Did you watch the extravaganza last night?
I did. I calmly consumed the entire thing, fell asleep early, and woke up anguished. This man is spending his own money, and he can easily blow a billion dollars on this fabulous ego trip. Who can match him? The others are fading and withering away.
ADDED: All who have supported campaign finance restrictions should be squirming now, as Trump's competitors are hamstrung.
ALSO ADDED: Consider whether Trump is revealing something that has long been true about the American presidency, that he is not such a great outlier. And I'm not just talking about Obama. I'm thinking about all the Presidents I remember in my lifetime. It's a trajectory, and if you plot it out, you'd see that Trump is next. Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१६ टिप्पण्या:
216 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Isn't this what Obama's been saying for seven years now?
Who is this "we" white woman?
Once you break the rules and no one stops you, there are no rules. Rules, like laws, don't enforce themselves.
He's going to make the country bigger? Leveraged buyout of Canada?
Mark this post as Althouse's "How Trump Lost Me." We'll use it to mock her in years to come.
Extravaganza? Is that something like making a speech in front of Greek columns announcing that your accession to power means the earth is healing and the seas receding? But you were a mere child then, easily duped.
Trump doesn't have anything close to $1B to spend on this campaign. He has $300 million in cash and liquid assets; all his other assets are illiquid; and undoubtedly his bank lines restrict his ability to spend down his liquid assets.
Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed.
His ability to bring out this from the Ann Althouses of the world is one reason that so many people are enthusiastic about Trump. They are tired of the BS from the people Althouse is comfortable with.
You mean he's revealing that we like the candidate that is better on TV?
I like Trump, but I couldn't sit through that speech. His ego is way too big and makes it unwatchable.
It seems like the audience is engaged for about 5 minutes, then they get pretty bored because he goes on and on about himself. And its the same anecdotes that he's told in the other speeches, about Macy's, and ESPN etc.
Trump will not be elected president because he'd do worse among Hispanics than Romney did, and he can't do better than Romney among whites. But let's say for the sake of example that he gets the GOP nomination and late next year Hillary, the Dem nominee, gets indicted and Trump wins by default. No need for anguish, because the American people will get the leader they deserve, and the Trumpists can see for themselves whether their hero makes America proud. Though he could turn the country into Thunderdome and I suppose they'd still be proud.
But I'm not too keen on the idea of President Hillary, which is what a Trump nomination will bring us.
I'm sure its cliche to say it, but I feel like at least I know who Trump is. I've read a couple of his books, and watched the Apprentice for a few seasons. Based on what I know about him, I know he's smart and effective. The other guys (and gal) on the Republican side I can't say that about. The closest would be Bush, but that's really just because we know the Bush family so well. And I don't think anyone is that fond of the Bush family - I'm certainly not. I feel like I know Walker second best, but only because I went to UW and read this blog and follow what's going on. Most people probably don't have much of a clue about him.
Apparently, Ryan was watching a Jeb Bush rally. Trump was charismatic, and the crowd was enthusiastic throughout the 45 minute performance. Afterwards, Ed Rollins (Reagan advisor) said that Trump had a better than 50/50 chance of beoming President. Sen Sessions was on the stage and endorsed Trump, so maybe a movement is starting.
The rest of the Republicans and every Democrat other than Sanders are too boring to live. They wouldn't twitch if you tazed them. Trump might not become President, but no other Republican has a snowball's chance in Hell. c
Trump repeats a rhetorical question “how stupid are we?” A little introspection, Ann? But we all make mistakes when we’re young. We’re impressionable. Amirite?
Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed. We have already been screwed.....Obama did that. We need a business man, who knows how to run things to clean up the sewer that is DC...If that is Donald Trump...so be it...can't be any worse than what we have now!
I am not, nor have every liked Trump. But the notion that he, or anyone for that matter, is worse for the US than Obama, or Clintons wife, is hand wringing at the nth level. While Trump as said some imprudent things, its barely a spec of dust compared to the outright lies spewed by Clintons wife. And she is still provided the unearned benefit of the doubt.
Does a single person think Trump would negotiate worse deals than Obama? Iran deal with secret agreements, the Nations participating never got to see? Trading a deserter for 5 ISIS terrorists? Or maybe capitulating to Cuba with not even a single concession from Cuba. Or a single demand that Cuba grant even one freedom the Cuban people havent seen in decades? No, Trump is much more trustworthy than Obama, or Clintons wife. At least Trump is honest about his intentions.
The immigration issue strikes a real nerve. Maybe just because I'm white and live in So Cal. But I went back to visit North Carolina where I grew up, and the state is much different than it was 20 years ago. The country is changing way too fast and it seems like the Government has no control over who comes in.
I still don't see him as going anywhere. Maybe, I'm wrong. Geez, Bernie Sanders is packing them in, will he be the nominee? Not a chance. Eventually, Trump will put others to sleep too. Trump thrives off excitement, but excitement is does not last. The nomination is a long way off, and the election is over a year away.
Apparently, Althouse is no longer dreaming of the Donald!
At this early stage, Trump has caught fire in the minds of a lot of disgruntled voters (and low-rent media types seeking ratings), but I'm not convinced yet that he will win anything. Why is this any different than the Howard Dean boomlet of 2004? Wasn't there 10 different boomlets in 2012?
It is a bit odd though that Althouse mentions nothing substantive about Trump's speech. She has been vexed by the Trumpster.
I hope this doesn't come to pass, but if it's Trump v Hillary in 2016 - I'm going all in for the Trump. Yes, that is truly how bad Hillary is.
So what is the trajectory and why are we idiots, and screwed? I'm trying to figure out what Althouse is referring to. I don't think I'm right because the one who does best on TV doesn't equate to us being screwed. Something more subtle. What is she talking about?
The rest of the candidates are clones of candidates past. The clones are splitting the ever diminishing anti-Trump vote. Those that don't want Trump to win should bow out now. Most won't but self sacrifice is what a true Cristian would do.
Barry said, "Trump thrives off excitement, but excitement is does not last. The nomination is a long way off, and the election is over a year away."
Watch the video at 9:30-9:45, Trump is joking (I hope) about having an expedited election and having the vote tomorrow. "I don't want to wait!"
He knows the excitement may not last...
"the notion that he, or anyone for that matter, is worse for the US than Obama, or Clintons wife, is hand wringing at the nth level."
I have to agree. I don't like Trump and think he is an egomaniac but, compared to the Democrats I see, at least he likes the country.
You are such a phony Ann. You have in the past been more than happy to throw red meat to these slobbering idiots that roam the American political landscape. For years you were happy to have your Althouse Hillbillies sleeping on your porch. I will grant you that in the last few months you have tried to raise your game and engage in less baiting of these low lives who made up the Tea Party and are now Trumps Juggalos.
"I don't want to wait!"
My sympathy to the parents who had to potty train him.
I watched two minutes of Trump's speech in New Hampshire and knew his boom was already dying. The guy is a terrible speaker, or, at least, speechmaker. Terrible. The venue reduces him. His gift is to surprise, to ambush, to jab. Speechmaking doesn't reward this.
He'll be off the stage by Christmas.
Sure Trump may want to do some crazy things if he's elected, but thankfully President Obama has spent his two terms nurturing the Constitutional limits on overreach by the executive branch and brightening those separation of powers lines.
"Once written": - why you gotta hate on Juggalos? Its a legitimate cultural movement in America.
Bob Boyd said...
Sure Trump may want to do some crazy things if he's elected
What are the crazy things he wants to do?
The audience Trump has found is no different than the one Sarah Palin attracted. As can be seen from reading the comments to this post, Ann, for years now, has cultivated the same following for her blog. They are the easy to grab low hanging fruit.
People who voted for Obama have ZERO business criticizing those who support Trump as being dupes.
They also have no business criticizing Trump for his "ego trip".
It's the immigration stupid.
Why are we screwed? Haven't we turned to men of proven accomplishment when those we have chosen with their utopian dreams revealed their feet of clay? What is the difference between the country electing Eisenhower, a successful general, in the 50s and now the electorate considering Trump, a successful captain of industry to lead them?
The reality is a president, a general or a CEO is only going to be as successful as the team he assembles to accomplish his goals.
Obama has a team of incompetents. Republicans may have driven the economic car into the ditch, as Obama always quipped, but he and his posse have stripped and burned it and continue to ravage our country's values and traditions like locusts.
Trump said we're running on empty.
And that is true in oh, so many ways.
Community organizers were never going to save us.
Men of grit, determination and accomplishment, who love this country are our only hope if we are to find America's "bright dawn ahead."
"Once written" do you have a blog, or do you write somewhere other than in the comments to this blog? I'm looking for new and interesting sources of news and information and it seems like you might have an alternative viewpoint to those expressed by Althouse on her blog.
Sandor you aren't channeling the mind of our hostess very effectively. The question is not why are we NOT screwed, which you have ably answered, but why does Althouse think we ARE screwed?
As Taibbi observed, the crazy wants out of its cage. This is their time.
I still want to know when he became a Republican.
Speaking as one, I find Donald Trump an embarrassment.
People who think that career political grifters like Obama or Clinton, or the same types on the GOP side, are better at leading and decision making than those successful in the private sector is one of the reasons the government is so fucked up.
The Con-job of Progressives and Establicans is that they are uniquely qualified for Government.
They are not and the wreckage of the past 15 years shows it.
"We are screwed" all right, thanks to 8 years of the America-hating SOB in the White House. Anyone, up to and including my dog, would be a better President than he has been. The only exception being Hillary.
Trump can't POSSIBLY be as bad. And he sends a message of F-U to the entire political and chattering classes. I couldn't approve more.
"All who have supported campaign finance restrictions should be squirming now, as Trump's competitors are hamstrung."
Well, at least there's a silver lining. Those idiots are getting exactly what they deserve.
"It's a trajectory, and if you plot it out, you'd see that Trump is next. Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed"
What do you mean "we," kemosabe? "We" are not the idiots who voted in O, though it is true "we" are screwed. At most, Trump is "next" as GOP shot-in-own-foot Prog-enabling stooge.
I understand that, for people who vote for incompetent fools because they seem "pragmatic," Trump may seem the logical next step.
"At least Trump is honest about his intentions."
Funny stuff.
"I feel like at least I know who Trump is. I've read a couple of his books, and watched the Apprentice for a few seasons. Based on what I know about him, I know he's smart and effective."
You mean, you know all about his support for Dem and Dem positions until the day before yesterday? Smart and effective, that's the ticket.
With "knowledge" like that driving voters, we are indeed screwed. Bring on Hillary!, good and hard.
"Trump can't POSSIBLY be as bad. And he sends a message of F-U to the entire political and chattering classes. I couldn't approve more"
He can. By sinking the GOP and locking in Prog chattering-class advantage for at least 4 more years. If voters prefer putting up a limp middle finger over actually winning, they deserve Hillary!, good and hard.
"Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed."
If we had elected Romney we wouldn't be in this place. I happen to think disaster was written all over Obama in 2008 but for God's sake, in 2012, what were Obama voters thinking? "Idiots" is exactly what "we" are, and now "the chickens are coming home,.... to roost."
Possible reasons we are screwed in Althouse's mind:
We are becoming enamored of a candidate based on a single political issue.
We are becoming enamored of a candidate based on how much money he can spend on the campaign.
We are becoming enamored of an "outsider" candidate and ignore that he has a lot to gain personally by getting elected.
We are becoming enamored of a candidate's personality and not focusing enough on the underlying issues.
We are becoming enamored of a candidate who is the opposite of the person currently in power.
We just like winners and whoever is ahead.
We like whoever pisses off people we don't like.
The party in power makes rules that are deemed to be harmful to some enemy, only to find later that the rules also harm them.
Althouse, the real story here is the indictment of our clueless and double-dealing political class that Trumps popularity reveals.
We are becoming enamored of a candidate based on a single political issue.
We are becoming enamored of a candidate based on how much money he can spend on the campaign.
We are becoming enamored of an "outsider" candidate and ignore that he has a lot to gain personally by getting elected.
We are becoming enamored of a candidate's personality and not focusing enough on the underlying issues.
We are becoming enamored of a candidate who is the opposite of the person currently in power.
We just like winners and whoever is ahead.
We like whoever pisses off people we don't like.
Sounds like how Obama got elected.
Hitler at 1936 rally in Nuremberg -- "That you have found me ... among so many millions is the miracle of our time! And that I have found you, that is Germany's fortune!"
(I don't mean to compare them in any way other than on the narcissism scale. Both get a 10.)
Other possibilities:
We like whoever is best at talking on TV
We like whoever is the tallest compared to others
We like whoever has the most money or is most successful in life
We like who we think will fight for OUR values without regard to the larger good of the country
We don't really care about issues or politics, we just want to be entertained and watch good TV
Tank said: "What are the crazy things he wants to do?"
I don't know. In a political context, crazy is in the eye of the beholder and Althouse is anguished.
My point is that for eight years Obama supporters have scoffed at the idea that the Constitution could stand in their way and have cheered increasing the power of the Executive branch at the expense of Congress and the States. Conservatives have warned, "it won't always be a guy you like in the White House."
"All who have supported campaign finance restrictions should be squirming now, as Trump's competitors are hamstrung."
Planning on voting for Feingold?
Two thoughts:
1.) Trump pushes the debate in the right direction.
2,) And even if he won, would a Trump presidency checked by a Republican congress be so bad? It'd be a center-right deal-making presidency.
Other possibilities:
We elect people who are good at campaigning and ignore whether they will be a good president
Once a person is president, we re-elect them way too frequently
We elect relatives and friends of those who we've elected in the past
We judge candidates based on their views on important issues rather than their character
We are nostalgic about the past
Bottom line, does anyone but the flaming liberals, disgusting feminists and low information voters believe Hillary would be a better president than Trump? And remember these are the same people who voted for Obama in 2008 even as he was telling us that he was going to destroy our country via a fundamental transformation.
"Sure Trump may want to do some crazy things if he's elected, but thankfully President Obama has spent his two terms nurturing the Constitutional limits on overreach by the executive branch and brightening those separation of powers lines."
Heh.
Make america white again
Make america rich again
Make america successful again
Make america man again
Make america tough again
Make america powerful again
Make america ____ again
Fill in the blank with your own nostalgia. Because, damn life used to be so much better back then.
"Great" means nothing, or everything, or whatever. It doesn't really matter except that it matters to you.
Go into your mind America. Why are you responding to this man with such enthusiasm. What does it say about YOU. And is that good or bad?
That's the question we need to answer people.
Ryan:
What is this 'America' of which you speak? Are we now truly a collective or does +/- 25% of one third of potential American mid-term voters now represent all Americans.
Sloppy thinking from a Leftist, as always.
Trump is a symptom of the problems of our current political classes incompetence and corruption.
My female American friend Arlene two months ago: "I have no interest in politics."
My female American friend Arlene this week: "I want a Donald Trump hat."
From a Washington Post article about Trump's "pep rally" in Alabama: "Many attendees said they had never attended a presidential campaign event."
The last two presidential elections proved that the Republican Party needs a lot of new supporters to beat the Democratic Party at the national level. Trump is attracting them.
Link to Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-audacious-southern-spectacle-is-part-of-his-strategy/2015/08/21/31da2a88-4812-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html
Birkel - what is the trajectory? Why are we idiots and are screwed? I'm on our side bro. Let's figure it out.
Oh come on, Trump is NOT going to win the presidency. He sure could ruin the GOP, though...
Myself, I'll take Big Ego over Big Evil any day of the week.
If I have to spell it out: Hillary, like Barack, is Big Evil. Big Corruption. Big Liar.
Trump, at least, does not hate America.
If we can't figure out our own psychology when it comes to our response to candidates we LIKE, then we shouldn't be trusted with electing a president.
Citizens in a democracy have a responsibility to figure out why they respond favorably to candidates. Forget about the candidates you don't like - that question is not interesting or that important here.
I like Trump. Why am I responding favorably to this man? Is that bad or good?
"Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed."
An epiphany eight years late.
I doubt Trump is spending much now, and come the actual campaigns he will be able to do it at a large discount from what it would cost a conventional candidate. He hasn't run TV ads that I know of, his travel arrangements are probably no more than he already spends in a perpetual peripatetic career, he already has aides, bodyguards and a nice helicopter.
And his style is to use free advertising, not to pay for it.
he could turn the country into Thunderdome and I suppose they'd still be proud.
You say that like it would be a bad thing.
At first I too was appalled by the Trump boomlet, but seeing all the leftist and establishment heads explode has made me smile.
America deservesTrump as president. Good and hard.
Buwaya - This is a good thing?
Trump has one UUGE lobbyist, which is himself. What about that??
And he only half-joked that he would start taking the money. Did you watch the video? He is a greedy capitalist after all and it must be killing him not to take it. He said he will just tell them to fuck off when they come back for favors, unless he agrees that what they come back asking for is a good thing.
Kinda weird position if you ask me.
"And his style is to use free advertising, not to pay for it."
He may sell enough Trump hats to become the first presidential candidate in American history to end his campaign with a profit.
There are substantial, measurable declines in the US that can't be ignored. Over the last 20 years -
Growth rates are down, median incomes are down, small business is down, business formation is down, fertility is down.
D.E. Cloutier - has anyone asked Trump if he has made a deal with any of the networks to split ad revenue on debates or other appearances?
Fox, CNN, etc are making a killing off of Trump and his ratings are through the roof.
He would be a lousy deal maker if he isn't making a shit-ton of money off these appearances. His candidacy could easily fund itself and more.
I can't imagine listening to any political speech, by Trump or anybody else.
My comment was just on the logistics and spending issues of a campaign. I haven't made up my mind on Trump, and it wouldn't matter anyway as I am not a citizen.
SGT Ted said...
People who voted for Obama have ZERO business criticizing those who support Trump as being dupes.
They also have no business criticizing Trump for his "ego trip".
There it is.
So he says things that resonate with people in his own way. He should have read a polished version from a teleprompter. If Obama could get elected having done nothing, why not Trump; he at least has done a few things.
iowan2: I am not, nor have every liked Trump. But the notion that he, or anyone for that matter, is worse for the US than Obama, or Clintons wife, is hand wringing at the nth level.
Exactly, i2. But I'd add Bush and the rest of the GOP line-up to Obama and the Clintons. These people and their minions have been large and in charge for the last generation (if you seek their monuments, circumspice), and people are "anguished" (dear God) about Trump?
Yes, voters really are stupid. I've just been trying to figure out why people are wetting their pants about Trump in particular. (Us ordinary people, that is - I already know why the party machines and pundits are wetting their pants.) I don't believe for a minute that the reasons they sputter are the real reasons. I have my theories.
In the meantime, you anguish-ees could console yourselves by noticing that this dreadful vulgar man has actually managed to "move the window" in small but salutary ways, away from the puerile vulgarity that characterizes our public square now. E.g., I'm sure you've seen his exchange with that wet SJW whimpering about the term "anchor baby". He shut the silly thing down, as an adult ought to. Now I see that even, ¡Jeb!, who would heretofore have dishonored himself with some groveling and semantically tortured response, has managed to locate at least a part of one of his testicles, and has defended the use of this perfectly straightforward term.
Not out of any sincere opposition to the PC Romper Room state of the public square, mind you (¡Jeb! is fine with all that), but still, some small progress. And we all know that Trump forced the issue of immigration into the square, which the PTBs right, left, or center absolutely wanted kept off the agenda. Now they've been forced to address it. Gee, maybe we might end up with some little prize, like e-Verify actually being enforced - which was never gonna happen with GOP BAU.
Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed.
The MSM screwed us and continues to screw us.
Academia has been screwing us since around 1964. That’s when they welcomed the Marxist student movement and joined them in taking over a lot of our finest education institutions. That’s several decades of our educated class being turned into ersatz Marxists. The smarter ones, the ones who actually realize they are Marxists, are now trying to give the Democrat nomination to Sanders. I think they have a good chance of succeeding. I’m not surprised at Bernie’s ascendancy. He’s the end result of a century of dishonesty by Western academia.
The intelligentsia started screwing us in the early 1900’s and never looked back, getting further and further to the left, until when finally faced with Stalinist Soviet Union, even becoming apologists for mass murder. They persist in this hero worship of history’s worst death merchants to this day.
We are not idiots. We’ve been treated like idiots. We are the folks of flyover country and we’ve been systematically screwed for quite awhile and royally screwed by the last 6 or 7 years of King Obama and his minions in the MSM.
The political class is pathetic, for sale to the highest bidder.
Now, now we’re going to do a little screwing ourselves.
Ryan is correct. That's Trumps real power, not his millions or billions. He doesn't need to buy publicity. He isn't just another rich man. He may sound crude, but what he says is done (mostly I think) with a purpose. He is very effective at what he does.
He could still make a big mistake of course.
Start worrying about when a Kardashian runs for office. That will be a sign of Idiocracy coming to life.
Trump is for media haters and enemies of PC.
The other candidates are afraid to offend somebody, which means mostly women's vote.
It would be simpler just to eliminate the women's vote and then let the guys talk. Trump wouldn't stand out.
Campaign finance reform has always been a means for the establishment to keep out upstart candidates by making it difficult for the non-professional pol to raise money. The part nobody anticipated was lots of very rich people running who can self-finance and in the case of Trump, a celebrity/reality star. This outcome should have been seen in the increasingly large numbers of rich people parties have been finding to run because they can self-finance campaigns.
Think of Trump as the second coming of Arnold, who I think won the California governorship more on his celebrity than any substance. How many celebrity entertainers would we the people elect over anything the Democrats or Republicans put out if the choice were there?
Trump is also capitalizing on a principle few establishment types seem to recognize: issues like immigration reform do not cease to become issues simply because they are no longer discussed in polite company or both parties are in agreement on how best to screw over the people to their own ends. The Tea Party was something of a warning to the establishment to course correct. Trump isn't the Tea Party, he's just the latest result of the public being fed up with the establishment and using what appears to be the only means at their disposal of making their frustration known. Even if Trump fades, absent real change, people like him and possibly worse than him will continue to emerge, and one day, one of them will win.
Without getting lost in his fanfare and self-promotion, let us acknowledge that Trump had addressed a substantive issue - illegal immigration.
The Dems want illegal immigration to (1) pad their voter roles, (2) expand the welfare state, and (3) transform traditional American culture into something different, something much more multi-cultural. That is basically what is happening in California, home of Reagan, now a monolithic blue state.
The Reps are afraid of doing something about illegal immigration, because they fear being tarred as racists and fear losing the Hispanic vote. The Wall St Journal and big business types, who generally support the GOP, want illegal immigration, because it drives down labor costs.
To his credit, Trump has broken through these barriers. True, he has spoken inelegantly at times, but the gist of what he is saying (let's stop all this illegal immigration nonsense) has resonated with a lot of voters.
Sometimes it takes a surprising, unorthodox messenger to send home an important message.
However it plays out, one thing is for sure: Trump would be better than Hillary or Obama and their leftist minions.
I share your anxiety and sentiment that we are screwed. To that I add that my party, the GOP, is screwed too. I just cannot fathom figuring out a Biden v. Trump matchup.
ADDED: All who have supported campaign finance restrictions should be squirming now, as Trump's competitors are hamstrung.
@Althouse, does this mean you're rethinking your affection for the man you once called "our Russ"? His name's on the campaign finance law that Obama found so easy to skirt in 2008 and 2012.
I happen to agree with you, Professor, that the US is on a bad trajectory; you helped put it there with your foolish vote in 2008. The question ahead of us is how it's going to be mended. You say you wanted the Democrats to own the US foreign policy. Well they do, and the world is more dangerous than ever! Would Putin be willing to go adventuring in Ukraine if "that cowboy Bush" was still in the White House? Would not the Iraq war have stayed won? If you weren't cozy in your ivory tower, would you think that the US economy is in good shape? What would the inflation rate be, what would the unemployment rate be if both were still calculated the way they were when Carter was in office? An honest econ professor, if you can find one in Sewell Hall, can help you with the calculations.
Trump gets it, and he gets that the ordinary people -- not academics and not wealthy and just trying to make ends meet and provide for their future and for their kids to get a good start in life -- get it too. I don't know if he is the right person to fix things but he does see the problem and it's hard to see who else is. All of the Democrats currently in the race, except Webb, will just make things worse. And Webb is in the wrong party. Perry, maybe, but his candidacy isn't catching fire. However take Texas out of the economic calculations and the US economy becomes third world. Take Silicon Valley out, too, (as Governor Brown is trying to do) and we're worse than that!
Jeb Bush doesn't get it. The ivory tower he lives in isn't an academic ivory tower; it's based on his money and position but it shields him all the same from understanding the concerns of ordinary people.
Romney's had his chance, but I hope whoever wins next year gives him an important role in the administration. I think Fiorina might be a person to fix what's broken, especially if she can find the right lieutenants to fill cabinet seats and key advisor roles. Walker I'm starting to have doubts about. Rubio can win the dripping vagina vote in November 2016, but who would be his advisors and does he have the confidence and personal courage to press ahead with what needs to be done regardless of what Washington Post editorial writers put in their columns?
Kasich, Cruz, and the rest of them are jokes.
Well, we'll see. The first primary is a half year away. But you, Professor, after your vote for Obama, have no right to beat your chest and wail about being screwed. How far left did you think the country could drift before the pendulum starts to swing back?
buwaya puti: I haven't made up my mind on Trump, and it wouldn't matter anyway as I am not a citizen.
You're not? That's a pity.
OT, but I've long been curious about your screen-name. Tagalog? I remember putting it through the Google translator once and getting a literal translation, but never got around to asking you what it signified.
How ignorant are the anti-Trump folks?
Do they know Trump spoke at CPAC in 2011?
Why would CPAC have a YUUUUUUGE Democrat donor speak at their event? What do you folks know that the CPAC organizers didn't?
Please don't allow that the organizers of CPAC knew something about Trump you didn't and don't, that could damage your tiny little ego.
So now, DANCE, and go list all the things Trump said in 2011 at CPAC that are so frightening to you. And hurry it up, you should have done this already instead of acting so childish and ineffectual.
One of his proposals is to impound all remittance payments from the US to Mexico. How does one do that without grossly violating the rights of American citizens who send $$ to Mexico? If I am a citizen of this country and I want to sent hard-earned $ to friends or relatives in Mexico I should be able to do so without the feds stealing it or knocking on my door.
As for the idea that Trump is extracting things that have been swept under the rug - have a look at Kotkins article cited in Instapundit today. California (take it as an example for the rest) has gotten much poorer, as measured by the median condition of the residents, over my thirty years here. This is invisible to those who operate the media, or to the corporate - bureaucratic nomenklatura.
I have been saying the same thing in various places over the last @15 years, my analysis being based on cost of living indices instead of housing costs, but its generally in the same direction. And in California's case it is nearly all because of government policy.
This sort of thing can't go on without a reaction.
"I happen to agree with you, Professor, that the US is on a bad trajectory; you helped put it there with your foolish vote in 2008."
IIRC, Althouse wanted the Dems to own everything so that they were responsible and the electorate could see the result of their policies. Play with fire and you get burned.
Bigger? Invade Canada or colonize Mexico?
Buwaya puti = white crocodile, in Tagalog but the same or very similar in most of the languages of the country.
A schoolboy nickname.
A poster named "UlyssesPaxton" over on a PJMedia post provided this long-form list of what he said were Trump's positions. I haven't double-checked these, but it seems like an interesting answer to the multiple commenters above who said "they don't know why people support trump."
(Personally, I support anyone who calls out the political establishment, Republican and Democrat. Doesn't mean I'll vote for him when the time comes. I regard all this campaigning now as Silly Season, not to be taken seriously.)
Anyway, here's "UlyssesPaxton":
Its funny how so many people say they dont know what his positions are or they act like Trump is hiding them. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won't do their own research, here, in no particular order, is an overview of many of Trumps positions and plans:
1.) Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country's problems without being compensated for doing so. If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the expense of going to war, then the nations we help must be willing to pay for our help.
2.) Speaking of the military, Trump wants America to have a strong military again. He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense.
3.) Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 7 core principles (which seem to support my comment in the last point):
American interests come first. Always. No apologies.
Maximum firepower and military preparedness.
Only go to war to win.
Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.
Keep the technological sword razor sharp.
See the unseen. Prepare for threats before they materialize.
Respect and support our present and past warriors.
4.) Trump believes that terrorists who are captured should be treated as military combatants, not as criminals like the Obama administration treats them.
5.) Trump makes the point that China's manipulation of their currency has given them unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them. He says we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America and create jobs here
6.) Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act NOPEC S.394), which would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws. According to Trump, that would break up the cartel. He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically (sound like Sarah Palins drill baby, drill?) thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil.
7.) Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America. He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering and put controls on immigration. He says hell get Mexico to pay for the wall, which many have scoffed at. He also wants to enforce our immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.
8.) Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to move here.
In case I offend Ann, I promise that's the only time I'll do that (cut-and-paste) here. I really don't want to be one of Those Commenters.
He hasn't won a single vote in a single primary in a single state yet.
Not one.
He may stay in that long. He will get some votes if he does. He may last past the first primary.
He will continue to wreak havoc along the way -- he's doing that already.
But he won't get the GOP nomination, and he won't be in the general election unless it's as a third-party candidate, and he won't win.
@ Original Mike: "IIRC, Althouse wanted the Dems to own everything so that they were responsible and the electorate could see the result of their policies. Play with fire and you burned"
I guess one would ask Althouse - How many Republicans are running Detroit or Chicago?
Althouse said...
All who have supported campaign finance restrictions should be squirming now, as Trump's competitors are hamstrung.
Possibly the stupidest thing Althouse has ever written. The rise of the oligarchs was driven by the Republican party and a few quislings on the supreme court.
Put another way: There were enough idiots to elect, and then to re-elect, Barack Obama.
But there aren't enough to elect Trump.
Trump has spent his entire professional life dealing with politicians as a very successful builder in New York and he is a respected man in business contrary to the public's and the political elite's perception of him. As to the elites, Republicans and the crooked Dems, they are more concerned about their careers, their friends in the liberal media and Washington than the security and welfare of our country.
What will it take for them to finally experience their epiphany?
If the other candidates can't defeat Trump in the primary, they don't deserve my vote.
I like Trump, because he makes the right people angry. No, that's not a reason to vote for him. But he's making an otherwise coma inducing slog entertaining.
If it comes down to Trump vs Hillary, I will vote Trump and Hillary will probably be elected. So what? I've never gotten the candidate I wanted anyways, and we survived Obama.
"He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically (sound like Sarah Palins drill baby, drill?) thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil."
Remember the derision that came down on top of her head for that one? Think any of those "smart people" are feeling humbled in the face of the current domestic oil boom?
Yeah, me neither.
Can't say you weren't warned.
BTW. Tweet of the day so far, Trump isn't out engine failing, he's the check engine light coming on.
"If the other candidates can't defeat Trump in the primary, they don't deserve my vote."
The problem is, there are 16 of them.
Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed.
Trump has huge negatives and he will never be the Republican nominee. But of course he could do great damage by running as a third party candidate. That's my nightmare, that he does that in order to put Hillary in the White House.
In fact it would not surprise me at all if the Clintons and Trump had already discussed all of this.
You remember when Rush had all that fun with supporting Hillary to screw with Obama? Maybe this is payback. Why wouldn't the Clintons want Trump running in the Republican primary, and then running as a third party candidate? That's exactly how Bill won the White House the first time.
When I googled Ross Perot, I discovered that I'm not the only one having this thought.
I think the other Republicans should be making this allegation in public, now. I think they should suggest loudly that Trump is planning to run independently and put Hillary in the White House. I think they should pressure him to prove his Republican bona fides, and also question his ties to Hillary. They should hit him hard on this and stop fucking around.
"I guess one would ask Althouse - How many Republicans are running Detroit or Chicago?"
You'd think that would be enough, but it wasn't.
"and we survived Obama."
That remains to be seen.
Yeah, he's mostly Perot with better - or at least more - hair.
That is, the outsider, the (reaching here for an analogy) a Huey Long type (with a business background in this case), that can get things done. Or is seen as doing so. Political scientists call it the "man on horseback" type.
Still, I expect him to implode and he seems to be incapable of imploding. Nothing he says, nothing he does, affects him.
On second thought, the Long analogy really doesn't work. But there is an economic populism of a different type that ironically Trump and Sanders appeal to.
Economic populism, nationalism....a lot of that going on around the world nowadays.
Whether it's just a phenomenon, a passing storm, or something bigger is the question.
White Crocodile.
Cool.
I don't think Trump's campaign is serious, in the sense of an honest attempt to win the White House.
He will say all sorts of racist things in order to smear and embarrass the Republican party. That's intentional. It's time to toss out the 11th Amendment, remind everybody that the Republican party is Lincoln's party, and we have no patience for pseudo racists who are throwing up a false flag operation in order to buy access to Hillary's coronation.
It's not even a violation of the 11th Amendment when he is the worst RINO in the history of RINOs. "Why do you like Hillary?" Here is Donald Trump, in 2012, talking about Hillary.
Trump is so obnoxious that many people think he's honest. But he's actually obnoxious and a first class liar.
Trump is far more effective rhetorically than Perot.
And by that I don't just mean making speeches.
He's had decades of practice in manufacturing celebrity and getting publicity. Of all the people running so far he is the best prepared, most professional demagogue.
To that I add that my party, the GOP, is screwed too.
If the GOP elite allows it Trump could transform the GOP into something vital, not the moribund institution that won a majority in Congress by virtue of not being Democrats, of simply being the only option other than a Democrat that the voters could find. Maybe even if the GOP elite doesn’t want to allow it.
But the commentor is right; the Boehner/McConnell branch of the GOP could very well be doomed. And good riddance, I say. They farted away their relevancy years ago. Welcome to the new Trump-led GOP.
Sure, he has much, much more charisma than Perot. He has that background talking to the press, giving the right sound bite, that snarky phrase.
Celebrity culture plus economic nationalism.
We're surprised by him or it but we really shouldn't be, should we? We can see this coming for years.
Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed
Does this mean there won't be any cruel neutrality from you this election?
All who have supported campaign finance restrictions should be squirming now, as Trump's competitors are hamstrung.
“Campaign finance restrictions” is a bit vague but I’m going to assume our hostess is referring to the super-pacs, in which the donor rolls are not open to public scrutiny. The irony is that Trump has exactly the same viewpoint. Jump onto the bandwagon, Ms. Althouse!
"It's time to toss out the 11th Amendment"
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or Equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."? That one?
Well, ok, as long as we're fixing up the Constitution and all.
Why does the trajectory start with your lifetime? FDR? Wilson? Teddy? Lincoln? Jackson? Adams? Maybe we are concerned about the trajectory of progressives teaching law. Have you considered that maybe you are horrified that a Capitalist/Robber Baron may become President? Spell out the worry you have.
#CheckYourLiberalPersuasions
campaign finance restrictions should be squirming now, as Trump's competitors are hamstrung.
There no longer are any real restrictions on campaign finance, so how is anyone hamstrung?
Buwaya puti = white crocodile, in Tagalog but the same or very similar in most of the languages of the country.
A schoolboy nickname.
Thanks. Sounds like you were a dangerous schoolboy.
"Celebrity culture plus economic nationalism."
It's like Silvio Berlusconi and Vladimir Putin had babies!
madisonfella said...
There no longer are any real restrictions on campaign finance, so how is anyone hamstrung?
Don't be wasting any fancy logic and facts on Althouse, she has 'feelings', just like corporations. Jeb Bush may have money coming out the wazoo thanks to an endless stream of megadonors but if Althouse feels he's hamstrung then he must surely be hamstrung.
Saint Croix: It's time to toss out the 11th Amendment, remind everybody that the Republican party is Lincoln's party, and we have no patience for pseudo racists...
Only genuine racists for us, thank you very much!
I think you meant "crypto-racist", old boy (and maybe "11th commandment"), but at any rate, the ship done sailed on the usefulness of playing the "racist!" card, by anybody. Let us know when the Republicans have finished their purges so we can book you a little table in the backroom of the 14th St. Chipotle's for your celebratory lunch.
One of his proposals is to impound all remittance payments from the US to Mexico. How does one do that without grossly violating the rights of American citizens who send $$ to Mexico?
Yeah, and he wants to deport every last illegal here, too. And a few other hard-core things. It's called bargaining, steve. You don't go into negotiations, business or political, with polite little requests that you hope the other side will see as reasonable, so maybe they'll give you a crumb. If you're nice. (Or worse, go into negotiations like a Republican, where you cave and concede everything before even taking a seat at the table.)
You always ask for a lot more than you think you can get, and bargain down from there, getting at least one comparable concession for every concession you give. There are quite a few perfectly reasonable items in Trump's immigration proposals, along with the ones a lot of people consider too extreme or unfeasible, that yet have been suppressed or ignored for lo these many years. When everyone has worn themselves out with hysteria over the more extreme proposals, perhaps the usual suspects will have been smacked into doing something about real border security, visa program abuses, e-Verify, the insanity of "sanctuary" for criminals, etc.
If I am a citizen of this country and I want to sent hard-earned $ to friends or relatives in Mexico I should be able to do so without the feds stealing it or knocking on my door.
Yes, it would be a violation of your rights. The problem here is that when a lot of people have been getting nothing but a big "fuck you" about their rights being trampled on, from a lot of people getting free passes for violating laws or trampling on other people's rights, the people being subjected to these "rule of law and protected rights for me but not for thee" shenanigans may start to get less than sympathetic to rights rhetoric.
The moral of the story is, if you want rule of law, you support rule of law, which requires not winking at the violations that benefit or don't affect you. Enforcing immigration law in 1990 means not having the feds crawling up your ass about sending your money to Mexico in 2020. Do nothing for decades but scream "racist" at those asking for the law to be enforced while permitting a free-for-all at the border, outcome not so rosy.
But he won't get the GOP nomination, and he won't be in the general election unless it's as a third-party candidate, and he won't win.
Says the commentor. About that third party: I think Trump heading a third party run could win. Perot got almost 20%, even after he had that strange drop out, said some crazy things and then half-heartedly got back in the race. 13% more and he would’ve been President.
Also, I don’t think it will just be Republicans who vote for Trump. Trump, I believe, has crossover potential more than any recent political figure. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump captured more of the latino and female voters than any GOP candidate in recent history.
The ladies love an alpha. So do the latinos – it’s built into their culture. And there’s bound to be a few moderate Democrats left who are tiring of the Marxist fire sale their party has turned into.
Paco Wové: It's like Silvio Berlusconi and Vladimir Putin had babies!
+1
If anyone has been spending big money lately its Hilary.
She has the mega-est of the megadonors.
Trump is saving the economy for last. We are in a terrible position with tepid growth and tens of millions withdrawn permanently from the workforce and are facing a possible calamitous decision by the Fed at a very very bad time relative to the world economy. Trump knows something about this, reams more than his competitors and infinitely more than Hillary or Biden or Sanders. Further down the road he is going to turn to this subject.
He is drumming up some essential support with the immigration issue, saying what every single person knows in their hearts to be true. If you want a country you have to have laws and borders and take them seriously. As seriously as Mexico takes theirs, for example.
Trump won't run third party, by the way. He is not stupid and he is, after all, using his own money. He won't risk it on a losing bet. Plus it is even odds he will get the nomination from the GOP.
And the race card? Worn with bent edges. Not playable.
With respect to preventing money from being transferred from US to Mexico, there is a long history of imposing such restrictions, e.g., Cuba. As I read the Trading with the Enemy Act, a presidential finding of national emergency provides sufficient reason to invoke such an embargo, without Congressional action.
I've always been a huge supporter of immigration - ever watch a naturalization ceremony in person? very moving, very powerful - but there is something about this latest wave that is worrisome, that grates.
We see the leaders of the immigrant "community" making all of these demands on us; we need to change all of our laws, we need to be concerned with them; but where is the reciprocal or mutual obligations or actions from them? It's all take and no give. They don't seem to want to change to be Americans; they want America to change to meet their demands. By "they" I don't mean all or even most; I'm referring mostly to the leaders.
The left has hijacked the immigrant movement for their own ends.
That other "Mead" - Walter Russell Mead - summarizes it:
"When European (or American for that matter) technocrats ignore the importance and validity of the social bonds, and miss the importance of the coherence that national identity gives to political institutions, then equally destructive problems can arise."
Trump has no answer for this; but neither does the current Establishment.
"...we are idiots, and we are screwed." After the last 8 years, you're only just now figuring that out?
No, you were an idiot for voting for Obama the second time.
I'll give you the first vote as the toxic byproduct of living off the government, but it should have been obvious that the Obama agenda wasn't real economic growth-- but the kind of transformation that impoverishes the middle class so the government can "rescue" them.
I've always been a huge supporter of immigration - ever watch a naturalization ceremony in person? very moving, very powerful - but there is something about this latest wave that is worrisome, that grates.
This isn't immigration-- this is invasion. When people enter a country, not with the goal of becoming more like the country they enter, but turning the country into an image of the one they left-- that is the definition of invasion.
Trump may falter but I don't think so. I believe the people that are supporting Trump trust him to at least attempt to accomplish much of what he says he will accomplish. I don't think these people have any such trust in Bush, Rubio or any of the other establishment candidates. I also believe that many people who have an unfavorable opinion of Trump at the present time will change their mind about him as many of the candidates fall off.
I'm thinking about all the Presidents I remember in my lifetime. It's a trajectory, and if you plot it out, you'd see that Trump is next.
No, I don't see that at all. For a long time, certainly in modern history, the candidates had to go through the party system, satisfy the party establishment.
Who is Trump similar to? He's never been active in the Republican Party to any degree at all. The closest I can think of is Eisenhower who could have run either as a Democrat or a Republican. He had no ties to either party.
He's a celebrity candidate. This is new to us.
It's not coincidental that the two candidates promoting national economic interests-- Trump and Sanders are gaining the most traction.
When people enter a country, not with the goal of becoming more like the country they enter, but turning the country into an image of the one they left-- that is the definition of invasion.
Some truth to that.
I don't think people who want to stop that change are all nativists or xenophobes. Some? Most? Sure. But not all of their concerns are simply borne out of bigotry.
And that's how they are characterized. Thus part of the appeal of Trump.
"With respect to preventing money from being transferred from US to Mexico, there is a long history of imposing such restrictions, e.g., Cuba. As I read the Trading with the Enemy Act, a presidential finding of national emergency provides sufficient reason to invoke such an embargo, without Congressional action."
Last I heard, Mexico is not an "enemy" of the United States. So you think it's a good idea to prevent US citizens from sending money to family/friends in Mexico?
I agree with steve uhr. What happens if a teenaged child goes to Mexico on spring break and gets robbed? Her parents can't send her money to come home?
"Make America bigger"
He didn't say in which direction.
Based on his track record it probably means vertically.
SMGalbraith: "When European (or American for that matter) technocrats ignore the importance and validity of the social bonds, and miss the importance of the coherence that national identity gives to political institutions, then equally destructive problems can arise."
Trump has no answer for this; but neither does the current Establishment.
I'd say neither does WR Mead, whom you quote. I read that post of his earlier today and it's obvious he's firmly on the side of the technocrats he appears to be condemning in the bit you quote. He doesn't disagree with their goals (which he sees as inherently good), only with the unwisdom of the methods they are currently using against the people who aren't on board with the technocrats' vision. While giving lip service to the "importance and validity of the social bonds, and...the importance of the coherence that national identity gives to political institutions", he obviously sees all current pushback against the technocrats' goals as a manifestation of inherently malign forces (because Nazis...).
"[T]he technocrats and the cosmopolitans" have just been "lean[ing] too far ahead over their skis". Nothing wrong with the route or the goal, just the technique and the speed. The resistance merely indicates the incompetence of the rulers; the preferences of the resisters have no legitimacy in themselves. (And it's always a sign that one should read what someone's saying with a more critical eye, when they uncritically quote a really stale bit of pro-mass immigration boilerplate parading as objective commentary.)
"The left has hijacked the immigrant movement for their own ends."
The leaders are of the left. That's why "It's all take and no give." The left wouldn't know gratitude if it bit them in the butt.
M Jordan: I watched two minutes of Trump's speech in New Hampshire and knew his boom was already dying. The guy is a terrible speaker, or, at least, speechmaker.
Yeah, but I think and thought that about a lot of other pols whom other people inexplicably find compelling, so who knows?
It will certainly be interesting to see how this works out. The immigration thing is really getting traction.
Sebastian: By sinking the GOP and locking in Prog chattering-class advantage for at least 4 more years. If voters prefer putting up a limp middle finger over actually winning, they deserve Hillary!, good and hard.
Yeah, everybody heard you the first time. You and a couple of other posters show up on these threads making this same comment over and over and over. I know it must be frustrating that so many don't get your brilliant and deeply informed insight, but you nobly keep trying to get through their thick skulls. A real prophet without honor, our Sebastian.
Dude, the GOP is a branch of the "Prog chattering class". You're just too stupid and whipped to notice. You don't have to like Hell-Toupée (I don't), just please stop being such a fucking tool, OK? It's annoying.
Close to my house there is a deli, which has some local fame as the 'best' deli in the area. More than twenty years ago, when I first started going there, if I arrived early enough, there were a lot of contractors and some fishermen/lobstermen eating breakfast. I often spoke with them about business. The deli itself was a very profitable business, based on the cars driven by the men working at the counter. All the contractors/fishermen and deli workers were white men. All except one are now gone, the lone survivor having bought the deli. Business for the contractors initially got better when they started using low cost labor in the form of hispanic immigrants. But, slowly the tide started to turn. The immigrants started their own businesses and undercut the local guys. They also started getting the jobs in the deli. The deli itself began to change and went more upmarket as more professional people moved into the area, so that the economic split between the people who worked there and the people they served became much larger.
The loss of the lobstermen cannot be blamed on immigration, the generally accepted reason is runoff of pesticides from the over manicured lawns on the expensive homes surrounding the bay. Although, you could argue that this is due, at least in part, to the artificially low cost of lawn maintenance thanks to low cost labor. The other jobs almost certainly pay less than they did twenty years ago in relative terms, making it difficult to sustain a middle class life.
It is not difficult to understand why men of this generation are strongly opposed to increased immigration.
Blogger Anglelyne said...
lot's of stuff
Anglelyne really gets it about Trump. He moves the window. Moving the window is a big deal for a lot of us.
And it surprises me that a guy who wrote "Art of the deal" is so misunderstood. He let the cat out of the bag the other day when he said he shouldn't have spoken up on taking ISIS oil. Because you never let the enemy know what you're doing. We talk too much (Is what Trump said) and we need to keep our mouths shut about such things, like our plans for ISIS.
And he's right.
And Anglelyne is right when she said Trump is negotiating. He's asking for a lot more than he knows we're going to get. But if a border wall comes out of it, and Everify, and a few other things?
Well, that is a hell of a lot more than we would have gotten without Trump.
He moves the window.
And something Anglelyne didn't say, but I will. Apparently he drives law professors temporarily insane. That right there wins my vote.
Blogger Big Mike said...
I agree with steve uhr. What happens if a teenaged child goes to Mexico on spring break and gets robbed? Her parents can't send her money to come home?
I think you're getting way ahead of yourselves here. Instead of interpreting his words to mean, "No one will be able to send money to Mexico, ever." maybe he means something else?
Maybe he means, when an illegal (IE: Not admitted into the United States legally) Mexican is apprehended leaving the country (Flying, boat, train, car, etc) and is carrying with him large sums of money (And this does happen, as they tend to get paid in cash, especially seasonal workers, and then take large sums home) that we can now seize that money.
Normally, the money can't be seized unless it is in commission of a crime. IE: It's drug money.
But if they change the law to say that remittance is a crime (Not sure how I law like that might read) then such money earned here while illegally in this nation and being transported back to Mexico can now be seized.
"It is not difficult to understand why men of this generation are strongly opposed to increased immigration."
"...immigration". Dishonest to the core.
Trading With The Enemy Act requires only a presidential finding of an economic emergency - sort of like "stroke of the pen, law of the land" under W J Clinton, or Obama issuing an executive order to allow more illegal aliens to remain here.
But, it's different if Trump would do it to Mexico, isn't it because he's not a loving caring Democrat?
As has been said, if the left didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards.
It is not difficult to understand why men of this generation are strongly opposed to increased immigration.
I think the reasonable element, which is the majority, simply wants it better controlled, regulated. And the illegal nonsense has to stop.
Frankly I'm tired of seeing these immigrant activists make all of these demands on everyone here and make no demands on the people they represent. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the immigrants simply want better lives; that's terrific.
We are asked to work hard and play by the rules. Pay our taxes, et cetera. Fine. Can we ask these immigrants to also play the rules? When I visit another country I respect their laws, their customs, their way of life. I'd like those who come here to do the same thing.
You're welcome to come here but the social contract, the obligations go both ways.
Trump is next, we are idiots, and we are screwed.
I think he just upsets your east coast, upper middle class sense of propriety.
He's a pitchman. He's razzle dazzle and an Amaerican flag.
He's America.
You once voted for Obama. Despite not knowing a damn thing about him.
How is Trump any different?
Is he going to reward his friends with public money?
I'd say neither does WR Mead, whom you quote
Well, he's not running for president. He's just a political scientist/historian making observations.
And his criticism of the elites/technocrats belies the argument that he's an uncritical defender of them.
I sure as hell don't have a solution either. But I recognize the problem. That's some of the appeal of Trump, isn't it?
Restricting money sent to Mexico makes zero economic sense.
If the money stays in Mexico, it's a gift to the US taxpayer. It's money that the government can spend here by replacing it, without adding to inflation.
If the money comes back to the US, it buys something from the US economy.
Money is not wealth to an economy. It's a ticket in line to say what the US economy does next.
One assumes Trump will hire competent economists, and, more likely than Democrats, will listen to them.
You helped screw America "law prof", by voting for the USURPER Hussein Obama TWICE.
I'm sure that "law prof" is a misnomer.
This man is spending his own money, and he can easily blow a billion dollars on this fabulous ego trip.
Last week, according to Althouse, Trump was the id and not the ego. Next week he'll be the super-ego as Freud's terms are misused again and again.
Oh and, what Pete said at 7:34 AM.
Seriously, people are acting like this is 1932 Berlin. Enough already.
The people most shocked and alarmed by Trump are those with sinecure. They've not seen what's happened to everyone else or else they don't believe it.
Trump is exactly what the U.S. deserves. The populace cares more about celebrity than politics evidenced by our fascination with everything Kardashian/Jenner. Bill Clinton started killing politics back in 1998, then Bush helped it by pushing too many to the left which gave us Obama, who has done all he can to ignore even more of the Constitution than all of the previous presidents combined. Most people just feel helpless with our elected leaders and how they will do what they and big corporations want, regardless of what the polls show. More and more tune out and head to the nearest EXIT. Trump has found a way to capitalize on his celebrity and combined with everyone's apathy toward politics, he has shot to the forefront, and it doesn't even matter what he says. I still believe he will get bored and bail, but if he doesn't, oh well. The U.S. deserves him. We reap what we sow.
If the money stays in Mexico, it's a gift to the US taxpayer. It's money that the government can spend here by replacing it, without adding to inflation.
Let's see if I understand this argument. Statistics show illegal immigrants from Mexico are predominantly in the lower economic strata and qualify for government benefits from Uncle Sam and the states. If anyone doubts this, the statistics for California alone will confirm it.
So, the money made - a significant part of which is cash and untaxed - by this group of illegal aliens goes to Mexico. The shortfall in the amount required to sustain life of the illegal aliens in Norte Americano is made up by taxpayer subsidies.
Or, as Bernstein's song put it "Ev'rything free in America" And at least his characters in West Side Story were from Puerto Rico and hence US citizens.
Yeah, Trump's a great guy, always looking out for the little fella. Except when he's playing the eminent domain game and kicking elderly widows out onto the street so he can build a parking lot.
One's born every minute, you know. Suckers, that is.
Lord, this blog is starting to gradually read more like Salon every day...
Has anyone hit an attendance of 30K for a political speech this season, with no particular occasion to piggyback (such as a state fair), and everyone coming purely on their own whim, with no union, employer or organization driving attendance ?
This is an amazing testament to the intensity of his following.
It doesn't matter what the speech was about or how it was delivered.
Original Mike said...
Dishonest to the core.
Why not just grunt, it would have been a more coherent response.
Trump is not everyone's cup of tea. He is very aggressive and has a trick for attacking many targets at once. But men will follow a sharp dressed aggressive leader that they feel proud to work for. That is his special talent.
He also has the raw warrior talent that is not tempered with a speck of empatthy towards the suffering of his enemies and their allies. He beats them, and he laughs.
The Koch Brothers likely want to see Scott Walker enough to try blocking the Trump Blitzkreig. Stay tuned. The Midwestern niceness of Walker and Althouse is missing in Trump.
Trump has the Calvinist approach to power which does not waste time showing mercy when it is certain that it is right.
Go easy on the Trump, lady. Staying up late looking for The Donald, day after day brings line after line of pure Trump, blurting out cries for help- It's starting to get to you.
Once written, twice... said...
The audience Trump has found is no different than the one Sarah Palin attracted. As can be seen from reading the comments to this post, Ann, for years now, has cultivated the same following for her blog. They are the easy to grab low hanging fruit.
8/22/15, 8:36 AM
So what we obviously have here is an Althouse commenter whose been here a very long time but who used to post under a different name under a different account.
Why do they do that and why are they always the ones on the "left" side? My theory is that they have to disavow the totality of their previous comments lest someone with half a brain and a memory call them on it.
My intolerance for that behavior is the source of my hostility; those sorts of commenters do not even deserve to be heard de novo each time they reinvent themselves.
"Why not just grunt, it would have been a more coherent response."
You understand perfectly. The left always pulls this disingenuous bullshit when they talk about illegal immigration.
This commenter at the NYT article entitled "Why Trump Won't Fold" sums up the sentiments of Trump's supporters perfectly:
Here's why I would vote for Trump if the election were held today: I believe that the United States is in free-fall decline. Mass immigration of destitute, uneducated people has left us poorer and less educated. (Surprise.) Mexico has historical claims upon much of our territory, and we are being colonized by Mexico. The population explosion in Latin America is getting worse, not better. (Increase of 20%, from 500 million to 600 million, in last 15 years for which data available, i.e., 1998 to 2013.) The explosive population growth in Latin America is resulting in a mass migration to the United States, over our unsecured borders. We have also imported Islamists over the past 50 years ... you are going to get some of those when you allow immigration from Muslin countries. So now we have a surveillance state to guard against what DHS calls "homegrown terrorism", which is actually IMPORTED terrorism. That's immigration.
Then there's trade. By allowing "free trade" with low-wage countries, we export manufacturing jobs by the millions. The result is lower wages in the United States, and a larger gap between labor wage income and management salary income. Our income distribution begins to look more like ... that of Mexico. Look, folks: I know that Trump is a bombastic buffoon, but he's the ONLY one I trust on immigration and trade. So I'm supporting him.
We are asked to work hard and play by the rules. Pay our taxes, et cetera. Fine. Can we ask these immigrants to also play the rules? When I visit another country I respect their laws, their customs, their way of life. I'd like those who come here to do the same thing.
I think that one reason they don't give two shits about those rules us that they've been told over and over again (even by some Americans) that large swaths of America actually still belong to them and were stolen in wars and shady dealings. That's how they can justify certain things.
I repeat from a previous comment...Donald Trump is Romney's herald and a "minesweeper" clearing the way for the campaign to come.
8/4/15, 8:13 AM
Political Campaigns...THINK DIFFERENT>
I was a little shocked at the faces when Trump finally appeared on the balcony for a moment. They reminded me of the crazed expressions I once saw in the back country of Louisiana on the faces of some Holy Rollers...they looked up at him as if he were a Messiah, their faces transformed into something positively inhuman.
From the future "Diary of Ann Althouse"
(Here's link to NYT article)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html
At first I too was appalled by the Trump boomlet, but seeing all the leftist and establishment heads explode has made me smile.
You and me both, brother.
I'm now rooting for him.
steve uhr said...
One of his proposals is to impound all remittance payments from the US to Mexico. How does one do that without grossly violating the rights of American citizens who send $$ to Mexico? If I am a citizen of this country and I want to sent hard-earned $ to friends or relatives in Mexico I should be able to do so without the feds stealing it or knocking on my door.
8/22/15, 10:25 AM"
Didn't know you were a shill for the Wall Street sovereign bond market dealers. Fun fact: Mexico includes in its budget foreign remittances for bond repayment purposes. Just as an FYI the government can restrict money transfers from US banks and there is no basis where it can be blocked from stopping illegally earned money being transferred.
Anyone who voted for Obama is automatically disqualified from calling a Trump supporter a fool or an idiot. The same is true of any Hillary!! The Grifter and Violator Of National Security as well.
Considering the Democrats were going to raise $2bn to fund the Hillary!! campaign I don't see the problem with Trump funding his own campaign. At least he isn't being bought and paid for like Hillary!!.
I don't know if Trump really wants to win, but with Hillary!! potentially looking at criminal charges then claims he is a willing tool for Hillary!! are starting to really look like tin-foil hat nonsense. I suspect if the election were to be held today between Hillary!! and Trump, Trump would win and would win by getting a lot of independents and blue collar Democrats to vote for him. If the Democrats aren't scared of Trump, they are brain dead and so is the RNC. Maybe Trump is starting to think he can win or more likely position himself as king maker in the GOP which I don't see as a bad thing since he is forcing unpleasant PC issues to the forefront pushing the Republicans to the right and the Democrats to the left and thus alienating (pun intended) a lot of the traditional Democrat voting base and making them pickups from the Republicans.
As Walter Russell Meade might say: The Jacksonian reaction is now.
Ann,
The solution is simple.
All campaigns for Federal office (House, Senate, VPOTUS and POTUS) must be done with only federal revenues derived directly from taxes.
Secondly, all candidates get the same amount of money per candidacy type: All house members and challengers get the same quantum. The same holds true for all Senators, each gets exactly the same as every other Senator. Challengers get the same amount as incumbents.
Candidates for the POTUS and the VPOTUS get the same amounts respectively.
Here's a subtle twist to my proposal: No campaigner for any federal elective office may use either the public airways or the national cable television network infrastructure. They may use Internet.
