Remember that, from last summer? Speaking of denial, there was a point when I was refusing to write Trump's name in posts that referred to his potential candidacy. Hard to find those old posts with the key word missing! But by August, I'd moved to open anguish (not really "anger," the official second stage):
I calmly consumed the entire [Trump speech], 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.Bargaining, depression, acceptance — those are the next 3 stages. Have I gone through all that? I do tend to get very quickly to acceptance when I believe something is really happening. The thing about the 5 stages is that they were originally about death, and you know you are going to die. You don't know that Donald Trump is going to be President. Why go through all the stages? I'm more about remaining calm most of the time, maintaining perspective, and intermittently getting activated over specific things that I can read, write, and talk about.
IN THE COMMENTS: chickelit somehow remembered that my old posts, refusing to write Trump's name, had the tag "nothing": "Here's the first one which you published as an 'Annagram'":
AND: The next one refers to classic advice from my mother:
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
The Daily News has supplanted the New York Post as the go-to joke paper of this election cycle. So what if it makes them circle the drain faster? At least more people will have heard about them in those last minutes before they're gone.
The Five Stages of the Prison Shower.
I am not going to get fucked in the ass.
I am NOT going to get fucked in the ass!
Please don't fuck me in the ass.
Oh God, I'm going to be fucked in the ass.
I guess that wasn't so bad.
The National Review, amidst others, pretends that they are at Stage Two, but are actually at Stage Four.
Screw the Popcorn: Bring on the Soap.
I am Laslo.
Althouse wrote: Speaking of denial, there was a point when I was refusing to write Trump's name in posts that referred to his potential candidacy.
They're not too hard to find. You filed them under the "nothing" tag which must have meant something.
Here's the first one which you published as an "Annagram."
this what they get for ignoring the immigration issue...this is what WE get.
Carol said...
this what they get for ignoring the immigration issue...this is what WE get.
In a nutshell, yes. That's it.
Look at it this way. If you were on the board of a Fortune 500 company and you were looking for a new CEO what criteria would you have? My guess is the you would look for experience, a track record of success, being able to get your head around having 10's of thousands of employees, and providing leadership to the business. Those are the basics of what a Fortune 500 would look for. They might have an integrity concern as well.
Now out of all the candidates who is qualified to lead a Fortune 500? You have Trump, Fiorina (since she did it), and maybe Bush. Rubio? not a snowballs chance, Kasich? Not based on his political experience - safe seat in congress for 18 years. You can down the line and the only people on this you would consider is Trump and Fiorina. As for Cruz, he might someday have the experience across the board that a Trump or Fiorina has, but not now.
The mercies of the Lord are new every morning, and I say rejoice and thank God for what we are about to receive. It's like we are being offered Merritt Edson to become our leader in the upcoming Battle to hold America.
@Carol: The sign of an effective immigration plan is one which threatens (or at least challenges) illegal immigrants. Anything else is just window dressing. You can tell by their reaction. It's not rocket science, it's just something we've been afraid to do for a very long time now.
Trump is still a relative longshot to win the nomination. Nate Silver is starting to hedge a bit but seems to put Trump's chances at 8-1 to 10-1. Better than Bernie's but hardly the favorite.
After New Hampshire, Bush will drop out. Either Christie or Kasich will drop out. That will set up Rubio v. the Christie/Kasich survivor for the establishment primary. Shortly thereafter, money, endorsements and support will flood to one or the other. Given the delegate rules and primary schedule, the establishment primary winner will have time to overtake Trump and Cruz in a 3-way race, assuming one of those two does not implode before that point.
Acceptance stage is already here, Trump and GOPe are already co opting each other. Trump doesn't privately have the $1 billion cash he'll need to run in the general, GOPe donors have. Trump will make deals if elected and maybe close the borders, but smash the fourth branch of government the administrative state, no.
The problem is Gresham's Law: bad money drives out good. I.e. Walker, Perry, Jindal. Or you can go with Yeats: the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
Trump is simply following the trail blazed by Obama (as is Sanders) - the charismatic outsider with no particular clue about being President but able to rally millions of similarly equipped voters.
I've noticed in this last week a coalescing against Trump. Before, a lot of the establishment was against Trump. But the anti-establishment media types held their fire or had some nice things to say about. These anti-establishment folks tend to be Cruz fans. So, in the conservative/Republican media, you've got the George Will, Charles Krauthammer, NRO, Michael Medved types who are pro-immigration types hating on Trump for months. And Hugh Hewitt. Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro types have been holding fire and praising Cruz.
But now that Iowa is close and Trump started hating on Cruz, a lot of my twitter feed has turned negative on Trump. Calling him a liar and such. No more holding back ammo.
I've also seen some panic from Christians that are now trying to instruct us Christians that we should seek to elect a Christian and Trump isn't a Christian (goes the argument).
This is the largest negative onslaught I've seen against Trump yet. I expect if its working, it'll show up in next week's polls. But in this, it seems, the conservative and establishment wings of the party are now in agreement.
I think it's a mistake. I think the Cruz supporters are trying to push Trump out because they think everyone will turn to Cruz. They won't. They'll turn to Bush, Kasich, Rubio, etc.
I'm hoping Cruz, Trump or Carson make it to the end.
I hate to comment about other commenters, but must this Laslo miscreant be allowed to continue his rancid rants?
Trump has spent very little money. He is a celebrity. As long as he says and does outrageous things, he will dominate the media for free. They will talk about What Trump Did and ask everyone What They Think of What Trump Did. And he doesn't spend a dime on any of that.
Go over to Don Surber blog. He has a great analysis of what is happening.
Seems to me this election s about Republicans letting go of ideological purity and Democrats tightening their grip on it.
All the "it can't be real" panic regarding Trump is all BS when the alternative is Hillary! Clinton.
The thought of her being President is revolting. Nobody who will vote for her will do it enthusiastically. She's a puke.
Trump has been different, bold, and impressive. And fun to watch. I'm a Walker fan, but he looked like a deer in headlights on the National Stage.
People are sick and tired of politicians and political judges. Really sick.
Quit telling me Marijuana is medicine, and vaccines are poison. Quit telling me only certain lives matter. Quit throwing out every victim identifying 'ism' and avoiding tough subjects. Don't tell that what college campuses have become is what our country will look like in 20 more years. Don't ask me to fall all over myself over Caitlyn Jenner.
Imagine the stages of grief Trump and Sanders supporters have been through watching their country go down the shitter, flushed by the likes of Clintons, Bushes, and every other bought and paid for politician and media pundit.
I'm conservative but leaning towards Trump ... after first rejecting him. My guess is that he alone among the candidates can do what Obama failed to do: go past the red states/blue states dichotomy. Dems seem to hate him now, but you watch, they'll come around. And so too the National Review crowd. By November they'll all be saying nice things about the Donald.
Blogger M Jordan said...
I hate to comment about other commenters, but must this Laslo miscreant be allowed to continue his rancid rants?
Hopefully for a long time to come. His rant above is hilarious and very on point addressing the Republican establishment panic.
A free man thinks of nothing less than of death. His wisdom is a mediatation not of death but of life.
I reached stage 5 (Acceptance) around New Years. I'm no longer holding out any hope that he won't end up being the nominee. This is truly sad, but I guess that's where we're at as a culture.
With all the senators despising Cruz, he would be excellent impeachment insurance for Trump if Cruz were to be Trump's VP.
Verstehen sie karma?
It strikes me that the folks listed by the NR are all wealthy individuals who can afford their principled conservative purity. Those of us down here on earth, who would like to find a job, not to mention those who would like to be able to do some business and hire some people, may look at it differently.
If Trump can barge in and break up both clubs, I'll be all for it.
"This is the largest negative onslaught I've seen against Trump yet. I expect if its working, it'll show up in next week's polls. But in this, it seems, the conservative and establishment wings of the party are now in agreement."
I expect it won't work...
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/137816083466/updating-the-persuasion-stack-national-reviews
Why so many people underestimate Trump:
"When you see criticisms of Trump, people tend to go after his averageness on one or more of the dimensions of his talent. Those criticisms are often accurate, but they miss the forest for the trees. Trump’s power comes from his talent stack, not from any individual skill"
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/137749295801/trumps-talent-stack-systems-versus-goals
Are chickelit and chickenlittle the same commenter?
Scott Adams of the Dilbert cartoon is indeed the only pundit to predict and to analyze Trump's campaign accurately since early 2015.
I quit reading Dilbert when week after week it predicted too closely what my workplace would be like, in a not-funny-but-sad way. Adams knows whereof he speaks, both regarding business in America and Trump's campaign.
"Why so many people underestimate Trump"
I don't underestimate Trump. He's brilliant at what he does. A master of the skill set that has magnified his inherited wealth and become a media phenomenon at the same time. Schwarzenegger has a similar brilliance, with his real estate being his own body that launched him into superstardom. But he wasn't a good governor. He fought for a year, lost the fight, and being more ego driven and self-focused, he made the most of it by cozying up to the establishment. Both men are clearly quite smart, brilliant at getting what they want and what they want most of all is to gratify their ego. Which does not make for good or consistent governing as President.
Trump is likely smarter than Reagan, but Reagan had a skill-set that was perfect for the role.
Something else from dilbert. It at least always makes me laugh. So he added a definition to the bottom of the persuasion stack.
I need to add one level to the BOTTOM of the persuasion stack. That level involves arguing about the definition of a word.
Persuasion Stack
Identity (best)
Analogy (okay, not great)
Reason (useless)
Definition (capitulation)
You’ll see a lot of debate on whether Trump is a true conservative or not. That is argument by definition. It is the linguistic equivalent of throwing your gun at a monster because the clip is empty.
As of January 22, Trump has received nine times as many actual primary votes as any other candidate.
"I don't underestimate Trump. He's brilliant at what he does. A master of the skill set that has magnified his inherited wealth and become a media phenomenon at the same time. Schwarzenegger has a similar brilliance, with his real estate being his own body that launched him into superstardom. But he wasn't a good governor. He fought for a year, lost the fight, and being more ego driven and self-focused, he made the most of it by cozying up to the establishment. Both men are clearly quite smart, brilliant at getting what they want and what they want most of all is to gratify their ego. Which does not make for good or consistent governing as President.
Trump is likely smarter than Reagan, but Reagan had a skill-set that was perfect for the role."
You assume Trump's skill set is not up for the job, that it's more akin to Arnold's. You may be right but I don't think you are. I don't think Trump is anything like him. He's nothing like Reagan either. Predicting his success or lack thereof based on either of those men is a waste of time, imo.
Also one must realize we are in a time of a great paradigm shift and the "rules" may need to be revised. Even fundamentally so. I would suggest an open minded watch and see attitude, but it's obvious that many are emotionally invested in their assessments and are incapable of seeing things clearly. Judging a man's ability to be an effective leader based on whether on not he uses it's or its inappropriately is the height of emotionally based folly.
Laslo Spatula said...
The Five Stages of the Prison Shower.
I am not going to get fucked in the ass.
I am NOT going to get fucked in the ass!
Please don't fuck me in the ass.
Oh God, I'm going to be fucked in the ass.
I guess that wasn't so bad.
Actually, it's been pretty bad, over and over again.
Hence ... Trump.
Hence ... Sanders.
Laslo/Tank's comment is more insightful than the entire NR issue, which I read.
I hate to comment about other commenters, but must this Laslo miscreant be allowed to continue his rancid rants?
Thread theft jealousy.
The National Review, amidst others, pretends that they are at Stage Two, but are actually at Stage Four.
Perfect!
Never forget that Napoleon was loved by the French. The National Review is playing the role of the deadlocked Directory to perfection. The political skills of Bonaparte were near genius.
I hate to comment about other commenters, but must this Laslo miscreant be allowed to continue his rancid rants?
Here's the thing. (This might be too obvious).
You can skip over his comments and not read them! The name of the Commenter always precedes the comment, alerting you to what follows!!
That's my polite reply to your comment.
Look at it this way. If you were on the board of a Fortune 500 company and you were looking for a new CEO what criteria would you have?
The country is not a Fortune 500 company. It is nothing like a Fortune 500 company. And just because someone might be a good CEO of a Fortune 500 company (and btw Fiorina was a lousy CEO, and Trump is lucky it is his company he is in charge of considering how many times he has taken his companies into bankruptcy), doesn't mean they are qualified to be President.
In fact, many of the traits that make a person an effective CEO are not traits you would want in your president.
my old posts, refusing to write Trump's name, had the tag "nothing"
The concept of nothing is an important theme in Shakespeare's play King Lear. The title character recognized that he was losing his kingdom, his family, his mind, his health and ultimately his life.
Contemplating his decline toward oblivion, Lear pondered the nothing concept frequently.
Here are a couple of essays on this theme in the play:
"The Value of Nothing in King Lear", by Don Foran
http://archives.evergreen.edu/webpages/curricular/2008-2009/pw/the-value-of-nothing/index.html
"King Lear -- Centering on the Theme of Nothing", by Goro Suzuki
http://afnorthliterature.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/5/3/12535080/nothing_in_shakespeare.pdf
In contrast to Lear's descending toward oblivion, Trump is ascending toward greatness. Instead of using the tag word nothing for articles about Trump, you should have used the tag word greatness.
Doesn't Althouse have a theme about how nothing is often better than something?
Odd. He's qualified (check the job description), and everyone who disagrees can collectively blow him away with an alternative, but it's up to them to do so. Believe it or not, I think we're scrutinizing a feature here, not a bug.
Mind your pronouns, Freddie.
In fact, many of the traits that make a person an effective CEO are not traits you would want in your president.
Apparently, spending a little time in the Senate with no accomplishments to show for it - and a little time before that working as a community organizer - also signal lousy preparation for the Presidency.
Can't wait for that big beautiful 2000 mile border wall with the beautiful door to be built right away, paid for by Mexico. One awesome thing about a Trump presidency: it would be so hilariously bad and mock-worthy, and so disappointing for conservatives, hopefully it would finish off the GOP once and for all.
garage mahal said...
"... One awesome thing about a OBAMA presidency: it would be so hilariously bad and mock-worthy, and so disappointing for conservatives, hopefully it would finish off the DNC once and for all."
FIFY
tim maguire said...
The Daily News has supplanted the New York Post as the go-to joke paper of this election cycle.
Daily News -> Yawn Slide
New York Post -> Wonky Tropes
The greatest service the next president could achieve for the country might be not so much he making deals with whomever, as causing individual congress critters, or packs of such critters, to fraternize with individuals or groups of the other party, who might be of like mind on some particular issue, by-passing the present pyramidal party power structures.
In the increasingly likely circumstances that this election comes down to a choice between Hillary and Trump I would probably choose Trump. The calculus of this decision has however been made considerably more complicated for me by my wife, who recently informed me that if I did in fact vote for the Donald I would find myself sleeping with the fishes. The presumption of privacy associated with my vote for president means very little to her. I have nothing against the fish, but the spare bedroom is cold in winter and our small aquarium does very little to warm it up. Even the vast entertainment value of a Trump presidency is not worth the hassle for me given these circumstances and I must regretfully inform the rest of the voting public that I am now sitting this one out. C'est la vie.
"but it's obvious that many are emotionally invested in their assessments and are incapable of seeing things clearly."
On that we definitely agree.
In fact, many of the traits that make a person an effective CEO are not traits you would want in your president.
I see zero Presidential traits in the two Democrat Party front runners. In fact, I see many disqualifying traits in them. Trump wins hands down over Bernie and Hillary.
Trump is an unpredictable, narcissistic blowhard. However, from the perspective of the Republican establishment, he has always been preferable to a Christian constitutional conservative, that is, Cruz. Among other things, Trump has patronized high level graft and is likely to provide better opportunities to maintain it than Cruz.
As a Ccc, mentioned earlier, I will only vote for Trump if he runs against Hillary the grifter. Otherwise, I will watch as the Sanders/Fauxcahontas ticket kicks his sorry ass around the block and ends any future likelihood of a Republican presidency.
It is stupefying that Republican malcontents with a field containing some admirable, capable candidates would choose to mess themselves over a Republican, Obama-type huckster.
By the way, another CNN link reports that Republican Senators will "revolt" if Cruz is the nominee. Funny, I already think of most of them as revolting.
Yes, Ross Perot was a superior billionaire dope. We could go for Bill Gates. He's no dope. Maybe Jeff Bezos. That FaceBook dude is too young, thank goodness. Watch out for him in coming years.
AReasonableMan, that was funny.
My wife and I don't agree on politicians much, but we tend to agree on moral philosophy, so we both find our political differences puzzling.
There's not even a couch in the room where our tiny aquarium sits, and I don't think I could make it on that brick floor.
Trump doesn't privately have the $1 billion cash he'll need to run in the general, GOPe donors have.
Trump can’t do this, can’t do that, blah, blah, blah …
We’ve been hearing this ever since Trump entered the race. But, unexpectedly, he always seems to be able to do what was formerly declared impossible. Psychologically, the statement above is a “tell.” It assumes Trump will win the nomination.
I've noticed in this last week a coalescing against Trump … This is the largest negative onslaught I've seen against Trump yet. I expect if its working.
The coalescing forces the commentor very adroitly refers to are frightened. Panic is setting in on several fronts. I’m waiting for some Rathergate-style dirty tricks to be used on Trump. If people are frightened enough they can be ruthless.
A couple of the latest polls show Cruz fading against Trump. Did Trump paint the smell of death on him? I don’t know. I don’t think we’ll know until after the Iowa primary. I’m leery of the polls. I don’t trust them.
I think Trump could finish Cruz off completely if Trump starts talking about Cruz’s value-added tax, emphasizing how Cruz is hiding that policy under an euphemism that Cruz calls a “Business Flat Tax.”
http://tinyurl.com/z9exadl
Seems to me this election is about Republicans letting go of ideological purity and Democrats tightening their grip on it.
Bingo! A nice toaster for this comment.
Trump’s power comes from his talent stack, not from any individual skill.
Love the Dilbert site. Here’s a URL for it that is shorter: http://blog.dilbert.com
The site is easy to navigate.
Embrace the cascade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PytWoOvzBhA
Ted Cruz is the GOP establishment canidate (just like Romney, McCain, etc.)
...and the DNC establishment canidate is Hillary.
the reason why Trump is so popular and is going to win the presidency?
here's why: when 'conservatives' where elected to congress/senate after 2014
they were mandated to REPEAL 0BAMACARE. now... why hasn't the GOP, done that?
...you think it's impossible to get the votes to override 0bama's presidential veto? the conservatives only need like 5. So now I reveal to you the biggest reason for why Trump will beat Cruz for the nomination...
...because the conservatives of Ted Cruz's ilk.... have spent the last several years enriching themselves at the people's expense... Just like The DNC has fucked people over with 0bama ...who has spent pretty much his whole time in office catering to his special interest buddies/elite establishment.
....so the people, as you might have guessed... have finally gotten tired of getting fucked over by the political elite.... and want an outsider to at least attempt to fix things. ...that outsider is Trump, who is not a politician and is self funded...
....unlike Ted Cruz who will lie to your face to get elected... and takes donations from Goldman Sachs (the very people he, himself called Crony Capitalists)
...so people see Ted Cruz as more of the same political elite establishment....
they won't change anything.... I'll give you this lil stipulation tho....
If the GOP establishment/Ted Cruz repeals 0bamacare between now and before the end of the nomination...
or between now and the end of the election officially that determines the next president. ...which would prove that he/they are working for the people...
then ted cruz might win the nomination and the presidency
....but as it stands now, because of the GOP's inaction on 0bamacare... and their willingness to essetially give 0bama and the dems everything they want since they where put in power.
this is ultimately called karma, for them.
the funny thing is... the DNC establishment is the same way... they favor hillary (because she can be controlled by them... just like ted cruz can be controlled by the GOP establishment)
they hate bernie... but hillary is sure to lose the election if she is the nominee(just because of the email scandal)
if the GOP don't do anything about 0bamacare between now and Sept. 8th
.....Trump is most likely going to be president.
that's your only chance, I'd say if anybody wants ted cruz to win.
prove that he can get something done, or he loses. ...Ted Cruz reminds people of Romney tho... doesn't get any of the issue's solved... but he'll gladly tell you what you want to hear to get your vote. and he lost a huge amount of support on the immigration issue when he wouldn't support a ban on illegals/refugee's flooding in the US. (must be due to his politically correctiveness)
"but it's obvious that many are emotionally invested in their assessments and are incapable of seeing things clearly.
On that we definitely agree"
I don't love the guy. I do enjoy his "inside their OODA loop" outflanking maneuvers of the press and GOPers, but I certainly don't have any hero worship illusions. I can see how he could be a very effective president and the right man for the times. I can also see how he might fail, but given the options I'm cautiously optimistic.
On the other hand many here are so caught up in deranged hatred for the man they are simply beyond rational calculation. My observation is these people mostly consist of those with a pretense of intellectualism which I find insufferable in general anyway.
Trump scares me, as do most demagogues. I am a conservative libertarian, so Bernie and Hillary scare me more.
I prefer Cruz, but may have to hold my nose and vote for the Donald. It will be a wild and often unpleasant ride. On the other hand, Obama has been the second coming of the Carter administration. The ride is not only consistently unpleasant, but we will be paying the price for a long time.
Trump may do a few good things for the economy. His primary appeal is that he is not shy about calling out the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party - the Mainstream Media.
Paul: "On the other hand many here are so caught up in deranged hatred for the man they are simply beyond rational calculation. My observation is these people mostly consist of those with a pretense of intellectualism which I find insufferable in general anyway."
"Deranged hatred?" Really? So I suppose that my characterization of Trump as a "narcissistic blowhard," for example - a characterization that he reinforces every day - is somehow less defensible than your characterizations of those "here" who dent your "cautious" idolatry.
It doesn't take even a pretext of intellectualism to recognize bullshit. If Trump were "of color," you would no doubt be calling us "racists."
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to civil political discourse
"many here are so caught up in deranged hatred for the man they are simply beyond rational calculation. My observation is these people mostly consist of those with a pretense of intellectualism which I find insufferable in general anyway."
I think some may be like this (as well as some who are caught up in deranged love for the man they are simply beyond rational calculation). But, to say that most hereabouts are like this is to not know the generally quality of commenter hereabouts. Many people become passionate when they have rationally calculated a coherent response.
People have different values and different priorities, and I think we see more of that than pretense of intellectualism. There really are some smart folks with thoughtful and engaged perspectives. The format lends itself more to quips, barbs, and narrow back and forth than developed discussion.
A lot of it too comes down to whether we trust Trump or not. With his lack of a political record, this trust becomes essential in predicting what he'd do once in office.
Freder: "(and btw Fiorina was a lousy CEO, and Trump is lucky it is his company he is in charge of considering how many times he has taken his companies into bankruptcy), doesn't mean they are qualified to be President."
Such are the misconceptions and ignorant observations of a fellow who doesn't believe employees can bargain for additional benefits.
On this topic, and let's face it on ALL topics broached on Althouseblog, you should feel quite free to safely and happily ignore the uninformed musings of Freder.
Do go on Freder and explain why Fiorina's CEO long term strategy was a failure (which will be hard to do since even after her departure the strategy was maintained and HP found itself in quite the advantageous server market position).
Likewise with Trump the developer. 4 bankruptcies you say?! Well, out of how many deals, over what length of time, across what economic/political/market/competitor conditions?
I can't wait to read your trenchant and insightful "analysis".
I can't wait to hear what a wonderful catch our Vermont-socialist/commie would be in regards to business acumen.
LOL
Your \Master
In what universe does the Republicans only need 5 votes to reach 2/3 majority in both houses to override an Obama veto? In this universe the Republicans are 40+ votes short in the House and 10+ votes short in the Senate to override a veto.
MadisonMan said...Are chickelit and chickenlittle the same commenter?
One and the same, Madman!
I shortened chickenlittle to chickelit to get a Twitter handle: When I first joined Twitter, in Jan 2009, "chickenlittle" was taken. So I lopped off vowels until I got something original.
BTW, MadMan, I still recall our first exchange on the Althouse blog almost 10 years ago: link. You were the consummate gentleman then and have remained so. Though I have detected a slight rightward shift in your politics.
You were the consummate gentleman then and have remained so.
i
However, if you look at your first attempted reply in that old comment thread, it was apparently deleted by Althouse. Perhaps it was a personal attack lacking humor with tons of line breaks.
OK, let's play this out. Assume Tromp gets the GOP nomination.
Scenario # 1: Tromp loses to Biden (or Hillary! or Sanders or the guy from Maryland). The Republicans lose control of the Senate, but maintain a (narrower) majority in the House. The Obama Revolution is consolidated, because the Republicans are unable to pass any repealing legislation that will survive a veto, but no new revolution will be accomplished.
Scenario # 2: Tromp wins the presidency and brings in a Republican Senate (barely) and a strongly Republican House. Tromp works with the Republican establishment to revise the details of the Obama Revolution, but neither the president nor the congressional leadership will seek to make major changes in the legislative heritage of the Obama years. Sort of like Eisenhower's treatment of the New Deal and Fair Deal.
If you believe that what the country needs is a new conservative/libertarian party to replace the Republicans, Scenario # 1 offers more opportunities.
AReasonableMan said...In the increasingly likely circumstances that this election comes down to a choice between Hillary and Trump I would probably choose Trump. The calculus of this decision has however been made considerably more complicated for me by my wife, who recently informed me that if I did in fact vote for the Donald I would find myself sleeping with the fishes.
I get dirty looks and questioning responses from my wife when I hint that I favor Trump. It helps though that my soon-to-be-18-year-old son is a major Trump supporter and so we sort of bond over it.
Oh what we men suffer!
Paddy is on fire at 11:21. Nice!
Your \Master wrote: "Ted Cruz is the GOP establishment canidate [sic.](just like Romney, McCain, etc.)...and the DNC establishment canidate [sic.] is Hillary."
How could the rest of the country be so confused? So Cruz is the "GOP establishment candidate?"
Remind me. Which one is Cruz again? Let's see, Rubio called McConnell a liar, Carly is the Junior Senator from Kentucky, Bush was the Governor of Arkansas, Carson was the Governor of Florida and Christie is the brain surgeon, right? Oh, and Cruz and McCain are buddies. That must be why the GOP likes him.
Tell me if I've gone wrong anywhere, please. I'm so glad we could have this little "chat."
I just thought of something that lots of others probably had before but...
Trump produced "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice" ...
80% of a Presidents job is appointments.
Do you see where this is going ?
Trump is just the guy to make appointments matter, and the operation of the executive agencies more interesting to the public. This is something that he's not only going to care about, but he's going to make everyone care about.
Maybe he will start a reality show.
Public grilling of executives of the EPA for instance.
He may get to say "You're Fired" - hopefully a lot.
Cruz is the conservative and Trump is the nationalist populist and neither are criminals, grifters or communists so for me casting a vote for either man on election day is not a problem.
ARM I feel you. Right now I'm a Cruz guy and my Boss Lady is all for the Trumpster and last night I got pretty much the same speech.
"It doesn't take even a pretext of intellectualism to recognize bullshit. If Trump were "of color," you would no doubt be calling us "racists."
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to civil political discourse"
Compared to you I've been rather civil so obviously I must have struck a nerve. Funny I wasn't thinking of your posts when I wrote that as they had not left sufficient impression but nice to know it's really all about you. In the very strong likelihood that Donald Trump becomes the next president may your agita equal or even surpass my schadenfreude.
"I think some may be like this (as well as some who are caught up in deranged love for the man they are simply beyond rational calculation). But, to say that most hereabouts are like this is to not know the generally quality of commenter hereabouts. Many people become passionate when they have rationally calculated a coherent response."
But I didn't say most now did I?
buwaya: Trump is just the guy to make appointments matter, and the operation of the executive agencies more interesting to the public. This is something that he's not only going to care about, but he's going to make everyone care about.
I hadn't thought of that, but that would be a *very good thing*.
Maybe he will start a reality show.
Public grilling of executives of the EPA for instance.
He may get to say "You're Fired" - hopefully a lot.
Lol. What a pleasant fantasy.
Though we all have our own fantasies about which agency he ought to start with...
Unless the Leviathan regulatory state is brought to heel, the institutional inertia will carry forward regardless of the presidency.
If I believed a President Trump understood the threat to freedom that the Leviathan represents, it would be a matter of faith. He has made no mention in his public statements that reflect such understanding.
I think some may be like this (as well as some who are caught up in deranged love for the man they are simply beyond rational calculation). But, to say that many hereabouts are like this is to not know the generally quality of commenter hereabouts. Many people become passionate when they have rationally calculated a coherent response.
Of course I have a plan. There should be a wholesale close of many departments. Barring that:
All federal employees must sign a pledge not to infringe civil rights. All federal employees must promise that they have never infringed civil rights. Penalty for lying: loss of pension and ATCA level bans on future employment.
Offers of early retirement for those who will not sign a pledge to uphold the Constitution.
Investigations and firings to follow. Prosecutions if crimes committed. Public disclosure and encouragement of lawsuits against the offenders.
The plan would be to enforce laws and remove official immunity.
Paul wrote: "Compared to you I've been rather civil so obviously I must have struck a nerve."
Hmmm, let's see, your "rather civil" = "deranged hatred," "beyond rational calculation," "pretense of intellectualism," "insufferable." (3:37)
Evidently, "civil" doesn't mean what you think it means.
And: "In the very strong likelihood that Donald Trump becomes the next president may your agita equal or even surpass my schadenfreude." (6:14)
Goodness, Italian and German in the same sentence. Were you saying something earlier about pretense of intellectualism?
hombre,
I thought "agita" was Yiddish. But the spelling might be different.
Someone must have said, Drat, plum Don.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा