October 17, 2016

Victor Davis Hanson makes "The Case for Trump."

At National Review.

I'll live-blog my reading of it. The subtitle is "Conservatives should vote for the Republican nominee," so this is not an argument aimed at me, but I'm interested to see how he attempts to sell Trump to conservatives.
... [E]ven before the latest revelations from an eleven-year-old Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump crudely talked about women, he had long ago in the primaries gratuitously insulted his more moderate rivals and their supporters...
Trump’s personal and professional life has been lurid — as, again, we were reminded by the media-inspired release of a hot-mic tape of past Trump crude sexual braggadocio. The long campaigning has confirmed Trump as often uncouth — insensitive to women and minorities. He has never held office. His ignorance of politics often embarrasses those in foreign- and domestic-policy circles. Trump’s temperament is mercurial, especially in its ego-driven obsessions with slights to his business ethics and acumen. He wins back supporters by temporary bouts of steadiness as his polls surge, only to alienate them again with crazy nocturnal tweets and off-topic rants....
Hanson begins by digging a deep hole, so it's hard to stick around to see how he will purport to dig us back up out of it.
... The daily news... demands a candidate of change. The vote is not for purity of conservative thought, but for the candidate who is preferable to the alternative... not necessarily Trump per se, but the fact that he will bring into power far more conservatives than would Hillary Clinton....
Hanson says the Clintons' misdeeds are much worse that Trump's. I'll just give one sample sentence:
The problems with Trump University are dwarfed by for-profit Laureate University, whose “Chancellor,” Bill Clinton, garnered $17.6 million in fees from the college and its affiliates over five years — often by cementing the often financially troubled international enterprise’s relationship with Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
That was not a randomly chosen sentence, but I picked it for a reason that has nothing to do with who should win the election.
Trump’s defeat would translate into continued political subversion of once disinterested federal agencies, from the FBI and Justice Department to the IRS and the EPA. It would ensure a liberal Supreme Court for the next 20 years — or more. Republicans would be lucky to hold the Senate. Obama’s unconstitutional executive overreach would be the model for Hillary’s second wave of pen-and-phone executive orders. If, in Obama fashion, the debt doubled again in eight years, we would be in hock $40 trillion after paying for Hillary’s even more grandiose entitlements of free college tuition, student-loan debt relief, and open borders. She has already talked of upping income and estate taxes on those far less wealthy than the Clintons and of putting coal miners out of work (“We are going to put a whole lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”) while promising more Solyndra-like ventures in failed crony capitalism.
That's well put, but it's followed by: "We worry about what Citizen Trump did in the past in the private sector and fret more over what he might do as commander-in-chief." Hanson's argument is that those are only anxieties about the unknown, as if the known problems about Clinton are more troubling than the unknowns that Trump embodies. But why? Hanson says "we can only compare the respective Clinton and Trump published agendas," but that makes no sense to me. Anyone with the money to hire consultants can crank out published agendas, but we can't trust just anyone with the presidency. Me, I trust no one, but I recognize that someone must be President. It's a terrible feeling, and Hanson's direction to look only at the published agendas isn't relieving me of it.

Hanson says that "Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump" — "the Republican establishment in the media and government" have "lives and concerns" that are different from "half their supporters." I'm surprised it's as little as half.

Anyway, Trump deserves credit for seeing that huge disjuncture and going straight to those people and appealing to them directly. I'm impressed that he's bypassed the elite and interfaced with the public at the ground level day after day, seemingly without rest, for well over a year.

Most of the elite Republicans want to keep their distance from the people Hillary Clinton consigned to the "basket of deplorables." (I call them People of the Basket.) Those are Trump's people. He got where he is by absorbing and shaping their wants and desires. If that makes him untouchable to you, are you not an elitist?
Do our elites ever enter their offices to find their opinion-journalism jobs outsourced at half the cost to writers in India? Are congressional staffers told to move to Alabama, where it is cheaper to telecommunicate their business? Trump’s outrageousness was not really new; it was more a 360-degree mirror of an already outrageous politics as usual....

When Trump shoots off his blunderbuss, is it always proof of laziness and ignorance, or is it sometimes generally aimed in the right direction to prompt anxiety and eventual necessary reconsideration?...

A President Trump might shake up U.S. foreign policy in controversial and not always polite ways.... Should we be more terrified that the socialist and largely pacifist European Union is afraid of Trump, or that it welcomes even more of Barack Obama’s type of leadership?...
Hanson encourages us to embrace creative destruction and not to cling to what is reliable and known. The known is going in a terrible direction for conservatives, so it's not really conservative to resist plunging into a bizarre unknown.
The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.
Yeah, he might. But he also might screw up everything. We should roll the dice? Hanson offers the old William F. Buckley rule: Vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. If that's the rule and there's no exception for someone too bizarre and too risky, then conservatives should vote for Trump. That's Hanson's argument, the best argument you're going to get for Trump.

203 comments:

1 – 200 of 203   Newer›   Newest»
Fabi said...

VDH isn't digging a hole, per se, that's an element of the perverse Trump doxology -- he has to be excoriated first, then praised.

Chuck said...

It would have been a lot easier for Victor Davis Hanson to write, "Trump is just the lesser of two evils."

The real issue is how Trump got the nomination.

BDNYC said...

Garner!

Owen said...

Stick with it, Prof. Althouse. Hanson has something to say.

David Begley said...

Live blog my endorsement of Trump, "Why I voted for Donald J. Trump."

https://21stcenturywisdom.com

Also linked now at Power Line blog.

I can take the heat.

Interested in AA's take. Laslo? Not so much.

And see if you can find the Althousian allusion.

Michael K said...

None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump’s sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.

That's it. Also, there are a few conservatives who know Trump well, unlike the "mind readers" who tells us what he will do or not do.

Here's one.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Religion time:

https://www.osv.com/MyFaith/Bible/Article/TabId/671/ArtMID/13714/ArticleID/4836/Jewish-Wisdom-for-the-Catholic-Soul.aspx

On doing things properly the first time. A Jewish fable tells of a king who ordered his servant: ''Go to the market and buy me a fish!'' The slave went and carelessly bought the first fish he saw. When he gave it to the king, the fish stank. Outraged, the king said: ''I swear by your life that I will not forgive you for your stupidity unless you accept one of three punishments. Either your will eat the fish yourself, or you pay back what it cost, or you let me give you 100 lashes!''
''I will eat the fish,'' begged the servant. As soon as he began to eat, the man felt nauseated. ''Better give me the hundred lashes,'' he pleaded with the king. Soon the lashes came, one by one. When 50 were counted out, the servant felt he was near death. ''Better let me pay for the fish,'' he cried.

Jewish rabbis make this point: ''What did the servant profit from it all. He ate the rotten fish; he got 50 lashes; and, in the end, he paid!'' That story supports the modern proverb ''haste makes waste.'' The Jewish story is a reminder that it is wiser and simpler to do something right the first time.



NR has deeply and truly tasted the fish, and they've more than sampled the whipping. Meanwhile I daresay their coin has deflated, but welcome on board, fellows, I guess.

Again, calculus: is this in the face of expected victory, or expected defeat, or do they think they throw themselves into the balance and make the difference?

rhhardin said...

Women can't vote for political in-correctness. It makes them feel uneasy.

If women vote in a woman, at least they're not uneasy, and that's what matters.

rhhardin said...

If you can't name the problem, you can't solve it.

holdfast said...

HRC would be far more skilled than Trrump at manipulating the levers of the Federal government to implement her agenda. Thus if you think, as I do, that both candidates are extremely flawed and have lousy platforms, you should vote for Trump.

Also, character does not matter in politics, only naked self interest. Bill Clinton and Nina Burleigh taught me that back when I was an impressionable young poli sci student.

Nonapod said...

It would have been a lot easier for Victor Davis Hanson to write, "Trump is just the lesser of two evils.

VDH is the type of person who would recite the Iliad rather than just describe someone as prideful.

bagoh20 said...

I can't stand Trump, yet I feel forced to vote for him, to separate my personal dislike for the man from the absolutely uninspiring pragmatism of choosing a loose cannon over one securely aimed at my own ship.

I do not however have a problem with others who refuse to vote for an obvious douche bag who offends most of their sensibilities. I think they are making a mistake and helping Hillary, but it is of the most forgivable kind, usually seriously considered and struggled with. It's very unfortunate that we are forced to come to Trump rather him making himself more electable by holding his tongue and avoiding unforced errors. It would have been so easy for him to to have EARNED 10% more support right now without sacrificing anything. Much easier than expecting millions to ignore their heart-felt, lifelong principles of decency and respect.

Matthew Sablan said...

My gut feeling is that I either vote against Clinton, which means *shudder* for Trump, or I pick a third/other party candidate that's more preferable.

It's the first time in a long time I've not had a good choice on the ballot.

bagoh20 said...

"shared Trump’s sense of outrage "

That is, of course true, but it's a very bad basis for electing a leader. I won't mention the obvious historical examples.

BDNYC said...

I live in a safe blue state, so I have no reason to vote for a candidate like Trump who disgusts me. If I vote, it'll be to give the Libertarians a boost. I would be facing a more difficult choice if I lived in Ohio or something.

bagoh20 said...

I'm a lifelong registered Democrat, but I always vote for the Republican Presidential nominee - they are just always better. So for me to not vote, or to vote 3rd party is a vote lost to the Republican and so for Hillary. I won't do that.

Paul said...

"Yeah, he might. But he also might screw up everything. We should roll the dice?"

If the alternative is the end of the Republic and likely world war of course we should.

Unknown said...

I remember when the dems claimed that McCain was erratic and a hothead. "he should not have the nuke codes!" I watched "killing Reagan" on natgeo last night, and they had snippets of prior news coverage from the 80s. all the dems against Reagan back then say the same things now about trump. I could not believe it. Reagan was a right-wing nut who would start a nuke war. Reagan just cares about the rich. unbelievable to me. dems have one playbook and America keeps letting them play it over and over. enough is enough.

lol

Matthew Sablan said...

"I would be facing a more difficult choice if I lived in Ohio or something."

-- Yeah. In VA, votes actually matter. Especially since it was in our state we found a Democrat registering dead people to vote, so we know fraud is happening here, we just don't know the scale yet.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Yeah, he might. But he also might screw up everything. We should roll the dice?"

-- For a lot of people, it is: "He might screw it up," vs. "She WILL screw it up."

In that case, you go with might, not will. Still, I'm of the opinion they'll both screw it up in different ways, and I'm not sure which way is worse.

bagoh20 said...

BDNYC, I understand that being in California myself. I am torn between voting for someone I prefer, and forcing myself to make the hard choice. After the election, nobody will care that the Libertarian got 9% rather than 8%. My vote means nothing except to me on how I handled a tough decision.

readering said...

The case for Trump is that he will usher in a Republican administration. Since Republicans are a minority, it's not a winning case.

walter said...

Blogger bagoh20 said...
pragmatism of choosing a loose cannon over one securely aimed at my own ship.
--
Pretty much. But in recognition of previously discussed realities of an administration, would expect some of the loose canon element more controlled once feeling less threatened.
But head in the sand idealism that can't navigate a lesser of two evils choice should not be forgiven, given what's at stake.
I'm still cringing from hearing Beck's almost tearful rant about preserving "the idea of America".

