Cruz on the issues but Cruz would have lost badly in the general because of who he is and the way career politicians think. He would make it about the "issues" when 75% of voters would rather watch entertainment tonight and would hate him.

My hope was that Cruz would be VP and do much of the backroom policy drudgery an older ADHD Trump wouldn't want to do. This hope is dying. My last refuge is Cruz is just trying to pay some campaign debts and has already made a deal with Trump and will endorse after Indiana. If he carries on to the convention it will end those chances if he hasn't already.

Brando said...

"I wouldn't mind it a bit, if Trump had carefully defended the Lilly Leadbetter decision, or if he had attacked the substance of the Democratic left's proposals on gender "equity."

But that isn't what Trump does. I will bet anything that Trump couldn't even supply a good layperson's recitation of the facts and the holding.

What Trump does, is to attack Mrs. Clinton personally."

I would certainly like to see more of the substantive takedown on the Hillary promises of "fair pay" and such nonsense, as none of that should go unchallenged and of course an alternative (particularly for the many women who are feeling the economic pinch, just as the men are) would be necessary to turn the tables on her. But I don't think this particular "personal" attack is out of bounds--it goes directly to Hillary's entire reason for running, which boils down to "I'm a woman and look at what I had to put up with from my predator husband!" It's not really cruel to point out that Hillary is using her gender, it does ring true as well.

Now, if he went after her for cankles or just mocked the way she was dressed, I'd be rolling my eyes along with you over that. That would be cruel and petty, and incidentally do more to help her than hurt her (remember, Hillary prospers as a victim). But this particular attack isn't the same.

Real American said...

replacing husbands and fathers with big government is a disastrous idea which has ruined millions of lives and decimated large swaths of our society. It is so obvious that those who continue to support this stupidity no longer can claim to be motivated by good intentions.

Fabi said...

Real Republican Chuck coming to Hillary's defense!

Unexpectedly.

walter said...

At this point, Hil's bank of video editors are deciding which pro Hillary statements to cut from the commercials. "No..this one's too good...seems really sincere. Cut the wedding pic instead."

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
"Back to Trump...

I wouldn't mind it a bit, if Trump had carefully defended the Lilly Leadbetter decision, or if he had attacked the substance of the Democratic left's proposals on gender "equity."

But that isn't what Trump does. I will bet anything that Trump couldn't even supply a good layperson's recitation of the facts and the holding."

Poor Chuck demonstrates how easily confused most lawyers really are about the real world. I care about the lily Ledbetter ruling and look that sort of stuff up. I also realize 95% of the population doesn't care.

Trump goes to the point that takes 5 seconds to make. That is how long you have. He says it in a way that forces hillary to respond.

Lawyers are really good at memorization and copy paste. Some are talented and have other skills. The chuck types think they are smart and everyone else is doing it wrong then they wonder why nobody likes lawyers.

Char Char Binks said...

She's just a woman with a small brain -- a third the size of us.

BrianE said...

"I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail." Ms. Althouse

With those goals why haven't you announced your support of the old socialist Sanders? Oh, that's right. He's not a woman!

$20 trillion in debt might put a damper on those lofty goals. Then again, debt doesn't matter when its democrats doing it.

traditionalguy said...

The Woman Card is the most creative card and is favored by straight men and women in Christendom, except among Muslim raiders who rape infidels.

But men need a Card too. Our Card is sports team and competition. That is a Card of Honors awarded winners. The women get to have babies. The men get to have trophies and honors that can include a Trophy woman, or just cheerleaders who pretend they admire us.

Trump works hard to collect such honors. And he just got him a Big One with General Bobby Knight honor spoken about him.

Chuck said...

Awright, so I used too many big words and too-hard concepts.

What is Trump going to do for American women? How exactly is he going to be "better" for American women, than Hillary? Just what is Trum promising?

At this point, these are rhetorical questions. I know the answers; there ARE good Republican answers to these questions.

And if you want to see them articulated with skill and precision, look up "Carly Fiorina" on YouTube.

walter said...

We..he was working hard at reading that teleprompter.

jelink said...

"I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail."

