January 10, 2017

Meeting with Publius Decius Mus, author of the influential article, "The Flight 93 Election."

In "Intellectuals for Trump/A rogue group of conservative thinkers tries to build a governing ideology around a President-elect who disdains ideology" — in the January 9th issue of The New Yorker — Kelefa Sanneh seeks out and talks to the pseudonymous writer:
In September, on the Web site of the Claremont Review of Books, Decius published “The Flight 93 Election,” which likened the country to a hijacked airplane, and argued that voting for Trump was like charging the cockpit: the consequences were possibly dire, but the consequences of inaction were surely so....

Before he began to speak, he held out an iPhone showing a picture of his family: if he was unmasked, he said, his family would suffer, because he works for a company that might not want to be connected to an apostle of Trumpism....

Decius... had grown frustrated with the Republican Party’s devotion to laissez-faire economics... which left Republican politicians ill-prepared to address rising inequality.... He rejects what he calls “punitive taxation”—like many conservatives, he suspects that Democrats’ complaints about inequality are calculated to mask the Party’s true identity as the political home of the cosmopolitan √©lite. But he suggests that a government might justifiably hamper international trade, or subsidize an ailing industry, in order to sustain particular communities and particular jobs. A farm subsidy, a tariff, a targeted tax incentive, a restrictive approach to immigration: these may be defensible, he thought, not on narrowly economic grounds but as expressions of a country’s determination to preserve its own ways of life, and as evidence of the fundamental principle that the citizenry has the right to ignore economic experts, especially when their track records are dubious.... Most important, he thinks that conservatives should pay more attention to the shifting needs of the citizens whom government ought to serve, instead of assuming that Reagan’s solutions will always and everywhere be applicable....

Decius takes perverse pride in having been late to come around to Trump; as a populist, he likes the fact that everyday American voters recognized Trump’s potential before he did. When Decius started paying serious attention, around January, he discerned the outlines of a simple and, in his view, eminently sensible political program: “less foreign intervention, less trade, and more immigration restrictions.”...

There is a reason for that, of course. Trump has routinely said things that would, in previous elections, have been considered scandalous and disqualifying. His outlandish and often incompatible claims, along with his refusal to admit mistakes, make it impossible to determine which of his notions are likely to become policies, and can foster the sinister impression that, as President, Trump will be accountable to no one, not even himself. Decius says that he learned to accept what he calls Trump’s “unconventionality as a candidate,” and maintains that his support never wavered, even when Trump said things that he found indefensible... But he also thinks that Trump’s occasional crudeness and more than occasional intemperance are inseparable from his “larger-than-life personality,” which was what allowed him to challenge conservative orthodoxy in the first place.

Trump’s disdain for what he calls political correctness, and often for common courtesy, made him seem uncompromising, even though a passion for dealmaking—that is, for finding advantageous ways to compromise—lies at the heart of his origin story. “Personality” and “media antics” might not have been sufficient to explain Trump’s success, but neither were they incidental to it. “Let’s say we get to define what Trumpism is, and hypothesize a perfect candidate who goes out with scripted speeches and policy papers and campaign staff,” Decius said. “Would he get the same traction as this guy? The answer, in my opinion, is no.”

66 comments:

Lewis Wetzel said...

At the local level, GOP senators and congressmen take pride in the fact that they bring home the bacon to their constituents, especially jobs, Milton Friedman be damned.
But at the national level, those same GOP senators and congressmen act as though tariffs and subsidies, or restrictions on immigration, to protect generic American jobs were the highest form of heresy.
Maybe Trump is simply forcing them to be consistent. They are, none of them, Reaganite conservatives.

David Begley said...

"that the citizenry has the right to ignore economic experts, especially when their track records are dubious.... "

I would add that the experts are mostly *paid* by the side that wants a certain outcome. The MIT professor who was the architect of Obamacare was selling an econometric software program to the states. The global warming crowd is full of people making serious coin. The academics get government grants and the entire wind and solar industry would not exist but for federal tax credits. Why Elon Musk is a hero is a mystery to me. His companies depend on federal tax subsidies.

David Begley said...

I also agree 100% with Decius that only Trump could challenge the conventional conservative orthodoxy. Incidents like with Meryl Streep will continue for all four years.

David Begley said...

Speaking of experts, I'm watching economic expert and former Harvard president Larry Summers make all sorts of dire predictions if Trump's economic plan passes. "If you take away environmental controls...." This guy is a political shill. Our environment is pristine.

Lewis Wetzel said...

This New Yorker caroon has been getting a lot of play lately:
https://twitter.com/WillMcPhail/status/815899174474567680
To get the Trumpist take on it, imagine the pilots are frat boys, drunk off their asses, and flying loop-the-loops while banging flight attendants.

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

"Incidents like with Meryl Streep"

If through my work, and the many tens of millions of dollars I earned, and the global fame and near universal adulation I have received and continue to receive - if through this I have been able to shed one additional lumen on the hateful, divisive, uncaring actions of the 50% of this country who are irredeemable deplorables, then it will have all been worth it.

Darrell said...

Fuck the Left. It's time to end them for good. Trump has taken over the controls before the Lefty pilot can slam the plane into the ground.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Trump voters ( I am not one of them) "belong to the most vilified segment of American society right now."
Is this even possible to deny? I know it can't be refuted.

Quayle said...

"Speaking of experts, I'm watching economic expert and former Harvard president Larry Summers"

Well, I'm sure he is an expert on the personal professional risks and dangers of speaking the wrong truth backed by the wrong facts, even if and when worthily trying to solve a perceived social problem.

Mick said...

So Desperate... It's really funny to watch the collective narcissistic meltdown of the "morally superior" Snowflakes, Marxists and fellow travelers.

James Kahn said...

One can be very pleased that Trump has taken over the plane without being thrilled with every aspect of his piloting. If the manufacturing jobs are staying here because of the prospect of lower taxes and regulation, great. If it's the prospect of protectionist tariffs or threats of punishment for making sensible business decisions like outsourcing, then it's a bit creepy.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Nothing wrong with making decisions to outsource less sensible, is there?

exiledonmainstreet said...

I found the “The Flight 93 Election” quite persuasive. It's unfortunate that this country has devolved to the point where Donald Trump of all people became our Hail Mary pass, but there you have it.

I voted for Trump reluctantly, but the crazed reaction on the left makes me feel better about my vote all the time.

Mick said...

The poor Snowflakes.

http://fusion.net/story/369423/how-to-cope-trump-grief-sadness/

DanTheMan said...

>>I voted for Trump reluctantly, but the crazed reaction on the left makes me feel better about my vote all the time.

We are but two amongst millions...

MikeR said...

It was very close. 1% of the vote in Florida... Kind of amazing: held the House, held the Senate, hold all those governorships, all those state governments - and conservatives have been losing and would have gone on losing. Very close.
Wouldn't have gotten a bit easier in eight years. Now we have a chance. We'll see what happens.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

[Trump's] outlandish and often incompatible claims, along with his refusal to admit mistakes...

The most common and salient - yea, universal - traits of elected political officers.

Titus said...

I read this article yesterday and found it very interesting. I google names of people I find interesting in articles. So yesterday I googled Samuel Francis, Camp Hill, PA (mostly yelp reviews and to see if there are any fab rezzies), Mark Bauerlein and Kelefa Sanneh-who is kind of hot.

The part about Jeff or Jeffrey Lord traveling from Camp Hill, PA to NYC hundreds of miles everyday, was crazy. He still lives with his 93 year old mother-interesting.

Jeff is a weird first name.

James Kahn said...

"Nothing wrong with making decisions to outsource less sensible, is there?"

Depends how. Breaking windows to keep the glazier in business has never been a great idea.

David said...

We are getting rather crass in our references to 9/11, aren't we? Instead of courage and tragedy, we get a seedy, inexact and not very illuminating comparison.

Paul Snively said...

Decius... had grown frustrated with the Republican Party’s devotion to laissez-faire economics...

If only. America hasn't had a laissez-faire economic policy since well before WWI. No, not even that tax-cutting, small-government Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes several times and ran huge deficits (that is, failed to actually shrink the government). As David Stockman, former Reagan budget advisor, points out in The Great Deformation, Reagan's economics was really straightforward Friedmanite monetarism, which only seems like "laissez-faire" after the equally straightforward neoclassical synthesis (we should really call it Samuelsonism) of the post-WWII era, from LBJ's "Great Society" to NIxon's "Keynesianism" (that, again, Lord Keynes himself almost certainly wouldn't have recognized). I disagree with a lot of Stockman's policy prescriptions—he comes across like just another "conservative" who thinks the Republicans can run Leviathan more efficiently—but respect his intellectual honesty, e.g. admitting that to fund the government, we'd have to raise taxes. On everybody, including the middle class.

The scariest thing about the 2016 election was that our only choices were two hardcore mercantilists. It's just that one was more in the global socialist mold with the modern phenomenon of indestructible ties to banking thrown in (that's not an oxymoron, BTW—study Austrian monetary and banking theory if you think it is), and the other was a more old-fashioned protectionist. Either way, we get crappy economics.

Paul Snively said...

exiledonmainstreet: I voted for Trump reluctantly, but the crazed reaction on the left makes me feel better about my vote all the time.

I didn't vote. Discussed it with my wife, who was going to reluctantly vote for Clinton. We live in Los Angeles, so it doesn't matter even given that we'd have canceled each other out. But I completely agree: I'm seeing all this completely unhinged stuff from the left, and even when it seems essentially on point, there never seems to be any kind of "but, you know, the alternative was Hillary Clinton" reflection. And people who don't see Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as essentially equal disasters scare me. A lot.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger James Kahn said...
. . .
Breaking windows to keep the glazier in business has never been a great idea.
. . .

Unless your goal was to keep the glaziers so busy they wouldn't have time to organize a revolution. Might be a good trade -- economic inefficiency for political stability.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

This is a remarkable situation. I agree with Publius and commenters here: I'm pleased that Trump was elected, and I'm not sure what he's going to do on any particular issue. A Hail Mary indeed. (I should add that I'm Canadian; this may be a time, like the Nixon/Vietnam/Watergate years, when it's pleasant to be watching from next door).

Presumably there will be increased enforcement when it comes to immigration. Anything "after the fact," when people are already in the U.S., like e-Verify, is expensive and unreliable in comparison to effective barriers at the border. Some of Trump's nominees probably don't want to toughen up enforcement at all.

Foreign policy: less woolly-minded intervention in countries that are hard to find on a map? A more clear-sighted approach to Syria, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine?

As with Brexit for the U.K., at least an honest effort to achieve trade deals that are more beneficial to the U.S.?

Presumably some Supreme Court nominees who are more like Scalia, less like Ginsburg.

Anything else? Probably a big infrastructure program, that can gain the support of Democrats, and will employ many Americans, including in struggling rural areas. Will African-Americans in the inner city get any benefits from this? From some kind of experiment with charter schools?

On climate change it may be fairly easy to cut the massive spending that now goes toward variations of the alarmist and warmist narrative. With a lot less spending, there may be a reliance on real physicists and mathematicians to explain how the global climate actually works. Will Jared and Ivanka want that, or do they want to stick with warmism in order to be invited to at least some of the right cocktail parties?

So many questions.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Lewis Wetzel said...

Nothing wrong with making decisions to outsource less sensible, is there?

There is nothing wrong with that, in the abstract, all other things being equal.

However, the specific measures that you enact in order to make outsourcing less sensible often introduce market-distorting inefficiencies, or trigger retaliation from other countries with harmful results. So we need the specifics of the action being taken to know what, if anything, is wrong with it.

roesch/voltaire said...

Read the article in The New Yorker and found he made a good argument for his anti-establishment position that focused on a stronger American identity, but wonder how long he will look the other way as the Trump administration sets itself up to benefit the banksters and billionaires and the middle class not so much.

Freder Frederson said...

But he suggests that a government might justifiably hamper international trade, or subsidize an ailing industry, in order to sustain particular communities and particular jobs. A farm subsidy, a tariff, a targeted tax incentive, a restrictive approach to immigration: these may be defensible, he thought, not on narrowly economic grounds but as expressions of a country’s determination to preserve its own ways of life, and as evidence of the fundamental principle that the citizenry has the right to ignore economic experts, especially when their track records are dubious.

He could be describing the Nazi economic program.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Ignorance is Bliss said...
. . .
However, the specific measures that you enact in order to make outsourcing less sensible often introduce market-distorting inefficiencies, or trigger retaliation from other countries with harmful results.
. . .

The market, top to bottom, is full of distortions and inefficiencies. One of the common ways to make a higher than cost profit is to erect barriers to entry to competitors. If it's good for business, it's good for workers, that's my motto.
Nobody wants to be in the be in the business of selling a commodity good. Businesses want to buy labor as a commodity good. Screw them.

tcrosse said...

At this point we really don't know how Trump is going to pan out. As Obama was, Trump is a screen on which people project their own hopes and fears. There may be a discrepancy between the Trump who lives in our heads and the one who lives in Trump Tower. Your mileage may vary.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
. . .

He could be describing the Nazi economic program.
. . .

Or he could be describing how virtually every other industrialized nation does business.

traditionalguy said...

Great Article. He summed it all up well.

And we can all still think Trump's magnificent leadership under fire for 18 months was him getting Lucky. Everyone knows that DJT has no skills and no intellectual thoughts, and is only a useless, Bombastic Nazi with Orange Hair and a Twitter account.

Brando said...

Seems Trump's coalition is made up of people who each see him as partisan to their interest. This is the case with any new president, of course, but here I wonder how the "what about rising inequality" types, the "economic nationalists" and the traditional "laissez faire" conservatives are going to fare. They can't all get their way at the same time.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Actually, the Nazi economic program was to conquer foreign territories, displace and/or exterminate the natives and then encourage immigration and settlement into those territories by people of a particular ethnic heritage.

buwaya said...

Most telling is his reluctance to be identified.

I can tell you this is universal and potent across all industries, business executives and technical people are reluctant to give public policy advice against the liberal orthodoxy, or engage in politics, or even to discuss politics privately, unless with clearly trustworthy persons.This extends to "normal" Republicanism and a vast range of even bipartisan issues such as, for instance, charter schools and mathematics curriculums.

And lets not talk about political contributions, even small, casual ones. The Brendan Eich case dried these up completely, or rather it was already choked in fear, that merely put out the explicit warning.

And this fear only goes one way. You can do and say and contribute or run for office as you like in support of the liberal orthodoxy.

This leads to one explanation of the class split. The working class is free to be political, they have free speech. The upper middle class largely doesnt. They are behind enemy lines in occupied territory waiting for the liberating armies of truckers and plumbers to land at Normandy.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Also, the Nazis were big environmentalist.

And some of them ate food and drank water. Shocking!

Lewis Wetzel said...


Blogger buwaya said...
. . .
They are behind enemy lines in occupied territory waiting for the liberating armies of truckers and plumbers to land at Normandy.

Or for Trump, riding the warhead down from 30,000', waving his cowboy hat and giving a rebel yell.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Many Nazis were kind to their own children.

Shocking!

buwaya said...

The Fascist economic program was not fully implemented in Germany, you want to go to Italy for that, but even that was not distinguishable by the elements cited. All of that was, as stated above, general European practice, such as France, or for that matter more like the Roosevelt administration.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Hitler was an outlier as a fascist. His obsession was with eternal race war. He figured national socialism would give the state the tools it needed to best fight that eternal race war. If Hitler had thought that monarchy was the best form of government for fighting his race war, he would have dusted the Kaiser off and stuck him back on his throne.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Freder must have failed to read his latest talking points memo.

The latest leftist talking point concerning Trump's economic proposals is that it will lead to increased unemployment in Mexico and ruin its economy, thus increasing illegal immigration as Mexico's working class are forced to come to the US for jobs.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorial board is in a snit because Trump, who ran on a platform of restoring US industrial capacity, works to restore US industrial capacity.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

He figured national socialism would give the state the tools it needed to best fight that eternal race war.

Yep, because pretty much everybody in the industrialized west who ran the governments figured that socialism was the wave of the future. The only question was how best to implement it.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And that the governments were to be managed by a highly educated cognitive elite who were capable of understanding the complicated issues involved in running a modern society.

And that the proletariat was to be managed using propaganda and limiting their access to information that they were not equipped to properly process.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Actual elections were all well and good, but shouldn't be allowed to unduly interfere with the decisions of experts, who were all totally objective and whose sole interest was the welfare of the people and the state.

Bruce Hayden said...

I voted for Trump reluctantly, but the crazed reaction on the left makes me feel better about my vote all the time.

I think that there are a lot of people like that out there in flyover country.

They are behind enemy lines in occupied territory waiting for the liberating armies of truckers and plumbers to land at Normandy.

That makes some sense. There are probably a number here who would fit into that category. I think that I do. 3+ college degrees from private schools, attorney, son of an attorney and of a quasi-feminist who could trace her creds back at least to the 1850s. Yet, I found little in common with the establishment that supported Crooked Hillary, and much in common the truckers and plumbers in this election.

Or for Trump, riding the warhead down from 30,000', waving his cowboy hat and giving a rebel yell.

Maybe some of that too. I found that scene strangely heroic. I would think in a peculiarly American way, except that much of the world seems to at least understand some of our cowboy culture. And, yes, voting in MT this year, I can assure you that there weren't very many real cowboys voting for Crooked Hillary. (Amplified yesterday on Fox with the bull riders unanimously took a National Anthem pledge).

Michael K said...

" America hasn't had a laissez-faire economic policy since well before WWI. "

Yes and it probably took a guy with an ego and a disdain for conventional "manners" to go against the wall of leftist culture war we have been fighting since 1968.

"They are behind enemy lines in occupied territory waiting for the liberating armies of truckers and plumbers to land at Normandy."

Yup. Immigration and Political Correctness are the two targets he has to hit. I think he will.

The big unknown is whether the economy will tank in the next four years. I was buying gold anticipating a collapse if Hillary won.

We'll see what happens but I sold most of my gold after the election.

Bruce Hayden said...

Yep, because pretty much everybody in the industrialized west who ran the governments figured that socialism was the wave of the future. The only question was how best to implement it.

I think that this is too often overlooked. Fascism (and its racist offshoot Nazism) did not grow in isolation, but, rather, as socialist alternatives to the communism that had recently taken hold in Russia (which became the USSR). And, we had some of the same with FDR's New Deal. The world had fallen apart, into depression, and the communists had an answer. We, along with the Italians, Germans, etc. didn't want to go there, for (esp. now) obvious reasons, but needed to divert the working class who were tempted by that dream.

Of course, we should all have learned from that experience that putting the smartest, the most credentialed, in power to design and control our economy just doesn't work. And, for awhile, we may have. But, the smartest and most credentialed are, if anything are blind to their own weaknesses, which prominently include greed and ambition. Unfortunately, they also tend to be the most articulate. A philosopher king is a nice ideal. The problem is that they invariably turn out to have clay feet (and cankles in the case of Crooked Hillary).

CJ said...

That had to have been the most boring article about The Flight 93 Election a person could possibly write.

The Flight 93 Election was/is an exciting piece! And the remedy proposed in the article is coming to pass! The New Yorker found and met the author of The Flight 93 Election! How could such a seminal piece that captured such an unsettled time in one of the world's oldest enduring republics be so boring?

I'd have much rather read the author's true opinion and slant on The Flight 93 Election than that weak-tea account.

Bruce Hayden said...

I was buying gold anticipating a collapse if Hillary won.

I was buying guns and ammo. I, at least, wasn't to the point of burying such. In any case, the theory for some was that when the SHTF, ammunition would be the currency of choice, not gold, though gold would be far better than paper or bank accounts. I didn't get far enough ahead though, that I won't be able to expend the extra ammunition I bought by mid year.

Michael K said...

the theory for some was that when the SHTF, ammunition would be the currency of choice, not gold, though gold would be far better than paper or bank accounts. I didn't get far enough ahead though, that I won't be able to expend the extra ammunition I bought by mid year.

I also bought coin silver, which in theory is useful if gold gets too expensive for daily commerce.

I was also buying ammo and a couple of guns.

I'm moving to Arizona this weekend so will be able to use my ammo.

StephenFearby said...


Said with a straight face.

The disclaimer in the Claremont Review of Books immediately following Publius' The Flight 93 Election piece:

"...Nothing in this journal, whether in print or pixels, is an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill or influence the election of any candidate."

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I think that this is too often overlooked. Fascism (and its racist offshoot Nazism) did not grow in isolation, but, rather, as socialist alternatives to the communism that had recently taken hold in Russia (which became the USSR). And, we had some of the same with FDR's New Deal. The world had fallen apart, into depression, and the communists had an answer. We, along with the Italians, Germans, etc. didn't want to go there, for (esp. now) obvious reasons, but needed to divert the working class who were tempted by that dream.

People on the right often insist that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression, and perhaps they did. But,the environment he was working in wasn't conducive to doing nothing. With no social safety net people were going hungry and were going to start looking real hard at alternatives such as communism. Which was an actual force in American politics at the time. As FDR is reputed to have stated, people don't eat in the long run.

There is also a believe that the American character or some other force prevented the US from going communist. Perhaps, but one rather large factor that is overlooked is that after WWII the US became a very prosperous place. Now, after 8 years of a mostly stagnating economy where getting a bachelor's at great expense often leads to a low paying service industry job, many youts find communism to be acceptable. Unexpectedly!

Ron Winkleheimer said...

the theory for some was that when the SHTF, ammunition would be the currency of choice, not gold

Ammo can get you gold, but nobody is going to trade ammo for gold.