Owen said...

Nonapod @ 10:11: "VDH is the type of person who would recite the Iliad rather than just describe someone as prideful."

Agree. And I think we all benefit from that. I mean, how many writers today can drop "thumos" into an argument and make it work?

Gahrie said...

Shorter VDH:

As bad as Trump is, and he is bad, Hillary is worse.

Dude1394 said...

Trump is one of the most refreshing politicians I have seen since Ross Perot. An actual person who is standing up the the ridiculous PC, SJW and the disgusting democrat media.

I expect he would be a fine president, possibly an exemplary one. Hillary however like her predecessor believes in using the federal government to shape our country in her image.

She also personifies the absolute worst of our political class, pure cronyism and the selling of political favors for dollars.

In an earlier time she would be run out on a rail. Hopefully we will see a President Trump have her indicted.

sinz52 said...

The Trumpites are never going to agree with more traditional conservatives like me, because we don't share the same values on such basic questions as:

-- What is conservatism?
-- What made America great?
-- What does it mean to be an American?

Some of the things in America I'm proud of--freedom of the press, racial equality, encouraging and welcoming all those in the world who believe in liberty--the Trumpites just aren't proud of.

And some of the things that disgust me, such as ethno-nationalism and yearning for a strongman to set America right by any means necessary--the Trumpites are sympathetic to.

In short, many Trumpites are NOT conservatives.
They're really alt-right, though they don't know it yet.
They admire and agree with John Derbyshire, though they don't know that he has gone over to the alt-right camp.

If more of them checked out websites like VDARE, they might find their views more welcomed there.

Rick said...

bagoh20 said... [hush]​[hide comment]
After the election, nobody will care that the Libertarian got 9% rather than 8%. My vote means nothing except to me on how I handled a tough decision.


More libertarian votes means future elections will have both more libertarianish Republican primary candidates and conservative candidates adopting libertarianish positions.

David Begley said...

My blog post has nearly 3,000 views. I expect that to double with Althouse traffic.

Mine is shorter than VDH's.

Part of the reason I endorsed Trump is that I don't want my daughter living in Madison to be killed by a drunk illegal alien. It happened in Omaha to a young woman about her age. Ten million more illegals would be a massive problem.

Clayton Hennesey said...

I hear a lot of Christians saying that, morally, they cannot vote for either Trump or Hillary while at the same time becoming incensed about encroachments upon their religious liberty.

The only way I can make sense of that is that they feel that someone else should make the unclean choices necessary to preserve their own ability to live religiously free and morally.

Which is effectively the statement of a self-relegated human pet, husbanded and cared for by its politically active and effective owners, remarking about its own virtuousness in not cleaning its own food bowl or litter box.

walter said...

"Some of the things in America I'm proud of--freedom of the press, racial equality, encouraging and welcoming all those in the world who believe in liberty--the Trumpites just aren't proud of."

Freedom of the press? Reads like you are the press.

eric said...

Based off of the wikileaks revelations, I don't see how anyone with half a conscience could refuse Trump their support. The choices here are

1) Work to get Hillary Elected.
2) Work to stop her election.
3) Do nothing.

Because of her high levels of unpopularity, they really are trying to push people into #3. Better you support no one if not Hillary.

But the wikileaks revelations show she has completely undermined our government. The corruption is so deep and so pervasive, that you'd have to actually like corruption in order to vote for her. The media, the Democrats, and the bureaucrats are all in cahoots behind the scenes to rob us blind.

I used to think, "Well, it sucks that so-in-so got elected. The silver lining is, when things go to shit, theyll get the blame."

Now ive learned how wrong that is. Obama is still popular and gets zero blame. When you've got entire agencies and the media coordinating the message, you can make a pile of crap look like a delicious helping of chocolate ice cream.

So, the only way out of this is to work for her defeat. The more resounding and final, the better.

buwaya puti said...

Hanson is solid as far as the big picture.
He's an academic, a scholar of the classics, a Central Valley farmer.

He's seen whats happened to the bulk of California, economically and socially, the places away from the center like Modesto and Stockton and Bakersfield. I can vouch for the reality he presents.

He's taught at the Cal State campuses and therefore has seen the effects of the general social decline. Yes you really can see this in educational standards, and no they are not immediately evident in test scores, though these tell part of the story. This is common among people with perspective. A relative of mine taught in both Cal State and Ivy campuses and can echo Hanson, as I can too, seeing what passes for education among the proles.

This is not just a disastrous situation for conservatives but a general state of disaster for everyone, hidden only for people in prosperous and stable bubbles.

I live inside the bubble, me and mine are just fine, but I deal professionally with matters outside the bubble.

walter said...

Clayton..they just want to preserve their ability to get the "Don't blame me.." bumper sticker either way.

buwaya puti said...

I read the Iliad to our kids when they were quite little.
Night after night after night.
I understand Hanson, though I have no Greek and little Latin.

buwaya puti said...

As for what made America great, it for certain wasn't a stupefying bureaucracy dedicated to preserving fortunes derived from manipulation of regulations issued and interpreted by an unaccountable system.

Chuck said...

walter said...
Clayton..they just want to preserve their ability to get the "Don't blame me.." bumper sticker either way.


I'm not so sure I want to fight this notion. I think it is largely true. Victor Davis Hanson is welcome to keep fighting the good fight, but I don't think he's going to help win the election, any more than Jonah Goldberg was able to prevent Trump from getting the nomination.

I definitely want a "Don't blame me..." bumper sticker. After casting my vote for the Republican nominee; like a good Republican.

If Victor Davis Hanson thinks he can blame a 2016 defeat on anyone but Trump and the Trump primary supporters, he's got another thing coming. Don't blame the GOP establishment. Trump ran against the GOP establishment.

Hagar said...

If Hillary! wins, Obama's appointees remain in office.

coupe said...

Yea right, Trump will be President, when Bob Dylan becomes a Nobel laureate, and Rappers get into the Rock and Roll hall of fame... Never gonna happen people!

Bad Lieutenant said...

bagoh20 said...
BDNYC, I understand that being in California myself. I am torn between voting for someone I prefer, and forcing myself to make the hard choice. After the election, nobody will care that the Libertarian got 9% rather than 8%. My vote means nothing except to me on how I handled a tough decision.

10/17/16, 10:24 AM

bagoh20, BDNYC, don't think like that. If Trump wins, it's better that he win by 52% of the popular vote, say than 51%, in terms of gaining popular acceptance.

More importantly, if the election is very close, people may be lobbying for faithless electors and saying things like "But X got Y million votes! Z couldn't even win his/her own state!"

Every. Single. Vote. May. Count. We just don't know how yet.

Finally, don't you want to be able to tell your children that you stood against the Clintons, whether in victory or defeat?

Michael K said...

The Trumpites are never going to agree with more traditional conservatives like me, because we don't share the same values on such basic questions as:

I assume your distaste for Derbyshire is probably based on his advice to his Eurasian children.

You know, of course that Asian students must have 450 points more SAT score to compete with blacks in applying to university and graduate school.

What of his advice in that article is not true ?

I've been a conservative since I voted for Joe Shell for governor of California in the 1960s.

What I see today in Washington and in Sacramento is a Ruling Class made up of both parties.

Is open borders Conservative ?

Is crony capitalism, also known as Fascism conservative ?

buwaya puti said...

Shorter Hanson - the situation IS screwed up.
You might as well roll the dice, because its getting worse, not better, and there is otherwise no prospect of improvement.

Brando said...

The best argument some conservatives have made for Trump is "there's at least some chance he will advance conservative policy to some degree, and there's only so much damage he can actually do" and "Clinton we know will be bad and have less hope of her somehow not being so bad". It requires having some faith that Trump could give any craps about what conservatives want (or what conservatism is) and requires having faith that the same conservative leaders who laid down for Trump would somehow find it within them to stand up to him, and it requires the certainty that a Hillary presidency would far outweigh those risks.

It'll probably work with some conservatives--a lot of them are trying to convince themselves that Trump won't be so bad--but the farther you have to stretch to convince yourself, the less likely it's going to get your people to the polls. And it doesn't help when your nominee is spending a good part of mid-October directing his fire at the very "allies" you are counting on to help "control" him.

It also suggests that in future cycles, no candidate should have to worry about appealing to conservatives. Simply by not being the Democrat, you can get people like Hanson to take a hard swallow and support you anyway. This should free up future nominees to be ideologically diverse.

William said...

It's not just a vote against Hillary. It's a vote against the manipulative media, the BLM movement, and every movie star in Hollywood. I agree that there's not much reason to be pro Trump, but there's every reason to be anti-Hillary......I know a lot of idealistic Trump supporters are hoping that his election will lead to Jane Fonda's suicide or to rsome rock star overdosing. I think these expectations are unrealistic, but I truly believe that Trump's election will cause a lot of profound sadness among our left wing friends.

J. Farmer said...

As a 5th generation Californian, Hanson has always been sensitive to the negative impact of illegal immigration. Unlike the San Fran-Palo Alto-Beverly Hills set, Hanson is a resident of the more interior Central Valley, where the effects of immigration are more immediately felt than in the gilded gated communities of the more respectable class. He wrote a decent book about it quite a few years ago called Mexifornia: A State of Becoming. Hanson's immigration writing is head and shoulders above his godawful warmongering foreign policy prescriptions.

mccullough said...

An interesting argument. What do Trump's working class white supporters do after he loses. The GOP hopes that, like blacks to the Dem
party, they vote for the GOP even though their policies do nothing for working class whites. The Dems hope they just disengage and don't vote. As working class whites become more like blacks -- drop outs, illegitimacy rates, more dependent on the government, it gets worse for the country in the long run. There should be a third political party that represents the interest of working class and low income whites and blacks.

buwaya puti said...

This I dont understand - why does anyone care about a "dont blame me" bumper sticker? Or even a virtual one? What does that matter? Our little vanities amount to a hill of beans.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck said...
walter said...
Clayton..they just want to preserve their ability to get the "Don't blame me.." bumper sticker either way.


I'm not so sure I want to fight this notion. I think it is largely true. Victor Davis Hanson is welcome to keep fighting the good fight, but I don't think he's going to help win the election, any more than Jonah Goldberg was able to prevent Trump from getting the nomination.

I definitely want a "Don't blame me..." bumper sticker. After casting my vote for the Republican nominee; like a good Republican.

If Victor Davis Hanson thinks he can blame a 2016 defeat on anyone but Trump and the Trump primary supporters, he's got another thing coming. Don't blame the GOP establishment. Trump ran against the GOP establishment.
10/17/16, 10:46 AM


That's like holding a mutiny on a ship in battle, having it put down and the mutineers suppressed, the battle lost, and then saying at their court-martial, "But he cut the rum issue!"

Bad Lieutenant said...

buwaya puti said...
This I dont understand - why does anyone care about a "dont blame me" bumper sticker? Or even a virtual one? What does that matter? Our little vanities amount to a hill of beans.

10/17/16, 10:51 AM


+ one googolplex.

Chuck said...

There should be a third political party that represents the interest of working class and low income whites and blacks.


So where does that hypothetical party stand, on gun rights? On stop-and-frisk? On growing the economy? On union card check? On Shelby County v. Holder? Climate change policy? On the Obama Administration's Title IX manipulation of higher education? On religious freedom restoration acts?