I note for the record that the Lady Perfesser has not deigned to explain or defend her comment, despite numerous objections to it.

Never explain, never apologize... That's for Little People.

cubanbob said...

mccullough said...
What are Clinton's specific ideas to get women "equal pay." JFK signed the equal pay act in 1963. Is it to require employers to disclose their compensation to all employees so women can more easily sue under the Equal Pay Act? Does she want to require restaurants to pay waitresses the same as truck drivers make? Pay nurses the same as doctors? Pay grade school teachers the same as oil and gas workers?

What kind of havoc will her plans cause the economy?

4/28/16, 10:14 AM"

What is interesting is that the equal pay proponents never take their logic to its conclusion and the conclusion almost always goes against what they seek. A simple start is the 78% assumption. Fine lets use woman's pay as the baseline-the 78% figure is 100% base so therefore men who work more hours than woman (the original 22% gap) should be paid for those hours at the overtime rate. I suspect few men (other than business owners) are going to complain about getting eight hours of overtime pay during a forty hour pay period. As for the rest of your examples the comparison remains the same; just plug in the variables for the additional circumstances such as the hard manual work conditions, the outdoor conditions as add-ons etc to the female base rate.



Fabi said...

Please tell us how the Continuing Resolution and our nineteen trillion dollar debt is helping American women, Chuck.

Chuck said...

Congrats, Fabio. On being the first to step up to the mark.

You're not wrong; you're just not right. At least, you aren't telling me anything I didn't already know.

Carly Fiorina is the really great exponent of what you are talking about. She'd say that American women want jobs, they want national security, the want a growing economy to benefit their families and their children.

Again, don't take this from me. Carly does it so much better than I can.

But Fabi your answer to a question with a question is not cutting it, for Trump.

AllenS said...

Chuck said...
What is Trump going to do for American women?

I don't want him to do choose which gender he's going to do something for. This country has problems and I want him to address those problems.

Chuck said...

AllenS you don't get such easy treatment from me.

So if your position is that you don't want any grand governmental programs treating women differently, fine.

Now, tell me exactly what Trump is talking about, with his many claims that he will be a great President for women; better than Hillary.

And until you give me a straight answer to that -- and it had better be a better answer than the one I like best, which really is a sound Republican response, which is the Fiorina-type answer.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

jelink said...I note for the record that the Lady Perfesser has not deigned to explain or defend her comment, despite numerous objections to it.

The defense would be "I made a prediction based on a trend I see, I didn't assert a value judgement about that predicted outcome." That won't really work, though, given the Professor's prior statements and arguments (which together seem to comprise support for that outcome), but that'd be the defense.
The rule, though, is that when the conversation doesn't interest the blog owner she doesn't wade into the comments.
One must therefore conclude the "numerous objections" aren't interesting enough.

AllenS said...

How about this... he'll guarantee all women that if they want, they can get breast implants free, paid for by the government.

AllenS said...

Not that he'd be pandering for the women's vote or anything like that.

AllenS said...

... then he could promise women that they'll all be making like $50 an hour. Even if they don't work!

AllenS said...

... and he could promise women who have been raped by Bill Clinton that he'll castrate Bill.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Sandra Fluke didn't think big enough. Women have an interest in getting economic security from the government. I mean, everyone has in interest in getting free stuff...but women are special, ok?
So. Government is just a name for things we do together. "We" in that sentence are American taxpayers. Women have an interest in getting economic security (that is, money or the promise/guarantee of money) from the government, or really from other American taxpayers. Since women are the beneficiaries they can't also (as a group, on net) be the payees, so we're talking really just about non-women American taxpayers.
To simplify: American women have an interest in taking money (or the promise/guarantee of money) from American male taxpayers, and the Professor believes that interest will "prevail" in the future. Prevail, I presume, over American male taxpayers' interest in keeping their own god damnned money or at the very least not being forced to give it to a group of women he does not know and who benefit him not at all...

The Professor, a woman of fine intellect and who has professed sincere feminist beliefs (in equality before the law, equal treatment, etc) predicts that in the future men will be forced to pay money to women (simply for being women) and apparently has no objection to that predicted future state of affairs. Noted.

