October 6, 2016

"I sort of like Trump's lack of polish (though not really his nastiness — there's a cruelty there that's troubling)..."

"... and if I thought he was trustworthy and demonstrated some capability in governing I'd be all for him. Though of course in a president, you do have to be careful with your words — not just in avoiding setting off financial panics (look at how closely investors consider Janet Yellen's statements) but in diplomatic affairs as well (see Dean Acheson's statements about our zone of interest that made Stalin and Kim think invading South Korea wouldn't provoke major U.S. involvement). A more 'earthy' speaking style, with consideration of the phrasing used, is my ideal."

Said Brando, in the comments to yesterday's post about the preference many people seem to have for Pence's style, the style of a career politician. I'd said: "A man with a style honed outside of politics will seem too rough, too unfinished, too strange." I didn't come right out and say it, but, like Brando, I sort of like Trump's style — with the same reservations.

Here's another helpful perspective from the comments, from Clyde:
I want someone who:
1. Is honest
2. Is savvy enough to deal with our adversaries in the world without beclowning him/herself (Clinton's political experience did not give her such help in dealing with the Russian Reset, Benghazi, etc.)
3. Will pursue policies that will benefit the people of our country, rather than enriching him/herself, and will give the American people more freedom rather than less.
Hillary Clinton is 0-for-3. This election is a binary choice. Donald Trump might not be good, but Hillary would certainly be very, very bad, probably even worse than Obama. It doesn't come down to whether someone is a polished politician or not. Clinton is more polished, but our adversaries would eat her lunch, just as they have with Obama. Trump? He's used to negotiating and wheeling and dealing.
But he's used to negotiating and wheeling and dealing where he can walk away from what he doesn't like without worrying about the fate the other parties and where he can fold up the parts of his operations that are not profitable.

What happens when you transfer that skill to government — suddenly and at the presidential level — and when you are bursting with exuberant confidence? It seems like an insane risk. 

150 comments:

David Begley said...

I want an outsider. Trump speaks like an outsider. By continuing to speak in his manner he puts the DC Establishment on notice that he is going to clean house.

I don't like the bragging and his imprecision, but given the alternative a vote for Trump is a no-brainer. Hillary is a criminal and I remain astounded that people don't get that.

sinz52 said...

It's becoming a moot point anyway.

The latest poll has Obama's approval rating at 55%.

If a majority of Americans approve of Obama's job performance, they're going to prefer a candidate who will continue that performance (though with some modifications), rather than change everything around.

If a majority approves of Obama, they'll elect Hillary as his heir apparent.

Just like they elected Bush 41 to succeed the popular Reagan.

sinz52 said...

David Begley sez: "but given the alternative a vote for Trump is a no-brainer. Hillary is a criminal and I remain astounded that people don't get that."

Trump is a fascist and running an openly bigoted campaign that embraces the alt-right. And *I* remain astounded that so many people don't get THAT.

Exit polls during the primaries combined with the stuff I'm seeing on forums like this one have shown with horrible clarity that about one-third of the GOP base is actually sympathetic to alt-right ideas. They take direction from guys like John Derbyshire, NOT guys like Milton Friedman. I'm now seeing folks whom I used to think of as good conservatives approvingly quoting white supremacists like Milo Yiannopoulos and Peter Brimelow.

And that's why they just can't understand why folks like me can't support Trump. They're not bothered one iota by racism, bigotry, fascism, the way I am. They're at least unconcerned about, if not sympathetic to, those things.

Bottom line: Hillary is the 21st century Richard Nixon. But we survived Nixon.
Trump is the 21st century Mussolini backed up by enthusiastic supporters who actually want a benevolent despot. And we won't survive one of those.

Brando said...

Maybe we're more on the same page than I thought!

Trump's record as a negotiator is a mixed bag--I certainly wouldn't want America to go the way of Trump Casinos or the USFL--and you're right, the game of real estate development deals is significantly different from that of the presidency.

Besides, most of our biggest challenges are not related to trade deals and the cost of funding NATO. If you're a master negotiator, we can just appoint you U.S. Trade Rep or something.

Hunter said...

sinz52 said...
[snipped]

I can agree with a lot of what you've said here, except for Trump being "the 21st century Mussolini" --

Trump, I'd rather say, is the 21st century Andrew Jackson. Who was a real piece of work, but we survived him too.

TreeJoe said...

You know what is an insane risk: A calm, deliberate, measured president stating that use of chemical weapons would cross a red line, saying that the red line would be crossed and calling for military intervention, and then backing down quietly.

THAT is an insane risk on the global stage when you are a superpower. And the results have been an unchecked humanitarian crisis and much more open Russian aggression and expansion into the mid east.

Why is Obama's foreign policy not considered an insane risk?

Eric said...

Wasn't one of Reagan's greatest moments when he walked away at Reykjavik? Desperately seeking the photo-op isn't a diplomatic strategy.

AprilApple said...

It helps Trump or anyone facing her, that her voice is excruciating. 4 years of that evil cackle (that poorly masks her corrupt nature) is enough to drive a nation to drink.

David Begley said...

Sinz52

What is the evidence that Trump is a bigot? I mean real evidence. Evidence admissible in federal court. A housing discrimination case from 40 years ago doesn't count.

And guilt by association is a pathetic argument.

Mrs. X said...

The fallacy is that walking away from negotiations is a bad thing. Walking away from the Iran nuclear negotiations, for instance, would have been an astounding success compared with the deal we got.

Jersey Fled said...

What Eric said

Imagine how much better off we would be if we just walked away from bad deals.

Obamacare, Iranian nuclear deal, ...

The list is endless

rhhardin said...

Where is Trump nasty and cruel?

Clayton Hennesey said...

"But he's used to negotiating and wheeling and dealing where he can walk away from what he doesn't like without worrying about the fate the other parties and where he can fold up the parts of his operations that are not profitable.

What happens when you transfer that skill to government — suddenly and at the presidential level — and when you are bursting with exuberant confidence? It seems like an insane risk."

This seems an insane risk invented out of whole cloth, like the insane risk that when haberdasher Truman was elected he might immediately govern as if he were hanging suits.

The risk perceived assumes the behavior described is rote and hardwired like a simple animal instinct, discounts that Trump behaves the way he does in the environment from which he comes because those are the parameters of that environment, and assumes that he would mindlessly go through the same routines as President as if he were a bird building a nest.

Gabriel said...

The possibility of walking away is fundamental to negotiation. If you can't leave the table, you are being coerced, and "negotiation" is a euphemism.

Gabriel said...

Negotiations are not ends in themselves. You negotiate because you want some outcome.

Chuck said...

Coincidentally, just yesterday I was looking at the Trump story of "John Baron/John Miller," the apparent personae taken by Donald to talk to numerous reporters in the third person about Mr. Trump.

It sort of obliterates all of these nuanced questions about communication style; and it raises far more basic questions about his sanity. The audio is simply amazing. (As amazing, as Trump's subsequent denial that the voice -- which is obviously his -- is his. After years ago essentially agreeing that it was his voice.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/13/transcript-the-full-text-of-john-miller-interview-about-donald-trump-with-people-reporter/?tid=a_inl

Hagar said...

Speaking of cruelty, O'Reilly showed a clip of Obama roasting Trump at the WH Correspondents' Dinner in 2011, and I was surprised at how nasty it was.
Kind of like Stephen Colbert, but Colbert is swishing his tail for the "popular girls'" approval and Obama is the Queen of the Popular Girls.

rehajm said...

Why do we believe based upon his campaign persona we have intimate knowledge of his weaknesses in political negotiation? That's insane.

We do know Clinton's weakness in political negotiation.


Bay Area Guy said...

Calling Trump a "Fascist" is, frankly, idiotic.

Trump is, above all else, a capitalist. He builds big things to make big money. He markets himself well to do this.

He doesn't want to control your life, he doesn't have an acute political philosophy. He's a generally patriotic, mildly religious, business man. Full stop.

Now, that may not sound like much, but it's a heluva lot better than a left wing, political ideologue like Hillary Clinton.

Gabriel said...

If you let the desired outcome be a successful negotiation, you are going to give away the store. Why should the other party make any concessions at all if they know you won't walk away because you are trying to get a deal of any kind at all?

This is obvious everywhere except where government is concerned, I guess.

Incidentally the emphasis on temperament shows how much we have internalized the imperial presidency, as though a word from the President's royal mouth is all that is needed for treaties or going to war. As though these decisions do not involve the concurrence and cooperation of hundreds of people.

Mike Sylwester said...

Trump will try to control immigration.

Clinton will flood the country with immigrants, like Merkel is doing in Germany.

Henry said...

Clyde's list doesn't score well for Trump.

Ms. Clinton, for all her failures, is a stasis candidate. Rope-a-dope. Kick the can down the road. Nothing is a high standard.

Robert Fulton said...

I can already see the future posts as each "atrocity" is committed by Hillary:

"Well, gee whiz, Trump seemed like such a risk, I just couldn't...."

"Well, I know in retrospect, these are exactly the things that Trump warned us about (see Republican warnings about Obamacare when it was rammed through) but Trump would have been...at least I thought he would have been...well, all the media was saying..."

"Well who envisioned the Supreme Court finding a "penumbra" that allows the new Information Bureau to control "fair and free speech" throughout America? We thought we could weather Hillary for eight years. Yes, I like Canada."

AllenS said...

That was very good, Robert Fulton.

David Begley said...

Mrs. X

Right you are! Iran knew Obama would do anything for his historic legacy deal. Iran got more than what it wanted. Iran will have nukes in three years and we paid for them.

Larry J said...

Of the 17 announced Republican candidates for the nomination, Trump wasn't in my top 10. He possibly wasn't in my top 15 list. Today, I don't care for Trump's persona. He may be different in small groups. The fact of the matter is he isn't Hillary and is the only one who has a chance of stopping her. That's enough for me to vote for him. I don't really trust him but I don't trust any politician, either. The only thing I trust about Hillary is the certainty that she'd be a disaster for the country. The damage her nominees to the supreme court would do to the Constitution is incalculable and would likely last for at least a generation. ABC - Anyone But Clinton, even if that anyone is Trump. I'm no so much voting for him as against her.

Chuck said...

Hagar said...
Speaking of cruelty, O'Reilly showed a clip of Obama roasting Trump at the WH Correspondents' Dinner in 2011, and I was surprised at how nasty it was.


I agree; it was unusually nasty, given it was a U.S. President talking about a private citizen. But then again, remember the extraordinary nastiness of the Trump/birther campaign, and what fertile ground that was for humor. Obama was hilarious in that part of his monologue. A monologue that was extremely uneven.

Theranter said...

AprilApple, yes, her voice! I can't take it. I'm going to have to see if the debate is closed captioned so I can mute it when her crooked mouth starts to open.

AllenS said...

I'm voting for Trump. For once, I want to see someone as President who wasn't a politician. I cannot tell everyone how much I hope that he is a big huge success. I also hope that his success will transform into more regular people to run and win. I detest the two main political parties that we now have.

Matthew Sablan said...

If Trump, who wants to reform the tax code to make it fairer and less onerous, is fascist -- what do we call the person who wants to take more of people's money and overturn a Supreme Court decision that allows you to criticize politicians near an election?

Virgil Hilts said...

Agree with Larry J. This election is about which candidate is going to be worse for the country, and that candidate is HC.
The "flight 93 election" essay from a month ago sums up the hold our noses "pro-Trump" arguments pretty well (in case there are still those who have not read it -- http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/)

tim in vermont said...

Electing somebody commander in chief whose every foray into foreign affairs has led to disaster, catastrophe in the subject countries is insane.

Electing somebody chief law enforcement officer in the land who believes, well, knows, I guess that any inconvenient laws do not apply to her is insane.

Electing a person commander in chief who has no problem using the IRS against her enemies is insane.

Electing a head of state who reflexively lies is insane.

Our choices suck. I won't vote for either of them. Let it be on you're conscience.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I also hope that his success will transform into more regular people to run and win."

-- I hope every president we elect will be successful; I just am doubtful about them to various degrees. But Trump is in no way a regular person.

Sebastian said...

"What happens when you transfer that skill to government — suddenly and at the presidential level — and when you are bursting with exuberant confidence? It seems like an insane risk." Huh? What? Have you ever negotiated anything more than the price of car?

Exuberant confidence + basic patriotism + experience at dealing with sharks might just lead to better deals than, oh, Obamacare, the JCPOA, or the Syrian "ceasefire." If the Trump risk is "insane," what words shall we use to describe the actual O disasters?

Forgive me for not taking political advice from a voter who thought O was the "pragmatic" alternative in '08.

dreams said...

Trump seems to have good judgement in people and apparently has always had able people working for him and I think he will do the same in his cabinet appointments if he is elected.

Tim said...

Again, the birther issue sis Hillary's. She and her pals like Sid Blumenthal, one of the slimiest people to walk the earth.

David Hampton said...

People are naive or delusional critiquing Trump for saying what he thinks. The elite do the same thing only in private while smiling for photoshoots in public. This country can't afford smug liars "wink and a nod" diplomacy that say one thing for the rubes to chew on while simultaneously instructing their minions to do the exact opposite with a cadre of water carriers preparing talking point reasons why they had to modify their positions for the Friday evening news dump. They refer to that practice over cocktails in Georgetown as the old "D.C. two step." What happened to speaking "Truth to power" the left always trotted out to excuse their violent activities in pursuit? Knock off the double standard against Trump.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Ann,
You're the one who thought Obama would bring responsibility to the Democrats. It was exceedingly clear from his campaigning that this would not be the case. And we have evidence of the extreme lack of good decision making from Hillary and the Democratic leadership as a group. It would be insane to vote for more of the same.

You're not a good judge of risk when it comes to assessing policy-makers.

tim in vermont said...

It sort of obliterates all of these nuanced questions about communication style; and it raises far more basic questions about his sanity.

Of course Hillary's denials that she destroyed any work related public records when, in fact, she had destroyed almost a thousand emails written to General Petraeus, and even some emails to and from Obama, doesn't bother Chuck one little bit. I don't think you are qualified to judge whether other people are behaving 'normally' Chuck.
'

tim in vermont said...

She and her pals like Sid Blumenthal, one of the slimiest people to walk the earth.

You mean the same Sid who attacked rape victim Juanita Broaddrick in his book as a liar, and who collected $10K a month from the Clintons' "charity foundation" to give Hillary horrific advice? That Sid?

Boxty said...

Clinton wants to control every sector of the economy from healthcare to energy and everything in between. She wants to severely limit or do away with gun rights and free speech. Yet Trump is accused of fascism? That's what's insane.

Big Mike said...

What happens when you transfer that skill to government — suddenly and at the presidential level — and when you are bursting with exuberant confidence? It seems like an insane risk.

Sometimes you need to be able to walk away from a very bad deal, even at the presidential level -- c.f. Iran.

Big Mike said...

Trump is a fascist and running an openly bigoted campaign that embraces the alt-right. And *I* remain astounded that so many people don't get THAT.

Hillary Clinton is the fascist, and anyone who says otherwise must be living in an iron lung because his or her brain is so deformed that they can't otherwise remember to breathe. I'm less scared of the Alt-right than I am of 21st century mainstream Democrats.

jacksonjay said...

Yeah, he'll be great as long as THEY ask him the right questions (so that he looks smart), his mic works and he isn't challenged to a pissin contest. No, that doesn't mean I'm voting for Hillary! Yes, I do understand the whole binary choice thing.

Big Mike said...

Bottom line: Hillary is the 21st century Richard Nixon. But we survived Nixon.

We survived Nixon because when push came to shove, the senators and congressmen from his party put their country ahead of their party. There is no Democrat politician who would do the same.

Amadeus 48 said...

The problem with Hillary--a problem Trump does not share--is the nature of her supporters. If President HRC were truly subject to the critical eye of an adversarial press, if the chief legal officers of the government were not at her beck and call (see Watergate vs. email investigation), and if Bush had not pushed executive authority so hard and Obama had not shown the way for the executive to ignore the legislative and judicial branches, then electing her would not be so problematical.

Trump will be under the eye of a critical press from the day he takes office. The federal bureaucracy will be opposed to him from day one. Trump is actually the sane choice if you want to avoid autocracy. HRC is the dangerous one.

dreams said...

"Sometimes you need to be able to walk away from a very bad deal, even at the presidential level -- c.f. Iran."

Reagan walked away from Reykjavík and that worked out well for us.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423381/reagans-lesson-obama-no-agreement-better-bad-agreement-thom-tillis

Rocketeer said...

"What happens when you transfer that skill to government — suddenly and at the presidential level — and when you are bursting with exuberant confidence?"

Reykjavik happens, that's what. That turned out pretty damned well for human rights, nuclear strategic stability, and ultimately for our relationship with the Soviets and subsequently the Russian Federation.

Of course, Obama and Hillary have squandered all of that, every tittle and jot.

Rocketeer said...

Great minds Dreams. I hope you'll trust me when I say I was tyoing that while ou were posting.

Earnest Prole said...

Trump’s rhetorical style would be refreshingly transformational were he to have emotional stability and adult maturity

Chuck said...

Big Mike said...
"Bottom line: Hillary is the 21st century Richard Nixon. But we survived Nixon."

We survived Nixon because when push came to shove, the senators and congressmen from his party put their country ahead of their party. There is no Democrat politician who would do the same.


Very true. And wisely said. But what if all of the Trumpkins turn out and vote for mainstream Republicans like Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey and Kelly Ayotte. And in 2018 we elect more Republicans to the Senate. If we get to 60, we could impeach Mrs. Clinton in 2019.

bgates said...

Trump is the 21st century Mussolini

You're going to vote for the candidate who wants greater government control over the economy, who wants the ability to criminalize dissent, and who is already responsible for a failed war in Libya because you think the other guy is Mussolini?

Unknown said...

Bollocks Ann. Thinking that trump will bring the exact same negotiating style with matters of national security and a real estate deal is just childish and buying into a narrative. No one would. At the end of the day he is going to have a zillion advisors giving him ramifications of his actions.

Right the wathat are the result of a mis-speak, a few hundred votes?

sojerofgod said...

Sinz52 sez: "
Bottom line: Hillary is the 21st century Richard Nixon. But we survived Nixon.
Trump is the 21st century Mussolini backed up by enthusiastic supporters who actually want a benevolent despot. And we won't survive one of those."

I mean no disrespect when I say that this is a load of nonsense.
I will spare you the obligatory explanation about my first choice or primary candidate etc, that ship has sailed. What I rarely see from commenters anywhere is an analysis of Trump's behavior. All this BS about Alt-Right, Fascism, big meanie...
Oh, come on!
Lets try to look at some of this dispassionately.
1. He is obviously a successful man. I don't care how many millions he got from daddy, trust-funders routinely blow their fortunes but he didn't.
2. His speaking style is conversational, not rhetorical. This is not by chance. One of the things that endears him to many is he talks TO them not AT them like most pols.
3. Trump is a salesman entrepreneur who leverages his name as his brand. Is there something wrong with this?
4. Any CEO hires the best people available to work for him. He doesn't write policy, nor does he do his own laundry. Trump's promises to stop the madness of immigration, one-sided trade partnerships and bring back some sanity to government overreach has a great appeal to the commoners. It has made him powerful enemies among the class of people who benefit from rent-seeking globalization and crony capitalism. (anyone even remember that the TPP is a 2000 page document that NO ONE not even congressmen can copy to examine? Can you spell corruption?)
5. Trump is thin skinned when it comes to insults. Yes, he is. blame it on his NYC upbringing, on his public persona or whatever. Realistically, do you think he acts this way when he is negotiating behind closed doors? How many deals would he have closed do you think? The media have conjured a public impression of him that is a caricature. Believe that and they have taken you for a fool.
6. Lastly, Trump is an insane risk. All due respect but I don't buy that one. No politician acts without one eye in the mirror. By that I mean the idea of the judgment of history is always shadowing them... look at Mr. Obama's actions with Iran. The thought of losing a legacy 'deal' made him give away the store.
Trump, outsized ego and all will be no different. That always tempers the extremes of behavior.

So I don't really have a problem with a Trump presidency. Accountability needs to be restored to government, and if he wins you can be sure media and Dems will be lined up to give it to him good and hard.

Rocketeer said...

Wait, Dreams - you're a Kentucky boy and Cards fan? L1C4!!

sojerofgod said...


And another thing:


If you want to look at insane risk right now look at Hillary Clinton and B. Obama's actions with Russia. Cutting off talks over Syria? Threats of a no-fly zone that necessarily means the chance of shooting down Russian aircraft? Do these ID10Ts WANT to start a war with Russia? If they do chances are better than even that we would lose!
Insane risk is handing over the nukes to someone who would prefer to be king of the rubble pile over backing down to a foreign power. there are about 30,000 US troops left in Europe. If the Russkies came over the fence they would outnumber us 6 to one or more. The only way to stop them would be with tactical nuclear weapons. If that line was crossed, we might all be squatting on a pile of rubble waiting for our teeth to start falling out from radiation sickness. Sound like fun to you?

Bob Boyd said...

Trump may put the brakes on globalization. Hillary is full speed ahead with it.

You want to see exuberant, Hell, delusional confidence on display? Look at the greed-driven self-gratification of belief in the ultimate wisdom of a border-less world. It is one of the all time greats of fashionable bad ideas, yet it has become conventional wisdom among the ruling elites who increasingly hate the majority of Americans the way an errant husband comes to hate the spouse he is cheating on.

Electing a woman with a 30 year record of lies, corruption and bad decisions and has demonstrated that she is already above the law is an insane risk.

Mac McConnell said...

Anyone that would call Trump a "21st Century Mussolini" doesn't have a fucking clue what Fascism is. Might read some Mussolini, he wrote the book and coin the word.

What the progressive democrats do and propose is closer to fascism than anything Trump has proposed, Trump isn't a national Socialist. Crony capitalism, pay to play that Hillary is in up to her ears in is more fascistic than Trump could imagine. Christ, the democrat party even has their brown shirts.

Brando said...

"Very true. And wisely said. But what if all of the Trumpkins turn out and vote for mainstream Republicans like Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey and Kelly Ayotte. And in 2018 we elect more Republicans to the Senate. If we get to 60, we could impeach Mrs. Clinton in 2019."

Sounds like an alternate universe, between expecting Trumpkins to back candidates who are at best lukewarm towards Trump (and some in deep blue states anyway) and expecting the GOP not to screw up both the midterms and the chances of pulling off an impeachment.

The last impeachment in 1998-99 failed not for lack of votes but because the pro-impeach forces never got public opinion in favor of impeachment. It was amazing enough that they got so many votes in favor considering this. So there was no political price to pay for the Dems opposing it, and in fact the Dems gained in both houses in the '98 midterms.

The only way Hillary gets impeached or removed is if public opinion swings well past a majority in favor of it. Otherwise, no chance.

Mac McConnell said...

sojerofgod, "The only way to stop them would be with tactical nuclear weapons"

That has always been US policy were Europe and a Russian invasion is concerned.

Robert Fulton said...

Chuck said "...we could impeach Mrs. Clinton in 2019."

I guess I didn't get the joke. Does he mean like Bill Clinton was "impeached"? (Bill walked) Or like she was indicted in 2016 for violating a Congressional subpoena by destroying subpoenaed evidence? Or is it just "what a pipe dream that by 2019 she will be stoppable at all"?

Mac McConnell said...

Brando, we could impeach Hillary right now for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
It sort of obliterates all of these nuanced questions about communication style; and it raises far more basic questions about his sanity.

Of course Hillary's denials that she destroyed any work related public records when, in fact, she had destroyed almost a thousand emails written to General Petraeus, and even some emails to and from Obama, doesn't bother Chuck one little bit. I don't think you are qualified to judge whether other people are behaving 'normally' Chuck.

For the record, tim: I am mystified as to why Mrs. Clinton has not been indicted. I've written that in many of my comments here and I expect that you knew that, but chose to ignore it, in favor of deflecting some completely legitimate criticism of Donald Trump.

Mainstream Republicans on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee will be leading the charge in trying to determine why she escaped indictment. I agree with all of that investigation.

sojerofgod said...

We used to have 200,000 men in Germany. Tank divisions, Air wings, all the components of a defense that had teeth. Plus the German Bundeswehr was a viable deterrent force. Tactical nukes were of course there as a last resort, after our armies had failed to stalemate the Warsaw pact in the field.
Now I believe nukes would be the first resort instead, because we can field no credible deterrent.
Given the cravenness of the administration, Russia might determine that Obama would rather lose Europe that use nukes. I think that is a bad bet because, "A coward will kill you faster than a brave man."

Chuck said...

Robert Fulton: You are first of all wrong, in that Bill Clinton certainly was impeached. He was. Simple as that. You are wrong if you contend that he wasn't.

Second, Bill Clinton was not convicted, and was never going to be convicted, because a lack of votes in the Senate. My point up above is that if you want to convict Mrs. Clinton in a Senate impeachment trial, you better have 60 Republican votes, at least. And that means voting for electable Republican senate candidates.

My comment went right over your head. 2019 was chosen because we can't get to 60 Republican senators in 2016. If people are deeply outraged by a Hillary presidency in 2017-18, maybe we could get to 60 Republicans in the next midterm. If we do, it will be with electable mainstream Republicans.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I'm now seeing folks whom I used to think of as good conservatives approvingly quoting white supremacists like Milo Yiannopoulos

I nearly killed a laptop snorting out coffee reading that. Milo Yiannopoulos? A white supremacist!

If you consider Milo Yiannopoulos a white supremacist then pretty much everyone is, including you and most blacks.

Big Mike said...

@sojerofgod, right before I moved out of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area I started to hear the phrase "limited nuclear war." I wonder whether I moved far enough west, because I rather doubt that the word "limited" goes with the other two words in that phrase.

Matthew Sablan said...

I don't know anything about Milo, except that I'm pretty sure the KKK are not fans of him.

Annie said...

Cruelty in Trump's manner?
You mean like the character assassinationz, threats, intimidation, harassment of women who have been sexually assaulted by your husband?

You mean like removing a foreign leader, who died a gruesome death, and cackling about it - We came. We saw. He died. - all for personal gain and a close cronies business interests?

You mean like denying your ambassador adequate security after repeated requests? Denying any support while he and others are under
attack? Lying to the faces of their families and the public about a video and then jailing the man who made that video to cover your lies?

Or calling half the voters deplorables and basement dwellers?

Brando and Althouse ignores all of that actual cruelty, why?

dreams said...

"Wait, Dreams - you're a Kentucky boy and Cards fan? L1C4!!"

Yeah, Cards fan, L1C4! And its going be a good year.

sojerofgod said...

It takes two thirds of the Senate to convict an impeached office holder. Good luck getting that many Republicans that will vote to convict

Ron Winkleheimer said...

My understanding is that actual white supremacists are trying to purge Milo from the Alt-Right.

Brando said...

"Brando, we could impeach Hillary right now for high crimes and misdemeanors."

Technically we (or Congress) could impeach any time, for any reason. But all those congressmen and Senators (particularly the ones you'd need to get to 66, which by necessity will include some Dems or swing state Republicans) will be putting a finger in the air (when it's not somewhere else) to gauge public opinion. Get public opinion solidly in favor of impeachment/removal, and it happens. Without that, it'd be 1998 all over again.

"Brando and Althouse ignores all of that actual cruelty, why?"

Where have I been saying Hillary's not cruel? The only time I'm not referring to her nastiness I'm referring to her incompetence. That doesn't get her old pal Trump off the hook.

I'm amazed at how so much of the country seems to think any criticism of their own candidate must mean adoration of their sleazy, hilariously unqualified opponent. For some people--not all--it is almost as though the idea that we're damned either way is unthinkable and any criticism of one candidate will force them to wilt.

We'll survive. I'm enough of an optimist to believe this country can withstand either of these people.

sojerofgod said...

Big Mike:

Limited nuclear war is kind of like being a little bit pregnant.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, before the Republican party gets to sixty senators who can agree on anything more than the color of the sky (if that!) 2020 will be here. Bad as Trump is, I think whatever's coming in 2020 will be that much worse.

Politicians could have paid heed to the Tea Party. The can pay heed to Trump right now. Or they can wait for worse.

sojerofgod said...

Brando I try to be an optimist every day. Benn failing that one a lot though. The Roman people continued to survive the fall of Rome too... but the standard of living disintegrated to the point they dug up the paving stones of the Roman highways to build their mud huts.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, not to mention Eric Cantor. His old district is not far from where I live now. How Boehner, Ryan, et. al., could sleep through that wakeup call is beyond me.

@sojerofgod, my point exactly. But I'm not bullshitting. The alleged "wise men" in the government (some of whom are women and should know better) are kicking that idea around.

grackle said...

[Trump]seems like an insane risk.

The more intelligent we are the easier it is for us to rationalize what we are about to do. Some writer, I cannot recall who, made the following wise observation:

We do what we want to do and find reasons later.

Trump is a fascist …

When will the Hillary shills realize that the hyperbole and ad hominem are counterproductive? Never, I hope. Rave on.

It’s always fun to read Ann Coulter’s latest column – IF you are a Trump supporter, that is. Here’s a sample:

Each time, the media claim victory by asserting with bland certainty that any drop in Trump's poll numbers is because of something very upsetting to journalists, but which is generally quite popular with voters -- the Mexican rapists speech, the Muslim ban, and his response to the choleric Muslim, Khizr Khan.

The media can tell us where the candidates stand in the polls. They can't tell us why. Nonetheless, they insist on identifying the precise statement of Trump's that has caused any setback, which always happens to be whatever the media is being hysterical about.


http://tinyurl.com/j69twm6

Tim said...

She and her pals like Sid Blumenthal, one of the slimiest people to walk the earth.

You mean the same Sid who attacked rape victim Juanita Broaddrick in his book as a liar, and who collected $10K a month from the Clintons' "charity foundation" to give Hillary horrific advice? That Sid?

10/6/16, 8:34 AM

Yes- that same Sid that was emailing with Hillary about Libya's oil as she managed to get her "good friend" Chris Stevens and three others killed in Benghazi.

Annie said...

Oh and let me add to the actual list of cruelty.

The hundreds of thousands dead, sexually enslaved, displaced, as a direct result of Hillary and Obama's arming terrorists to take out another world leader for their own and their globalist master's interests.

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Bush. Bad.
An entire f*cked up middle east, Iran with nukes, an enriched Clinton foundation, but Trump!!!ELEVENTY!!

Let's ask Haitians who they think is nasty and cruel.

sojerofgod said...

@Big Mike:

Yeah I know. Popular culture has numbed so many that a news story like John Kerry snotting off the Russians is a one-day four hour news blip, then it's back to all Trump-bash, all the time. That is, when it is not salacious sewage about media whores like the Kardasians or whatever pop tart is on the headline today.
Remember the Batman forever movie where the Riddler had that mind-sucking device on top of the TV sets? What an unnecessary redundancy! or, Redunce-dancy?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Trump and Pence have two completely different styles of speaking and presenting themselves. This is a good thing in a campaign. Do we want TWO Trumps....TWO Pences? The contrasting styles as opposed to the candidates being clones of each other will connect with more people who also appreciate the diversity or are able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Trump is a populist, speaking from and for the "ordinary joe". Sometimes crude, not always polished but...hey.....that is how most people speak. People understand this and understand what Trump is saying underneath. People who like Trump are tired of the platitudes, do nothing political elites and like that Trump is an outsider who is brash and (hopefully) will get things done.

Pence is a gentlemanly, finely polished and practiced, professional politician. To listen to Pence is calming, reassuring and comfortable because he seems like a really nice guy.

Think of it, the President/VP ticket, as a marriage or partnership where each person has a role to play. Where each person fills in where there may be weaknesses and has strengths that the other may be lacking. The two make a whole.

Brando said...

"Brando I try to be an optimist every day. Benn failing that one a lot though. The Roman people continued to survive the fall of Rome too... but the standard of living disintegrated to the point they dug up the paving stones of the Roman highways to build their mud huts."

I hear you--we have a lot of long term challenges and crises coming up. But this country is pretty strong by every measure, and has weathered crises before. Poor leadership (or corrupt and incompetent leadership) doesn't help, but it won't be enough to destroy us.

The Roman example makes me wonder--did Rome fall due to a long string of terrible leadership, or was the leadership more a reflection of a decaying society already? Likewise, does the fact that we're choosing between these two signify something rotten in the people, that they can tolerate this?

Annie said...

Brando, we're barely surviving obama.
Ask the police and their families how they're doing. Those who lost their affordable health insurance and whose obamacare premiums have jumped higher than their mortgages. Ask those who dropped out of the labor market, the Christian bakers/florists/nuns. Our open borders. The many terror attacks on our soil since obama took office and the contortions he makes to not call it what it is.

And worst of all, the government agencies weaponized against enemies of the elite. Law enforcement - DoJ, FBI - compromised and corrupted to protect the criminal elite like him and Hillary.

But let's make a bigger deal about an occasional tone Trump takes.

sojerofgod said...

@Brando:
From my studies, it is both. Human nature (may it ever be grubby) causes groups of people who have a common identity (we used to say tribe, but now that's so un-pukku) to look to their leaders as an example for their morals and behavior. I noticed this in a big way when Bill Clinton was elected President. So as goes the leader, so goes the populace. Rome suffered the return of emperors after Caesar not so much because they longed for a king, but that the republican system was breaking down because all the officials had become corrupt. An appointment as governor of a province was a ticket to shake down the locals to fund your lifestyle in the capital. Caesar was no better, but his public personae was as a champion of the commoners who were tired of being bilked. The ruling class killed him for it. (Please, I know I am summarizing a great many things that occurred over a number of years, bear with me.)
So anyway society reflects the leadership, who reflects the society. The fish doesn't realize he is wet.
And we sir, are in a heap of trouble.

buwaya puti said...

You are not electing a person so much as you are electing a system. The current system, of which Clinton is just the figurehead, as is Obama, is not only decadent, corrupt, grossly incompetent, but also willfully destructive, especially of the real economy. The people running it hate, absolutely hate, anything where physical matter or energies are involved. It amounts to a kind of insanity.

These are realities, not a matter of feelings or quips or internet postings. I wish I could give you a tour of places in California where the results of this system are evident.
You absolutely will not survive this system.
History is a cruel teacher.

Gretchen said...

When you look at how Obama has corrupted the FBI, VA, ICE and IRS, it is impossible to believe Hillary wouldn't take this to extreme levels. She will put people on the Supreme court who will uphold what ever she wants, including radical redistricting. Democrats and the media will question nothing she does, and she has proven she is willing to sell favors to foreign governments.

Trump on the other hand will not have Republicans in congress covering for him. The press will cover every move he makes, and he has no entrenched interests inside the government. Trump will actually attempt to clean house. He will have very little power to do anything in his own interest.

I am not super excited about Trump, but the proven threats Hillary poses will entrench corruption and crony capitalism in a veneer of socialism. She will be a complete disaster.

buwaya puti said...

You will not survive "challenges and crises" because your rootstock is decadent and rotting. The system educates your children and deliberately ruins them.
This is not a "challenge and crisis", this is a terminal disease. You were betrayed long ago and fatally poisoned.

sojerofgod said...

Have you ever noticed that dogs drink with rhythm? My dog Roo drinks in threes: Slurp, slurp, slurp, -pause, Slurp, slurp, slurp.
maybe they all do. Perhaps I need a funded study to find out.

Also, anyone know where the salad chef goes to learn about dressing?

The Mayo clinic of course.


Try the veal.

buwaya puti said...

Your best option is to break the system. I dont know if Trump can do that, so far gone you are, or if he will seriously try. Schwartzenegger didnt in California, after the first year. Still, thats the only hope, and not much at that.
Alternately, he is at least a measure of vengeance against your masters.

sojerofgod said...

@buwaya puti:

The system educates the children of the working and lower classes, and of the very wealthy to indoctrinate them with Progressivism. this far from universally true particularly in the population segments in 'Flyover country' who send their children to (mostly Christian based) private school. Now, they may be outnumbered, and they may lose in the end, but they are perhaps a vaccine against the rant of cant that pervades the public school sphere. I put their chances at one in three.

Robert Fulton said...

Chuck said: "Robert Fulton: You are first of all wrong...My comment went right over your head..."

Well, Chuck, why don't you have someone read my original comment, then yours to me and explain to you how you are being arrogant. Perhaps you are a regular here and feel that you are entitled to be arrogant, I don't know. And if you read that "I don't know" to mean that I actually don't know then you are making the same mistake that you made (I presume) in reading my original comment. Let's not fight. I will submit to a jury, if anyone wants to read both comments and rule.

Brando said...

"Brando, we're barely surviving obama."

I don't want to get dragged into defending Obama, as I agree with a number of the examples you bring up, but this isn't exactly the Great Depression or the crisis we faced in 1860. None of those problems are irreversible, and in some cases things are a lot better than even our recent history. Our crime rates are nowhere near what they were when I was a kid, our economy is worse than a lot of the official numbers suggest but it's still not as bad as it was during the last recession.

I'm all for a change of course. We have to rein in entitlement spending, and fix the way we tax and regulate business (particularly at the state and local level). We're not getting that with the next administration, and maybe not the administration after that.

As for Trump's "tone" I don't have a problem with that, except to the extent that unwise statements can have real world consequences. Rather, it's his substance I take issue with.

"From my studies, it is both. Human nature (may it ever be grubby) causes groups of people who have a common identity (we used to say tribe, but now that's so un-pukku) to look to their leaders as an example for their morals and behavior."

Yeah, it seems sort of "chicken or egg"--much as I think Clinton degraded the office, perhaps it took a degraded people to elect him knowing what they did in '92 and '96.

Bob Boyd said...

@sojerofgod

Three tonguefuls and swallow. Three tonguefuls and swallow.

sojerofgod said...

@Bob Boyd:

Yeah, but where do they keep the tonguefuls one and two whilst lapping up number three? with such a wide mouth opening, you would think it would all run out the sides.

Birches said...

This election is not a binary choice. I'm going to vote for my principles and I will sleep well at night because of it.

Milo as a white supremacist is lol, obviously.

Dude1394 said...

" Blogger sojerofgod said..."

And folks should listen. Spot on.


Thorley Winston said...

"Brando, we could impeach Hillary right now for high crimes and misdemeanors."

Impeachment is for those who hold an elected or an appointed office. Mrs. Clinton has neither so no, you couldn’t impeach her.


Bob Boyd said...

"you would think it would all run out the sides"

That's the tricky part.

Annie said...

Trump will be contained. The hostile to anyone-but-a-democrat media will see to it. He has no brigade of political hacks from a former WH tenure throughout government to cover for him.

Hillary, who should have been indicted, will double her access fee. She will stack the courts, like Obama has, with ideological hacks. She promises more government dependence and control. And with her compromised and corrupt DOJ, FBI, and various agencies will have free reign to go after her enemies and take great pleasure in doing so. Maybe drone a few. Maybe another Branch Davidian against the religious for not bending the knee and not changing their beliefs fast enough. The GOPe will give her everything she wants.

No, we won't survive four years of her and her pal, Soros.

buwaya puti said...

Brando, you are living off accumulated capital, real as well as human and cultural. Even in the Great Depression, which was a short time in a relative sense, the skills and habits and moral sense of 1928 were not gone by 1940. Even the characters running the system of the day were for the most part connected to the practical world and real people and and real things and were concerned about them, mistaken and ineffectual as they were.

For example,

They did inefficient things like the TVA and Hoover dam and the SF Bay bridge. They COULD do this though.

Now, no. They cant, wont, hate the concept of, and even sabotage infrastructure projects they themselves initiate. It is pure madness, thorough, complete, deep in their brains, irremediable, and they are ALL like that.

What you have now is the result of many decades of rot at the top.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

buwaya said: You are not electing a person so much as you are electing a system. The current system, of which Clinton is just the figurehead, as is Obama, is not only decadent, corrupt, grossly incompetent, but also willfully destructive, especially of the real economy.

This point is incredibly important. We are at a fork in the road, so to speak. We can chose to continue with the current corrupt elitist controlled oppressive system or.....try something else and revert to what has worked. The current system is not working and as pointed out is willfully destructive. I also in California can show you the results of decades of progressive/liberal dictatorship.

It isn't about WHO we are electing as much as it is about WHAT we are choosing.

And while the economy is a great concern. The staggering debt. The failed foreign policies. What is MORE concerning is the irreversible destruction, piece by piece, drip by drip of the Constitutional freedoms that were written by the founders. Those people had just overthrown a dictatorial oppressive government and wanted to try to ensure that it won't happen again by writing some guarantees of freedom. The progressives are determined to erase those and substitute government by fiat and tyranny. Once this is done, we are not likely to reverse it....at least not peacefully or at the ballot box.

This is our choice. Not Trump as a person. Not Hillary even as a person, but what they represent as a future for our country and for ourselves.

Choose wisely. Those that choose not to make a choice....burn in Hell.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

To me it seems a bit risky to give the power of the Executive to a person who has, over her full career, shown an extreme reluctance to abide by the laws and limitations on the use of power and influence--to include using the power of the State to enrich herself & her family--as well as a wanton disregard for legal and ethical restrictions of any kind.

But, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man. More than half of the nation doesn't think it's an insane risk to give Hillary & Co. all the power they can possibly want (unchecked by the Judicial branch, unchecked by the "watchdog Media," unchecked by normal human shame, etc), so that's what we're going to get. You go, girl!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...This point is incredibly important. We are at a fork in the road, so to speak. We can chose to continue with the current corrupt elitist controlled oppressive system or.....try something else and revert to what has worked.

Naaah. Sorry to be so pessimistic, DBQ, but the fork in the road happened back in 2012. We're beyond it now, and the fact that Trump is the "lifeline" is a symptom of that fact. The Republican party itself made choices and decisions that helped ensure the nation didn't turn in 2012, so they don't escape blame--a different candidate or a better campaign might have won. Having lost then, though, (and lost definitively) I think it was over.

It's not wrong to say we're on a road to ruin. It's wrong to pretend that the majority of the nation doesn't want to be on this road, though. That's a depressing thing to admit...but it's the truth. People don't like Clinton and they don't like Trump, sure, but people fundamentally agree with the belief systems Clinton and (to a lesser extent) Trump represent.

Brando said...

"Impeachment is for those who hold an elected or an appointed office. Mrs. Clinton has neither so no, you couldn’t impeach her."

Good point--I was thinking about that in terms of once she took office.

dreams said...

We can elect Trump who is the change candidate as our president but the mostly Democrat bureaucracy will resist with the support of the corrupt liberal media and ensure that nothing changes. We're doomed!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...And while the economy is a great concern. The staggering debt. The failed foreign policies. What is MORE concerning is the irreversible destruction, piece by piece, drip by drip of the Constitutional freedoms that were written by the founders. Those people had just overthrown a dictatorial oppressive government and wanted to try to ensure that it won't happen again by writing some guarantees of freedom. The progressives are determined to erase those and substitute government by fiat and tyranny. Once this is done, we are not likely to reverse it....at least not peacefully or at the ballot box

I agree completely here, DBQ, but: the politicians and their positions are reflections of the electorate--of the citizens. That's the problem. It's a problem of culture. The erosion of those freedoms happens because people WANT them to be eroded! When "free healthcare for poor women" is more popular than "private property rights for all citizens" then you're in trouble, and the laws & court judgments that follow are more-or-less inevitable. The laws and policies are bad, but they're not really to blame.

Some of the worst, most egregiously Constitution-violating acts are the most popular! Politics is downstream of culture, and even superb politicians (who seem a bit thin on the ground lately) can at best slow down and redirect underlying cultural changes. The Right lost the Courts, they lost the schools, and they lost popular culture in general. The Left won and the consequences of those victories are now manifest. The fact that the Left can use their cultural victories to win political victories (for example by using their Executive power to let in millions of immigrants who then have and/or become citizens who then vote for the Left) is likewise inevitable--of course they can and will!

What's stopping any of this? What's the countervailing force? Remember, as bad as things are in Europe right now a solid 30-50% of the US public still desperately want to make this county "more like those sophisticated European countries." Meanwhile the elites of the Right, such as they are, spend most of their time lately carving up prominent Republicans and Republican-leaning groups (Tea Party, etc) and insisting that "we can survive a President Hillary." Great, ok, and then what?

Anyway the feeling of the day is: doom.

FullMoon said...

CRUEL:
willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
"people who are cruel to animals"
synonyms: brutal, savage, inhuman, barbaric, barbarous, brutish, bloodthirsty, murderous, vicious, sadistic, wicked, evil, fiendish, diabolical, monstrous, abominable;


Name calling public figures can hardly seems cruel. Frankly, Trumps insults are bland grade school level. He could benefit by hanging around some military people, cops, construction workers or ex-convicts. THEY really know how to insult with spice

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Some of the worst, most egregiously Constitution-violating acts are the most popular!

Exactly. And this is why the founders of our Constitution greatly feared the tyranny of the masses (pure Democracy) and set up a representative Republic instead. That format has been chipped away at drip by drip for quite some time now as well.

Hamilton :It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. – Speech in New York, urging ratification of the U.S. Constitution (1788-06-21)

buwaya puti said...

Personally, I consider it far more cruel, and more relevant to the concept of cruelty, to impose millions of pages of rules and their interpretations onto all the normal work of daily life. That is the deliberate imposition of the sufferings of purgatory and hell on the innocent.
That is true cruelty, and frankly it is usually done with a personal sense of cruelty.
One person's words against another? That is significant compared to this?

Mac McConnell said...

Thorley Winston said...
"Brando, we could impeach Hillary right now for high crimes and misdemeanors."

Impeachment is for those who hold an elected or an appointed office. Mrs. Clinton has neither so no, you couldn’t impeach her.

Who would stop Congress? Besides the US Constitution has been dead for fifty years at least. Who stops Presidents from pulling complete laws out their asses? Or Bureaucrats from making rules and regs far beyond their purviews as defined by Congress? We don't really known what our debt is, the IMF doesn't know what World debt is, it's all guesstimates. We already live in a Banana Republic, we are just living off debt and the dying carcass of our past wealth.

Mac McConnell said...

"I like having a very direct and very powerful impact on worker safety and health. If you put out a reg, it matters. I think that’s really where the thrill comes from. And it is a thrill; it’s a high… I love it; I absolutely love it. I was born to regulate. I don’t know why, but that’s very true. So as long as I’m regulating, I’m happy."
OSHA director of safety standards program.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
― C.S. Lewis

“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.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

Larry J said...

dreams said...
We can elect Trump who is the change candidate as our president but the mostly Democrat bureaucracy will resist with the support of the corrupt liberal media and ensure that nothing changes. We're doomed!


For the most part, the 537 elected federal politicians are the "For Show" government. The real power in government is in the courts and the bureaucracy. They make and enforce law without any checks and balances. Using the VA scandal as an example, I think Trump could make a campaign issue of reforming the civil service laws to make it easier (or even possible) to hold civil service employees accountable when they violate their offices or abuse the populace. Face it, few bureaucrats are going to vote for Trump anyway.

Daniel Jackson said...

"But he's used to negotiating and wheeling and dealing where he can walk away from what he doesn't like without worrying about the fate the other parties and where he can fold up the parts of his operations that are not profitable."

Actually, such risky behavior can have two sources--one a person used to taking risks under gains and the other taking risks under losses. Like Reagan, Trump is used to winning and losing. Reagan said disarm and tear down the Wall or I will walk away from the detente table. One could say that the price of stasis was too great, a loss, which risk takers will absorb and "gamble" another day.

The other risk taker is not willing to walk away from a losing hand (to extend the metaphor) but continue to place large bets hoping the odds will change and recoup their losses. This is the classic Sucker Bet.

This latter style characterizes the current administration and both of its foreign affairs wonks, Hillary and the guy with the Hat. I agree with most of the commentators on this thread. We cannot hope for Hill/Bill to stop taking absurd risks under loses. So far, they have gotten away with their gambles.

But the situation in the world is not favorable to such style. There are too many decision makers who are well seasoned now in the high stakes poker of 21st century world affairs who look at Hill/Bill for what they are--Whales. They do not have what it takes to sit down with a meck like Putin who can read them for what they are and use it for his advantage. How many dead in Aleppo now? How long after O-man's Red Line?

Now, Kerry says there will be no more talks. WTF? It's okay for The Man With The Hat to walk away from this table and to worry that, like Reagan, Trump would do so from force is lack of negotiating experience?

The absolute contradiction of these two statements should be apparent to all; not just to a deplorable like me.

Brando said...

"For the most part, the 537 elected federal politicians are the "For Show" government. The real power in government is in the courts and the bureaucracy"

Not to mention how much more of it is affected at the state and local level than the federal. Think about it--you want to open up a business in your neighborhood. Chances are, there's no federal licensing requirement, but your state or town very likely has one (e.g., even if you want to cut hair). The taxes and fees most likely to affect you will be state and local primarily--license fees, property taxes, sales taxes--and town ordinances are likely to affect the space you use. Legal disputes will mostly be in local or state courts. Almost any law you're accused of breaking will be at the state level.

buwaya said...

"Not to mention how much more of it is affected at the state and local level than the federal."

Not necessarily, depending on the scale. Not if you are operating an electric utility in a "good" state for instance. The harassment there will be principally federal. A bad state can make this a disaster of course.

The problems here scale up, the bigger the more federal. The effect for small businesses can also be real but felt indirectly. Such as higher utility bills or health insurance costs.

n.n said...

Worst case, he will follow Obama and Clinton's lead to engage in progressive wars, promote refugee crises, violent regime changes, trickle-up poverty, class diversity, health penalty tax, etc. The lack of accountability at the federal level may change his perspective.

Chuck said...

Mac McConnell:

No, you are incorrect in presuming that impeachment is a proceeding that can apply to current federal officials.

As was explained with specific regard to Mrs. Clinton in the online pages of The National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439267/impeach-hillary-clinton-constitution-remedy-corruption-impeachment

Mac McConnell said...

Headline on Drudge,

"KERRY CONSULTS WITH RUSSIANS LESS THAN 48 HOURS AFTER 'SUSPENDING' TIES..."

These guys love Putin slamming them in the ass. Also, somewhere I read Obama is going to reinstitute his "Red Line" in Syria, what a fuck wad. Oh and climate change id partly responsible for the war in Syria. Harvard ?

Mac McConnell said...

Chuck laws don't mean a thing. The Constitution is a corpse.

lane ranger said...

"What happens when you transfer that skill to government — suddenly and at the presidential level — and when you are bursting with exuberant confidence? It seems like an insane risk."

This deserves a direct response that is not dependent on Hillary being worse.
1. Reagan taught us that sometimes the best method of negotiation involves walking away, or being willing to walk away, from a bad deal. The fact that Trump's tool kit includes (but is not limited to) this skill makes him a stronger and safer president, not weaker or dangerous.
2. Trump has already demonstrated, if only we are prepared to look and see, that he distinguishes between proper PUBLIC reactions to business opponents and opponents of the U.S. When he and his business came under fire in the UK for his comments on immigration, he promptly and PUBLICLY threatened to pull significant investments from the UK, and the public criticism stopped. On the other hand, he has refused to state PUBLICLY what he would do to contain/defeat ISIS, on the grounds that to do so might compromise the plan. For that reasonable position, he has been pilloried, but he hasn't budged. This seems to me to be more than sufficient proof that Trump indeed understands well the differences between negotiating as a businessman and negotiating or taking action as President. The accusation that Trump is some kind of insane risk is supportable only by ignoring the available evidence of Trump's willingness to learn and adapt, which Scott Adams has treated in some detail.

Larry J said...

Brando said...
"For the most part, the 537 elected federal politicians are the "For Show" government. The real power in government is in the courts and the bureaucracy"

Not to mention how much more of it is affected at the state and local level than the federal. Think about it--you want to open up a business in your neighborhood. Chances are, there's no federal licensing requirement, but your state or town very likely has one (e.g., even if you want to cut hair). The taxes and fees most likely to affect you will be state and local primarily--license fees, property taxes, sales taxes--and town ordinances are likely to affect the space you use. Legal disputes will mostly be in local or state courts. Almost any law you're accused of breaking will be at the state level.


While state and local laws have their impact on job creation, there can be federal requirements even for small businesses. It isn't a big deal to get a federal tax ID number but you have to comply with the appropriate EPA, IRS, and OSHA regulations. In some cases, that can mean things like environmental impact statements. If you have employees, you'll have to deal with payroll taxes, ObamaCare, EEOC, and a host of others. I'm not discounting the impact of state and local governments. I'm just pointing out that federal regulations can weigh heavy on small businesses.

Rusty said...

Very true. And wisely said. But what if all of the Trumpkins turn out and vote for mainstream Republicans like Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey and Kelly Ayotte. And in 2018 we elect more Republicans to the Senate. If we get to 60, we could impeach Mrs. Clinton in 2019.

Let's just save ourselves a lot of heart ache and not elect her in the first place.
Unlike yourself I don't live in fear of a Trump administration.

Birches said...

Hoodlum@ 10:56. Right on.

Mac McConnell said...

Why hold Tump not releasing a plan to defeat ISIS against him. Hell, it took Obama 32 months to come up with a failing plan to fight ISIS, the one Criminal Hillary said she's OK with.

Chuck said...

Mac McConnell:

No, you are incorrect. Impeachment is not reserved for only current federal officials. Impeachment, it is argued, could apply to Mrs. Clinton .

From the National Review Online:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439267/impeach-hillary-clinton-constitution-remedy-corruption-impeachment

Chuck said...

Rusty, I don't live in fear of a Trump Administration. I am a patriot, and while I think a Trump win would be more damaging to the Republican Party than a Trump loss, I'd happily accept the Party damage in order to avoid four years of Hillary.

But the biggest problem with Trump is that I don't think he can possibly win. I've said that before. I am not predicting a Trump loss. I am fearing a Trump loss. And it should have been known to everyone in the primary season.

Chuck said...

Wow! I sure know how Megyn Kelly is feeling this afternoon!

Sean Hannity accuses Megyn Kelly of supporting Hillary Clinton, for the crime of expressing criticism of Clinton and Trump alike:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/06/fox-fight-sean-hannity-calls-megyn-kelly-clinton-supporter/91649830/

(A Drudge headline right now, this story...)

Chuck said...

Wow I sure know how Megyn Kelly is feeling this afternoon! Sean Hannity accuses Megyn Kelly of supporting Hillary Clinton, for the crime of expressing criticism of Clinton and Trump alike:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/06/fox-fight-sean-hannity-calls-megyn-kelly-clinton-supporter/91649830/

(The story is a Drudge headline right now...)

Chuck said...

Mac McConnell said...
Chuck laws don't mean a thing. The Constitution is a corpse.


Oh! Well, in a completely lawless world, I think Donald Trump might be an excellent candidate.

Brando said...

"Sean Hannity accuses Megyn Kelly of supporting Hillary Clinton, for the crime of expressing criticism of Clinton and Trump alike:"

Even in a world of pathetic shills, Hannity manages to stand out. How he interprets "both Hillary and Trump lately are avoiding tough interviews" to mean "I support Hillary" just shows that he's not even putting any effort into his shilling.

I mean, I get it--he's a pundit and made his Trump-love clear. But at least make arguments that make sense! I don't even like Trump and I could do a better job defending him than some of these clowns.

buwaya said...

"Oh! Well, in a completely lawless world, "

Its not COMPLETELY lawless. You just get as much law as you are willing to pay for.

Brando said...

For example, he could have said that over the past year Trump has faced far more hostile interviews than Hillary has in the past twenty. Instead, he takes the "anything bad about Trump must mean you love Hillary" refrain which is just dumb. And certainly not the sort of notion that will get Trump skeptics into his corner.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

sojerofgod said...
Have you ever noticed that dogs drink with rhythm? My dog Roo drinks in threes: Slurp, slurp, slurp, -pause, Slurp, slurp, slurp.
maybe they all do...

10/6/16, 10:15 AM

LOL! Yes,yes,yes,yes,yes! I have 5 dogs and I can tell without looking which one is drinking at the water bowl.

Char Char Binks said...

One thing I noticed about how Trumps portrayed in the media; he said Mexicans were sending us "their rapists" which liberals have always heard as, or pretended to hear as "they're rapists".

Everybody said much the same thing about the Cubans who came over on the Mariel boat lift, but nobody took that to mean ALL Cubans, as far as I recall, but now we're not only responsible for what we say, but for what others pretend to hear.

This just occurred to me while watching Seth Meyers last night. Meyers is truly despicable.

Lola Falana said...

People who support Obama --who has killed American citizens with drones, as well as other innocents in the strike area -- talk about the nasty cruelty of Trump's *words* That's what is insane.

Michael K said...

They take direction from guys like John Derbyshire,

I was going to ask sinz to explain what exactly Derbyshire said that is not true. "

But, of cousre,you vanished after dropping the turd in the punch bowl

Rhythm and Balls said...

But he's used to negotiating and wheeling and dealing where he can walk away from what he doesn't like without worrying about the fate the other parties and where he can fold up the parts of his operations that are not profitable.

What happens when you transfer that skill to government — suddenly and at the presidential level — and when you are bursting with exuberant confidence? It seems like an insane risk.


There you go again. Trying to be rational with a commentariat that you seem to have cultivated to be purposely irrational - and with Pavlovian reflexes, at that.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Exactly. And this is why the founders of our Constitution greatly feared the tyranny of the masses (pure Democracy) and set up a representative Republic instead.

Republic was never defined as the opposite of democracy. Its definition is anything that's not a monarchy.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Some of the worst, most egregiously Constitution-violating acts are the most popular!

Lol. What a crock. Conservatives are not constitution defenders. They think the constitution - and their pretension to how they appeal to it - should be used as a cudgel to beat down the people.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The Roman example makes me wonder--did Rome fall due to a long string of terrible leadership, or was the leadership more a reflection of a decaying society already?

It was because the conservative vanguard controlling the republic (Optimates) couldn't cope with the way their corrupt and self-enriching system neglected the growing needs of the people and so they dealt with it by viciously killing off all powerful dissenting voices from the Gracchi to Julius Caesar.

Jon Ericson said...

Well, there's four turds for you, Michael.

Rusty said...

Chuck said...

"Rusty, I don't live in fear of a Trump Administration. I am a patriot, and while I think a Trump win would be more damaging to the Republican Party than a Trump loss, I'd happily accept the Party damage in order to avoid four years of Hillary."

Fuck the party. My only concern is the survival of the republic. We will survive Trump. He may actually be beneficial. The republic will not survive Hillary and her appointees.

Rusty said...

"Republic was never defined as the opposite of democracy."
Ben Franklin lied

buwaya said...

"Trying to be rational with a commentariat that you seem to have cultivated to be purposely irrational"

Oh come on - Althouse cultivated no-one.
We all showed up here on our own, and we were all really cranky to begin with.
And some of us a bit whack.
Anyway, this is one of the best, if not the best, comment sections on the Internet.

Lib ones aren't very rational IMHO, and run people off tout de suite.

Jon Ericson said...

And some of us a bit whack.
Yo!

Chuck said...

Rusty; Picking Donald Trump as the nominee to oppose Mrs. Clinton sure seems like a lousy way to go about the business of making sure she doesn't win.

I don't think Trump and/or his supporters even care all that much about winning. They wanted to send the world's biggest f.u. to the media, to the supposed establishment elites, to the Party and or Parties (but most of all the dreaded "GOPe."

And as a result of all of that, and having picked Trump, those folks are going to get themselves the most purebred liberal elite administration imaginable, at the worst possible time for it in our modern history.

An eminently winnable election for all Republicans. And it appears it will be blown, by the short-fused Limbaugh/Hannity delegation.

Jon Ericson said...

Yo!
Chuck is whack!
(in a bad way)

Josephbleau said...

An early president, when an american ally was captured in the middle east, said in paraphrase "The hostage alive or your king dead." This resulted in the release of the hostage. We now say, "whell... we will send endless pallets of money to you and let you develop powers to defeat us if you give me a short poll boost.

buwaya puti said...

"Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead"
-Teddy Roosevelt

Raisuli or Raisuni wasnt a king, he was a tribal chief (and of course a bandit, as was usual among the Rif chieftains), sometime Pasha (governor or mayor) of Tangier and and all-around pain in the bottom for a great many people.