August 13, 2016

Point: "I'm getting a little tired of people explaining how the stupid shit Trump says is somehow genius if you think about it."

Counterpoint: "Actually, making you tired of it is part of the genius. Keep complaining: It racks up more support for Trump in his brilliant jujitsu."

186 comments:

PB said...

He's really getting under their skin. If he wasn't they would be ignoring him.

After all the money she's spent and after all the media bias in her favor, it's rather stunning that Hillary isn't ahead by more.

Eustace Chilke said...

The stupid will enrich him whatever the outcome I expect. I've wondered whether he's not working for the Clintons. Improbable but not unthinkable. The Donald will be fine in any case so maybe he is a stinking genius. Whether of the Barnum type is the question.

Hagar said...

That is another thing, perhaps the main thing, that galls them. It is their livelihood he is mocking.

Mary Beth said...

Trump says bad things but "Scott Adams must die" is okay?

(I don't think that comment is literally calling for his death, I just think it's funny that it's a part of a conversation about the bad things Trump says.)

M Jordan said...

This election has worn me out. I swing between thinking Trump's brilliant to believing what the media wants me to believe ... that he's an absolute moron. I no longer trust my instincts. On Monday I know Trump will win in a landslide. On Tuesday he will lose in one. Wednesday through Friday it's a toss up. Saturday, there's no way to predict. Sunday, look at the data, moron!

Here's what I really do think underneath my angst: Trump must make a move by Labor Day. If gets trending downward, it's too late.

I think.

Balfegor said...

Point: "I'm getting a little tired of people explaining how the stupid shit Trump says is somehow genius if you think about it."

It's the perfect mirror image of Obama in 2008. I still remember with mingled amusement and disgust the lengths his fans went to, to explain how "fifty-seven states" was a clever joke rather than their idol misspeaking.

Bill Peschel said...

It's easy for me to check out of this day-by-day bullshit.

Obama protected the banksters from their fraud.

Hillary will do so as well.

Trump has my vote.

The rest is noise.

Sebastian said...

I will agree to acknowledge Trump is a genius, and his jiujitsu racks up support, if the Trumpites agree to shut up when the genius in fact suffers an epic beating. Deal?

n.n said...

Lost in the selective nuance... The "best and brightest" admonished us.

Eat your porridge, "children" from the twilight zone. Your meal ticket must be earned, not cannibalized. The People and our Posterity are not suppressed.

Oso Negro said...

Donald Trump is a self-aggrandizing clown running against a self-aggrandizing criminal. It's like Godzilla versus Mothra - it doesn't matter who wins, downtown Tokyo gets destroyed anyway.

readering said...

Remember, only a little tired. Pacing ourselves quite well for upcoming 3 months. Also waiting to see if he really shoots someone in front of trump tower.

Lem said...

I recall when Bill Clinton was Teflon; nothing he did was beyond the pale.

Nobody got tired of touting his job approval.

Mick said...

First they ignore;
then they ridicule;
then they get angry;
then Trump wins by a Landslide. It is not close, the media lies. The veil is coming off of the deep state propagandists. Trump fills up stadiums, and the crooked old lady can't fill a high school gym. Trump will wipe the floor with her. Look with your own eyes.

tim in vermont said...

What amazes me is the complete lack of curiosity as to why anyone would vote for Trump, as if stupidity and racism of large swaths of their fellow Americans explains everything.

Fabi said...

So many of the "smart crowd" have convinced themselves that he's stupid, that when it turns out he's not, their outrage will be even more entertaining than it is now.

harrogate said...

Of course people aren't ignoring him. It doesn't mean he's "getting under their skin." It means he's a major party nominee for President. That, combined with the "dumb shit" he says daily, is what makes him conspicuous. If he were on the street corner hawking end times rhetoric , he wouldn't be in the news.

Today it was him arguing if he doesn't win Pennsylvania then it will mean he was cheated.

See? Presidential.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Why waste so much mental energy worrying Trump may win? Just submit to the idea that everything Trump says or does is genius, and is for your own good, even if you may not yet realize it. He may lose, but even that may be part of his genius.

harrogate said...

Mick will be back in November talking about vote fraud and conspiracies. Except this time he'll be sounding no different than the GOP Nominee for President.

I remember when commenters here recognized Mick's posts as loony talk. But this is where the GOP has gone.

Paul Snively said...

Of course the crowd whose only accomplishments consist of what they like to call "wordsmithing" are going to panic over a candidate from the other side who is at least as good at the form of "wordsmithing" that actually gets media attention as they are.

But of course, Oso Negro at 4:44 is right: it's nothing to be happy about, this bipartisan ability to mash the "WTF did [s]he say!?" buttons on the other side. I'm convinced that, more than anything else, it reflects the exhaustion of the common person and the Republican base with fielding milquetoast candidates who, regardless of how mild-mannered and polite and even wholesome and scarily upright (remember when we had a Mormon presidential candidate?) are, without exception, without irony, without restraint, without any semblance of decency decried as the Second Coming of Hitler Himself—literally including images of pushing wheelchair-bound granny off a cliff, and literally including accusations of causing cancer in some hapless employee of some organization that said candidate almost certainly doesn't even know exists, let alone has some bizarre causal influence over the cancerousness of some individual employee of.

It's not that Trump is great. Hell, it's not even that Trump is good. It's that Trump is a long, rigid middle finger right back atcha to a left that has been engaging in the worst sort of gutter ethics, gutter morality, gutter language, gutter campaigning, mendacious, lying, my-way-or-the-highway politics for decades. The wind has been well and truly sown. Unfortunately, we shall all reap the whirlwind.

Achilles said...

People do not get it. Why do people support trump? They have been watching the media so long they don't realize what the little people think or want anymore. In the end it is always the same.

We want the right thing to happen. We want justice. Most people understand life isn't always fair but we know data basic level if the government is trying to do the right thing. It is blatantly obvious the government we have is not trying to do the right thing. Neither party is trying to do the right thing.

Hillary Clinton is a disgusting amoral wretch. Trump supporters understand if she is elected it ends any pretense that there is justice in this country. The actions of the DOJ/FBI over the last 2 months are just confirmation. All of the GOPe betrayers like George Will and Glenn Beck are just showing us which side they are on.

If Hillary is elected it is the end of the rule of law as a moral guideline. This has very far reaching effects that have only one conclusion.

Achilles said...

harrogate said...

"I remember when commenters here recognized Mick's posts as loony talk. But this is where the GOP has gone."

What is interesting is that despite strong majorities of Americans thinking Hillary is a liar and that she belongs in jail, you think she would win an honest election.

harrogate said...

I think the GOP made it easier for her to win the election, by nominating Trump.

But even if you don't agree with that, surely you can see the problem of a major party candidate saying the election is rigged. He claimed he was being cheated throughout the primary, except of course when he won states. Then it was all copacetic. Funny how that works.

gadfly said...

John Althouse Cohen

On Donald Trump's "founder of ISIS" comments:
[Hugh Hewitt]: I’d just use different language to communicate it....
[Trump]: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?


In the my best imitation of Donald Trump's speech patterns, “Donald Trump can’t talk good.”

The Trump response above points out his self-love problem and tendency to insult those to whom he is speaking. So his problem isn't just a poor vocabulary, it is his juvenile "my dog's bigger than your dog" thinking. His maturity obviously arrested in his childhood. That alone supports those who say that he has a severe personality disorder.