Fabi said...

I think you misconstrued my response, Chuck. I'm not interested in gender politics, I'm interested in reducing the size of Goverment and reducing our debt -- which will help everyone.

I am glad to see that you're on the Carly bandwagon -- she's impressive.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I do like that we've dropped the whole "women & children" bit, though. It's not about kids.
Women outnumber men in higher education today. Women are over represented in a number of occupational fields, many of which include desirable "easy" jobs. Women still live significantly longer, are subject to less physical violence & crime, etc etc etc.
It's in women's interest to have unrelated men provide for women's economic security, though, so if you're a man you'd better pay up. Hey, if you don't, no big deal, we'll just send you to prison. Equality! Fairness! Feminism!

Jonathan Graehl said...

'deal me in' is glibly funny but also reeks of nicotine and corruption. still, decent response by H>

Jonathan Graehl said...

Carly is awful. HP's stock jumped 10% on news of her firing. Why was she hired as CEO in the first place? Huge mistake.

n.n said...

The female chauvinists have overplayed their hand to the detriment of economy, relationships, dignity, and Posterity.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
"Awright, so I used too many big words and too-hard concepts.

What is Trump going to do for American women? How exactly is he going to be "better" for American women, than Hillary? Just what is Trum promising?"

His 2nd amendment position is clear and excellent. His taxation and economic plans will help the economy actually grow. His free market health reform plans will make health care more affordable.

But again chuck through arrogance and myopia completely misses the point. If trump gives a 20 minute speech with a detailed description of awesome conservative policy on how to help women not only will nobody listen, hillary will be able to counter it easily in 5 seconds because equal pay for equal work sounds better and the media will cover for her.

With one answer trump did more to counter hillary's narrative than all of the whiny nasally crap Cruz is pushing. Also note Cruz's most effective add against Clinton so far is the "it's good to be a Clinton" parody.

Gahrie said...

I think that in the long historical run, the women's hand will win the political game, and the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail.

So you want government to become women's daddy, one might even say sugar daddy huh?

Color me surprised. How about men? Do they get any loot? Or are they reduced to just a wallet yet again?

So what happens to families and fathers in your new women's Utopia?

Chuck said...

Fabi I am not questioning your own views. I am not arguing with you at all.

For about the fourth time I am asking for Trump supporters to explain the nature of Trump's broad, bland promises to female American voters that he will be the greatest president, for them. I'm not the guy making that up, or making those promises. Trump is. Just tell me exactly what is Trump promising. Be specific.

So please, some Trumpkin; explain it. And in the very next paragraph explain why Trump makes that case better than Carly Fiorina.


Gahrie said...

There is no actual issue about "women's health care." It's just the killing thing.

That was true at one time. But now they want free tampons and birth control also.

girlfriendtothestars said...

I read this blog to see what the other side is saying and Althouse has sound opinions but I just don’t know how you can let these type of comments go on. It's utterly depressing and is a great example of how sexism is allowed to persist. Also, to say Obama was elected and now racism is worse is just plain ignorant. Racism and sexism are deep in the fabric of the US. With Obama and now Hillary to win the Presidency, we only now get to see how deep it all really runs and only now can actually start to do something about it. Thank god it's finally all out in the open and thank god we are now finally able to do something about it.

AllenS said...

As long as we're asking for answers, Chuck, tell me what NeverTrump is going to do for women?

girlfriendtothestars said...

Referring to this type of comment:

coupe said...
If Hillary was a better lay, her husband wouldn't have had to go into a closet with a fat Jewess that jiggled when she walked.
4/28/16, 9:24 AM

Fabi said...

Welcome, girlfriendtothestars! Please pick up your Virtue Signaling merit badge on the table to your left as you exit.

walter said...

"we only now get to see how deep it all really runs and only now can actually start to do something about it. Thank god it's finally all out in the open and thank god we are now finally able to do something about it."

Ah..the ole cure worse than the disease...
Oops..should have prefaced with a trigger warning.
Be strong.

William said...

I think the card that Hillary will have the most interest in playing in the near future will be the Get Out Of Jail Free card. You would think that Trump can play the Monopoly game with greater skill than Hillary, but keep in mind that he went bust with a hotel on the Boardwalk. Gives one pause.........Is transgender surgery a human right? If so, should the government subsidize this operation for needy individuals? I'd like to hear Hillary's answers to these questions. I think her opinion on the issue is evolving.

Chuck said...

To start, we won't make any vague, laughably stoopid unibtainanle unintelligible promises.

For the rest, I again direct you to Carly Fiorina. A rising tide lifts all boats.

But here I have given you almost half a dozen chances to explain Trump, and his promises, and you haven't.

Birkel said...

exhelodrvr1:

If a woman splits tens and does not have an excellent ability to count cards, the pit boss should ask her to play a slot machine. Never split anything that starts with an F: fours, fives or faces.

Also, always split 8s.

AllenS said...

My job isn't to answer your questions, Chuck, and let's face it, no matter what I said, you wouldn't accept it. If you have questions, Chuck, may I suggest that you use the Googles.

Amadeus 48 said...

At this late point in the thread, I am going to defend Althouse from commentators who have assigned to her the sentiments that women are entitled to secure economic support from the government. What Althouse said was the she believes that the interests of women in secure government support will prevail. That is a political prediction, not a policy statement. Longtime readers know that Althouse combines some small government, classical liberal sentiments with an aversion to identifying with any ideology--the "cruel neutrality" position. She says she is an observer, not an ideologue. What we are reacting to is an observation of hers, not a policy statement. The question is, how will Trump play his hand in light of this observation?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

He is a man, he is playing the man card left and right. Frankly, if he didn’t, he would do very poorly. If he were a woman and he was the way he is, he would get virtually no votes.

Chuck said...

Achilles:

He loves the poorly educated. He really does. And vice versa.

Birkel said...

Achilles:

Trump has suggested he supports single payer, government health care. That is a monumentally stupid position.

But do tell about those free market reforms other people wrote for his website.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Just tell me exactly what is Trump promising. Be specific.

So please, some Trumpkin; explain it. And in the very next paragraph explain why Trump makes that case better than Carly Fiorina.


1) He isn't making any specific promises. Its all just vague generalities and bromides.

2) He is going to win the nomination and almost nobody voted for Carley Fiorina. Ipso Facto, he is a better politician.

This stuff isn't all that hard.

We live in the United States of America in a decadent age where the education system has collapsed to the point where nearly 2/3rd of the people living in it cannot identify the three branches of government.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-most-americans-cant-name-all-three-branches-of-government/

One of the major political parties is restoring voting rights to felons so as to advantage their nominee for President.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/23/republicans-virginia-gov-mcauliffe-restored-felon-voting-rights-to-help-clinton-political-opportunism.html

And the majority of Millennials prefer Socialism to Capitalism.

http://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/study-millennials-prefer-socialism-to-capitalism.html

Give it up Chuck. It is over. The Donald is probably the best we can hope for at this point. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison aren't going to be time-traveling to the future to save us from ourselves.



Birkel said...

Amadeus 48:

Professor Althouse's attempt at self-deception does not move most of us. Her policy preferences cannot be achieved without a big federal government.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The people have told us what they want and now they are going to get it. Good and hard.

David said...

"the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail."

Is that what feminism is now? Another interest group competing for government largesse?? That may well be. For various reasons women are more cohesive on many of these issues than men.

Trump is exploiting a potential weakness than nobody else dares explore. He is taking a risk doing so. He could be calculating that it's a risk he needs to take.

Look at it this way. If Hillary were a man with her level of accomplishments vs. mistakes and voids, would she be a viable candidate? Quite doubtful I think.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

We live in an age where this person attends the University of Massachusetts where she spends her time exercising her free speech rights by preventing others from exercising their own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHKmYCCX4_w

And Chuck still thinks that if only we can find the right way to frame our arguments then reasonable people will be bound to agree and therefore vote for our platform that is based on Enlightenment Principles. And we will win and all shall be set right as universal prosperity reigns. (Well except for the ones to stupid to become Database Administrators or whatever, something in computers anyway. Losing losers.)

I got news for you Chuck. We are several eras past the Enlightenment right now. Most of its principles have been superseded.

The Donald is the man for our time.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

On the other hand, I have recently became aware of Mr B The Gentleman Rhymer, so its not all bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6yh7ftRnw8

Bill Roberts said...

"I got news for you Chuck. We are several eras past the Enlightenment right now. Most of its principles have been superseded.

The Donald is the man for our time."


No he's not.

I'm not personally ready to give up. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?!?

Although if you're right, in this land of 300+ million citizens we can't find any better choices than H and T, maybe we are well and truly doomed.

I'm just not going to vote for the doom.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Bill

Come over to the dark side Bill. We have cookies.

Chuck said...

His twitter is so powerful:

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/258584864163500033

Amadeus 48 said...

Birkel-- Ouch! Two thoughts in response:
1. I am not sure what her policy preferences are, other than a general sentiment that the law should not assist in reinforcing discriminatory behavior in matters of public accomodation, and legislatures get into trouble when they try to use the force of law to preserve what are essentially social traditions.
2. I thnk she voted for George W. In 2004, Romney in 2012, and (I am not sure about this) Scott Walker three times in four years. That is not the pattern of a typical law professor in Madison, Wisconsin. this is not the voting pattern of an ideologue.
Most of us sincerely hold a number off opinions that directly contradict each other. Why should Althouse be different?

Ron Winkleheimer said...


The Federalist Papers

These are a series of eighty-five letters written to newspapers in 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, urging ratification of the Constitution.After a new Constitution, intended to replace the ineffectual Articles of Confederation, had been hammered out at the Philadelphia Convention, it was agreed that it would go into effect when nine of the thirteen states had approved it in ratifying conventions. There ensued a nationwide debate over constitutional principles, and the press was inundated with letters condemning or praising the document, among them these articles, signed “Publius.”The three men—chief among them Hamilton, who wrote about two-thirds of the essays—addressed the objections of opponents, who feared a tyrannical central government that would supersede states’ rights and encroach on individual liberties.

http://www.history.com/topics/federalist-papers

At the founding of this nation the Federalist Papers were published in newspapers and debated about by the public. How many people even know about their existence today? And if they did, so what. Old White Guys! Slavery! Whatevs.

Post-modernism, cultural relativism, and various grievance studies have pretty much destroyed what used to be called Western Culture. (Which we are supposed to be ashamed of anyway.) The best we can hope for is to rebuild, much like was done a few centuries after Rome fell when the classics were rediscovered.

There is no use decrying Caesar when there is no Cincinnatus at hand.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

By the way, apparently the opponents of the new constitution were correct.

Achilles said...

Birkel said...
"Achilles:

Trump has suggested he supports single payer, government health care. That is a monumentally stupid position.

But do tell about those free market reforms other people wrote for his website."

You people are just plain incorrigible and frankly just don't want to think.

Trump has to get elected. Stop and think about that for a second. The Republican candidate has to get people to vote for them.

Saying things like "we will take care of everybody" and "we wont let people die in the streets" is just not being stupid and doing what you have to do to get elected. To actually get people to vote for you.

Trump is doing it right. Stay vague on TV where the low info voters are going to see you say nice things and project whatever they want on you and put detailed policy positions on the website so wonks and nerds like us can go read it.

This is something that Ted Cruz fails miserably at because nobody wants to listen to a 30 minute sermon. Sure it works for lawyers and political junkies who also think NRO is a fun read. But go talk to people who you need to vote for the republican nominee. Cruz just isn't likable and he would get crushed similar to how Dole got crushed. Dole was great and conservative and knowledgeable and listening to him like like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. I remember back when I supported Cruz the 2nd time Cruz was 5 minutes into a 40 minute victory speech and I said to my wife "fine change the channel this is terrible."

walter said...

"he'll guarantee all women that if they want, they can get breast implants free, paid for by the government."
He knows about this market intimately. He'll get us great, great deals. Meeeeelions of them.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Walter

You say that like you think it would be a bad thing.

exhelodrvr1 said...