Amadeus 48 said...

Here is the problem for me:

Hillary is off the table because of the way she handled her emails and the way the FBI took a dive on the investigation (By the way, I agree 100% with David Begley's assessment of the FBI's thinking set forth on his web post referred to above).

I spent 40 years in law practice warning clients about the consequences of trying to make deals with people like Trump. Nothing he says is true, you'll need a big escrow at closing because of all the things he lied about, everything will be renegotiated until the closing, and he'll deny everything he said along the way afterwards.

Am I supposed to vote for this guy?

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck said...
There should be a third political party that represents the interest of working class and low income whites and blacks.


So where does that hypothetical party stand, on blabbity blah


Hanson says that "Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump" — "the Republican establishment in the media and government" have "lives and concerns" that are different from "half their supporters." I'm surprised it's as little as half.


Nothing wrong, Chuck? Not a thing? Nothing at all?

Then by all means, continue as you are.

mccullough said...

Chuck,

Those are third rate issues. The Supreme Court will strike down stop and frisk are reinterpret the 2d Amendment to the Breyer view so
Nothing can be done anyway about those issues. The rest of your issues are upper class issues that don't affect working class or
low income whites and blacks. Neither does trans bathrooms.


AprilApple said...

He's right, but none of this is new.

Trump is horrible, Hillary is worse. Yeah - got it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Amadeus 48 said...
Here is the problem for me:

Am I supposed to vote for this guy?


10/17/16, 10:58 AM

Of course you are. Read what you just wrote.

I agree 100% with David Begley's assessment of the FBI's thinking

So, as I said on another thread, this election is Hillary's trial. There won't be another.

You are not voting for Trump. You are voting for Guilty or Not Guilty.

Third party is Arlen Specter's deathless "Not Proven."

traditionalguy said...

Hillary is a vote for 3 more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and 6 years of a Kaine Presidency merged into a UN World System.

Donald is a vote for 3 more Scalias and 6 years of a National America First Commander in Chief who plans to fix things using New York Values...an FDR, redux.

buwaya puti said...

If a technical system over which I had partial responsibility (formally, professionally) was running into problems due to others failures, not mine, I would consider it sterile, pointless, vain, and a sign of poor character to trumpet a lack of responsibility for the situation.

I certainly wouldnt hire a man, as an engineer for a responsible position, who is prone to denial of responsibility.

rhhardin said...

Trump is uncouth because he says things he and VDH notice but VDH knows better than to say.

Henry said...

Republicans would be lucky to hold the Senate

Hanson assumes cause and effect where it does not exist.

Nor is the election a choice even between four more years of liberalism and a return of conservatism; it’s an effort to halt the fundamental transformation of the country.

Voting for Trump on this premise is like voting for Nero because he plays violin better than Caligula.

Nigel Tufnel said...

"the Republican establishment in the media and government" have "lives and concerns" that are different from "half their supporters."

I always thought Scott Walker did well in Wisconsin because this did not seem to apply to him in his statewide campaigns. He seemed to know about his supporters' lives and concerns when running for governor. It never translated to the national stage.

The national basket had more and different deplorables from the Wisconsin basket and Trump figured that out before Walker or anyone else.

The deplorables aren't going away after Hillary wins. She thinks they are irredeemable. What does a nasty authoritarian like Hillary do with those incapable of redemption?

Bay Area Guy said...

I respect VDH very much. He lives in the Central Valley of California, so he has firsthand knowledge of the farm country, how it has changed over 50 years, and, sadly, how it's gotten much worse.

His argument wasn't quite Darrow-esque, but I'm very glad he made it.

If you are a right of center type of gal/guy, the best argument is this:

The Left has a different vision of the USA, than yours. On 1 important area (civil rights) they have been honorable, correct, and deserve credit. But, on most everything else, they have steamrolled over tradition, culture and market principles, causing a sea of destruction in their path (See, Detroit; see murder rate, Chicago.) The Left's creation of the Welfare State in LBJ's War on Poverty, has nearly undone many of the advances of the Civil Rights Movement (crime, children out of wedlock, food stamps, all UP)

Until 1992, California was a glorious state, and it almost always voted Republican. That's gone now. The Left has seized it. It's like the old Brezhnev Doctrine of the Soviets, once you go Commie, you never go back.

Soon, many parts of California will be (1) rich home-owners and (2) non-rich minorities. That's kinda sorta what SF and the Berkeley Hills have already become.

It works for folks like me (50s, married, professional), it does not work for most others.

Trump isn't an ideologue. Despite being outgunned, he has taken up a rifle and is standing at the gates against the oncoming Left-wing hordes. That's worth a vote, despite some of his flaws.

MadTownGuy said...

Here's the solution: elect Trump, then pressure Congress to begin impeachment proceedings immediately. I'm sure the news media will be able to find, at the very least, a high crime or misdemeanor somewhere. Presto! No Trump, no Hillary.

Basil said...

Vote for Trump because he is an agent of change. Change is the single imperative when you are heading over a cliff. All other concerns should disappear when the cliff is approaching.

That is what makes the "offensive comments" charge so ridiculous. Are female voters so shallow that they will drive the entire nation off a cliff in order to avoid voting for a rude/crass candidate? For the love of my country, I pray the answer is no.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Here's the solution: elect Trump, then pressure Congress to begin impeachment proceedings immediately."

-- That's one point in Trump's favor. If/when he breaks the law, people will actually hold him accountable.

Michael K said...

If Victor Davis Hanson thinks he can blame a 2016 defeat on anyone but Trump and the Trump primary supporters, he's got another thing coming. Don't blame the GOP establishment. Trump ran against the GOP establishment.

First, I'm not sure it will be a defeat. Let's assume you are correct and it is.

Is "Blame" really the issue ?

Hillary will transform the nation in ways that Obama began but was unable to complete because of residual Republican institutions.

They will be gone. Scalia is dead and Hillary will appoint three justices. The IRS has been weaponized.

She will make noises about shutting down fracking.

Saudi Arabia will fall and we may well be in a war with Russia by 2018. We would lose that war, not because of weakness but ineptitude. Obama has emasculated the military, especially the Navy which is a transgender cesspool.

The EPA will go after Texas and we may have a Civil War by 2020.

Blame will be the least of our problems. Growing food might be more important.

Left wingers think food comes from Whole Foods.

Balfegor said...

Yeah, he might. But he also might screw up everything. We should roll the dice? Hanson offers the old William F. Buckley rule: Vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. If that's the rule and there's no exception for someone too bizarre and too risky, then conservatives should vote for Trump. That's Hanson's argument, the best argument you're going to get for Trump.

Pretty sure that is in fact an argument for Clinton II, not for Trump. The argument for Trump is one that is fundamentally not conservative, but rather, anti-colonial. It's an argument that has ceased to be about policies and philosophies, except in the loosest possible way -- instead, it's about people: the unruly natives against their colonial masters. This is a struggle that is "conservative" only in the sense that if the natives win, they may secure a space to practice their customs in peace, and if they lose, that space will be lost forever; not in the sense that their struggle is animated by any sort of adherence to philosophical conservatism, either in the vein of Burke or in the vein of de Maistre.

This is our 1857. This is our Mutiny. And we are going to lose.

jacksonjay said...


Mr. Trump (they all call him Mr. Trump), spent a week defending his leaked tax return, a week attacking the Hot Tamale, a week defending locker room pussy-grabbing talk and now seems to want to spend a week whining about losing a rigged election and a corrupt media. What a pussy! Can the man focus on anything other than his perceptions of being disrespected? Talk about ADD! If his campaign is any indication of how he would attempt to govern, well God help us. I've lost track of the Dilbert take on Mr Master Persuading Media Manipulatin Trump. Is Trump still a jedi or not? Is he manipulating the corrupt media now or not?

Yeah, Yeah, binary choice, lesser of evils, and all of that!

Bob Boyd said...

You've been with the professors
And they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read
It's well known.
But something is happening here
And you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones ?

Writ Small said...

He got where he is by absorbing and shaping their wants and desires. If that makes him untouchable to you, are you not an elitist?

It is not who Trump appealed to but how he did it. Reagan and Bush Jr. appealed to the same folks, but they did it without resorting to conspiracies about "others" (Mexico, China, Left wingers, the media, and conservative writers) rigging things against them.

I also do not agree with Hanson that Hillary is obviously worse, corruption-wise. Her corruption is mostly of the grubbier kind. She has sought to enrich herself by getting people, foreign and domestic, to pay for political access and favors. Her secret email server was a travesty, but the FBI decided to put the facts out and let the voters decide, and while I think that's corrosive to the rule of law, it is defensible. The absolute lowest moments in Hillary's past were her allegedly-ordered attacks on her husband's victims and accusers. The abuse of those women was and is indefensible. Her going after the powerless and abused, however, has not been repeated since the late 1990's so far as I know. Trump has gone after the powerless and abused as recently as a few days ago, and he has a long track record of such targeting of the weak.

From a policy standpoint, it is similarly close to a push. If you are an Milton Friedman conservative who believes in free trade or a foreign policy Reagan Republican who wants a muscular approach that opposes strategic foes like Russia, Hillary has the edge. Trump is a protectionist and an admirer of strongmen. The Second Amendment will weather Hillary as it has Obama. For me, the social issues (gay marriage, abortion, transgendered rights) are secondary, but Trump is a very mixed bag for those who hold these issues dear. Trump wins on Obamacare, tax reform, increased deregulation, and immigration. Depending on ones policy preferences, Trump may only be only marginally ahead for many conservatives.

Conservatives should reject the end-times emotionalism and demands for party loyalty. Your loyalty should be to your principles. Also, loyalty is a two way street, and Trump has shown his true colors by seeking to sabotage insufficiently deferential Republicans. If the apocalypse were truly nigh as Trump's supporters argue, they should have been more careful in selecting a candidate. Their failure to think strategically is on them, and Republicans with a conscience should resist emotional blackmail.

The last case for Hillary is that she is the closest thing to a centrist Democrat left on the Left. Republicans have forgotten how in 2008 many on the Right rooted for her against the more-ideologically leftist Obama. People on the Right should be willing to occasionally reward Democrats when they choose the center-Left over fringe-Left folks like Sanders. If enough moderates on the Left had had similar thoughts, we might have avoided the last four years.

Hagar said...

If Hillary! is elected, not only will Obama's appointees remain in office, but the Republican establishment types will remain in charge of the Republican Party.

And abroad we will continue to drift toward really large-scale war, not just "containment" and little proxy wars with "tolerable" casualty rates.

Rockeye said...

The most powerful impulse thinking about this election gives me is the sure conviction I should stock up on canned food and other apocalyptic supplies.

Henry said...

My main objection to Hanson's presentation is that it assumes the exact same apocalyptic future as the anti-Trump zealots.

Trump is not Hitler. Neither is he a conservative. Or predictable.

Those on the left that presume Trump is an existential threat to the Republic give themselves license to oppose him at all costs. Those on the right that presume Clinton is an existential threat to the Republic give themselves cover to vote for Trump.

Since I reject both premises, I can vote as I like.

Henry said...

apocalyptic is the word of the day.

Gusty Winds said...

The corruption between Hillary's State Dept and the FBI recently revealed is reason enough for Trump.

But if he doesn't win, I will take consolidation that the slow drip of Podesta emails over the next few weeks, and the post-election outrage is going to render her Presidency impotent.