I stopped watching The Walking Dead after a couple of episodes because I couldn't suspend disbelieve any longer. The episode that killed it for me was when a couple of factions started fighting over a duffel bag with some rifles and shotguns in it. Its the South. Rifles and shotguns are easily obtainable. Especially after an apocalypse where most of the people have been turned into zombies. The thing to be concerned about, to be willing to fight about, is actual ammunition since a lot of that has been expended and they ain't making it any more.

Also, the Baptist church with a statue of the crucified Christ in the middle of it.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The church sign kind of implied that it wasn't SBC. But trust me, no church in the south with the word Baptist in its name has a statue of Jesus in it, at all.

Darrell said...

As long as any man could have a beefsteak a couple times a week in the US, Communism would never take hold.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Also, home and land ownership. There is a reason why the Kulaks were treated so brutally. How would that work in a nation of well armed Kulaks?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Government official enters church used for town meeting in rural area to address gathering of local farmers summoned by the official.

"Well boys, I'm here from the central committee. The government has decided to confiscate your farms and homes. We'll let you stay in them, but you have to run the farms how we tell you, and there aren't going to be any such thing as "profits" any more. Profits are a form of stealing. If you need anything, let us know and we'll decide if you really do need it and whether you'll get it or not. Any questions?"

Government official suddenly has multiple holes appear on his body.

Birkel said...

RE EfFiciency:

I have recently been thinking that efficiency - like everything else - yields diminishing marginal returns. Therefore, efficiency experts have achieved the vast majority of gains that are possible (the 80-20 principle) and are introducing worse than inefficiency into the system.

Namely, efforts toward greater efficiency have been introducing fragility into the system. The system needs redundancy. Redundancy means that problems can be rerouted. The 50 states as laboratories of democracy are better because of the redundancies than is the federal government with one set of rules.

Thoughts?

walter said...

Paul Snively said... I didn't vote. Discussed it with my wife, who was going to reluctantly vote for Clinton. We live in Los Angeles, so it doesn't matter even given that we'd have canceled each other out.
--
I wonder if staying home doesn't send messages to other Republicans considering running at lower levels...or nationally. I mean..just because you don't win doesn't mean the observed numbers are meaningless.

Rusty said...

Michael K said...
" America hasn't had a laissez-faire economic policy since well before WWI. "

Yes and it probably took a guy with an ego and a disdain for conventional "manners" to go against the wall of leftist culture war we have been fighting since 1968.

"They are behind enemy lines in occupied territory waiting for the liberating armies of truckers and plumbers to land at Normandy."

Yup. Immigration and Political Correctness are the two targets he has to hit. I think he will.

The big unknown is whether the economy will tank in the next four years. I was buying gold anticipating a collapse if Hillary won.

We'll see what happens but I sold most of my gold after the election."

My neighbors did all that shit. Gold, silver, food etc.

I bought a reloading press.

walter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brando said...

"I stopped watching The Walking Dead after a couple of episodes because I couldn't suspend disbelieve any longer."

I suspended a lot of disbelief in the first few seasons, such as that cars would still work after sitting idle for so long with old gas in them, or people's hair and beards would stop growing after a period, and at some point they would have run out of zombies, and why the hell they live in a world where no one ever heard the word "zombie" but they have other cute words for them.

I gave up on it when it became clear the writing was lazy--hey look, a safe place, Rick has a bad feeling about it, yep not so safe, eek! Then it turns out Rick's group are all crack shots but apparently no one else in the world can aim for squat. And after years of random zombie attacks, people keep standing only a few feet away from dense woods or shadowy areas they didn't check and get randomly attacked? It got to ask too much of the viewer at that point.

Big Mike said...

Publicist Decius Mis wrote what I already believed.

DanTheMan said...

>>I bought a reloading press.

A red one, from Grand Island? :)

eddie willers said...

Also, the Baptist church with a statue of the crucified Christ in the middle of it.

That gave me a chuckle too. They filmed it in a real Southern church, so they had to bring that prop in.

Scott said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Also, home and land ownership. There is a reason why the Kulaks were treated so brutally. How would that work in a nation of well armed Kulaks?
1/10/17, 10:48 AM


Actually, between 1917 and 1934 the USSR had several major peasant revolts. The Tambov revolt of 1920-1921 was massive and the Red army had to use armored trains, artillery and poison gas to put it down, at a cost of just under a quarter-million lives.