" If Hillary were a man with her level of accomplishments vs. mistakes and voids, would she be a viable candidate?"

John Kerry and Barack Obama sound familiar? Mistakes and voids are not that significant, when you have 85-95% of the media and academia working hard to get you elected.

walter said...

As long as they are distributed equally, Ron.

Sebastian said...

"the women's hand will win the political game" It has, for more than a generation. That's why we have the administrative welfare state we do.

"the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail" Some commentators here wonder if that's what feminism has become. Actually, AA is inching closer to the realization that this has always been the essence of feminism: the pursuit of special female privilege. Of course, the best privileges are paid for with Other People's Money.

Too bad that the rational pursuit of the "interests of women" has lots of unintended consequences--family breakdown and father abandonment, most obviously. But as long as the "secure support" keeps flowing, no women will rise to rebel. Whine about unreliable husbands, sure; lament "child poverty," yeah; wonder were all the "good" men went, naturally; beg for more money, of course; demand actual change, nah.

Phunctor said...

"the interests of women in getting secure economic support from the government will prevail."

"the interests of plantation owners in getting secure economic support from their human property will prevail".

Compare and contrast. In what way are the parties whose interests are not addressed similar? Different?

You may wish to refer to the 13th amendment.

Birkel said...

Achilles:

Which of Trump's lies to get elected by duping the low information voters should I discount and which should I believe?

Do you have a decoder ring?

Also, have you looked around the table to spot whether you are the low information dupe?

Brando said...

"Which of Trump's lies to get elected by duping the low information voters should I discount and which should I believe?"

It's Hope and Change. You have to Hope he Changes the beliefs you don't like, and Hope he doesn't Change the ones you do.

This is what conservatives have to hope for. Dive headfirst into the lake and hope it's more than a few inches deep.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Birkel

Why bother worrying over what Trump is lying about. Either he or Hillary is going to the next President of the United States. The Republic has pretty much been lost since Woodrow Wilson. The long march through the institutions is complete. Its already tyranny. Trump at least claims he wants to preserve the United States. Hillary seems to have no love for it at all.

Trump may be the arrogant and unprincipled individual you see him as, but at least he isn't Hillary Clinton.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The real question should be, who is our Augustus?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Or perhaps Trump is Crassus?

Achilles said...

Birkel said...
"Achilles:

Which of Trump's lies to get elected by duping the low information voters should I discount and which should I believe?

Do you have a decoder ring?

Also, have you looked around the table to spot whether you are the low information dupe?"

Poor Birkel. I understand this argument is totally impossible for you to deal with.

I have never said I know what Trump will do or what he believes. But I can look at the totality of what may have built his paradigm from the outside. First he is a businessman. He never cared about these issues as much as he cared about his businesses. This is clear. It is somewhat refreshing as well when he says bathroom attendance is not a federal issue. God it is nice to hear someone say "I DON"T CARE." We really do have more important things to worry about.

Further he had to pull 1550 permits every time he built a hotel. He had to prepare 73 environmental impacts statements. He had to make sure every garage was as close to R-38 insulation rating as possible. He had to pay some democrat alderman off to get the permits approved. I have to do all those things too. I have to talk to county commissioners to get conditional use permits. I have to pay 400$ to build an outbuilding within 50 feet of a slope to make sure the hill that has been there for hundreds of years will not slide. I have to pay for water, sewer, electrical, and road access for a house and have the government say they built it.

I know why you want Cruz. I want Cruz in the white house too. I actually want him in the white house unlike you people.

You have no idea why people support Trump and you just call them stupid dupes. You are intellectually lazy and have no counter arguments that are persuasive.

At some point you will look back and realize this.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...The real question should be, who is our Augustus?

Who's our Breenus, or Arminius, or Alaric?

Ron Winkleheimer said...


Who's our Breenus, or Arminius, or Alaric?

Janet Murguia

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Of course it was over 400 years between Caesar and Alaric's sack of Rome. But she is setting the ground work.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
Of course it was over 400 years between Caesar and Alaric's sack of Rome.



One day Sinclair brought Smith the news of the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga in October 1777, and exclaimed in the deepest concern that the nation was ruined. "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation," was Smith's calm reply.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The Republic may be lost, but that doesn't mean we won't continue on, pretending to be one until. Even Rome allowed local rule on some matters.

Paul Snively said...

Brando nails this at 8:38.

As for women getting economic security from the government (and I agree with the observation that this is a prediction, not obviously a policy preference, from Dr. Althouse), go ahead and enact that policy prescription... and watch men check out of their assigned role as provider of that security—because, as another commenter noted, "government" isn't a thing, but "taxpayer" is—in even greater numbers than they do now.

Briefly, if you were to deliberately design a program to destroy the civic institutions that actually form the bedrock of western civilization—family, mutual aid societies, churches/synagogues, and other providers of private philanthropy—it would be very difficult indeed to do so more successfully than the "Progressive" program.

Birkel said...

Achilles:

You take it on faith, Mr. Businessman.

I have a long memory. The season of 'I told you so' will be miserable for us both. But I will have the advantage of having been correct.

jelink said...

Hoodlum Doodlum: "The rule, though, is that when the conversation doesn't interest the blog owner she doesn't wade into the comments.

One must therefore conclude the "numerous objections" aren't interesting enough.

**********

I see....so we can consider Ms. A the Leona Helmsley of bloggers.

Or maybe the Mr. Blifil of bloggers, sniffing into a perfumed hanky to ward off the stench of the proles.

grackle said...

Trump has suggested he supports single payer, government health care. That is a monumentally stupid position.

Actually Trump has never suggested any such thing except in the minds of the anti-Trumpers. These types of statements beg for quotes. But we never get them. Ever wonder why, readers?

Saying things like "we will take care of everybody" and "we wont let people die in the streets" is just not being stupid and doing what you have to do to get elected.

Actually, Trump’s plan is more of a “catastrophic illness” safety net – like New Jersey has now for uninsured children. Trump is calling for a formalization of what we informally have now, which is: People without insurance who are very ill turn up in emergency rooms and get free treatment. This is nothing like “single payer” government healthcare.

http://tinyurl.com/zvzyhsc

To get the real story on Trump’s healthcare plan go to Trump’s website and read for yourself.

http://tinyurl.com/jse8bdg

Birkel said...

"Donald Trump: Obamacare’s going to be repealed and replaced. Obamacare is a disaster if you look at what’s going on with premiums where they’re up 40, 50, 55 percent.

"Scott Pelley: How do you fix it?

"Donald Trump: There’s many different ways, by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, “No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private. But–”

"Scott Pelley: Universal health care.

"Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

"Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?

"Donald Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably–

"Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

"Donald Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

Hey grackle, you should buy a Google subscription.

Birkel said...

The good news, grackle, is that Donald Trump already told me that it was going to cost him votes.

Since everything the man says is true, or a lie, depending on whether you support Trump or not, can you tell me whether the part about government paying for it is a lie or the truth? How would I discern which are what? Do you have a secret decoder ring?

And do the policy positions other people wrote that are directly contradicted by the candidate's statements get believed as truth, or lies? I need a fucking decoder ring.

Is there a Sycophants 'R Us store?

Birkel said...

Riddle me this, grackle:

Why would it cost Trump votes if all he was suggesting was a catastrophic insurance plan?

Was he lying about it costing him votes? Tell me what your magic decoder ring says.

Michael K said...

Haven't read all the comments and maybe someone said this but this is classic.

a world where the man who started Mozilla is forced out because of a political contribution he had made years prior to a proposition that went on to win by (60%) popular vote ... and this man left without a whimper. Trump would not have slunk off into the night, that I can tell you.

The Revolution has begun.

Birkel said...

How does "everyone" get "taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now" without creating more doctors, nurses, medicine men, shamans, witch doctors, midwives or other health care providers?

Because I was told there is no such thing as a free lunch and this sort of magical thinking was bad, way back in 2009 when Obama was selling his insurance plan.

But this time it will be different. Right?

Cue Living Color for the Dupes.

AllenS said...

I was under the impression that hospitals HAVE to take care of people when they show up.

Birkel said...

Only in emergent situations, AllenS.

narciso said...

it's called emtala, pete wilson is proud he broke the tie vote, that got it passed,

narciso said...

the focus is on high risk pools, but the abolition of the interstate boundaries on insurance,

Theranter said...

Chuck: For about the fourth time I am asking for Trump supporters to explain the nature of Trump's broad, bland promises to female American voters that he will be the greatest president, for them. I'm not the guy making that up, or making those promises. Trump is. Just tell me exactly what is Trump promising. Be specific.

So please, some Trumpkin; explain it. And in the very next paragraph explain why Trump makes that case better than Carly Fiorina.


The only reason I'm a Trump supporter is it was clear long ago that he was, and now is, the only one that had a shot at beating Hillary, and anyone that can potentially beat her has my full support. I cannot stand the woman. I loathe her politics, her phoniness, her criminal actions, her husband, her foundation, her voice, her complete lack of integrity, and the fact that the bimbo has never, ever, worn pants that are the proper length. She is an uncouth, pervert-enabling, semi-smart, lying piece of shit, piss-poor excuse of a woman. She is the last woman I'd want young women thinking of as some sort of role model, and she's the last woman I'd want being the first woman president. (Not that I think gender and/or race should have a damn thing to do with any job, but such are the times.)

Next paragraph, re Fiorina--she cannot beat Hillary. That was clear early on.


BN said...

"The question is whether this is a good move for Trump."

Whoever is the Republican will lose. That is a given.

The question is whether this is a good move for the Republican party.

The real question is whether this is a good move for America.

The answer is obvious.

Do I need to say it? Buy bullets.

Women and children first.

AllenS said...

Ok, so you show up at a hospital in an emergency situation, and are in such bad shape that you can't leave. Then what?

Birkel said...

tracking

Birkel said...

They must stabilize the patient. After stabilizing, they are released.

AllenS said...

Wait a minute, someone is stabilized, unable to move, unable to communicate, strapped to a gurney, and they are released? To where, the sidewalk outside the hospital?

Birkel, do you work in a hospital?

Birkel said...

AllenS:
Do you know what stable means?

I was married to an internal medicine doctor who worked in an ER.

Michael K said...

"I was under the impression that hospitals HAVE to take care of people when they show up."

Yes but they can't just walk in and demand service. There is an emergency law, called as some said above, EMTALA. You cannot transfer an unstable patient and a woman in labor is assumed to be unstable.

As a general rule, emergency problems have to be solved or the patient referred to a doctor on staff who agrees to treat the problem.

I ran a trauma center for seven years.

Michael K said...

"someone is stabilized, unable to move, unable to communicate, strapped to a gurney, and they are released? To where, the sidewalk outside the hospital?"

Only in the NHS.

AllenS said...

I can't think of anything more stable than someone who is stabilized, unable to move, unable to communicate, strapped to a gurney.

What if they don't regain consciousness, and need constant care. What happens to them, and who pays their bill if they don't have insurance?

Birkel said...

Hospice.

BN said...

"Whoever is the Republican will lose. That is a given."

What I mean is, Trump has done his job: negated the yuge natural advantage the R's would have had following an incompetent poser, and running against an incompetent blatantly corrupt coat-tail-riding "she is woman hear her cackle" Secretary of Wall Street.

In short: he's irreparably split the R party. Mission accomplished. Forty pieces of silver or what?

On the other hand, O'Majesty's second election probably proved it's all moot anyway. We've passed the tipping point already probably.

But I still can't wait for the made for t.v. movie of the whole mess starring the weird-looking-orange-guy-of-the-thousand-face-lifts-by-the-highest-paid-doctors-ever playing hisself on the small screen. It's gonna be so amazingly amazing you won't believe it!!! I just gotta tell you.

BN said...

"Trump may be the arrogant and unprincipled individual you see him as, but at least he isn't Hillary Clinton."

Same hair though. Just combed a little different.

AllenS said...

Who pays for hospice?

Michael K said...

Soylent Green.

Birkel said...

AllenS:
Hospice relies on private donations and government support.

Make your point, you boring shit.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 217   Newer› Newest»