She will literally and figuratively limp through her term.

That's a good thing.

damikesc said...

I have no problem with the logic. If you have a choice of a criminal or somebody who has never really committed crimes but is an unknown quantity, you go with the one least likely to break laws to enforce them.

More libertarian votes means future elections will have both more libertarianish Republican primary candidates and conservative candidates adopting libertarianish positions.

Given that Johnson is campaigning to the Left of Hillary on many issues, I don't see it. Libertarians would rather give fascists power if it'll get weed legalized --- ignoring that Trump is miles more likely to legalize than Hillary.

The last case for Hillary is that she is the closest thing to a centrist Democrat left on the Left.

She isn't. She never was. She was always to the Left of Bill. She's running to the Left of Obama now. She wants power and money.

Gahrie said...

Some of the things in America I'm proud of--freedom of the press,

You mean the press that has taken sides with the Democrats against the Republican Party?

racial equality,

Really? Then why is it legal to discriminate against straight White men?

encouraging and welcoming all those in the world who believe in liberty

How about all of those who come here illegally and uninterested in liberty?

damikesc said...

But if he doesn't win, I will take consolidation that the slow drip of Podesta emails over the next few weeks, and the post-election outrage is going to render her Presidency impotent.

The press is doing a good job of minimizing them now. Why would that change if she wins? The press in on her side. As it stands, free press is almost meaningless since our media are just lick-spittle sycophants for Democrats anyway.

richlb said...

This year, although still not committed (and I live in a state where it is doubtful myself or even thousands like me would make a difference) I suspect I will hold my nose and vote for Trump. And I justify it this way: The election of Trump will bring intense media scrutiny and make every decision he makes get analyzed to a degree never seen. The election of Clinton will result in a supple media who will do everything they can to squash scandals and discourage debate. For that reason alone I can live with Trump over Clinton. No other reason matters more.

buwaya puti said...

Hi Balfegor,

No, it might be 1936. Or 1789 (ref Taine on the ancien regime, having innovated away from what amounted to the social contract and thereby lost legitimacy). Or 1848. Or 1914.

This is not predictable in any direction. There is no conservative safe harbor because we are all far out at sea in a storm.

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

CNN Panels of experts are talking about E-mails that the State Department wanted the FBI to change the evidence on them of Classified to non-classified status in exchange for the Secretary of State making a decision to let the FBI have overseas offices.

Fox News says it is an attempted bribe. But CNN says it is all too confusing to understand who said what to whom and anyway, there is no proof Hillary authorized it...move along.

buwaya puti said...

And yet again and again, it doesnt really matter about individuals, its all about systems. Clinton is a figurehead.
She has no independent input on policy direction. She is the facade for a clique and a system.

You are voting for individuals and are constantly deluded by that. But they arent individuals.

Mike said...

Some of the things in America I'm proud of--freedom of the press, racial equality, encouraging and welcoming all those in the world who believe in liberty--the Trumpites just aren't proud of. And some of the things that disgust me, such as ethno-nationalism and yearning for a strongman to set America right by any means necessary--the Trumpites are sympathetic to.

I think most Trump voters can get behind "racial equality [and] encouraging and welcoming all those in the world who believe in liberty" but there is literally no one arguing against these concepts unless you interpret "welcoming" as open borders. I'd be thrilled if the displaced Hillary war refugees were being vetted to see if they "believe in liberty" but they are not. And presently the only freedom the press is hog wild about is the freedom to squelch stories about Hillary breaking laws and customs, and the twin freedom to saturate the airwaves with anti-Trump propaganda written by Hillary's team. There is nothing about the conduct of the Press that deserves any respect at this point in history.

So sinz52, maybe you see people who fit the neo-nationalist description supporting Trump but I don't. (Yeah I heard David Duke likes him. So what?) It certainly is not a movement by any definition. The only side trying to provoke a racial war are the BLM asshats. And I know a lot of republicans, libertarians and independents and literally none of them long for a strongman. Here it appears you just parrot more of Hillary's lies. Of course people who show up to rallies have their own motivations, but I don't know if that's what you're alluding to with your talk of nationalism and strong men. I've also seen women with "grab my pussy" T shirts, others who want Hillary in jail, etc.

There are a lot of reasons to abhor the borg candidate of the progressive culture, and one need not even like or admire Trump to see him as a better alternative than handing the reins to the most corrupt person ever to seek the office, especially knowing she has already co-opted the FBI director and can count on him to continue to run interference for her.

CStanley said...

Both candidates are unfit. The exercise of cataloging the ways in which they're each unfit is necessary, but it hasn't gotten me any closer to voting for either of them.

The corruption and final destruction of our institutions that will likely happen with HRC comes close to convincing me that Trump should have my vote, but I can't get there. I'm seriously considering the McMullin option (he's apparently in Atlanta tonight and I'd like to go but not sure if I can manage it.)

Since I lean ever so slightly toward Trump in the two way matchup, and live in a red state that is not safely going to Trump, my moral dilemma is excruciating. If I was either in a safe red or blue state I have little doubt I'd vote for McMullin and if nothing else I hope he represents the future of the GOP after Trump flames out and the populists go elsewhere.

Sydney said...

There are two reasons I will not vote for Hillary or do anything I think would help her get elected:
1) She and our present government have proven to us that they consider her above the law. There is no situation I can imagine where it is good for a country to have leaders who are above the law.
2) She proved herself inept during her tenure at the State Department. She makes bad decisions and blames others. Should never be given a position that does not require direct supervision.

buwaya puti said...

On the emails - the core of the matter isnt that Clinton did this or that, but what it reveals about the system, and that isnt even about the contents of the emails.

Its about the fact, simply, that they let her do it, that the whole government participated, and how they both covered it up and excused it. This all is a clear sign of the utter corruption of the entire structure.

Birkel said...

Chuck, a Hillary Clinton supporter, doesn't want anybody to blame him because he is a long-time GOP supporter who believes in the GOP as an institution.

Meanwhile, it is the institutional rot that drove the Tea Party and the Trump-supporters to where we are today. It is precisely the sort of people Chuck pretends to be that lost voters after no follow through on GOP campaign promises. It was the growth of government under President Bush that led so many people to de-register from the Republican Party. It was the GOP that gave us the Department of Homeland Security, Speaker Denny Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Medicare Part D and -- most egregiously -- a push for legalization of criminal aliens.

None of that is conservative. The GOP is no longer conservative, if it ever was.

And Chuck is to blame.

Michael K said...

I also do not agree with Hanson that Hillary is obviously worse, corruption-wise.

It's kind of fun to watch Hillary voters try to rationalize their vote. "Trump must be corrupt because I haven;t read his 10,000 page tax return." Trump must be corrupt because Balzac said, "Behind every great fortune, there is a great crime," Of course that was during Feudalism but never mind.

I'm sure you can think other excuses.

Remorse said...

"The election of Trump will bring intense media scrutiny and make every decision he makes get analyzed to a degree never seen."

And that will mean nothing to Trump's supporters.

Gahrie said...

"The election of Trump will bring intense media scrutiny and make every decision he makes get analyzed to a degree never seen."

And that will mean nothing to Trump's supporters.


But it will be a pleasant change from the last 8 years.

Sebastian said...

A waste of pixels. There's only case for Trump: ABC.

Brando said...

"Since I lean ever so slightly toward Trump in the two way matchup, and live in a red state that is not safely going to Trump, my moral dilemma is excruciating. If I was either in a safe red or blue state I have little doubt I'd vote for McMullin and if nothing else I hope he represents the future of the GOP after Trump flames out and the populists go elsewhere."

I doubt the populists are going elsewhere--they're simply a part of the GOP coalition, same as the religious right and defense hawks. And if Trump loses, they'll likely never find out how much he would have betrayed them but instead turn their ire on the rest of the GOP (who accordingly will blame the Trumpites for the loss) and we'll have resolved nothing by 2020. At which point who knows what Hillary may have done to enable her reelection.

But if you want consolation about this election, here's what I go with--there's no one close to being a conservative who has a prayer of becoming president. It's sort of like your car is going to hit a tree, and instead of a choice of "hitting no tree" you get to choose whether to hit the pine or the birch. Once you've accepted it, the stress is gone.

McMullin et al simply provide a lot of people a way to say "I don't own that" once the inevitable happens.

CStanley said...

Well Brndo, regarding what happens to the Trumpites afterward I did say I was hoping, not that I'm predicting. However, that is one way that having some votes registered for a Trump alternative, conservative candidate matters. It's extraordinary that McMullin has risen so quickly and if he pulls off a win in Utah as well as non-negligible vote counts elsewhere then the GOP has reason to pick up the pieces of the conservative coalition and if they do so then the worst elements of the Trump coalition simply have to go elepsewhere.

Your tree analogy is apt but unhelpful. I might as well let go of the wheel (which is likely what I will do, and abstain from voting for POTUS.) I will however, during this slow motion part of the car wreck, try to make sure the kids are buckled in and try to think of anything else I can do to soften the impact.

Brando said...

And if you want to feel better about that state of affairs, keep in mind the Dems aren't in great shape either--their troubles have just been overshadowed by what the GOP is going through. Had Trump not been the nominee, we'd be hearing questions about why the Dems blew it by nominating someone as divisive and politically dumb as Hillary, why the Obama administration's signature domestic achievement is a mess that no one wants to campaign on (except to say they'll try to fix the mess), and (if Trump wasn't losing educated white voters, particularly women) the fact that the Dems are doing very poor among the white vote. This year may be giving them a lucky reprieve, but their problems remain, too.

buwaya puti said...

What on earth is the value of saying "I don't own that"?

CStanley said...

By the way, since when is "I don't own that" not a valid political expression?

CStanley said...

Ha, funny cross posting, Buyawa. As far as I'm clients nicer need it goes without saying that there is value in it but since you come at it from an opposite view I don't know that I can articulate it.

CStanley said...

Did no one here feel there was value in voting against Obama, to say "I don't own that?"

If Trump loses, is there no value in your vote against Hillary?

Brando said...

"Well Brndo, regarding what happens to the Trumpites afterward I did say I was hoping, not that I'm predicting. However, that is one way that having some votes registered for a Trump alternative, conservative candidate matters. It's extraordinary that McMullin has risen so quickly and if he pulls off a win in Utah as well as non-negligible vote counts elsewhere then the GOP has reason to pick up the pieces of the conservative coalition and if they do so then the worst elements of the Trump coalition simply have to go elepsewhere."

Yes, it may be for the best if the populists form their own party--that may be what's best for everyone involved. A lot of the populist arguments sound more like what the Dems were saying (in the pre-DLC days especially) than anything you'd expect among conservatives. Why keep an unhappy marriage together?

"Your tree analogy is apt but unhelpful. I might as well let go of the wheel (which is likely what I will do, and abstain from voting for POTUS.) I will however, during this slow motion part of the car wreck, try to make sure the kids are buckled in and try to think of anything else I can do to soften the impact."

Yeah, that's how I see it too--prepare for four to eight years of criminal mismanagement and ignoring national problems (which will happen regardless of which one wins) and stock up on whiskey and canned goods. I'm in a slightly easier position than you--Maryland is going for Hillary by nearly 20 points, so my vote is purely symbolic. But I don't fault anyone's choice at this point.

cubanbob said...

Perhaps Mr. Hanson should focus on what is wrong with a party that could only run a primary election between a communist and a grifter, criminal and traitor who has fascistic tendencies and who now has arguably the worst candidate in modern history as it's standard bearer.

Hagar said...

OTOH, you can argue that a severe financial crash and a deeper recession in the near future is unavoidable, as is the collapse of Obama's foreign policies, and these failures ought to be clearly tied to the responsible Party if we are to have any hope of a permanent change of course.

AprilApple said...

None of this is funny. We selected someone who inspires more people to vote against him. Not wise.

Gusty Winds said...

This guy Patrick Kennedy at the State Department basically offered the FBI a bribe to change the classification of some of Hillary's emails.

That seems like a good reason to vote for Trump.

Bay Area Guy said...

Trump made repeated mistakes in the primaries by personally attacking the other GOP candidates. This diminished them, at the time, and now they are withholding support from him, when he needs it.

I think they should suck it up and support him, but, alas, many are not.

Larry J said...

I don't particularly like or trust Donald Trump. However, Hillary Clinton would be an unmitigated disaster for the Constitution and the rule of law. She would be the most corrupt president since LBJ and likely even worse than him. I have four young grandchildren to consider. I want them to have a future where they won't be cursing all of our names for what we let become of our country.

Brando said...

"What on earth is the value of saying "I don't own that"?"

Psychological. Look at how many commenters give Althouse grief for her 2008 Obama vote.

Voting is as much a sense of psychological satisfaction as anything else. Most people don't live in swing states, and know their vote won't make a difference in who becomes president. Hell, if you do live in a swing state, an individual vote won't make a difference--the vote has literally never come down to one person's vote. But we all still do it partly because we think of ourselves as being part of a collective effort, but also to register our preference, so that later we can either be proud of voting for someone we thought did a good job, or voting against someone who later did an awful job.

It's not much, admittedly. But I see no other reason.

eric said...

Althouse,

I know this isn't the thread for it, but James O'Keefe has uncovered some "bird dogging" in Wisconsin. This DNC group took credit for when Walker tore up a sign. It seems they planned to agitate him.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/

I Callahan said...

bagoh20 says,

"shared Trump’s sense of outrage "

That is, of course true, but it's a very bad basis for electing a leader. I won't mention the obvious historical examples.


Yet it continues to happen every time people get so fed up with their own government that they feel they have no other choice. People are tired of the status quo. The other 16 candidates were the status quo.

In those prior examples, as bad as things got, they all had one thing in common - leadership who didn't care about them anymore, and did what they wanted.

Michael K said...

a severe financial crash and a deeper recession in the near future is unavoidable, as is the collapse of Obama's foreign policies, and these failures ought to be clearly tied to the responsible Party if we are to have any hope of a permanent change of course.

I take a slight amount of comfort in this observation.

Bill Clinton skated away from the consequences of his feckless policy toward terrorism and the collapse of the internet bubble in 2000. Maybe it would have been better for the Republicans, at least, if Gore had been elected.

On the other hand, Democrats are still blaming Reagan for the poor years after his death,

I do worry about the consequences if the economic collapse I expect occurs in a Republican presidency. I thought, and still believe, that the last chance for a soft landing was Romney in 2012.

Trump is only my choice because Hillary will change the country irreversibly in spite of the collapse. She is the fascist.

Also Trump would be blamed by the left and since he has no further political ambition, it won't matter. Also, of course, he is not seen as a Republican.

Brando said...

"Trump made repeated mistakes in the primaries by personally attacking the other GOP candidates. This diminished them, at the time, and now they are withholding support from him, when he needs it."

It was dumb, but does he really need individual politicians' support? I think the bigger issue is the sizable chunk of the GOP electorate that he's alienated and done nothing to bring in.

CStanley said...

Brando- I started out feeling glib because I live in a red state but Trump has turned it light pink so all of a sudden my vote matters. And to think I used to feel frustrated that I didn't live in a swing state...be careful what you wish for I guess.

As for the psychology of "not owning it", on an individual level that is true (also, just clean conscience but I do get the people who resent the feeling that they have to dirty their hands for the people who won't.)

But en masse, I think "no" votes matter. You really don't think it matters if a candidate wins in a landslide or by a nose, in terms of their political capital?

Pettifogger said...

To honor Fabi's point first, I deplore Trump and despise that my choice is between him and Clinton. He is admittedly a wild card, but I think it likely he will do less lasting damage to the country than Clinton. I also think we're soon to be intensely schooled on just how much damage Clinton can do.

Birkel said...

An economic collapse will be a crisis that Hillary Clinton will not let go to waste.

You dipshits don't understand what Hillary Clinton is because you, yourselves, are good people who work hard and try to be fair. Sorry, but that's not the way Hillary will play the game. Pull your collective heads out of your collective asses.

Jon Burack said...

Paul says,

"If the alternative is the end of the Republic and likely world war of course we should." [Roll the dice, that is.]

This is the rhetoric of our day. "end of the republic"??? Both the left and the right now (it started with the left) live in this alternate universe. Hillary Clinton is not going to end the republic. It is joke to think she could. But if you like the end-of-days thrills and chills, as so many now do, you can buy Hanson's way of posing the choice. This unglued apocalyptic paranoia is the real disease of the day, and it is shared on both ends of the spectrum and too much of the middle. America, for all its difficulties, is still the strongest and most well-off nation on earth or in all of history. In 1932, at the height of a catastrophe impossiple for most people now to even imagine, FDR captured the mood well with "Happy Days Are Here Again." Where has that gone? The four central candidates this past year - Trump, Cruz, Hillary, Bernie - are various versions of panic, sourness, and hype. The best thing about it is the least panicked one is going to win. Too bad she is a crook and a liar, but, hey, nobody's perfect.

Fabi said...

Birkel precisely summarizes the reality at 11:46.

Birkel said...

Jon Burack:

What checks do you find restraining the Office of the President and the executive agencies? Please name them so we may determine that we still live in a Republic.

Leviathan yawns.

I Callahan said...

Those on the left that presume Trump is an existential threat to the Republic give themselves license to oppose him at all costs. Those on the right that presume Clinton is an existential threat to the Republic give themselves cover to vote for Trump.

Since I reject both premises, I can vote as I like.


After 8 years of Obama, the FBI covering up crimes for Hillary, policies put in place that circumvent Congress' power, the USSC ruling based on their political views, and knowing that Hillary will continue, and possibly accelerate this style of leadership - please tell me Henry: How on God's green earth is Hillary NOT an existential threat to the Republic?

bagoh20 said...

"What on earth is the value of saying "I don't own that"?"

Have you ever farted in public and claimed it with pride? If so, you might be a proud Hillary or Trump supporter.

bagoh20 said...

It's not an existential threat from either, but it is a serious qualitative threat from both.

SukieTawdry said...

I live in California so here's what I do: Vote for the presidential candidate of my choice (or write him in) because unless I vote for the Democrat (which I never do), my vote doesn't count. Vote a straight Republican ticket otherwise because the Democrats run the state. Say "no" to each and every referendum (unless, of course, voting "no" means "yes") because if there's anyone who makes worse law in this state than the politicians, it's the people. I'm a permanent mail-in voter (no polling place), so most things are decided before my ballot is even counted which means in most cases it doesn't get counted. Somehow, I don't think this is the way it's supposed to work.

Birkel said...

bagoh20:

Did you feel it was an existential threat when the IRS denied tax exempt status to conservative organizations, thus making it impossible for those entities to exist?

Is it an existential threat to arm Iran with financing and technical capacity for nuclear weapons?

Is it an existential threat to actively fight -- without Congressional approval -- in a reported seven different countries, currently?

Henry said...

How on God's green earth is Hillary NOT an existential threat to the Republic?

Establish a baseline.

Project a path.

Consider the area under the curve.

I Callahan said...

Establish a baseline. Project a path. Consider the area under the curve.

The things I named were examples of what an existential threat looks like. That IS the baseline. Based on the fact that Clinton has a history of illegal acts, and Obama doesn't, I think I can safely assume that the baseline will continue to drop. And as long as it drops, the area under the curve gets smaller.

The question for you is this: Where on that path is the point where you agree she's an existential threat?

Michael said...

The day after she is sworn Hillary will begin campaigning for the next presidential election. The day after. You can book it.

Donald Trump, if elected, would not run for a second term.

Birkel said...

If (and likely when) Hillary wins, Republicans will "cave" on a great number of issues, including but not limited to, important millions of Democrat voters.

Hillary will not be forced to campaign in 2020. Winning in 2016 will be enough for the 2020 election.

Xmas said...

My Conservative case for Trump: 100 years of Progressive politics has created a Federal bureaucracy that can be truly terrifying in the hands of the wrong person, so let's elect the right sort of wrong person!

Trump is bombastic and feckless, not conniving. Put in charge of our government, he would shine a bright light on all we've done wrong over the years. He would likely destroy many of powerful agencies and bureaus through mismanagement or overreach. He would do more to fix the government than any reformer could promise, not by his own actions, but by the actions of the Press, the People, the Courts and Congress to disarm a bumbling narcissist. There would be a great clamor to Trump-proof our Government.

Or you could vote for Hillary and continue to let the system metastasize.

Unknown said...

When we say Hillary's an existential threat to the Republic, we don't mean there won't be a nation called "the United States of America" after she's done.

It just won't resemble anything we have now. Hillary has advanced the idea that the 1st and 2nd amendments need to be abolished. She has advocated forcing churches to change their doctrine; and she wants to reverse Citizen's United-- a case where the Supreme Court said that citizenry had the right to criticize Hillary Clinton and the government could not punish them. Hillary says that is wrong and has promised to reverse it, so that government can indeed punish people who criticize her. What's left of the 1st amendment? The Second amendment is similarly under threat, as she wants to confiscate weapons "Australia style" at first.
With a supine GOP congress that is actively campaigning for her and a media that is actively conspiring with her campaign, what checks will there be on Hillary Clinton from just ruling via decree? She will appoint 3-4 members of the Supreme Court and what's left of the country? She already views conservatives as "Irredeemable" and when far leftists start labeling groups of people as irredeemable or less than human... well, we all know genocide isn't far behind. The 20th century is nothing but littered with examples of what happens when leftists get the power to hurt their enemies en mass. And Clinton's current body trail certainly suggests she is not embarrassed by any morals to prevent her from pulling a Pol Pot.

--Vance

walter said...

She's proven herself to be unworthy of limited power. Let's see if that changes with far more...

Brando said...

"Brando- I started out feeling glib because I live in a red state but Trump has turned it light pink so all of a sudden my vote matters. And to think I used to feel frustrated that I didn't live in a swing state...be careful what you wish for I guess."

I hear you--I suppose if my state ever turned purple I'd feel the same way. That might have been the case if the GOP picked a strong candidate who put the Dems on the defensive in their old redoubts. Alas, it was like taking the losses of recent cycles and saying "let's double down on what doesn't work, and stop doing a few things that do work and see what that does. And let's do it the same year the Dems give us a gimme."

" But en masse, I think "no" votes matter. You really don't think it matters if a candidate wins in a landslide or by a nose, in terms of their political capital?"

Oh, "en masse" certainly--I was thinking in terms of the individual. From a purely individual perspective, all you really get from a vote is the sense that you got some say in it, and registered a preference, even though unless the election was decided by one vote, technically no one vote matters.

But collectively, obviously it does, and the difference between losing by a hair and losing big matters.

If Hillary barely edges out Trump, his supporters will parade the 'backstabber' theme for the next cycle, and Trump himself will boast about how great he was compared to Romney and McCain (even though Romney and McCain ran against a good politician in unfavorable circumstances, and Trump would be losing to Hillary in a year that should be good for the GOP. But never mind--he'll say it, his supporters will believe it). If Trump got walloped, it would be harder to push that line--Republicans may think "we really need to retool and never make that mistake again" and of course Hillary may be lulled into overplaying her hand (see how far LBJ fell from 1964 to 1968).

Michael K said...

It just won't resemble anything we have now.

Well said, Vance,

CStanley said...

Agree with all of your 1:06 Brando...and also, if it is close (increasingly it looks like it will not be, but for sake of discussion), we also see plenty of evidence of fraud which benefits HRC so there will be at least some legitimate argument that the election was stolen from Trump. Not so if he loses by a large margin.

I guess increasingly I'm liking the idea that McMullin should be the placeholder for all of the conservative votes that would have gone to the GOP if the populist rage hadn't overtaken the primaries.

I mean for heavens sake- now it looks like Alaska might go to the Democrats, not to mention Utah if McMullin doesn't pull off a win, and others. It's not looking like a vote for McMullin is what is going to hand the election to HRC- Trump has already done that.

Michael K said...

even though Romney and McCain ran against a good politician in unfavorable circumstances,

I agree about McCain but not about Romney.

buwaya said...

"Hillary Clinton is not going to end the republic. It is joke to think she could."

It is indeed a joke to think she could. Thats part of the delusion of personalization.

But your republic (or, to be specific, the democratic parts of it) is over and gone anyway, and this has happened gradually over a period of decades.

The people have no input at all on any significant matter of any sort, directly or through their representatives, on a Federal level and in many if not most places on a State level.

buwaya said...

"100 years of Progressive politics has created a Federal bureaucracy that can be truly terrifying in the hands of the wrong person"

Terrifying in the hands of ANY person, even if that person is totally passive, because not even the best can comprehend it, much less control it. It has a life and power of its own, and has massive, enormously well funded support from all the stakeholders that have attached themselves to it.

Remorse said...

"The people have no input at all on any significant matter of any sort, directly or through their representatives, on a Federal level and in many if not most places on a State level."

When was the last time they did? Not a rhetorical question btw.

grackle said...

Hansen: “The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.”

Yeah, he might. But he also might screw up everything. We should roll the dice?

The choice is between sure disaster(Hillary) against possible disaster(Trump). That’s all Hansen is saying. And in reality any candidate could become a disaster once in office. It’s always a crap shoot.

After the McCain and Romney defeats it seemed clear to me that the media and the Democrats had honed their demonizing technique into an art. No conventional GOP candidate had the least chance of defeating that wall of opposition. That’s one of the reasons why I supported Trump early on. That and his position on the issues.

Hanson says "we can only compare the respective Clinton and Trump published agendas," but that makes no sense to me. Anyone with the money to hire consultants can crank out published agendas, but we can't trust just anyone with the presidency,

Neat. Imply that debate about the candidates’ positions on issues(“published agendas”) is unimportant. That way Trump’s popular stances on immigration, gun rights, etc. are somewhat neutralized.

Especially since it was in our state we found a Democrat registering dead people to vote, so we know fraud is happening here, we just don't know the scale yet.

One of their uses of internal polling is to figure out how much they have to cheat. They know the public polls are flawed.

They're really alt-right, though they don't know it yet.

I just found out that I’m Alt-Right. Want to know if you are? If you like Trump you probably are. Sample an Alt-Right blog:

http://www.amren.com

Grackle’s Anti-Trump technique du jour:

The use of metaphor, simile and analogy makes rhetoric more persuasive. So if you are a cable news producer, talking head, Democrat or eGOP how do you kill some of the persuasive power of Trump? Easily. All you have to do is to is present his comparisons as literal. And then go into a dick-dance of faux indignation and other favorite virtue signaling moral postures – no matter how far-fetched the interpretation, no matter how divorced from reality.

320Busdriver said...

Sounds similar to my post on the earlier poll.

I said:

I was a nevertrumper at first.

I will be voting for Trump. If you care about this country so should you.

This is the case of better the devil you don't know than the one you know.

It's a shitty choice to have to make, but it's binary. Don't try to fool yourself that it's not.


10/15/16, 9:45 AM

Brando said...

"I agree about McCain but not about Romney."

You think Romney had a gimme in 2012? The economy was on a steady rebound, Obama was (fairly or not) getting credit for it, and Obama had no primary opposition. Plus, he had just ordered bin Laden's death a year earlier. Those werent' great headwinds for anyone.

"I mean for heavens sake- now it looks like Alaska might go to the Democrats, not to mention Utah if McMullin doesn't pull off a win, and others. It's not looking like a vote for McMullin is what is going to hand the election to HRC- Trump has already done that."

I agree--Trump is not the sort to ever take responsibility, but his saner fans should recognize that if he loses, he loses because of who he is and what he did this cycle. Because if they don't learn from it, it's time to repeat the same mistakes next cycle.

Frankly, it's not a good sign that in mid-October we're hearing conservatives have to strain to make a case for the GOP nominee. It's also not a good sign that they're already talking about how rigged the election is. That isn't what you do when you're on your way to victory.

gadfly said...

First of all, VDH is dead wrong about his assumption that DJT is the most conservative candidate who could beat Hillary Rodham. Anybody but Trump could have beaten her. Trump is not at all conservative and doesn't even know what the precepts of conservatism represent. Each of his campaign "solutions" are accompanied by expansion of government and more spending. So all of Hansen's bad words about the T-Rump are true and all of the "only viable alternative' arguments are wrong. We know Trump lies incessantly and we know he has screwed over people in many of his business dealings. So he cannot be trusted once elected to office.

As for Althouse, she latched onto a bad argument early on. She finds no relationship between Bill Clinton's fake Chancellorship of Laureate and Hillary's candidacy. She missed the damning part: "... Bill Clinton, garnered $17.6 million in fees from the college and its affiliates over five years — often by cementing the often financially troubled international enterprise’s relationship with Hillary Clinton’s State Department."

This operation directly linked the Clinton Crime Family Trust to the State Department where Hillary could pull all the appropriate strings to encourage the happy clients of Der Schlickmeister to "donate" the $17.6 million to the previously penniless Clintons. That's illegal folks, and unethical even. Donald, of course, is not off the hook for his mysterious $105,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
What benefit did Donald Trump gain for this gift? Trump supporters don't want to know, but I do.

bagoh20 said...

If you don't mean "existential" then use another word, because obvious exaggeration weaken's one's argument even when it feels good.

bagoh20 said...

"What benefit did Donald Trump gain for this gift?"

Her cabal didn't go after him until autumn. It was as nice as she can be for a mere 100 grand. I wonder how much it would cost to get her to drop out. Is it illegal to pay off your opponent to quit?

buwaya said...

"and doesn't even know what the precepts of conservatism represent."

And what are those? I am serious. This is not a settled question in any way.
Are these the precepts of Russell Kirk? Of De Maistre? Of Burke? Of who, exactly? And how do these map to the current situation?

Conservatism has been much analyzed as a concept, and it resists definition as a system.
That is NOT a new observation.

Michael K said...

The Obamacare website disaster occurred well after the election as they knew they were in trouble.

The economy was in its annual "Summer of Recovery that never happened.

Benghazi had happened and Romney stumbled when Candy Crowley interrupted him in the debate.

I think he had a good chance but two things happened that didn't have to happen. The GOTV program, which is still not explained, failed miserably and Romney stumbled in that debate. He also was weak on the issue of "Romneycare" where he had a good explanation that he didn't use.

I will grant that voting against The First Black President was a challenge.

Bay Area Guy said...

Here's what I say to my Conservative friends:

1. Yes, Trump is not a Conservative. Agreed.

2. But the conservative decision (if you want what's best for our country) is to vote Trump, flaws and all.

Michael K said...

Anybody but Trump could have beaten her. Trump is not at all conservative and doesn't even know what the precepts of conservatism represent.

You are assuming some facts not in evidence. "Conservatism" is not the default position of the American voter anymore.

The other candidates did not do a good job against Trump who you say is so easy to beat.

Trump is a populist at a time when only a populist has a chance against the welfare state.

Darrell said...

Hillary voters should regale us with a list of Hillary accomplishments.

buwaya said...

"When was the last time they did? Not a rhetorical question btw."

No it isn't, its a fair and interesting question.

The best answer I have is that it seems to have been a steady fade from some point in the 1970's to today. Just to pull a little California, when the people voted for Prop 13 (limiting property taxes) that was democracy at work, and in full cry. It was opposed by the PTB and the state and the vast majority of the press, but it happened and was implemented, fully, according to the will of the people.

In 2000 there was a clear choice in tax rates in a Federal election, one promising reduced taxation and the other not, and so it proved. On the other hand, in those years there was no significant public input on EPA policy and regulatory decisions on implementation of the Clean Air Act.

In 2008-2009 there was no public input at all sought on massive spending packages, and these were clearly unpopular.

In 2010 Obamacare was passed against the public will, by open legislative chicanery.

After 2010 there was simply no budget process at all, and no public input on details thereof or its repercussions.

In the meantime in California courts have overridden whatever Propositions seem unsuitable to the powers, in a sort of one-way ratchet of policy. I am sure that if Prop 13 weren't so baked in to the current system, if it were to pass today it would be thrown out by some court as violating some aspect or other of civil rights, something spurious about adequate school funding probably.

Brando said...

"The Obamacare website disaster occurred well after the election as they knew they were in trouble."

Are we talking about the 2012 election? The website disaster didn't explode until a year later.

"The economy was in its annual "Summer of Recovery that never happened."

The economy by 2012 was much improved from where it was in 2008. Voters react to the trend, not the absolute number, and the trend had been towards less unemployment all through 2011 and 2012--that favors the incumbent. Had the election taken place a couple years earlier, Romney would have been able to do a lot better.

"Benghazi had happened and Romney stumbled when Candy Crowley interrupted him in the debate."

It just never was a big electoral winner. The general public didn't care about the distinction between whether Obama called it "terror", and frankly the GOP would have been better off making hay out of the Libya intervention as a whole, rather than the embassy attack alone. The Crowley thing was frustrating, but how has Trump done better? He complains about the biased moderators and is powerless to do anything about it. Would Romney have benefited more if he asked Crowley to take Obama's place? I would have enjoyed watching it, but then again I was already going to vote for him.

"I think he had a good chance but two things happened that didn't have to happen. The GOTV program, which is still not explained, failed miserably and Romney stumbled in that debate. He also was weak on the issue of "Romneycare" where he had a good explanation that he didn't use."

The GOTV could have been better, but the bigger issue was Obama's was simply a lot better--they'd been improving it since 2008. I'd have figured the GOP would have improved a lot since then, but now their nominee says "data's overrated" so unless he's bluffing it looks like there's not much of a GOTV operation to speak of. The debate I don't think moved things either way--those aren't even really debates, just joint press conferences, and unless you completely melt down you'll still have your supporters on your side. I agree about Romneycare--Romney never really had a good answer for it.

Darrell said...

Cruz and Rubio would have faced the same shitstorm and would be 30 points behind right now. Cruz might even be in intensive care right now after an unfortunate snake handling extravaganza.

gadfly said...

@bagoh20 said...
"What benefit did Donald Trump gain for this gift?"

Her cabal didn't go after him until autumn. It was as nice as she can be for a mere 100 grand. I wonder how much it would cost to get her to drop out. Is it illegal to pay off your opponent to quit?


Bribes are illegal wherever you find them, but even though Trump remains at the adolescent stage mentally, he wouldn't make a deal without immediate hard rewards. So you are wrong, bag of water.

damikesc said...

And that will mean nothing to Trump's supporters.

But it will to Congress. Who would stop him.

They won't do shit to Hillary.

buwaya said...

The explanation I get re Romney from the fever swamps (I have been in FreeRepublic for 16 years now) about Romney is simply that he didn't have the blood and fire and emotional connection that would have brought that lot along. These are the actual, real "deplorables".

They were extremely opposed to Romney from the start and never truly backed him. Romney never really "got" the deplorables.

He didn't have their issues, most of them, nor their style, nor their passion, and he, like so many other people from the top tier of society, had an air of condescension that they couldn't miss.

2012 was lost on turnout and I saw a lot of reasons for that, from my little listening post.

The denizens of FreeRepublic back Trump, now, without reservation. But who knows how much of an effect that will have. Romney doubtless got some Trump won't.

Remorse said...

"But it will to Congress. Who would stop him."

Just my opinion but I think there are a lot of good reasons to doubt that.

Robert Cook said...

RE: Vance @ 12:58pm

Hillary is hardly a leftist, much less a "far leftist. Here is an analysis of the present state of things from a left perspective. As for Trump, he is but the precursor to a similar but more dangerous personality who has not appeared yet. Either way this election goes--Trump or Clinton--we're fucked.

grackle said...

And that will mean nothing to Trump's supporters.

And a reply:

But it will to Congress. Who would stop him.

Congress couldn’t stop a fart with a bowling ball. Congress is even now trying to figure out how to give the Democrats open borders without arousing anger from their constituents back in their home districts.

Rick said...

gadfly said...
First of all, VDH is dead wrong about his assumption that DJT is the most conservative candidate who could beat Hillary Rodham. Anybody but Trump could have beaten her.


This is nonsense.

Michael K said...

I am sure that if Prop 13 weren't so baked in to the current system, if it were to pass today it would be thrown out by some court as violating some aspect or other of civil rights, something spurious about adequate school funding probably.

The attacks are about income and commercial property but so far it has held out.

Prop 187 was the beginning of the end. It passed with a big majority but was thrown out by the court. Prop 8 then followed in the dame path. In both cases, Democrat governors declined to appeal the court action.

California is lost and I am house hunting in another state. After 60 years in California.

Remorse said...

When Congress tries to push back on President Trump, if it's something he wants or if saving face is involved, he's not gonna take the kid glove's off, and it doesn't matter what party's standing in his way. It's pretty evident that a lot of these guys don't have the stomach or means to stand up to him.

Birkel said...

Brando,
You have swallowed the "improving economy" bull shit the MSM spreads on its crop of know-nothings. You are wrong to believe it. Go read press accounts from 1993 about the Japanese economic recovery. Japan still has net 0.00% growth from 1989 to present. You are the dupe.

Robert Cook,
I wish that you were strangled by Leviathan first. That would be your just desserts for wishing collectivist utopia (READ: death) on the rest of us.

gadfly said...

Michael, while I agree that conservatism may not be the default position of voters today, the Trump Supporters still pretend to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. But you can tell they are not because the new verbiage from the Trump side mimicks Trump's attack mode, where everyone who doesn't agree should be insulted and minimized.

I said that anybody but Trump could beat Hillary is self-evident by the unpopular personality ratings that put Truth below Hillary. Could all of us gotten behind Carly Fiorina? She certainly talked a better game than Donald. I liked Scott Walker first and with him gone, I switched to Ted Cruz and it is possible that the suddenly popular Mike Pence could have been convinced by supporters to run under different circumstances. But the RNC screwed up the handling of the candidates by inviting the national liberal press into the contest YET AGAIN!

There remains a cadre of conservatives inside the Republican base who believe that smaller government and personal liberty are our only hope. If you no longer believe , you likely never were conservative and joining the opposition sounded like a good idea back when Dutch was around.

Republicans may not see the light of day in the next Presidential election, but if that happens, the duopoly will have become a triopoly.

Darrell said...

Hillary's first crime spree occurred after she was named By Jimmy Carter chair of the Legal Services Corporation--a quasi-governmental entity funded by Congress whose purpose is to provide adequate legal representation to the poor in important civil cases. Its charter and federal law specifically forbids the use of those federal funds for political activism. When her term ended she had cleaned out the entire budget--$360 million-- of the LSC, distributing the money to hard-core Lefties and Lefty groups. That made Hillary a hero to socialists of all stripes, except Robert Cook.

gadfly said...

I don't believe I typed "Truth" when I meant Trump - eeeek.

Remorse said...

"As for Trump, he is but the precursor to a similar but more dangerous personality who has not appeared yet."

That's a scary thought. But sure, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this election cycle. Some nasty people are probably figuring them all out as we go along.

walter said...

"Congress couldn’t stop a fart with a bowling ball. "
Would be a great Mythbusters segment.

Darrell said...

Hillary has been hiding her hard Left nature--only giving us occasional glimpses. She'll have no reason to hide it once she gets the power she's always lusted for.

Todd said...

Brando said...
And if you want to feel better about that state of affairs, keep in mind the Dems aren't in great shape either--their troubles have just been overshadowed by what the GOP is going through. Had Trump not been the nominee, we'd be hearing questions about why the Dems blew it by nominating someone as divisive and politically dumb as Hillary, why the Obama administration's signature domestic achievement is a mess that no one wants to campaign on (except to say they'll try to fix the mess), and (if Trump wasn't losing educated white voters, particularly women) the fact that the Dems are doing very poor among the white vote. This year may be giving them a lucky reprieve, but their problems remain, too.

10/17/16, 12:07 PM


In what alternate universe does this happen? In our "here and now" the media does not and will not report on anything that makes Dems look worst than Repubs. If you want to hear anything bad about any Dem, there must be something worse that a Rep did that can be included in the same story. Have you not seen the lack of coverage for all of Obama's and Hillary's follies these last 8 years?

In a sane world Hillary would currently be in prison and be there for the remainder of her life. In a sane world she never would have been SOS. In a sane world she never would have been elected to congress. In a sane world ObamaCare would not have been passed. In a sane world Obama would never have been elected.

All of this could/would have been avoided if the press had done their jobs. They didn't and don't. None of the Dems misdeeds are ever properly reported and exposed. Mother Teresa could not win against Hillary. How the hell do you legally become a millionaire on a civil servant salary? You don't. Why are these politician millionaires not 24/7 news? The media does not care. It is all good cause these people have the "proper" letter after their name, a "D".

jr565 said...

Trump is better than Hillary is a perfectly valid argument. he may be a jerk, but he's not covering up email mishandling that was intentional and skirting the law. As bad as we might think Trump might be on foreign policy, lets not forget that the experts brouht us premature withdrawal from Iraq, and our debacle in Syria, which led to the creation of ISIS. all of which was spearheaded or overseen by Hillary.
Trump has no experience in govt, but Hillary has tons. and its all showing she is terrible, incompetent, but also criminal. And she has a media that will cover for her at every step.

My argument for Trump is not just that Hillary is worse, but also that he isn't a great conservative. Normally a party wants someoene who is ideologically on the same page. This means they both move towards the same objective. This is ideal. However, the fact that Trump is not ideologically pure is not necessarily a bad thing. And, I imagine, those Republicans who are Never Trump NOW would do really well with a Trump who was elected president.
Beucase, we already see what happens when Trump goes off the rails. Republicans do not rush to embrace him. INstead the carry the medias talking points. When Trump says his comments about the Latino judge (which were actually not racist, though characterized as such) rather than tyring to defend Trump they instead SIDED WITH THE MEDIA.

This is because, on top of everyhing else, he is not really a conservative. So, were he to gain power he will be at odds with his congress by default. He can then either make them happy by tacking to the right, or cause them to distance themselves further by moving to the left. Both of those are good options. Obviously, if he moves to the right that would be ideal. But if he moves to the left that means Republicans have to step up and fight Trump if he were to push liberal policies. If they stand up against such a push it means they are actually doing what they said they'd do when elected.

If they can't do it, then it lets us know that the current crop of Repubs need to go. But my guess is, there is little incentive to actually back Trump here for most repubs. Especially if he is going to govern like a RINO. Since, if republicans do that it would necessarily mean they have to betray their own base, which elected them to NOT do that. And I dont know too many repubs that will stake their careers on making sure Trump achieves his objectives over their own.

Remorse said...

"Hillary has been hiding her hard Left nature--only giving us occasional glimpses."

I think her political ideals are well-known and long-practiced. You can't be a public and political figure for forty years and hide your true political aspirations.

There's way too much paranoia. People on all sides letting themselves get carried away.

Brando said...

"You have swallowed the "improving economy" bull shit the MSM spreads on its crop of know-nothings. You are wrong to believe it. Go read press accounts from 1993 about the Japanese economic recovery. Japan still has net 0.00% growth from 1989 to present. You are the dupe."

Just so we're clear, you're saying the economy was getting worse in 2012?

And not to get off on a tangent, this was a discussion of why Romney lost, and why voters were crediting the incumbent for an "improving economy". Whether the economy was actually improving isn't the point; it's whether the voters who decide the election believed it was improving--and they did.

"In what alternate universe does this happen? In our "here and now" the media does not and will not report on anything that makes Dems look worst than Repubs. If you want to hear anything bad about any Dem, there must be something worse that a Rep did that can be included in the same story. Have you not seen the lack of coverage for all of Obama's and Hillary's follies these last 8 years?"

And who says the only media is the Hillary loving media? If Hillary was the one down by double digits, the Dems would be in panic mode. So they'd blame some "GOP dirty tricks"--at least the "tell us what we want to believe" wing would. But that'd only get them so far, and the Bernie Bros and the Biden Hopers and frankly the large mass of moderates and liberals who never liked Hillary much anyway would be giving all sorts of pre facto post mortems (yes I don't care if that's not a term) on her.

There's nothing like the stress of defeat to bring out the panic and recriminations. We've seen it enough on our side.

tim maguire said...

If you're a technocrat who's only concern is who will do a better job dealing with the immediate problems facing our country, Hillary Clinton is the safest and arguably best choice. If, however, you want to reach beyond jingoism to the heart and soul of what makes us the most successful republic in history, then Trump is still a risky choice, but Clinton is sure to be a fatal mistake from which we are unlikely to ever recover.

I could expand on that point, but I finished my bagel and need to go talk to a neighbor.

Remorse said...

The more I think of those feckless, cowardly members of congress the more certain I am that they will not be able to stand up to Trump. He'll show them what a strong executive is. Obama will seem like a walk in the park.

cf said...

oh fret fret fret.

there is no doubt who will throw open all Bets to Hope and Change, and it ain't Hillary.

the business market ALONE will Make everything New.

Big Wind is blowin, let it blow Every foul thing away and that would include the foulness that Hillary Clinton has lately brought to America. Essentially, she has besmirched our Easy-Going Clinton history, and dragged our Nineties into the befouled Mylie Cyrus 21st Century Mud. Ugh.

I take the nineties joys back. I take America back. Trump is the one.

unstoppable deplorables, yeah man.

buwaya said...

My wife and I were watching the old BBC "I, Claudius" last night. We are going through the whole thing again, after many years - she is a terrific Anglophile, and I thought it was, well, appropriate under the circumstances. As it happened, last nights episode was that of the trial of Piso, the governor accused of the murder of Germanicus.

As it happens, the trial turns in part on Piso's holding incriminating messages from Tiberius Caesar, which Piso hopes to use to have the trial fixed, a bit of blackmail vs Tiberius. Tiberius refuses to permit release, as they are under Ceasars seal. Tiberius has his secret policeman Sejanus force Piso to give them up, ultimately to Piso's undoing.

I couldn't help but think of the shutting down of the FBI investigation on account of the fallout to the rest of the administration should the trail lead upstairs.

Confidential emails = little scrolls with Caesars seal.

Robert Graves story (And of course those of Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.) is of the progressive corruption of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, pretty far gone by this point.

History, as they say, doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

Caligula will be fun.

Michael K said...

When her term ended she had cleaned out the entire budget--$360 million-- of the LSC, distributing the money to hard-core Lefties and Lefty groups.

Obama and the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago.

One of his lefty grant recipients was a cab driver,

That LA TImes story did not tell all the tale. The WSJ does, though.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

Birkel said...

Brando:

I am saying exactly what I have always said. The economy since 2007 is stagnant. It is not growing in any meaningful way.

Government spending of printed money is counted as GDP growth. Great! Let me get a Platinum Card and watch my financial situation improve rapidly.

Insanity.

You are the dupe.

buwaya said...

"The economy since 2007 is stagnant. It is not growing in any meaningful way."

Correct.

Brando said...

"I am saying exactly what I have always said. The economy since 2007 is stagnant. It is not growing in any meaningful way."

Ok--go on thinking I'm a dupe, but I disagree. I think the economy is weaker than a lot of the official numbers suggest, and there are some bad signs, but not "stagnant". It could get that way though.

jr565 said...

God Bless James O'Keefe. I dont know how he gets into areas without being recognized, but he gets Democratic operatives to reveal how they are the ones causing all the violence at trump rallies, and how its actually coordinated.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/

Another reason, why I'm not for clinton. Because much of what we see, and much of what the masses are reacting to and getting outraged over, is actually coordinated manipulation on the part of the dems and the media.

Birkel said...

Brando:

Further, I would encourage you to read articles from 1993 -- contemporaneous accounts -- about the economy of Japan.

Branch out. Learn something.

We are in the midst of our Lost Decade. Japan's Lost Decade is at 27 years and counting.

Michael K said...

"There remains a cadre of conservatives inside the Republican base who believe that smaller government and personal liberty are our only hope. If you no longer believe , you likely never were conservative and joining the opposition sounded like a good idea back when Dutch was around."

My conservative politics goes back to my first vote, which was for Nixon in 1960. I don't know if you are in California or if you are old enough to remember Joe Shell whose election I worked for a governor. He lost but he was more conservative than Reagan.

The problem now is that there are a couple of conservatives in DC, like Tom McClintock, who should have been governor of California but he was side swiped in the primary by a RINO named William Simon Jr.

The GOP money went to Simon and the election to Grey Davis, a lefty who wrecked the electricity market and was recalled.

McClintock supports Trump.

Lydia said...

@bagoh20:

It's very unfortunate that we are forced to come to Trump rather him making himself more electable by holding his tongue and avoiding unforced errors. It would have been so easy for him to have EARNED 10% more support right now without sacrificing anything. Much easier than expecting millions to ignore their heart-felt, lifelong principles of decency and respect.

So why didn't he? I come up with either a compulsion to make others bend to his will or sheer craziness.

Michael K said...

We are in the midst of our Lost Decade. Japan's Lost Decade is at 27 years and counting.

Good observation. I remember when Democrats were touting all the "infrastructure' Japan was building until its debt got over 200% of GDP.

Birkel said...

Brando:

You don't know enough to disagree. And it's apparent you won't learn if you don't accept the challenge to read about Japan's Central Bank actions in 1989 and how the press wrote about the Japanese economy in 1993. Go read their official statistics. Go look at the pattern of revisions.

You might be able to see through the official story and see the parallels. Keynes' recommendations lead to the same inevitable ends every time.

Brando said...

"Further, I would encourage you to read articles from 1993 -- contemporaneous accounts -- about the economy of Japan.

Branch out. Learn something.

We are in the midst of our Lost Decade. Japan's Lost Decade is at 27 years and counting."

I'm aware of Japan, and our risks as well--we're in a period of tepid growth and a declining work force. I just haven't seen any data suggesting we're in as bad a state as Japan has been.

"So why didn't he? I come up with either a compulsion to make others bend to his will or sheer craziness."

He is what he is. The funny thing is Trump used to tell the story of "the snake" and it was pretty clear to a lot of us that the analogy works as well on him.

He's a certain type of person and always has been. The only surprising part was that he couldn't fake it for even a little while.

Birkel said...

Michael K:

I have been talking about the Japanese experience on these very pages since the initial consideration of the "Stimulus" Bill. The parallel to Japan is obvious.

Birkel said...

Brando: " I just haven't seen..."

At long last we have reached agreement.

Darrell said...

Hillary was the first to clean out a major account and give it to Lefties in the 1970s. That emboldened the others to get their hands on charitable foundations--like the Annenberg money and Bill Ayers. Lefties especially like that because Annenberg was a good friend of Ronald Reagan. Bernadine Dorn probably pissed herself silly doing that trident with her fingers and stabbing it into her belly. People who don't believe in "Left" and "Right" get taken by Lefties everytime.

Terry said...

I am a conservative who will not vote for Trump (though I sent him a hundred bucks to spite one of the anti-Trump Unknown commentators).
The best conservative argument I can think of for preferring a president Donald Trump over a president Hillary Clinton is that existing institutions will have an easier time containing Trump-the-outsider than Hillary-the-insider.
If I lived in a contested state, that argument would make me switch my vote from Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) to Trump.
If you've read Wikileaks, you already know the name of Hillary's choices for cabinet positions and White House staff. Donald would have some surprises.

Darrell said...

A conservative who will not vote for Trump is an idiot that will wind up with Hillary in the White House. With three SCOTUS nominations. With Global Warming BS by proclamation. With open borders and mayhem. With unchecked terrorist attacks.

wholelottasplainin' said...

MadTownGuy said...
"Here's the solution: elect Trump, then pressure Congress to begin impeachment proceedings immediately. I'm sure the news media will be able to find, at the very least, a high crime or misdemeanor somewhere. Presto! No Trump, no Hillary."

************************

Then Congress can go back to being feckless and corrupt as they drive the country into the ground, destroy our liberties and plunder the treasury.

Presto! NO-change-o!!

Michael K said...

Birkel, you are correct and I almost feel a little sorry for Keynes because he did not understand the psychology of politicians. He gave them the keys to the Treasury and they have not run out of other people's money yet.. They have recently learned to print it, or at least to create 1s and 0s which pretend to be money.

Margaret Thatcher was the last one to see what was happening and I still remember how she was repaying the British national debt until there were objections that she might retire all the "Gilts" as bonds were called. The "Conservatives" and John Major took care of that.

My question is "How does it end?" I see no way to do it peacefully.

It's one consolation for being 78.

Terry said...

Blogger Birkel said...

"I have been talking about the Japanese experience on these very pages since the initial consideration of the "Stimulus" Bill. The parallel to Japan is obvious."

Keynes saw the potential problem of 'forward lookers' rendering stimulus spending ineffective. The forward lookers will decide that they will pay for today's stimulus with tax increases or benefit cuts tomorrow and stick their stimulus money in a mattress.
Government tries to get around this by targeting money to the non-forward-lookers, but of course you are then giving money to people who are not spending rationally, and the market only works if enough people spend rationally, e.g, spending $1.00 in the rational belief that they are getting $1.05 value in return.

Char Char Binks said...

I've only skimmed through, but I did glean the word "garner".

Francisco D said...

A scorpion and a frog were trapped on the wrong side when a torrential downpour created large rivers of water. The scorpion asked the frog to ferry him to safety across the river.

The frog said, "Do you think I am an idiot. You will sting me at the first chance and I will die." The scorpion said, "If you die, I will drown. Of course, I will not sting you."

The mollified frog proceeded to carry the scorpion across the river when he felt the bite of the scorpion's sting. "What are you doing? We will both die," said the dying frog.

"it's my nature, "said the scorpion. "I can't help it.

Hillary is the scorpion. We are the frog.

Birkel said...

Terry:

Keynes saw and ignored.

I am so unlucky to have Friedman, Hayek and Buchanan at my disposal. I am left with reality.

Terry said...

Birkel, Keynes, has, I think, an unfortunate reputation on the Right because his policies are used by the Left to expand the power and reach of government. Keynes' actual writings and his economic thought have been abused. Keynes was primarily interested in modifying classical economics to account for Modernism.
Krugman calls himself a Keynesian, and so do the political advisers of both Obama and Hillary. Obama and Hillary depend heavily on Krueger and Stiglitz.
Keynes was data driven. He would have been appalled at what passes for "keynesian economics" these days.

But, technically, there is no Nobel Prize in economics.2 Instead, there is the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. It was first awarded in 1969 and is named not after a person, but after the central bank of Sweden — the Sveriges Riksbank — which funds it. The Nobel Foundation doesn’t pay out the award or choose the winner (though the winner is chosen in accordance with the same principles used by the Nobel Foundation), but it does list the prize on its website along with the Nobels, tracks winners the same as Nobel laureates, and even promotes the prize alongside its own. Members of the Nobel family have spoken out against the award.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economics-nobel-isnt-really-a-nobel/

Phil 3:14 said...

VDH writes with great empathy for the Trump constituency (i.e. working class) so not surprised with this. It also gives NR some cover for not being complete #neverTrump.

I have a lot of respect for VDH.

But still not going to vote for Trump.

Birkel said...

Terry:

Keynes was a statist. He thought government could provide. He was wrong.

Terry said...

Birkel-
You would do well to read Keynes' Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919).
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15776/15776-h/15776-h.htm
Keynes makes his case, which was something like this:
In the Great War, the state has inflated away the value of private savings, therefore, post war, the actions of the state made people less likely to save and invest. The state had to take the place of the individual in investing.
In the Great War, the state had sent peoples' sons off to be killed, therefore, post war, people were less likely to invest in the education of their sons, and less able to depend on their sons to provide for them in the old age. There fore the state had to invest in the education of the next generation and provide old age pensions.
Keynes blamed the state for destroying the Victorian ethic of work, saving, and parents investing in children.

Birkel said...

Terry:
"The state had to..."
"There fore the state had to..."


If you were trying to disagree that Keynes was a statist, you did a poor job. Perhaps I will go back and read my own notes in "The General Theory" and see where I am correct, again.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 203   Newer› Newest»