Two weeks ago he had a meltdown before a crowd in Grand Rapids after listening to the Democrat Convention speakers saying bad things:

"I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would of hit them...no no.. I was going to hit them...I was all set...Then I got a call from a highly respected governor that said "how's it going, Donald?" I said "it's going good, but they are saying very bad things about me. I'm going to hit them so hard". I was going to hit one guy in particular. A very little guy. I was going to hit him so hard his head would spin; wouldn't know what happened."

So what was it that P.J. O'Rourke said? "They've got this button , you know . . . "

Unknown said...

The more dumb shit Trump says the better it is for us Democrats. I'm not getting tired of him saying dumb things, nor am I tired of his translators twisting themselves in pretzels to make what he sound sound normal, crafty, witty, or secretly intelligent. It's amusing to watch in a perverse sort of way. I can't wait to see what they do and say when he loses in a landslide. Will his followers riot, hopefully they won't commit suicide, or seek Second Amendment remedies.

Roger Stone already outrightly speaking of a " bloodbath" should Trump lose. Trump himself is dog whistling about cheating, a rigged or stolen election. I guess Trump has to blame someone for his humiliating loss.

readering said...

MODERATOR: How do we interpret how Donald Trump is communicating with everybody?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, this isn’t a decision he is making. It’s a condition he possesses.

And we’re not used to talking about the psychological mental health of our candidates. And in some things, I think it’s not fair to talk about his mental health, in terms of how he operates with his kids in his private life, but there is a such a thing as public psychology and political psychology.

And in public, he obviously displays extreme narcissism, but most of all, he displays a certain manic, hyperactive attention. And so if you graph a Trump sentence, every eight-word verse, he’s like associative thinking.

And there is a term in psychology called the flights of thought, where one word sets off an association, which sets off an association. And as one psychiatrist said, compare his speeches to Robin Williams’ monologues, but without the jokes, but with insults.

And so he’s not in control of his own attention, I don’t believe. And, therefore, you get these rambling, weird sentences. You get things he patently shouldn’t be saying. And then even this, I’m being sarcastic about the sarcasm, I’m obviously being sarcastic, and then maybe a fifth a second later, he said, but not that much.

So he is contradicting himself within 12 words. And that’s a condition.

Ann Althouse said...

"The Trump response above points out his self-love problem and tendency to insult those to whom he is speaking. So his problem isn't just a poor vocabulary, it is his juvenile "my dog's bigger than your dog" thinking. His maturity obviously arrested in his childhood. That alone supports those who say that he has a severe personality disorder."

What I read in that remark — "they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language" — is that he's had an approach to campaigning that has, thus far, worked. It's a guerrilla campaign, based on rallies, social media, and free television time, all done through a new way of speaking and getting people involved and excited. The GOP never wanted him and still doesn't want him. He has nothing traditional going for him. He's made his bet on keeping up the techniques that have been working (even as he's being told those techniques will fail in the end). It's been his way to fight and it's something he knows how to do — work new media, play old media, and go totally 19th century with the rallies. It's different, but it was the one thing he could do. Now, people are telling him to stop, but the people who are telling him that want him to lose and he won't listen to them. He chooses to see what he is doing as effective and those who are telling him to stop as trying to disarm him. He's made his bet and he's prepared to lose.

John said...

Blogger PB said...

After all the money she's spent and after all the media bias in her favor, it's rather stunning that Hillary isn't ahead by more.

Yeah, because we all know the side spending the most money wins, right? That is what all the pantytwisting around Citizens United is about, isn't it?

Just to recap, as of Mid July:

Hilary has raised $375mmthis campaign, $180mm from large contributors. She put a tad less than $1mm of her own money in the pot.

She has spent $290mm

For that $290mm, she barely beat a not well funded non-Democrat that few people had heard of from one of our smallest states.

She is barely beating (if that) a candidate presented as a joke and widely reviled in the press and media.

Trump has raised $99mm. $50mm out of his own pockets, $25mm from small contributors and $12mm from large contributors. None from PACs.

He has spent $76mm to beat 16 serious, well supported and funded candidates. Not just by a little but by a lot.

Source Opensecrets.org

He is currently running neck and neck with Clinton and has been for some time now.

Trump has skin in the game to the tune of $50mm. Hilary has very little.

Can someone tell me again how money is the deciding factor in political races?


John Henry

AprilApple said...

Just ignore his sliding polls numbers and tell yourself the polls are all wrong.

#winning.

Tim said...

The GOP didn't nominate Trump. Trump was nominated in spite of the GOP.The GOP couldn't shove Jeb down the voters throats. The unwashed turned their back on the GOP and thus, Trump exists.

gadfly said...

Perhaps Achilles can explain how Trump's compulsory, perhaps even pathological, stream of untruths every day doesn't qualify him to be a liar. We can't have our cake and it it too, now can we?

Unknown said...

In what universe is Trump running " neck in neck"?

harrogate said...

"He chooses to see what he is doing as effective and those who are telling him to stop as trying to disarm him. He's made his bet and he's prepared to lose."

There's no way to defend the statement that "he's prepared to lose," based on anything he's said anyway.
You can make stuff up though!

He complains he is being cheated all the time. How is that the rhetoric of a man who understands he might actually lose?

John said...

Some have said that Trump is only in it for the money. I would be interested if anyone can give an explanation of how that might work.

He has given up his lucrative TV gig. His businesses have suffered to the tune of 10-15% reduction in revenue. He has lost a year of his time that he could be growing his businesses.

And he has spent $50mm out of pocket. Not as a loan but as an unrecoverable donation.

His businesses are going to have to do really well to make this up. They are going to have to do even better than really well to make it have been worth the effort.

Perhaps he will have more name recognition? He already had about 99% name recognition in the US. More name recognition will help his businesses? How about the many people who now, because he dared challenge Queen Hilary, will boycott those businesses.

So I am waiting for someone to explain how he profits.

John Henry

narciso said...

David 'he's like the mountain, he's just there' Brooks, should have the decency to be silent before he removes all doubt. why else are they pushing to get rid of voter id, so you can have 110-120 % voter turnout in philadelphia.

Chuck said...

To all of the Trump fan boys;

Jonah Goldberg was addressing this to Sean Hannity, but you all might as well regard it as a personal letter to each of you. In a terrific little challenge, Jonah proclaims that he will re-think his #NeverTrump status, if Donald Trump can just be an adult for one whole week. I am taking the under.

We've got highlights:

So here’s the thing. As Hugh and other reluctant Trump backers have conceded countless times, if Trump doesn’t change he will lose. Badly. Even his fanboys know this – which is why the “stabbed in the back” tantrums against Trump opponents are intensifying.

...

There are simply no gettable Trump-skeptical voters paying attention to Hannity or the other Trumpian party enforcers. The tantrums directed at the #NeverTrump crowd are for internal consumption, blame shifting, conscience-easing, and maybe to lay the groundwork for a purge of the new national-populist GOP. But the really important point is that, the “let’s root out the kulaks” zeal enflaming the folks in Breitbart World notwithstanding, the simple fact is that Trump isn’t losing because of the #NeverTrump brigades. He’s losing because millions of people who don’t know or care about people like me don’t like the guy or are nervous about him.
...

Hannity hosts a nightly infomercial for a product the customers have already bought. Why not expend some energy trying to change the product so that others will buy it, too? Would that be too much like asking the crowds at the Coliseum to downgrade their lust for spectacle? Do you think Trump’s hardcore supporters are so selfish that they won’t tolerate even a little sanity and sobriety from the nominee, if only to beat Hillary? Give these people some credit for Pete’s sake.

I’ve seen a bunch of interviews with attendees of Trump rallies who say they’d like to see more discipline from Trump. I know they want to defeat Hillary. The simple fact is this: Trump will not win unless he changes. He needs to reassure the skeptics. He needs to win-over people not already won-over. He needs new, serious, material. But like an aging has-been rocker, he’d rather keep playing his greatest hits at Indian casinos and state fairs than actually put in the work and pivot. But Hannity doesn’t seem to care. Trump is sabotaging his own campaign every single day, and yet his supporters put the blame on everyone else and cheer Trump on. They are Trump’s worst enemies because they are enabling him and by enabling him, they are sabotaging Trump’s campaign.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438949/donald-trump-sean-hannity-does-hannity-want-hillary-clinton-win

AprilApple said...

Yes - the DNC-MSM is unfair and biased. They basically work for the democrat party. We know this and it is baked in the cake.

Unknown said...

Sane people have decided that Trump is insane.

Sane people have checked-out from what Trump says next because he has become boring and predictably more insane.

There is much more to life than to listen to insanity from an insane Trump.

Sane people will vote Clinton.

Sane Republicans will vote country before party.

Trumpkins will continue to believe Trump is their savior when he is nothing but a con man.

Unknown said...

He's prepared to blame his huge loss on forces outside of his control, the " voter cheating", the "rigged system" and lord only knows what other excuses he'll invent for his loss. He won't take responsibility for his own actions, someone or some forces will be to blame, he wasn't treated fairly, blah, blah, blah.

Unknown said...

Maybe he'll say he was misunderstood, lol.

Lydia said...

Ivanka's not been heard from since the convention, has she? Maybe she'll take Michael Moore's advice and stage an intervention.

Unknown said...

The more the media detail in excruciating detail each Trump action and folly the better.

Because for sane people, it continues to confirm how insane Trump is.

Chuck said...

As a card-carrying Trump hater, I want to make two things clear:

1) I am not unmindful of "the lesser of two evils." I mean it, when I say that Trump could have won my vote. Maybe he still can. He shows no signs.

2) Unlike some others from my neck of the political woods, I will not ever even consider voting for Mrs. Clinton. I understand that not voting for president may be an effective vote for her. Or not. She is not getting my vote.

Here in Michigan, where Trump's primary hopes were riding so very high, I expect that my vote won't make a bit of difference. Clinton had earlier been running ads here. And now she is not. I suspect that Michigan has been effectively "declared" by the polls, a full six weeks before Mitt Romney had to give it up.

chickelit said...

Chuck, quoting, huffed: ...and maybe to lay the groundwork for a purge of the new national-populist GOP.

LOL. And replace them with whom? Trump Republicans are a sizable chunk of the GOP, you fool. What gets me is that you're still not interested in the why. The JEB/Cruz/Marco crowd is still wondering why? Zero introspection.

mockturtle said...

Chuck, are you are still fantasizing that Trump needs or even wants your vote? And, BTW, you have belabored points 1 & 2 ad nauseam. Next you'll be reminding us that [point 3] you are a 'lifelong Republican'.

Unknown said...

Trump needs all the votes he can get.

AReasonableMan said...

Unknown said...
In what universe is Trump running " neck in neck"?


Based on the polling Trump is running about 4-5% points behind Clinton, as he has almost from the time he entered the race. Clinton's polls have eroded slightly over that time and she is currently 5-6 percentage points short of 50%. While she stays below 50% Trump has a chance. An increasingly small chance with time running out, but still a chance. At this point Trump's fate is largely out of his hands. He needs some dramatic event to change things. The Clinton's are good at providing drama.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I do hope Trump can do more, in the end, to seem a valid last resort, and Trump's conservative haters can give a little too - they cannot allow Hillary to take everything unopposed. She is an aperture into hell.

I assure you that those of us who have supported Trump throughout will not gloat if he wins. It will be a narrow victory. It's already too late in any case, but maybe with a bigger show of strength, we can get a better negotiated surrender into the inevitable globalist monoculture. There really probably is no stopping it; we just need to resist a little until we too get a little consideration for our culture (who got us the globalist Mammon to begin with - why can't it be grateful?)

Chuck said...

Over at the above-referenced Jaltcoh FB page, Ann Althouse wrote:

Ann Althouse "I'm getting a little tired of people explaining how the stupid shit Trump says is somehow genius if you think about it." Actually, making you tired of it is part of the genius. Keep complaining: It racks up more support for Trump in his brilliant jujitsu.


Actually, Ann, there seems to be zero empirical evidence that Trump is "racking up more support" on any dimension. Trump seems to have peaked, at a profundly losing level of support. And is now backsliding. What, objectively, makes you think that Trump has some "juijitsu" that is actually working at this point?

Chuck said...

mockturtle said...
Chuck, are you are still fantasizing that Trump needs or even wants your vote?


If you in any way represent Trump or his campaign, you make my decision pretty easy. If Mr. Donald J. Trump doesn't want my vote, then I would hate to force it on him.

narciso said...

have you not got it through your heads, that she will allow no opposition, citizens united is the text book case of that, one has to figure the rather tepid support from her public outings the latest in iowa, the advance man is probably facing a threshing machine,

Brando said...

Consider that it may not be that he's stupid, but rather what he is trying to do is separate from winning the election. And what he's really trying to do he is doing very well.

Hint: Sarah Palin may be his inspiration.

AprilApple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Friday, August 12
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Clinton 44, Trump 43 Clinton +1
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 44, Trump 39 Clinton +5
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 41, Trump 36, Johnson 9, Stein 4 Clinton +5
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 48, Trump 39 Clinton +9
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 45, Trump 36, Johnson 9, Stein 2 Clinton +9
Virginia: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 46, Trump 33 Clinton +13
Virginia: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 43, Trump 31, Johnson 12, Stein 5 Clinton +12
Colorado: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 46, Trump 32 Clinton +14
Colorado: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 41, Trump 29, Johnson 15, Stein 6 Clinton +12
Texas: Trump vs. Clinton KTVT-CBS 11 Trump 46, Clinton 35 Trump +11

Thursday, August 11
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Rasmussen Reports Clinton 43, Trump 40, Johnson 8, Stein 2 Clinton +3
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 40, Trump 35, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 42, Trump 36 Clinton +6
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein FOX 13/Opinion Savvy Clinton 45, Trump 44, Johnson 6, Stein 1 Clinton +1
Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton Suffolk University Clinton 40, Trump 41 Trump +1
Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Suffolk University Trump 37, Clinton 36, Johnson 6, Stein 3 Trump +1
Maine: Trump vs. Clinton Gravis Clinton 46, Trump 36 Clinton +10
Maine: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Gravis Clinton 43, Trump 33, Johnson 10, Stein 5 Clinton +10
New York: Trump vs. Clinton Gravis Clinton 53, Trump 36 Clinton +17
New York: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Gravis Clinton 48, Trump 34, Johnson 6, Stein 4 Clinton +14
Georgia: Trump vs. Clinton Gravis Clinton 44, Trump 45 Trump +1
Georgia: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Gravis Clinton 39, Trump 43, Johnson 8, Stein 2 Trump +4
South Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein PPP (D) Trump 41, Clinton 39, Johnson 5, Stein 2

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/

rcocean said...

Has anyone else stopped reading the MSM regarding Trump? Every article is just another "Hey, lets take a Trump comment, pull it out of context, pretend he meant the worst thing possible, and then attack him".

The technique is understandable. The MSM want Hillary to win - badly. But Hillary isn't saying anything. She can't arouse any enthusiasm. But Trump is constantly giving speeches and interviews. So they have to report what Trump said, and if they reported honestly it would help Trump.

So they lie.

But after you've heard the same lie over and over and over again, you tune out.

AprilApple said...

Chuck - from the "Does Hannity want Hillary to Win?" link - (Johah G)

Nails it.

"Sean’s threats and bullying are for the entertainment benefit of an audience that doesn’t need threats or bullying – they’re already in love with Trump. Except as an exercise in masochism, why would someone horrified by Trump watch Sean’s nightly Trump Hour brought to you by special guest director Roger Stone? Except maybe for the health updates on Hillary Clinton?

There are simply no gettable Trump-skeptical voters paying attention to Hannity or the other Trumpian party enforcers. The tantrums directed at the #NeverTrump crowd are for internal consumption, blame shifting, conscience-easing, and maybe to lay the groundwork for a purge of the new national-populist GOP.

But the really important point is that, the “let’s root out the kulaks” zeal enflaming the folks in Breitbart World notwithstanding, the simple fact is that Trump isn’t losing because of the #NeverTrump brigades. He’s losing because millions of people who don’t know or care about people like me don’t like the guy or are nervous about him."

AprilApple said...

Unknown - We get that you adore Corrupt Liar Hillary. Bugger off.

Unknown said...

You first Apple. I'm sticking around until election night and beyond.

gadfly said...

Ann, the difference between your way of thinking about Donald Trump and mine is that you believe he is intelligent and I believe his upbringing by a dominant father affected him early and damaged his personality by inflicting a probable inferiority complex.

I was reading the other day a comment that Don Surber included in his "Trump the Media" book that said Trump won the GOP because he adopted Aaron Spelling's marketing strategy to run new episodes of Hollywood 90210 in the summer in order to gain popularity when the new fall TV season began - but that assumes that Trump plans anything ahead - and I frankly do not buy it. He has no control of his mouth and where it takes him. He has no control over his obsession to go after anyone who says bad things about him. I think the evidence is there for everyone to see.

If you think about it, the issues that Donald is pushing are not original. Illegal immigration has been around a long time, so has big union's disgust for NAFTA, the US as the world's policeman, and on and on. The difference between normal politicians and Trump is his radical untested solutions on trade and immigration that will likely bring down our already staggering economy should he win. I will admit that his tackling U.S. miltary spending overseas needs to be looked at - it has been 70 years since WWII. But Trump has no concept of smaller government, doesn't appear to even understand that we don't have to keep doing what we do now. That means continuing to spend at Obama-established levels - shudder!

We are damned if we do and if we don't elect Hillary or Donald, but their illegal activities and ethical breaches won't allow me to vote for either one. So my vote will be for naught but I will vote the GOP down ticket and "Johnson16 - Feel the Johnson."

rcocean said...

BTW, I fully expect trump to lose.

America is stuck on stupid.

Nothing will stop Americans, especially Well-to-do White Women, from voting Democrat for whatever stupid reasons they always vote Democrat.

Until it actually hurts them personally in the pocket book.

Someday, they will hurt by open borders, unchecked mindless "rah rah rah let anyone who wants to come here" immigration, and never ending budget and trade deficits.

Then maybe they'll wake up. But I wouldn't count on it.

Dr Weevil said...

If Trump thinks the Democrats are going to cheat in November, maybe that just means he was paying attention when Loretta Sanchez, Christine Gregoire, and Al Franken were "elected".

rcocean said...

Jonah Goldberg is, what he's always been, a neo-con and a libertarian. I can remember when he seriously suggested the USA invade Africa and "civilize" it so as to have a "sense of purpose".

He's always hated "Nationalism", and always been in favor of open borders, free trade, and small government. IOW, he's always hated the working class and poor Americans. And for cutting social security, medicare, more wars in the middle east, and more Globalization.

I guess if you're a rich journalist living in NYC that's a pretty attractive agenda.

Unknown said...

What a Clinton landslide would look like. 538 blog.

AprilApple said...

Jonah G is a fine writer. Trump is a democrat, and Hillary-lover and a fraud.

narciso said...

well he was kind of funny, the straight man like charles grodin re chevy chase, but he's gotten less funny over the years,

Chuck said...

rcocean:

So now you can ignore the conservative media along with the liberal media.

That whittles it down to Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Jeffrey Lord and Roger Stone. You might want to get with Ann Coulter now as well, because she may be in rehab after November.

Darrell said...

When President Trump takes the Oath, I suggest that Chuck tries circumnavigating the Globe in a row boat.

narciso said...

when jamie weinstein, is so verklempt for personal reasons that he wants to negotiate a truce with red queen, there's a problem, mostly for jamie,


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/66-chance-trump-wins-says-election-model-thats-been-right-since-1988/article/2599203?custom_click=rss

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
When President Trump takes the Oath, I suggest that Chuck tries circumnavigating the Globe in a row boat.

8/13/16, 7:04 PM

For the record, I have bookmarked this for saving until November. Good luck, Darrell.

If we have a President Trump, I will be generally very happy to have avoided four years of Clinton appointments to the Article III federal courts. That will be my first, and most important reaction. I will feel creepy, as well, about the Sean Hannitys of the world proclaiming that they are the new class of political wise men. Because they aren't.

And I'd suggest that there is really only one way that Trump could possibly win this. It would be with a national security cataclysm; something so awful with such terrible loss of life and destruction that the national psyche is ruptured. And even then, I am not so sure that voters would feel that Trump is the answer. In any event, that is not a scenario I am rooting for.

Unknown said...

Keep guns away from Darrell after the Clinton landslide.

Chuck said...



Here is your man, to take down Crooked Hillary...

http://conservativeamerica-online.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/cd63d6b97513bb8a0674f4c8649fc47e.jpg


Unknown said...

If there would be some cataclysm Obama would likely postpone the election and remain president for sometime longer.

narciso said...

Dan Silva outlines just a scenario in his latest, an extrapolation of the battaclan cluster of events, transposed to dc,

narciso said...

therein lies the real problem, the casualties were squared within the interval between the paris attacks, but trump is the real issue,

chickelit said...

Unknown fantasized: If there would be some cataclysm Obama would likely postpone the election and remain president for sometime longer.

I'm no conlaw expert, but I think that would be an impeachable offense.

narciso said...

as if that matters, how many other offenses have they been willing to stomach, he probably sees the latest moves by erdogan, as a guide map/

Unknown said...

Never say never.

Since the United States Constitution grants states the authority to administer all elections, even federal elections, the federal government does not explicitly possess the power to suspend or postpone a presidential election. However, Congress does have the right to mandate the timing of federal elections, and since the Presidential Election Day Act of 1845 presidential elections have been held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in election years. Hypothetically, given Congress’ authority over the timing of federal elections, Congress could pass a law regarding emergency rescheduling of a federal election. Similarly, the president could use his emergency power in such a way as to disrupt states’ ability to conduct elections, but this has never happened (and would likely be highly controversial if it did happen.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/hurricane_sandy_election_what_if_people_don_t_have_power_on_election_day.single.html

Unknown said...

Actually Chicklit,

I was being.....sarcastic.

buwaya puti said...

What I see all over this discussion is a ridiculous inability to see past details. Cant you, all, see the cliff at the end of the road you are on?

It doesnt matter one bit whether the people fighting over the steering wheel are tastefully dressed or what they say. If this all is that you care about, you are a mental defective.

There is an enormous rage out there, dismissing it is an attitude thats stupid beyond words.

The people are arming, institutions are failing, nobody has any trust in the government and the only way to get rich is to be corrupt. No one is listening to anyone else.

And abroad the war drums are beating louder and louder.

You trivial fools.

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
If there would be some cataclysm Obama would likely postpone the election and remain president for sometime longer.

We held a presidential election in 1864. The same year that Sherman took Atlanta, the Battle of the Wilderness was fought, and the siege of Richmond took place. The sitting President of the United States ran against the Democrat nominee, who less than two years earlier had been the General in Chief of the United States Army.

That's the high bar for cancelling an election.

Unknown said...

Oh, if only everyone paid attention to Buwaya's earthshatteringly important comments, we would all be saved.

buwaya puti said...

Yes, you would be saved.
Its plain as anything.
You worthless beasts.

Fabi said...

Who cares what Jonah Goldberg thinks? He's a pussy.

Dr Weevil said...

Rescheduling an election is not difficult, and has been done. September 11, 2001 was election day in New York City: mayoral primary to pick the nominees to succeed Giuliani. They canceled the primary after the polls had been open two hours, then reheld it two weeks later, with the runoff two weeks after that. The people who had already voted on September 11th had to go to the trouble of voting again, but other than that, it was no big deal. With all the time between Election Day and Inauguration Day, there would be no need to extend any incumbent's term even if an election had to be rescheduled, as long as it was done honestly and openly. After Loretta Sanchez, Christine Gregoire, and Al Franken, there is little reason to trust Democrats to be willing or able to do that.

Unknown said...

Buwaya's going mad with self importance. He sounds like Trump,"Only I can fix it!"

Or are you being sarcastic?

StephenFearby said...

Ann Althouse wrote:

"Now, people are telling him to stop, but the people who are telling him that want him to lose and he won't listen to them. He chooses to see what he is doing as effective and those who are telling him to stop as trying to disarm him. He's made his bet and he's prepared to lose."

Effective? Not by the direction of his poll numbers.

Although NY Times reporting on politics should be read with the suspicion of Pravda articles during the time of the USSR, the reporting below seems quite believable.

A good read.


NYT Aug 13

Inside the Failing Mission to Save Donald Trump From Himself

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-gop.html


As an alternative to the various pertinent DSM diagnoses explaining Trump's self-destructive behavior, there's also this:

"A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so."

buwaya puti said...

You are the worthless sons of mighty fathers.
Heroes to me, your fathers.
Their sons, no.
If it werent for my kids I would have left years ago.
As it is they have their dual citizenship and options abroad.
Let what passes for brains here sort this out.
I said this would be an ugly year, probably just the start of many that will be worse yet.

narciso said...

why would carlos slim's charity project be interested in helping trump, it becomes a parody of itself every day,

Freder Frederson said...

Obama protected the banksters from their fraud.

Hillary will do so as well.

Trump has my vote.


Did you even bother to look at who Trump appointed as his economic advisors? Or notice that his tax plan lowers all the bankster's income tax rate to 15%?

God, you, and so many others, are a moron.

narciso said...

whereas zaphod and red queen have given them an unlimited credit line with our money,

buwaya puti said...

If you have seen a US high school recently, you would understand Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons". The University of California is just a higher toned variant.
Its morons wall to wall and end to end.
And thieves.

And, note, no-one is writing anything like Kornbluth these days, too close to home I think.

Leigh said...

Here, finally: some good data on who is winning.

https://soundcloud.com/jefferson-graham/will-donald-trump-really-win-zip-app-believes-so

mockturtle said...

Or notice that his tax plan lowers all the bankster's income tax rate to 15%?


Corporate tax rate, not individuals' tax rate. I believe he wants to lower the highest income tier rate from 39.6% to 33%.

AprilApple said...

Jonah G is a heretic because he doesn't worship the Cheeto Buddha. (also knows as - the fraud who wants to lose to Hillary)

Jon Ericson said...

Freder the ass-muncher speaks!

AprilApple said...

I love Trump's tax plan. (not really his plan - closer to what Paul Ryan has been talking about for years)

Too bad so sad Trump is taking a dive so we can have Hillary's patriotic tax plan. She steals from hard workers, the middle class and the rich - and gives it all to her cronies. All while she avoids taxes by making charitable donations to her own bogus family foundation. weeee.

narciso said...

we saw what taking a dive looks like in 2008, this isn't it, it's a high risk high reward strategy, he's pursuing,

Unknown said...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html


Hillary Clinton has an 88% chance of winning the presidency.
Last updated Saturday, August 13 at 1:03 PM ET
CHANCE OF WINNING

88%
Hillary Clinton

12%
Donald J. Trump

The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains quite possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a field goal.

Jon Ericson said...

Sure, Sugartits.

AprilApple said...

Over-blown - yeah we get it - you adore her thighness the liar.

Jon Ericson said...

Overblown.
That's our Sugartits.

Unknown said...

AppleAss,

I'm sorry your party has such a shitty candidate, that's not my fault.

Jon Ericson said...

Ooooh AppleAss. neener neener neener!
It's fun when you Blowout.
Sugartits.

John said...

UA said that the Constitution grants states the power to administer all elections. It also grants them the power not to have presidential elections:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

If a state were unable to hold a popular election in November, they would still have the duty to appoint electors and they can do this in any way they want, including cutting cards or rolling dice. (Subject to state law/constitution, of course)

You may have missed it in your schooling, UA, but it is the United states not the United Provinces or counties or administrative areas.

The president is elected by states, not citizens. All voting rights come from states, not DC. There are some Constitutional restrictions, if you give men the right to vote, you have to give women the right also. But a state doesn't have to give either any right to vote for any elected position.

The day the actual election takes place, the one that really means anything, is currently in December. I suspect that the President doesn't have the authority to change that no matter what happens. I doubt that Congress could change it. They might legally be able to, I doubt they could make it happen.

If no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, then the House chooses the president.

John Henry

AprilApple said...

over-blown - He might be shitty but he cannot hold a candle to the un-indicted felon.

AprilApple said...

I'm rooting for shitty!

khesanh0802 said...

Paul Snively @5:28 Brilliant! My biggest hope - other than Trump winning - is that, if he goes down he goes down in glorious flames taking Hillary and the Republican elites into the basement with him.

Jon Ericson said...

'51's on the wrong side of the bell curve.
We demand 'ol 55' She's sexy!

Unknown said...

AppleAss,
You've been ranting about how horrible Trump is for several months now. Everyone here and at most other rightie blog's have heard you screeching about Trump by now, so vote for your shitty candidate, makes no difference to me. I don't get why you keep ranting about him though, you won't change any Trumpist's minds.

Jon Ericson said...

Inferior rhetoric and logic skills, Sugartits.
Please keep it up though.

khesanh0802 said...

Ann @5:56 Excellent analysis. The Dems are using the older methods and so far it seems to be working okay. Is Trump doing an Ali "Rope-a-dope"? The old saw was that the real campaign does not begin 'til labor day when people start to pay attention. Will Hillary have given it her best shot by then and be arm-weary? Will Trump start to box after that and expose all the negative Hillary aspects: the lying, compromising security, pay for play that are just waiting to be exposed? I will be very disappointed if he doesn't.

Jon Ericson said...

When Mr. Balls met Unknown#55.
Sparks flew!
Unknown#51 --meh.

John said...

Whenever I hear someone complain about taxing the "rich" or not taxing the "rich" I always think: There goes someone who is full of shit.

In the US, with a few exceptions, we tax income, not wealth. Warren Buffett is worth $70 billion dollars but earns $40-50mm/yr. If he paid 100% income tax, he would pay about $40-50mm per year. Jeff Bezos is, I think, in the top 10, worth $40-50bn but earns $3-4mm/yr. If he paid 100% income tax, he would pay about $3-4 million. Donald Trump seems to be worth around $9-10 billion. If he paid 100% income tax, he might pay about $1.98. That is because he may have little or no income. His companies may even operate at a paper loss. Completely legally. (See this article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/business/how-much-does-donald-trump-pay-in-taxes-it-could-be-zero.html )

Tax Buffett on his wealth at 1% and he would pay $700,000,000/yr. Tax Bezos at 1% and he would pay $400-500,000,000/yr. Tax trump at 1% and he would pay $100,000,000 per year.

Donald Trump seems to be worth around $9-10 billion. If he paid 100% income tax, he might pay about $1.98. That is because he may have little or no income. His companies may operate at a paper loss. Completely legally. (See this article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/business/how-much-does-donald-trump-pay-in-taxes-it-could-be-zero.html )

The way one gets rich, in many cases, it to accumulate wealth without having a lot of income. Like Bezos, Buffet. perhaps Trump and others.

Until people who complain about the rich not paying their fair share learn the difference between wealth and income they are simply full of shit.

John Henry

John said...

Blogger AprilApple said...
(also knows as - the fraud who wants to lose to Hillary)

Maybe you would like to take a shot at answering my previous question?

Why?

Why would Trump be interested in anything less than winning after investing so much cash, time and reputation in this process?

What's in it for him, if he loses?

John Henry

Unknown said...

AprilAss thinks Trump is a Clinton stalking horse.

Jon Ericson said...

No Shit, but watch your language.

AprilApple said...

John - He really hasn't invested that much of his own money. He has relied on the DNC press for free positive spin during the primary - and free negative spin now that the primary is over. He will manage just fine if he breaks even.

Hillary is all over the place with ads. I have no idea if her ads are effective, but she is leading in the polls. No Trump ads. Nothing.
What's in it for him? He gets his gal in. She's a major crony-player and he can use that later on, after all is forgiven. Up until recently, Trump really liked Hillary and said so often. I think he and Bill made a deal. There was a phone call between the two just before he jumped in the race.
Now- perhaps I'm wrong - but I see evidence as he crashes and burns his own campaign.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Now- perhaps I'm wrong - but I see evidence as he crashes and burns his own campaign."

No, he's doing great. He's a master persuader. If he has any problem, it's not him, it's the lame stream media. For example, did you hear that the New Yorker destroyed their credibility because they mischaracterized Rush Limbaugh's favorite insult language? Thankful DJT never makes errors that massive.

Jon Ericson said...

Hey, scuzzbag, how ya doin'

khesanh0802 said...

@AprilApple I have read the Trump/Clinton conspiracy theory any number of times and must admit that it is a delicious conspiracy theory. There are a couple of problems with it however. The biggest being: how on earth could Bill control for Trump winning in a primary field of 16 candidates? It's not possible. The second problem is that according to the NYT (I know!) Trump has been planning this run since Romney flamed out in 2012. Apparently one of the first things he did was register " Make America Great Again" as a trade mark. Fairly cheap to do, but indicates forethought.

I keep asking myself: if Trump appears to be such a failure as a campaigner how did he manage to whip every other candidate in the primary? He knocked out the "favorites" practically before the campaign started and the campaign ended with two of the least liked candidates taking it - sort of - down to the wire. How the hell did he do it? My only answer is that he found the message that resonated with The People and he rode it home.

I know we are usually very hard on Mick, but seem to love him today. He makes a good point, though, when he asks how Trump manages to fill large auditoriums while Hillary can't fill a high school gym. Anecdotal and isolated, but a good question. Are we missing something basic because we can't get passed the biased reporting of the MSM?

Over the last week or so the the WSJ editorial board has been softening it's anti-Trump stance. Holman Jenkins and Daniel Henninger seem to have suddenly realized that Trump has some good policy ideas and that perhaps defaulting to Hillary is not such a good idea. I wonder if this will be an ongoing evolution with them and other NeverTrumpers.

I sometimes have the same teeth-grinding frustration with Trump that you have, but I know I will never vote for Hillary so I just have to try to keep my blood pressure under control and hope that things work out.

Michael said...

I am getting tired of people intentionally misinterpreting or misunderstanding Trump in order to facilitate poo-flinging. Anyone who has spent any time on the center-right knows that Trump's Second Amendment comment referred to the right of revolution and had nothing to do with assassination. And at that it was a throw-away line.

walter said...

Chuck,
If you have calculated that your vote doesn't matter anyway, your comments..unless you are here to piss and moan..should still be in the context of lesser of two evils...which you say you understand. ANd that ultimately reduces to you saying "You, folks whose votes matter, should vote for Hil' because ___"

Original Mike said...

John Henry wants a wealth tax. Why am I not surprised?

Jon Ericson said...

Hey, Chuckles is a Life-Long-Republican.
Don't be dissin' him.

Jon Ericson said...

Woah, OM and JH! Strap their wrists!

Jon Ericson said...

Just beat it.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Anyone who has spent any time on the center-right knows that Trump's Second Amendment comment referred to the right of revolution and had nothing to do with assassination."

I'm not sure it's better if DJT is saying that folks should overthrow the government if the Supremes aren't appointed by a con.

Settle down folks. Your perceived burdens are nothing compared to earlier generations of Americans. Get a grip, and perspective. Don't be whiney pussies.

Jon Ericson said...

Fail.

Jon Ericson said...

So where's the major blowhard tonight?

buwaya puti said...

PB&J,
You seem to have an amost sexual desire for the boot in the face. I cant understand that, but I suppose we are supposed to respect all odd sexual desires these days.

Me, I live with it daily, professionally.
I am tired of it, near to death.
I know whats coming for you.

narciso said...

actually it doesn't in the context of his subsequent statements, about nonviolent political action, but thanks for playing, you get a copy of the home game and a case of rice a roni,

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Buwaya,

I'm into face to boot sex. Don't knock it until you try it.

Jon Ericson said...

Leftists, tch.

walter said...

Da "bootie" call..

Jon Ericson said...

Ha!

Jon Ericson said...

Sheik Yerbouti

Jon Ericson said...

So where's Pedro?
He's usually making dozens of off-kilter posts by now.

narciso said...

is there as much as one can discern the differences, parallels with estrada and now duterte, both were long time politicos, but also outsiders to the party establishment?

mockturtle said...

So where's Pedro?
He's usually making dozens of off-kilter posts by now.


You're filling in nicely, Jon...

Jon Ericson said...

touché

John said...

Blogger Original Mike said...

John Henry wants a wealth tax. Why am I not surprised?

No, I didn't say that I wanted a wealth tax. It does have some merits and demerits but I did not say I was for or against it.

All I said was that people should STFU about "taxing the rich" unless and until they are willing to apply a wealth tax.

But let's hear from you, Mike, you sound like you are against a wealth tax. Why?

Part of Trump's tax plan, or at least something he has talked about, is a one time wealth tax. So he at least seems to talk the talk about taxing the rich, as opposed to taxing the high income. (not necessarily the same group)

John Henry

John said...

Blogger AprilApple said...

John - He really hasn't invested that much of his own money. He has relied on the DNC press for free positive spin during the primary - and free negative spin now that the primary is over. He will manage just fine if he breaks even.

Well, $50mm looks like a lot to me, though I can see that, as a percentage of his wealth it may not look like much to Trump. Still, it is real money. His real cost is the year he has taken away from his business and other pursuits as well as the hit his reputation has taken. If he loses half the country will hate him forever for the loss. The other half already hates him and will continue to do so. Up to June last year he was fairly well liked as a lovable sort of douchbag.

HOW does he get the money and the time and reputation he has invested, back?

Why do you think breaking even makes it worthwhile?

And HOW does he even break even? Whatever "break even" means in this case.

What does he get out of this whole thing if he loses?

John Henry

John said...

The second problem is that according to the NYT (I know!) Trump has been planning this run since Romney flamed out in 2012.

Farther back than that. He approached Bush I about the vice-presidential candidacy in 1988.

John Henry

M Jordan said...

Ann Althouse said, "It's a guerrilla campaign, based on rallies, social media, and free television time, all done through a new way of speaking and getting people involved and excited."

A "guerrilla campaign": that's exactly what he's doing. It's the Scot in him. I read Jim Webb's book about the Scots-Irish (of which I am one), "Born Fighting," and he made the strong case that America wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War without the gueriila tactics of the hills-loving Scots. (Scots-Irish are Scots who moved to Ireland.). The British wanted conventional, gentleman's warfare and it was ridiculous. The Scots had learned from their failed attempt against the British at Culloden never to fight on the British terms again. Their American counterparts learned that lesson well, attacking the British in a rag-tag, clannish style from the hills. From Wikipedia: "The Scotch-Irish "Overmountain Men" of Virginia and North Carolina formed a militia which won the Battle of Kings Mountain in 1780, resulting in the British abandonment of a southern campaign, and for some historians "marked the turning point of the American Revolution"

So here it is again, a nonconventional Scot waging a gueriila war on the corrupt, past-their-prime elite. It's all in his gut. He just keeps "pushing through" as he puts it. Viewed from this perspective, it's inspiring.

But whether the outcome is Culloden or Kings Mountain remains to be seen. But Ann, I think you nailed it here. It's gueriila warfare led by an old Scotsman. And it is completely misunderstood by the elite power structures.

Jon Ericson said...

*Wink*

mockturtle said...

Good call, M Jordan. I had compared Trump to Andrew Jackson, another Scots-Irishman. While the US may not always need a fighter, we do need one now.

G-S. said...

The original point is better.

Jon Ericson said...

Thank you for your concern.
Hillary will be sure to reward you for it.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

I like that J.H. uses M for thousands instead of K.

This is the way it should be (and is, for business folks, bankers and accountants) because M is the Roman numeral for thousand. I'd like to see everybody give up on the K.

P.S. I don't want to hear any fussing about Kilo. In practice folks use M, as they should.

Jon Ericson said...

Go to bed.

Jon Ericson said...

I'm the only one.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

I think it's cool that some of you think that DJT (w/ trophy wives, jet/chopper transport and gilded (literally) life) has anything in common w/ folks who really experienced and overcame hardship and steep odds.

Anywho, I suppose y'all look at the following and see a dude who respects and wants to fight for Americans who support him, i.e. those who aren't winners like him.

"Trump just now in Erie, PA: "We don't win anymore. You people [pointing to the crowd] don't win, that's for sure.""

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/to-be-discussed

Sure, his tax cuts for rich folks and his fix for the death tax is definitely going to help you. Of course he'll fight for folks that didn't work hard and achieve success like he did.

He says military folks who literally risked their lives for this country and experienced torcher aren't such a big deal if they're captured. Those dudes may not be worthy winners, but surly DJT cares about Americans who have not had great success in life. That's why he's for tax cuts for rich folks.

It's cool that cons stand by real fighter DJT as he says that POWs aren't so great since they got themselves caught, IOW the chickens came home to roost, unlike real fighter Scots-Irish DJT.

There was a time when most (if not all) cons wouldn't throw out their support for real fighters (in favor of a phony fighter) this easily.

Jon Ericson said...

cons

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

torture

Jon Ericson said...

waterboard

Jon Ericson said...

We all know that crap is king...

Jon Ericson said...

The Barons in the balcony are laughing and pointing to the pit.

Terry said...


PB&J wrote:
I think it's cool that some of you think that DJT (w/ trophy wives, jet/chopper transport and gilded (literally) life) has anything in common w/ folks who really experienced and overcame hardship and steep odds.

And this makes Hillary a better choice . . . how?
She is a bitter old, money grubbing hag with possible brain damage from a concussion she had in 2012.
The notion that Hillary is obviously the superior choice is . . . mad.

Jon Ericson said...

They say aw look,
they've grown accustomed to the smell,
now people love that shit.

buwaya puti said...

Hi narciso.
Philippine politics maps very poorly to the US version.
Parties these days are very weak, and have always really been more like family/clan systems of alliances anyway.
Estrada was way more of a "Manila Boy" and deeply mixed up with Chinese bigshots, his cronies, the undisguised corruption of which made him vulnerable. Really, anyone hanging out and doing deals with the likes of Chavit Singson had only themselves to blame. He had serious populist backing as he had a movie career, name recognition and colloqial speech down. He forfeited much of it by idiotic personal behavior and the aforementioned bad company. He was a rich kid in fact, of a prominent family in San Juan, Manila suburb.
Rich relatives of mine knew them well.
Duterte is also from a political clan, from Cebu, but he has no real party alliances and his clan is only locally connected. He is a more genuine populist and his movement is very much more a revolution of the periphery vs the center (provinces vs Manila).
Ideologically there is little to connect either with Trump, both Estrada and Duterte have socialist ideas, Duterte probably more so.
Emotionally, broadly, there are definitely strong parallels, Duterte and Trump, as both are seen as revolutionaries against a corrupt, overbearing centralized establishment. Of course the details and context of all this are vastly different.
I rate Duterte as a very high assassination risk, he is making a great number of very dangerous enemies, though these aren't, yet, the big money in the country. TBD if he really upsets the real powers that be. He hasnt made any economic moves yet.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Terry,

I did notice that you didn't dispute what I wrote. Presumably this means that you agree that DJT's fighting is different than actual war fighters. Folks can follow him and decide that he should run our government, but they can't equate him to folks who have actually been in battle. In fact DJT says that tortured POWs aren't so noteworthy because they got themselves captured. Not to mention that captured POWs haven't sacrificed by starting out really rich and then working to become even richer while stiffing vendors, creditors and gullible saps who are into get rich quick BS.

I also noticed that you express yourself by name calling and conspiracy speculating: it must be nice since you've got the perfect match of a candidate running this time.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

You cons really have a deep bench. After Trump, Alex Jones is a strong fighter and he's a business as usual disruptor. Not to mention is capacity for conspiracies. Excellent R POTUS material.

Jon Ericson said...

Weak.
Come back when you have a point.

buwaya puti said...

PB&J,
You have a brain, you are not limited to this foolishness.
If you want to argue the other side, argue the actual other side.
Like, perhaps, the value of the H1b system. Or whatever it is the EPA thinks its doing.
Something real.
Can you get past the cretin-level mental block device someone has attached to your skull? Can you contemplate actual real reality?

Robert Fulton said...

When it was predicted that this election was going to be the dirtiest ever by far I did not believe it. Now, of course, one must believe it. It is getting so bad that no respectable blogger will be able to do other than to denounce Trump on the record and suspend all further political discussion. I would not be surprised if anyone commenting to support Trump would retroactively (through Silicon Valley) have a virus in his computer that would disable it. And, of course, this will all be Trump's fault. Actual history will be ignored and we will never have had such an outrage in our history as this candidate. Sigh.
I remember the Goldwater campaign. I would say "Just go back to then and you will see the Democrats doing the same things that they are doing now." That would be true, but useless. That would be the equivalent of having you recall the fellow who famously said to Senator Joe McCarthy: "Sir, have you no decency?"
In that quaint time, asking a United States Senator that question in public and meaning it seriously, shocked the Nation. And I don't mean they were shocked, shocked as in Casablanca. It brought Senator McCarthy down.
Imagine a story today that someone said to Trump: "Sir, have you no decency?"
I haven't checked for that statement in the comments above, but it, or its equivalent is probably there.
I don't know to what lengths this campaign will go, but tonight I think that it will be Brexit II. Many Trump supporters who must comment publicly will lie to protect their reputation and then vote for him. Others will simply remain quiet. The day after the election the press will not know how to report the news of the Trump win. Of course, the NYT will have the equivalent of a totally black front page. Me? I am like Scott Adams. I am a Hillary supporter.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Buywaya,

You're the sort of person that has cretin sex with foolish boots and skull face fools!

[I'm learning by your example. Hope you don't mind that I'm cribbing your A material.]

Jon Ericson said...

Drugs.

Jon Ericson said...

Getting into G.O.C. territory there Peanut.

Terry said...

I didn't dispute with what you wrote, PB&J, because the life Trump has lived is obviously at odds with his typical supporter. As is Hillary's with her typical supporter. Yet somehow women are supposed to identify with her successes.
I am not a Trump voter, PB&J, becaue I am a an ideological conservative. Trump does not even pretend to have an ideology other than 'make America great again." Hillary is an ideologue. You might say that is not true given statements she has made in the past that contradict her current statements (on SSM, for example), but she always swears allegiance to the current ideology. Everyone knows that she has changed her changed mind on SSM, but she swears that she has not changed her mind on SSM.
No one has has ever made a positive case for Hillary without lying. Obama praised her as being more qualified than any other candidate. More Qualified than Eisenhower? I doubt it. More Qualified than GHW Bush? Don't think so.

buwaya puti said...

PB&J,
You are one of the few here that I know is unpaid, and is arguing honestly, because, well, who would pay you?

buwaya puti said...

And, PB&J, I am still waiting on your take on H1b.

Unknown said...

Time Magazine

Trump Meltdown

http://boingboing.net/2016/08/11/new-time-magazine-cover-trump.html

Brilliant!

Jon Ericson said...

Unknown#14
Greetings newbie!

Jon Ericson said...

Time eh?

Achilles said...

It is interesting watching Buwaya try to warn PB&J and the unknowns and see how completely clueless these people are. There will be consequences for supporting someone as disgusting and evil as Hillary. Your best case scenario is a trump victory.

Jon Ericson said...

Don't touch me there...

Terry said...

Unknown said...
Time Magazine
Trump Meltdown
http://boingboing.net/2016/08/11/new-time-magazine-cover-trump.html

What do you think really caused Hillary's head injury back in 2012, Unknown? I'm guessing it was related to Hillary's drinking. Bill said she wasn't right for months afterwards. Ended up with a a bloodclot between the skull and brain is what they are telling us. That is what affected her vision and walking. Or maybe the walking thing was from the drinking, too.

Terry said...

Is Time magazine still a real thing? Does anyone read it on paper?

sinz52 said...

I wonder what the Trump supporters will say and do, the morning after Election Day when he has conceded the election to Hillary and Hillary's landslide victory has given the Dems the House and Senate as well.

Terry said...

Blogger sinz52 said...
I wonder what the Trump supporters will say and do, the morning after Election Day when he has conceded the election to Hillary and Hillary's landslide victory has given the Dems the House and Senate as well.

Probably something similar to what the Hillary supporters will say and do, the morning after Election Day when she has conceded the election to Trump and Trumps's landslide victory has given the GOP greater control of the House and the Senate as well.

grackle said...

Unknown said: I'm sticking around until election night and beyond.

How would we know? All unknowns look alike.

Ann, the difference between your way of thinking about Donald Trump and mine is that you believe he is intelligent and I believe his upbringing by a dominant father affected him early and damaged his personality by inflicting a probable inferiority complex.

Love the amateur psych diagnosis. The commentor needs to google the term, “psychological projection.”

Terry said...

Oh, what does Hillary's sticking with a man who repeatedly and publicly humiliated her tell us about Hillary's damaged psyche?
In 1992, in response to questions about Bill Clinton's long-term affair with Jennifer flowers, Hillary said "I'm not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette."
Tammy Wynette left her first husband -- taking the kids -- to make it on her own. Until she made it in country music she was a single mom working as a hairdresser.
Hillary isn't acting like Tammy Wynette by sticking with Bill, she is acting like Hillary.

John said...

Blogger Terry said...

What do you think really caused Hillary's head injury back in 2012, Unknown?

We do know that Crooked Hilary both fell on her head and had a stroke. Did the fall cause the stroke or did the stroke cause the fall? Probably unknowable what was cause and what was effect.

Does it matter?

Her doctors, according to the NY Times at the time, are the ones who said she had a stroke. Or CVT, as they put it. CVT is the technical medical term for a stroke.

John Henry

veni vidi vici said...

"What does he get out of this whole thing if he loses?"

He's 70 years old now, and has accomplished everything one could dream of in business, including building lasting monuments, family, and entertainment/celebrity. Even if he loses the race in November, he will have done something deemed impossible just a year ago, namely, come from nowhere to blow out 16 professional and/or seasoned (Carson and Fiorina both ran previously) politicians to earn the nomination and thus be one of what, 90 or so people to have had the experience of running atop a major party ticket for the presidency?

How is that not getting something out of this whole thing? Especially considering he's almost literally "the man who has everything"? If you look at Trump as a man and not a caricature, it's quite easy to see where this would be tremendously satisfying to him, win or lose.

chickelit said...

Jelly wrote: It's cool that cons stand by real fighter DJT as he says that POWs aren't so great since they got themselves caught, IOW the chickens came home to roost, unlike real fighter Scots-Irish DJT.

I understood what Trump meant by what he said about McCain. He meant, if McCain's a hero then what is Audie Murphy?

Murphy was highly decorated for killing the enemy; McCain for resisting torture.

Should we even distinguish?

Unknown said...

Whether Adm. Stockdale, say, felt equally the lash directed at McCain, there is little disservice to the nation in taking the Senator down a peg or two. For how long has he traded on his sacred cow status? A wrong hero is still wrong, and all the wrong-er for perpetrating the wrong via his hero status.

McCain is a man who has done the best he could do to support what he thought was right and good. Fundamentally his problem is that he's neither terribly intelligent nor terribly wise. He also takes things very personally. Fully as hot a head as Trump.

Joe said...

I'm sick of the near complete lack of cogent arguments against Trump. Even here, the supposed arguments are little more than playground insults and sound crazier than anything Trump has said.

Today, I had lunch with some acquaintances. Someone trotted out Trump mockery for entirely gratuitous reasons. I said that I was a Trump supporter and everything they just said about Trump applied even more so to Hillary and everyone else who has run for president since 1965.

Therein lies perhaps the biggest frustration; most accusations thrown at Trump apply even more to Obama, Hillary and even Bush, but that angle is completely ignored by the press.

(I have no problem with the press or anyone making legitimate criticisms of anyone in power or who seeks power. Yet, the press is not only giving Hillary Clinton a near complete pass on even the most trivial things, they are lying on her behalf. We'd be better off if the press treated every politician or aspiring politician as a lying asshole.)