Amounts for Congressional elections may be different than for the Senate and the VPOTUS and POTUS campaigns may receive even more money given their larger electoral territory.
Lets get control of our democracy and pry it loose from the slimy fingers of the rich and the powerful. The interests of Unions, Corporations and the Rich Magnates are in opposition to the interests of our citizens.
SMGalbraith: Well, he's not running for president. He's just a political scientist/historian making observations.
No, but he represents the worldview of the technocrats, just as the established political parties in the West do.
And his criticism of the elites/technocrats belies the argument that he's an uncritical defender of them.
The argument wasn't that he was an uncritical defender of the technocratic regime, it was that he is a supporter of the technocratic regime's right to rule. He "recognizes" the problem only within the very limited constraints of that worldview, which makes him part of the problem.
I sure as hell don't have a solution either. But I recognize the problem. That's some of the appeal of Trump, isn't it?
Yup. If they can't push the problem back under the carpet, it's going to be comical (or infuriating, depending on your humor) watching the "technocrats" pretend they were on to the problem all along. Worst case scenario is that it's now beyond their control (especially in Europe) and any kind of orderly containment and reversal. For which, of course, they will blame everyone but themselves.
Blogger Eric Landgraf said...
Ann,
The solution is simple.
All campaigns for Federal office (House, Senate, VPOTUS and POTUS) must be done with only federal revenues derived directly from taxes.
Secondly, all candidates get the same amount of money per candidacy type: All house members and challengers get the same quantum. The same holds true for all Senators, each gets exactly the same as every other Senator. Challengers get the same amount as incumbents.
Candidates for the POTUS and the VPOTUS get the same amounts respectively.
Here's a subtle twist to my proposal: No campaigner for any federal elective office may use either the public airways or the national cable television network infrastructure. They may use Internet.
Amounts for Congressional elections may be different than for the Senate and the VPOTUS and POTUS campaigns may receive even more money given their larger electoral territory.
Lets get control of our democracy and pry it loose from the slimy fingers of the rich and the powerful. The interests of Unions, Corporations and the Rich Magnates are in opposition to the interests of our citizens.
In that case, I'll be running for every office I can, so I can pick up my federal money each election cycle.
How dumb is it to try and restrict people's freedom in this way? Now you're saying the media on television and radio and newspapers and magazines have to be totally silent, only the internet?
Wow. Have you even thought through your proposal? I seriously doubt it. It's not quite 1000 times worse than what we have now, but it's close.
cubanbob: Didn't know you were a shill for the Wall Street sovereign bond market dealers. Fun fact: Mexico includes in its budget foreign remittances for bond repayment purposes.
That is a fun fact. I guess if I'd thought about it, I would probably have thought they did, since the amounts are substantial and significant to the Mexican economy. But I'd never thought about it.
Blogger buwaya puti said...
Has anyone hit an attendance of 30K for a political speech this season, with no particular occasion to piggyback (such as a state fair), and everyone coming purely on their own whim, with no union, employer or organization driving attendance ?
This is an amazing testament to the intensity of his following.
It doesn't matter what the speech was about or how it was delivered.
I've read at Yahoo and other places it was 20,000. Words like, "Less than expected" have been used.
And yet, I've also read that the city of Mobile, AL, has confirmed it was 30,000 people.
I guess Walter Russell doesn't use the "e" in Mead. His recent article on the Clintons is very interesting: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/21/the-first-postmodern-political-machine/
The current rumors floating around is that it'll be Biden/Warren ticket.
That would be a much more powerful ticket than Hillary and actually stand a chance of winning. Biden is probably seen as a harmless old guy while Warren would bring all the progressives to the voting booth.
No, but he represents the worldview of the technocrats, just as the established political parties in the West do.
I think if you go to the American Interest website and read his material you'll see that he is VERY critical of the ruling elites/technocrats in the West. He is positively scathing in his denunciation of the "blue state" model for example.
In any case, I think he's more of a historian - describing things as they are - and not an advocate. He certainly has opinions and I guess if you want to call him one of "them" you can. But that's really misreading him, I think.
Original Mike said...
You understand perfectly. The left
A. Didn't have a clue what you were grunting about.
B. I am not the left. My views on immigration although not identical overlap with Trumps.
C. If you can't be bothered to write something thoughtful in response to a post, or at least regurgitate something sensible you have heard previously, why post?
Anglelyne said...
cubanbob: Didn't know you were a shill for the Wall Street sovereign bond market dealers. Fun fact: Mexico includes in its budget foreign remittances for bond repayment purposes.
That is a fun fact. I guess if I'd thought about it, I would probably have thought they did, since the amounts are substantial and significant to the Mexican economy. But I'd never thought about it.
8/22/15, 6:49 PM.
Its true. Not just for Mexico but for many other countries as well, Cuba included. They count on foreign remittances for bond repayments and or foreign currency needed for imports. Trump by stating this among other statements is actually starting to outline a real strategy of curbing the influx of illegal immigration and encouraging those already here to leave. If you can't send money back to your family why come? If you can't get benefits why stay? If your kids can't become citizens what is the long term gain? I suspect that Trump will hone his position to a point that will make it impossible for the DNC or RNC to rebut. I can see where it looks like he is going. No legal work. No legal benefits. No chance of ever being legal and no chance of your kids born in the US being citizens. Any criminal infraction will be treated harshly by the feds after the sentencing at the state level. No funds remitted. No foreign aid or favorable trade relationship for those countries who won't take their citizens back and fail to stop illegal emigration to the US. Stripping officials from qualified immunity at the state and local level for failing to prosecute illegals and otherwise aid an abet illegals. And while it won't result in the self-deportation of every illegal alien it will probably result over time a huge reduction of those who are already here and with an effective wall a real reduction of those attempting to come here. How exactly would the RNC and DNC be able to counter that in the minds of most voters? While I'm not predicating Trump will propose exactly all of what I have just said, the thing is it is believable he would propose doing these things where no one else running in either party appears they would do so, especially not a Democrat.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Original Mike said...
You understand perfectly. The left
B. I am not the left. My views on immigration although not identical overlap with Trumps.
Doesn't Bernie Sanders views also overlap with Trumps?
B. is a non-sequitur.
eric said...
B. is a non-sequitur.
I don't think logic is really your thing.
By definition I am not the left, given that the left is a grouping of people and I am an individual. As part of being an individual, rather than a party hack, my views diverge from the consensus on both the left and right.
How he possibly be any worse than Barry Hussein?
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
eric said...
B. is a non-sequitur.
I don't think logic is really your thing.
By definition I am not the left, given that the left is a grouping of people and I am an individual. As part of being an individual, rather than a party hack, my views diverge from the consensus on both the left and right.
Maybe it's not. Let's find out.
Are the two sentences in B meant to connect the thought "I am not on the left of the political spectrum because my views on immigration are like Donald Trumps" or do the two sentences have no connection, one to the other?
"A. Didn't have a clue what you were grunting about."
So I misunderstood you. You do understand that the issue isn't immigration. It's illegal immigration. Right?
SMGalbraith: In any case, I think he's more of a historian - describing things as they are - and not an advocate. He certainly has opinions and I guess if you want to call him one of "them" you can. But that's really misreading him, I think.
You may be right and perhaps I'm unfair in judging him on the this one article, the first of his I've read in several years. I know he's annoyed me in the past, and perhaps that and his uncritical acceptance of the premises of the very stupidly written article he linked and quoted got up my nose enough to affect my apprehension of the rest of the piece and his general outlook. I'll look at it again later.
I am for stopping almost all immigration, illegal as well as legal. I fail to see the value of more immigrants to America. We have plenty right now, over 41 million as of 2013. But keep adding 1 million a year, for what?
1) too many americans are unemployed, underemployed or making lower wages due to immigration. 100% of the job growth in the country over the last 8 years has gone to immigrants. That is a travesty.
2) We are importing a fifth columnn to this country with the schools no longer teaching the melting pot ideal and pushing the multicultural cult.
3) Immigrants come into this country with more advantages than many natural born Americans. Affirmative action gives many of them spots in colleges, job opportunities, and other goodies over Americans, even though they did not suffer any historic discrimination here.
Original Mike: So I misunderstood you. You do understand that the issue isn't immigration. It's illegal immigration. Right?
ARM provides plenty of opportunities for irritation without having to over-read his comments. I don't see any dishonest maneuvering in his use of "immigration" rather than "illegal immigration".
(Our legal immigration system is also a mess, and a lot of people think our levels of legal immigration are too high, too. They aren't "anti-immigrant", either.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा