Irene's comment took me a while to process. I had to reorient my mind. It's a reference to Obama.
Trump really was talking about running for President, and the first commenter, Scott M, answering my question, says: "Narcissism." Other comments include "Scott nailed it," "Scott's right." And then there's lyssalovelyredhead, who said:
Am I the only one who would seriously consider voting for the Donald? Sure, he's an attention whore and narcissist, but he is also a man who Knows How The World Works. Unlike most politicians (even conservatives, see, e.g., GWB), he doesn't have silly notions about being nice to people and having them be nice in return. He undestands incentives.Trump was talking about running in the 2012 election, and back in 2011, Sarah Palin was considered a front-runner. Trump's talk of taking her on, was not like his talk of taking on Princess Diana. (Speaking of "nailed.") He meant he'd run against her for President. He said: "She's very interesting. And don't underestimate her."
We need more of that.
Trump was also saying: "I'm looking at this country ... and what's happened in terms of respect, and the respect for this country is just not there... I have many people from China that I do business with, they laugh at us. They feel we're fools. And almost being led by fools. And they can't believe what they're getting away with."
Oh, we are fools. Fools almost being led by fools. That's not going to stop. There's no possible way. Unless somebody is actually evil. But I don't believe in the devil. I believe in stupidity.
Posts
95 comments:
I didn't used to believe in the Devil, then one day I read a news account about a man sexually molesting his one day old son in the hospital where the child was born.
Six years on the question is what possesses people to be World Ruler? Being the mere US President has lost its appeal today.
But Brexit happened.
Althouse is so on a roll.
I like seeing what people thought then.
There is only 1 thing us fools can do to stop being led by fools and that is to demand to be led by term limited fools.
The ruling class has fucked us over. Wake up.
"I believe in stupidity"
Looking around you just about have too.
MadisonMan said...
I like seeing what people thought then.
It's almost like a "Then And Now" photo comparison.
One is pretty much half two.
Just look at this Constitution of ours and the criteria to run for President. Unbelievable. Anyone can qualify. Whatever happened to a council of Wise Maesters prudently selecting a One to lead us beyond all foolishness?
Well, shit, I actually wrote that, didn't I? Sorry guys, sorry. I take full blame. My bad. Sorry.
"Well, shit, I actually wrote that, didn't I? Sorry guys, sorry. I take full blame. My bad. Sorry."
It's hard to blame someone who owns up like that.
"Oh, we are fools." Depends on what the meaning of "we" is.
How many stupid Sarah Palin / Todd Akin / Christine O'Donnell / Sharron Angle / Donald Trump candidates do we have to suffer through, before the Tea Party realizes that professionalism and political expertise is important?
I don't want to insult all conservative insurgencies. Thank God for Marco Rubio, knocking down the onetime Republican establishment figure, the reptilian Charlie Crist. Ditto Ted Cruz, battling through the Texas primary to get to the Senate.
The "royal" we? The editorial.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VLR_TDO0FTg
Six years ago Palin was still popular for making the right enemies. Today we have a guy with so many more more enemies that Sarah looks like an amateur.
Isn't this always the case? It's like we don't pay attention. We think, hey, this person would make a great candidate for president! They aren't anything like our current crop. This person is perfect in every way!
It's like we have some sort of impervious amnesia to the fact that the media is going to dig into every single person, Republicans especially, and make them look like the new Hitler. No one, not even Romney, can avoid it.
And yet we keep doing it and we keep pretending that it can't happen to our candidate.
What's wrong with us?
How many stupid Sarah Palin / Todd Akin / Christine O'Donnell / Sharron Angle / Donald Trump candidates do we have to suffer through, before the Tea Party realizes that professionalism and political expertise is important?
Chuck, Sarah Palin was chosen by John McCain to be his running mate. Just thought I would point that out.
Blogger Chuck said...
How many stupid Sarah Palin / Todd Akin / Christine O'Donnell / Sharron Angle / Donald Trump candidates do we have to suffer through, before the Tea Party realizes that professionalism and political expertise is important?
I don't want to insult all conservative insurgencies. Thank God for Marco Rubio, knocking down the onetime Republican establishment figure, the reptilian Charlie Crist. Ditto Ted Cruz, battling through the Texas primary to get to the Senate.
Why do you guys always skip over the Allen's, the Whitman's, the Crists (oh, but you didn't) in your analysis?
People lose elections. Romney lost. McCain lost. Dole lost.
Yet, it's somehow special when the non establishment approved candidate loses.
"We would have won if you'd just gone with our candidate!"
Maybe if you all would stop sabotaging our candidates theyd win. I'm getting pretty tired of it. #Nevertrump is the culmination of that effort. Hey, we got rid of those other tea party upstarts, we will show them what's what with that trump fellow!
I like that the idea of demonic possession, here in this blog post, bangs up against the psychiatric (or is it psychological?) idea of narcissism.
I think it was Richard Dawkins who remarked that the ascendancy of science is proven by the fact that creationists feel the need to assert the pretext of intelligent design.
That tension, which is a part of many of us, was used to great effect in The Exorcist.
As a person who grew up "brainwashed" into believing in an actual devil and one who has been since "brainwashed" by society into not believing in one, I'm at a crossroads. Which do I really believe? Do I now, like Ann, simply believe stupidity is the devil? Can I dismiss ISIS behavior -- throwing gays off buildings, beheadings, immolations, drowning in cages -- as mere stupidity?
Nope. The trail of blood throughout human history is not due to humanity's lack of reason. In fact, a lot of it is the result of reason, a contaminated reason to be sure, but reason at work.
I go with the actual devil theory, a self-loving fallen angel. If he did not exist, he soon would.
eric, here is the difference; Todd Akin and Sharron Angle lost completely winnable races. Romney and McCain lost nearly unwinnable races. The Obama turnout machine makes me wonder why, with a captive group that votes 98% for Democrats, the Dems would ever again run a non-black candidate. But in fact, Obama is a perfect freak. A mostly-white black man with a white education, white parenting, and a white accent. He's just black enough to get all of the voting blocs behind him. McCain and Romney were the best candidates to oppose him; Mitt Romney is clearly the best president we've never had in my lifetime. Who would you have run instead of McCain? Instead of Romney? Who could possibly have beaten Obama? Obama; the perfect political mix for the black voting bloc plus the unions plus self-hating bleeding heart guilt-plagued white liberals.
We can't win every election; but that just makes it all the more important to win the ones we can win.
Which makes a (possible) 2016 Clinton landslide all the more tragic; this should have been a winnable year. If Mrs. Clinton was as bad as all the Trumpkins say, they should have been falling all over themselves to vote for Jeb Bush if it had been a Bush v Clinton race.
coupe, you said, "There's two kinds of people, and one likes to build things, the other likes to manage or lead things."
That's an important distinction that runs through all of human society. There are cooks and restaurateurs.
In western society, it's usually a symbiotic relationship. Not always, and, I think, much less so in America lately. It's like that scene in Team America, World Police. The assholes like Trump and Hillary are rapidly gaining ground.
Oh, and eric; this deserves a special, separate reply...
You aren't really going to go down the Sean Hannity road of blaming a Trump loss on sabotage by conservatives, are you? The fuckhead Trumpkins have been telling me for months that nobody listens to or reads National Review or the Weekly Standard. Trump's minions say that they want to wreck the Republican Party, not win it. Trump attacked the Bush / Walker / Cruz / Rubio "donors." Trump never gave any indication that he wanted Republican Party support.
Don't waste your time. I said before Trump got the nomination that if he did win it, and then got schlonged, that Trump could not possibly blame the left-leaning media. Because the left-leaning media hates all Republicans. Trump couldn't blame donors, because he built a campaign on deriding donors. Trump couldn't blame a splintered party, because he alone splintered it.
Fuck you Trumpkins to hell after November. You won't have a candidate then. The only Republicans in public life will be Congressional Republicans, who will all blame everything on Trump and his supporters, most of them having cut ties with
Trump long ago. Trump won't have a power base; he won't have anything to negotiate with. Ailes will be long gone from FNC. Trump will have nothing but time to play golf. Like Obama.
We have been Obama Possessed for 8 years. Underneath his smile, he has systematically been destroying the USA with 1)CO2 is a pollutant Big Lie under the smoke screen of a science requiring a UN treaty, and 2) Iran is our friend treaty and 3) TPP is a simple trade deal treaty.
With those three Obama has actually ended the USA as we once knew it. Can Trump reverse that?
If Mrs. Clinton was as bad as all the Trumpkins say, they should have been falling all over themselves to vote for Jeb Bush
Why? What's in it for them?
The mere fact that the GOPe wanted to elect yet another Bush president, which would have made three immediate relatives in less than 30 years, is more than sufficient to discredit the party as a bunch of insular hacks.
I was seriously thinking about voting for Hillary if Jeb had won the nomination as a means to signal the Republican party that they have to actually offer me something for my vote beyond bromides and lies. Fortunately, the party is not that far gone, yet.
Also, since JEB! did so poorly in the primaries, despite the backing of the donors and
establishment, what makes you think he would have done any better against Hillary's machine and the media?
A very interesting look back! I'm curious as to what Lyssa means by her apology....are you now anti-Trump?
What has happened to Sarah Palin, anyway? Has she been sidelined by Trump, and if so was that his choice or does he just take up the oxygen and displace her? Or is it family matters that have kept her off the campaign trail (I say that with empathy- it seems that her kids need their parents lately and good n her if she recognized that and responded)?
Blogger Chuck said...
Oh, and eric; this deserves a special, separate reply...
You aren't really going to go down the Sean Hannity road of blaming a Trump loss on sabotage by conservatives, are you?
If the shoe fits.
Mark Levin, NRO, Bill Kristol, Michael Medved, Ben Shapiro, etc, etc, etc.
They are all actively working for a Trump loss. Therefore, they are to blame.
One of the insidious ways they are working toward a trump loss is what they did to Sarah Palin. The MSM, being filled with Democrats, don't know any Republican insiders. The ones they know all work with them and are Republican. Like Bill Kristol and George Will, etc.
So Everytime you see in the media that Trump's campaign is imploding, based off of "unnamed" sources? This is guys like Bill Kristol floating rumors to destroy Trump.
These lies become truth after a fashion. And #Nevertump is responsible for telling them.
"Also, since JEB! did so poorly in the primaries, despite the backing of the donors and
establishment, what makes you think he would have done any better against Hillary's machine and the media?"
Because in the general election, JEB! wouldn't be running against a media whore in a 19 man race trying to get attention among a conservative Republican electorate swamped with nativists, but instead he'd be running against the most unpopular nominee of all time in an essentially 2-person race with a more moderate electorate, where all he'd have to do is take a nap for six months to win it.
Hillary was a sitting duck this year, and the GOP primary voters blew it. It's their right, of course, but I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of "backstabbing" theories among people who have no one to blame but themselves.
"These lies become truth after a fashion. And #Nevertump is responsible for telling them."
#NeverTrump sounds a lot like those "saboteurs" who kept ruining all of Stalin's wonderful five year plans. But I get why you need to blame them--otherwise you might have to consider that Trump himself is a dud. It's easier to imagine that Bill Kristol somehow has the influence to trick conservatives into abandoning Trump.
"What has happened to Sarah Palin, anyway? Has she been sidelined by Trump, and if so was that his choice or does he just take up the oxygen and displace her? Or is it family matters that have kept her off the campaign trail (I say that with empathy- it seems that her kids need their parents lately and good n her if she recognized that and responded)?"
That's a good question--we haven't seen much of her since her endorsement. I don't think she generates the crowds she used to, and the media attention she used to get is getting sucked up by Trump.
Perhaps you missed it, or you're being dishonest, but Bill Kristol was am example. There are many in the MSM who are NeverTrump. I'd say overrepresented. I wonder why that is.
CStanley said: A very interesting look back! I'm curious as to what Lyssa means by her apology....are you now anti-Trump?
Basically, yes, though I think that Clinton is a terrible, terrible alternative. I've basically resigned myself to the idea that I'm really not sure which is worse (they are both worse, in different ways), and it doesn't really matter what I think in my safe state, anyway, so I'll just vote for Johnson and hope that the record L votes this time around will help nudge a few more people into being a little more interested in libertarianism.
I'm very saddened by the fact that it appears that this Trump debacle will damage the party and the principles that I support, perhaps beyond repair. I agree with Chuck that this was a very winnable race, and the fact that Clinton will have a very strong win, translating to a mandate, is very, very troubling.
I do still stand by my statement about needing more understanding of incentives.
"Perhaps you missed it, or you're being dishonest, but Bill Kristol was am example. There are many in the MSM who are NeverTrump. I'd say overrepresented. I wonder why that is."
I realize he was an example--but the "NeverTrumps" even as a mass are not going to be responsible for Trump's loss (if he loses). Trump's got a bigger problem with moderates who will not only not vote for him, but will vote for Hillary.
But even if the "NeverTrumps" did make the difference in a close race--why is it their fault they don't vote for an appalling candidate? Particularly a candidate who has no interest in their support? They can't be both irrelevant and influential at the same time, but it sounds like TrumpWorld wants to have it both ways--writing his critics off as nobodies (and thus unworthy of reaching out to) while still blaming them for Trump's loss.
Breitbart: We sure showed you MSM! Ooops, no actually we didn't.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-leads-trump-breitbart-poll
Clinton Leads In Breitbart Poll Conducted As Rebuke To MSM Surveys
In a poll out Sunday from Breitbart and Gravis Marketing, Clinton led a four-way contest with 42 percent of the vote to Trump’s 37 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson earned 9 percent of the vote, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein received 3 percent.
Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow explained in a statement accompanying the survey that the site would launch its own series of polls to provide “an accurate assessment” of the 2016 race.
"Basically, yes, though I think that Clinton is a terrible, terrible alternative. I've basically resigned myself to the idea that I'm really not sure which is worse (they are both worse, in different ways), and it doesn't really matter what I think in my safe state, anyway, so I'll just vote for Johnson and hope that the record L votes this time around will help nudge a few more people into being a little more interested in libertarianism.
I'm very saddened by the fact that it appears that this Trump debacle will damage the party and the principles that I support, perhaps beyond repair. I agree with Chuck that this was a very winnable race, and the fact that Clinton will have a very strong win, translating to a mandate, is very, very troubling.
I do still stand by my statement about needing more understanding of incentives."
I think the points you made in that comment were valid, just history showed that Trump was the wrong vessel for them. While I didn't think much of Trump to begin with, I'm surprised he turned out to be this bad.
I'm sure that this won't mean much to the firmly entrenched, but at some point reality hits, but for some it's not until election night.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-10-big-questions-about-the-election-revisited/
There weren’t a lot of polls published over the weekend, but the ones we saw didn’t have a lot of good news for Donald Trump. Instead, Hillary Clinton maintains a national lead of about 8 percentage points, and Trump’s chances of winning the election are down to 11 percent in our polls-only model — his low point of the year — and 21 percent according to polls-plus.
Instead of focusing on the details, let’s zoom out and ask a few big-picture questions about where the election stands. When we asked these questions a month ago, before the party conventions, Clinton held a lead of 3 to 4 percentage points over Trump, but Trump seemed to have momentum. Now, the landscape is very different:
It's all the fault of the Press! 30 points ahead in New York.
She’s beating Republican Donald Trump by 57-27 in a one-on-one matchup and 50-25 when third-party candidates are factored in. And while her favorability rating continues to be low — 51 percent of voters view her favorably and 46 percent unfavorably — it’s far better than Trump’s 24-72.
In August 2008, McCain had the backing of New York Republicans by a margin of 69-16 over Obama at this point in the cycle. In 2012, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was winning his fellow Republicans 65-31.
As of late June, Trump’s support was similar: Siena found him at 68-21 among the GOP.
But over the following six weeks, his support among New York Republicans plummeted.
When only Clinton and Trump were named in the poll, 55 percent of Republicans said they’d vote for him, with 24 percent choosing to back the former secretary of state and 9 percent saying they won’t vote. (Only 3 percent of Democrats said they don’t plan on casting a ballot).
Trump's numbers are worse when third-party candidates included. In that scenario, only 52 percent of Republicans said they planned to vote for Trump, 20 percent would back Clinton, and 9 percent said they would support Libertarian Gary Johnson. Even Jill Stein of the Green Party got 4 percent of Republicans.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2016/08/clinton-trump-poll-augurs-poorly-for-nys-down-ballot-republicans-104715#ixzz4HQ5VRtBW
Brando said While I didn't think much of Trump to begin with, I'm surprised he turned out to be this bad.
Agreed. Back when he was teasing the idea of running in 2012, I recall posting (elsewhere) a joke statement from him saying something like "What, you thought I was serious? Wow, I mean, can you imagine?"
No, I could not imagine. This is far worse than I could imagine then.
Because in the general election, JEB! wouldn't be running against a media whore in a 19 man race trying to get attention among a conservative Republican electorate swamped with nativists, but instead he'd be running against the most unpopular nominee of all time in an essentially 2-person race with a more moderate electorate, where all he'd have to do is take a nap for six months to win it.
Wasn't Romney sure to win back in 2012? I seem to recall a guy named Rove assuring everyone of that. I must be mistaken however, cause if there is one thing the GOPe is good at, it is reading the electorate.
And I don't consider natavist to be an insult.
If you don't think that citizens should be favored over non-citizens then why should I support you? You clearly aren't supporting my interests. Why should I support yours?
Politics is supposed to be about compromise. It is increasingly apparent that the GOPe is no longer interested in politics and is instead invested in propagating a technocratic, anti-democratic government. I expect that from self-proclaimed "progressives", but I was unaware how badly the "conservative" movement had been infected with that malady. Apparently while free markets are still sacrosanct (within reasonable limits of course) "the wisdom of crowds" does not apply to social or cultural issues and people have to be managed by superior individuals who have received a proper education at the correct institutions.
There was a small snapping turtle at our back door yesterday. I put on an oven mitt and took him down to the swampland.
He would've been a better candidate than this idiot Trump.
I'm starting to think that the current GOPe plan is to run JEB! against Hillary (or more likely Kaine) in 2020.
Because the country has a fever. A fever for JEB!.
And for another war. Where lots and lots of people come home disfigured and maimed. Including women, who are all secret super soldiers. And transgenders, cause gender is a construct, except when you feel like a particular gender. Shut Up! It all makes sens
"Wasn't Romney sure to win back in 2012? I seem to recall a guy named Rove assuring everyone of that. I must be mistaken however, cause if there is one thing the GOPe is good at, it is reading the electorate."
I can't speak for Rove or the GOPe, but anyone who truly thought Romney was "sure to win" that year was deluding themselves. Obama was in a very strong position--much stronger than Hillary this year. Of course, I give Rove and any GOP flack leeway on this because of course they're supposed to talk up their chances. But that was an uphill battle any way you look at it.
"And I don't consider natavist to be an insult."
I wasn't using it as an insult. It's merely a descriptive term for a powerful, possibly dominant segment of the GOP base.
"If you don't think that citizens should be favored over non-citizens then why should I support you? You clearly aren't supporting my interests. Why should I support yours?"
I assume you aren't addressing me with that question, and actually I'm wondering who you are addressing. Is someone outside a leftist fringe actually saying we should be favoring non-citizens over citizens? That would indeed be extreme, but you don't have to be a nativist to think so.
"Politics is supposed to be about compromise. It is increasingly apparent that the GOPe is no longer interested in politics and is instead invested in propagating a technocratic, anti-democratic government. I expect that from self-proclaimed "progressives", but I was unaware how badly the "conservative" movement had been infected with that malady. Apparently while free markets are still sacrosanct (within reasonable limits of course) "the wisdom of crowds" does not apply to social or cultural issues and people have to be managed by superior individuals who have received a proper education at the correct institutions."
The GOPe (at least who I think you're referring to) has its own host of problems, and needed a shakeup. A self-destructive mess like this isn't what I had in mind, but maybe in the long run it'll be healthy to rebuild from the ground up.
Never thought trump would run because sure he'd never release his tax returns. Looks like trump and I were both right about that one.
"I'm starting to think that the current GOPe plan is to run JEB! against Hillary (or more likely Kaine) in 2020."
Is anybody really calling for a return of JEB? I only brought up Sleepy JEB as a point of comparison for what--even in his comatose ways--would have been more formidable against Hillary than nominating her husband's golf-and-rape buddy attention whore. But I think we've seen the last of this generation of Bushes. Don't worry--we'll be hearing about his son in a cycle or two.
"Never thought trump would run because sure he'd never release his tax returns. Looks like trump and I were both right about that one."
Trump assured us he has the best tax returns, best of any candidate for president ever. Why should we need to see them? Is his word not enough?
What is a "natavist"?
Chuck said...
"How many stupid Sarah Palin / Todd Akin / Christine O'Donnell / Sharron Angle / Donald Trump candidates do we have to suffer through, before the Tea Party realizes that professionalism and political expertise is important?"
A lack of professionalism and political experience is just a small part of Trump's problem:
Trump Exposes Trump
https://youtu.be/kSE-XoVKaXg
On Cursing
Starting at the 58 second mark is a short clip of Trump saying, "I'm going to build that wall and Mexico going to pay for it and they'll be happy to pay for it."
Followed by an animated former Mexican President Vincente Fox emphatic, "We're not going to build...that f...n wall"
Trump responds sanctimoniously, "This guy used a filthy disgusting word on television and he should be ashamed of himself and apologize."
Immediately followed by several clips of Trump using using various forms of the f-word during his rallies.
This evokes Nixon's 1960 debate with JFK when Nixon denounced Harry Truman's supposed penchant for using bad language.
Clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukm4_3djpXM
I remember watching that debate and immediately typed Nixon as an unctuous hypocrite.
A quality which is not the least of Trump's electability problems.
Is someone outside a leftist fringe actually saying we should be favoring non-citizens over citizens? That would indeed be extreme, but you don't have to be a nativist to think so.
https://techcrunch.com/2008/04/21/house-republicans-move-to-increase-h1b-visa-quota/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/amnesty-jeb-adviser-sally-bradshaw-quits-gop-plans-vote-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/12/04/republicans_must_step_up_and_lead_the_fight_for_free_trade_100773.html
Don't worry--we'll be hearing about his son in a cycle or two.
Tone. Deaf.
I'm actually sitting the very chair I was sitting in, typing on the very same keyboard I was typing on :) I suppose that the same for a lot of us in this realm though.
Ron, none of those links you provide have anything to do with favoring non-citizens over citizens--unless you think allowing skilled workers to come her at all amounts to "favoring" them.
Maybe you think immigration of skilled workers or increased trade is a bad idea--fine, those are opinions worth discussing. There's certainly something to say about the relative merits and burdens of immigration and trade. But to characterize immigration as FAVORING non-citizens is disingenuous and I'm sure you know that.
"Tone. Deaf."
Tone deaf for pointing out that this country seems to love dynasties? I wonder where I got that crazy idea.
Hell, they're still working on some ginger Kennedy up in Massaholia. I'm sure we'll be hearing about him too.
I'm sure we'll be hearing some buzz about the Trump kids running for something in a few years.
@Althouse: Belief in the devil and belief in stupidity are perfectly compatible. Is it a fair inference from your last paragraph that you don't believe any of the fools who are "leading" us while simultaneously breaching the public trust, raiding the public coffers and otherwise screwing the country for their own gain, are evil?
I'm not inviting a debate, but it seems to me that influence peddling and milking the taxpayers for multimillion dollar vacations by politicians are evil and may be stupid even though the media don't seem to want to make an issue out of either at this time.
@Lyssa
I didn't hold it against a person if he or she voted Obama the first time. If they helped re-elect the guy, as they say in the South, that's a whole 'nother story.
Similarly, being for Trump prior to 6-8 months ago was perfectly respectable given what was known. If you are still pushing Trump as anything other than a less-worse alternative to Hillary, something unhealthy is interfering with your powers of observation and critical thinking.
Ron, none of those links you provide have anything to do with favoring non-citizens over citizens--unless you think allowing skilled workers to come her at all amounts to "favoring" them.
When citizens with the same or superior skills are getting laid off so they can be replaced with foreign workers, or for that matter be unable to get jobs to start with, yeah. Despite all of this talk of getting STEM degrees as a sure way to get a good job, there is actually a vast surplus of STEM degree holders. Importing new workers is not necessary and is only being done to keep wages suppressed.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
As for liking dynasties, I thought that was a Progressive problem. The fact that the GOP favors them does not fill me with optimism for the countries future.
As I said, Tone. Deaf.
"When citizens with the same or superior skills are getting laid off so they can be replaced with foreign workers, or for that matter be unable to get jobs to start with, yeah. Despite all of this talk of getting STEM degrees as a sure way to get a good job, there is actually a vast surplus of STEM degree holders. Importing new workers is not necessary and is only being done to keep wages suppressed."
Well, like I said, whether importing new workers is a good idea or not, that's not the same as favoring them. By that theory, colleges favor Asian-American students when they let them attend because then they take slots that black and white students might have filled. When I hear "favoring" I think of giving someone an extra advantage.
"As for liking dynasties, I thought that was a Progressive problem. The fact that the GOP favors them does not fill me with optimism for the countries future."
Then I hope you're not on the Eric Trump Train.
I don't care for dynasties either, but if you think only the Left (or the GOP "establishment") favors them, think again. I don't get it either, but it's there.
When I hear "favoring" I think of giving someone an extra advantage.
It would be nice if GOP policies favored Americans, then. Some party should, don't you think?
Well, like I said, whether importing new workers is a good idea or not, that's not the same as favoring them.
That is exactly what it is. You are importing non-citizens to take jobs that citizens could be filling. Now I know that the Libertarian position on this is to state that borders are outmoded and immoral and should not exist and nobody should favor someone who happens to be a citizen over someone who is not, which accounts for their huge electoral success. However, actual citizens often think that letting in foreign workers who are going to undercut citizens wages is, in fact, favoring someone besides them.
The fact that you actually advanced that line of argument makes me wonder if you are, in fact, a troll. Certainly it could not have been meant to be taken seriously.
Was that going to be Jeb's argument? Oh, we aren't actually "favoring" these foreigners. We are importing them to undercut your wages, sure. But we aren't "favoring" them. In fact, we are screwing them over. All the money we save by hiring them is going to enrich my rich cronies, so actually we are favoring citizens. Just not you!"
" a conservative Republican electorate swamped with nativists, "
Whence came these hordes of nativists? They did not materialize out of some parallel dimension, these people were always there, and many more joined them as a result of current circumstances. The real problem here is clearly that Jeb and co. misunderstood their own base, and much of the rest of the public. That, or their backers opposed the public will. That is disastrous.
"Hillary was a sitting duck this year, and the GOP primary voters blew it."
See above. What amazed me, since last summer, was the Republican candidates rejection of the demands - very loud demands - of their base. The party machine really did set itself against all these people. Thats incredible. It is the politicians job to represent the public, not the public to conform to the politicians. The attitude in back of this thought is very strange to me.
"Well, like I said, whether importing new workers is a good idea or not, that's not the same as favoring them.'
Current circumstances are not favorable to the libertarian position, because unlike theoretical libertarian condition, where it is not a zero-sum game, present economic conditions are indeed very close to being a zero-sum game. Bureaucratic/corporatist sclerosis changes the analysis.
This is not the fault of the libertarians, but a deep reform of the system needs to engage some problems before others.
For that matter, it doesn't even matter if they undercut wages. Why import foreign workers when their are plenty of citizens that can and will do the work?
What benefits accrue from being a citizen of a nation?
Shouldn't a nation's citizens have the right to decide who should or shouldn't be admitted into the nation?
If no benefits accrue to being a citizen, then why should I have any loyalty to the nation or its government?
Absent a social compact between the government and citizens isn't the government just a coercive entity enforcing its will via naked force?
If you think that citizens should not enjoy privileges that non-citizens do not, then why should I entrust my governance to you? Haven't you shown that you do not represent me, only yourself and your cronies?
"That is exactly what it is. You are importing non-citizens to take jobs that citizens could be filling. "
Er, no. By your logic, MLB "favored" black players by letting them compete in the major leagues.
Now, if you want to say this isn't good for the native born who are competing for the jobs because with more competition for the same number of jobs their chances of landing the job (or keeping a higher salary) are reduced, then you'd have something there. But this is not "favoring" the outsider. I don't know how to explain that any simpler, so at this point I'm wondering if you're being willfully obtuse.
If you still think I'm wrong, then explain how letting outsiders into a closed shop favors the outsiders. (Note--I'm not saying this is automatically GOOD for the original members, I'm talking about "favoring" one side over another).
"Whence came these hordes of nativists? They did not materialize out of some parallel dimension, these people were always there, and many more joined them as a result of current circumstances. The real problem here is clearly that Jeb and co. misunderstood their own base, and much of the rest of the public. That, or their backers opposed the public will. That is disastrous."
I don't disagree--those were sweltering problems that were going to emerge sooner or later. My comment wasn't in the vein of "how the hell did that happen" but rather "look at how this manifested itself, and now let's see what this leads to".
"Current circumstances are not favorable to the libertarian position, because unlike theoretical libertarian condition, where it is not a zero-sum game, present economic conditions are indeed very close to being a zero-sum game. Bureaucratic/corporatist sclerosis changes the analysis."
It's a bit more complicated than that--and depends largely by industry. But I agree it's not as simple as "immigration always good" either.
"For that matter, it doesn't even matter if they undercut wages. Why import foreign workers when their are plenty of citizens that can and will do the work?"
Because in some industries there simply aren't. Not in the "Americans won't stoop to doing this work" but often "we can't get enough technicians capable of handling this system and if we cannot get someone to fill it soon this simply won't get done". It's not always about "I can get someone to take half the salary so profit time for me".
What amazed me, since last summer, was the Republican candidates rejection of the demands - very loud demands - of their base. The party machine really did set itself against all these people. Thats incredible. It is the politicians job to represent the public, not the public to conform to the politicians.
Exactly, if Trump loses it is going to be the fault of the Republican leadership because Trump would never have gotten very far if the party had addressed the base's demands in a credible manner. And the demands didn't suddenly pop out of the aether.
Classical political theory is that third parties are untenable in the US because one of the major parties will seek to address the issues that give rise to third parties in order to gain electoral advantage over the other. And if they don't then one of the major parties will be replaced by a new party that is willing to address those issues and can form a coalition with some of the constituencies of the major parties.
The GOPe seems to believe that it is immune to such forces.
"with more competition for the same number of jobs their chances of landing the job (or keeping a higher salary) are reduced, then you'd have something there."
This is of course his point, and you really are being pedantic.
'Note--I'm not saying this is automatically GOOD for the original members'
This is indeed the whole point.
"My comment wasn't in the vein of "how the hell did that happen"
I took it to be about placing blame.
"But I agree it's not as simple as "immigration always good" either."
The nuances do not matter politically. It is a matter of trust and leadership. In Jeb, few people saw someone who had their interests uppermost. This is not a matter of parsing language or weighting correlations in a RAND study.
""we can't get enough technicians capable of handling this system and if we cannot get someone to fill it soon this simply won't get done""
I can testify that H1b, to take one controversial item, as it is currently implemented, is very rarely limited to cases such as the above.
I immediately thought of Rosa Kleb. Mirror image though.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjb5brylMTOAhWGdR4KHfjjB2AQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsebaspace.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Frosa-klebb%2F&psig=AFQjCNFpJudAifPAkAECSzp6cqsc_3RtOw&ust=1471376001802720
How do I remove a post I put on the wrong thread?
Wow, Lyssa, just wow. My respect for your opinions really took a hit today. :(
Now, if you want to say this isn't good for the native born who are competing for the jobs because with more competition for the same number of jobs their chances of landing the job (or keeping a higher salary) are reduced, then you'd have something there. But this is not "favoring" the outsider. I don't know how to explain that any simpler, so at this point I'm wondering if you're being willfully obtuse.
So you are doubling down on that? I actually addressed this in a post up thread, but okay.
You are arguing semantics. Telling people that they aren't actually "favoring" anybody, just hiring them instead of you, even though they were imported so they could compete against you for a limited number of jobs is not a winning proposition.
I also find your choice of examples telling. It was immoral to keep players out of the MLB because of their race. So no, it wasn't favoring blacks when the MLB integrated. It was just leveling the playing field. However, most people don't find it immoral that a citizen would be favored over a non-citizen in the citizen's won country.
So, it it your argument that it is immoral to restrict immigration? That people who are not citizens should have the same rights as those who are? And how far do those rights extend? We are already seeing some cities at least discussing letting non-citizens vote in municipal elections. How about state and federal? If not, why not?
As for the "some industries" argument. I suppose that is why Disney forced its IT workers to train their H2B replacements before laying them off? Nobody objects to a few workers allowed to immigrate fill jobs that actually can't be filled by citizens, but everyone knows what is not what is going on.
"This is of course his point, and you really are being pedantic."
If that's his point--and yours evidently--then that's all fine. But if you're going to say we "favor" non-citizens and all you have to show for it is a policy to let more of them compete (usually at a disadvantage) then sorry if it's "pedantic" to call you on it. You can make your argument without hyperbole.
"The nuances do not matter politically. It is a matter of trust and leadership."
Exactly why some of us don't trust Hillary's pal.
And when it's all said and done, the very issues you claim to care about will be set back farther than ever before.
Brando: "Hillary was a sitting duck this year, and the GOP primary voters blew it. It's their right, of course, but I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of "backstabbing" theories among people who have no one to blame but themselves."
I'm not a Republican primary voter. I spent most of my adult life involved in Democrat politics. The only differences I see between this and previous presidential elections is that the mediaswine have been forced to turn the burners up under the Republican from high to absurdly high because the Democrat candidate is unappealing, incompetent and a crook. The closest they came in the past to this level of corruption was Sarah Palin.
Their efforts have been facilitated by GOPe sour grapes, disengenuousness and disloyalty to what was their base. It has also been helped along by Trump himself who, despite his accusations, still can't quite grasp the partisanship and treachery of an unethical media.
Unfortunately, there is nothing theoretical about the backstabbing done to the candidate of the rank and file by party and conservative elites who will presumably register as Democrats or Libertarians or start their own party after the election. Their direct or indirect support for Hillary simply confirms the suspicions of Tea Partiers, Trumpkins, and others that when the rule of the elite is at stake, party designations dont mean a thing.
Or leave Jeb out of it. The same inability or reluctance was true of Rubio, Walker, Kasich, Christie, etc. All of the likely ones. Jeb was just the worst case, with his massive, useless expenditures saying things irrelevant to the public. All the others made very similar mistakes. Trump, alone, was able or willing to address the public mood.
The true Republican party problem is the near-complete disconnect with their voters.
The party structure seems, to this non-American observer, choked with consultants and other professional hangers-on, and dependent on their livelihood to a small number of donors who themselves are alienated from the public.
This is like having the top end of the corrupt Democratic machine, but without the media control and benefit-distribution capability of the bottom of the Democratic machine, which makes that one work.
And this is even more true of all the think-tanks and the conservative pundits and publications. The interests of the fellows who fund National Review are no longer very well aligned with those of the plumbers and electricians who would once have gone along with NR's political choices.
@buwaya
The fact that he is arguing silly semantics shows that he has lost the argument. At least the argument I am having. Not sure what argument is is engaged in.
"You are arguing semantics. Telling people that they aren't actually "favoring" anybody, just hiring them instead of you, even though they were imported so they could compete against you for a limited number of jobs is not a winning proposition."
Semantics was my whole point. But if you're saying "favoring" isn't really the term you mean, then I have no further argument on that.
"I also find your choice of examples telling. It was immoral to keep players out of the MLB because of their race. So no, it wasn't favoring blacks when the MLB integrated. It was just leveling the playing field. However, most people don't find it immoral that a citizen would be favored over a non-citizen in the citizen's won country.
So, it it your argument that it is immoral to restrict immigration?"
No, that wasn't my argument--I used that example simply because it's the simplest analogy to letting more competitors into a limited pool. I suppose the same argument could be made with bringing foreign ball players into the MLB.
"As for the "some industries" argument. I suppose that is why Disney forced its IT workers to train their H2B replacements before laying them off? Nobody objects to a few workers allowed to immigrate fill jobs that actually can't be filled by citizens, but everyone knows what is not what is going on."
Certainly it's been abused. I don't doubt that. But for example at my last job, we often had trouble finding people for very specific IT tasks to fill key jobs, and in some cases yes, the only qualified applicant was an H1B holder. The alternative wasn't a higher paid citizen (they were all pretty well paid) but rather to be unable to fulfill the contract.
"The fact that he is arguing silly semantics shows that he has lost the argument. At least the argument I am having. Not sure what argument is is engaged in."
We were, I thought, arguing about whether letting others compete with you means they are being "favored". Then you changed the subject.
My reference to Sarah Palin at 2:49 referred to media corruption, not Palin corruption. Whatever else I think of her, I don't think she is corrupt.
letting others compete with you means they are being "favored"
Letting natives of Third World hellholes come here and grab the brass ring is pretty clearly favoring them. I don't know why that has to be spelled out for you.
If you don't think that being allowed to come here isn't winning second prize in life's lottery (being born here is first prize) then WTF are you here?
"Certainly it's been abused. " (re H1b)
I'd say its abused in 9/10ths of cases, if abuse means simply being used as a cost reduction measure.
policy to let more of them compete
They are foreigners. They should not be allowed to compete. Allowing them to do so is favoring them because it puts them a position to cost a citizen a job. Which they should not be able to do. Even if they are better at it than any citizen and will do it for 1/3rd of the salary.
What we have here is the favoring of capitol over labor. Now I'm no commie, but if capitol has decided that it can unilaterally abrogate the social contract then it is hardly surprising that labor is going to reciprocate.
Ron, buwaya, ordinarily I enjoy our discussions but I have to sign off--we'll have to agree to disagree on our respective interpretations of the term "favoring". Until next time!
H1b is an interesting experiment, a very visible symptom of modernity.
Prior economic policy had a very limited view of labor mobility. Labor was mainly a local resource.
Modern technology (and this means everything from IT to telecom to air travel really cheap ocean shipping) is making the whole earth into a single labor market. This may overall be a good thing, especially for many of those worst off, those teeming hordes of third world peasants in previously isolated labor markets, and of course those very intelligent people with access to advanced training and education, that happen to live in wretchedly misruled lands. There are an awful lot of very intelligent people in those places.
However, this is most definitely not a good thing for almost everyone in the "rich" countries. Yes, eventually it will catch almost all of us. Even the masters of the universe in the aristocracy of labor aren't all that, if they really are competing with the whole world. There is always someone in Chennai with 5 extra IQ points who can replace you. I ought to know, I do business with some fellows in Chennai.
If the laws permitted it, the entire US workforce is easily replaceable given a few years of adjustment. Every bit of labor in this economy can be supplied by imports, remote outsourcing or by immigrants/gastarbeiter, unless wages adjust downward drastically.
I was one of the rather early foreign labor wallahs myself.
If the laws permitted it, the entire US workforce is easily replaceable given a few years of adjustment. Every bit of labor in this economy can be supplied by imports, remote outsourcing or by immigrants/gastarbeiter, unless wages adjust downward drastically.
This is called Globalism and both the major parties have taken the position that Globalism is inevitable and good. Obama himself has stated that Globalism is unstoppable. And its been the reigning orthodoxy of the capitalist class since at least the 70s. My first experience with Globalism was in the 70s when NCR moved its manufacturing overseas, devastating the economy of Dayton, Oh. I was still a wee lad, but well remember the economic damage that did to my family and community.
"Wasn't Romney sure to win back in 2012? I seem to recall a guy named Rove assuring everyone of that"
That's silly. Romney was another guy that was nominated despite a large portion of the constituency saying they'll not vote for him. H
This time Trump supporters are playing the part of Rove. With their motto of "Screw you, we won. Wall!" not exactly selling to those who really want to support someone besides Hillary.
It's not sabotage if people ahead of time said they can't be on Trump's side, that he's not a real conservative. "Screw you!" still isn't a selling point. Also, labeling anyone against Trump as somehow being GOPe isn't helpful. Nominate a questionable candidate, get questionable support.
Paddy O wrote: 'Screw you!' still isn't a selling point.
Well, Paddy, I just hope that you are able to see that your message is essentially "screw yours" and thus effectively "screw you" to me and my ilk. You are asking us to dump Trump in favor of ______? We went through a democratic contest to determine who the nominee would be. That obviously failed from your point of view. I expect it to fail in the future as well.
Question for you: If Trump were character assassinated tomorrow and resigned, who would you foist instead?
What Chuck et al. are yearning for is a super delegate system for the Republican party. That would have fixed the "Trump problem" for sure by golly! And yet, clear as day, such a system would have produced a JEB! candidacy, just like it produced a Hillary candidacy. Now, JEB! is Chuck's wet dream. Hell, being a "lifelong Republican " from Michigan, he probably would have personally gained from a Bush III presidency.
You guys who still want a Bush candidacy or a Rubio candidacy, or a Cruz candidacy must all yearn for a super delegate system because your guy couldn't get there democratically. Do you guys really hate democracy?
Yes, I know I conflated Bush III and Romney in my 8:46 comment regarding Chuck. Same difference.
The assumption Trump primary voters would have supported anyone else in the GOP for the general is a compliment, on one hand, acknowledging that "80% friend" is how to look at the GOP not "20% enemy" and these Trump voters would take that Buckleyian disposition.
On the other hand, it seems to assume these Trump voters are dull and easily led as the WaPo put it, willing to support anyone with the R in place, and unable to imagine not voting, or voting for someone else besides the GOP nominee.
They count on our votes as automatic in their hypotheticals yet demand their individual votes be courted and nothing should be assumed about our current reality and their potential votes because Trump Is Soooooooooo Bad Guys! He Is Gross! No Trump actual voters would have "reasons" to fire the hypothetical GOP nominee, probably because of a lack of I.Q., is the conclusion some have arrived at.
The fact is, Trump is the absolute perfect Uncle Milt Friedman politician: someone who has to do more of the right thing in office because of political pressure as opposed to being such a darned great wonderful human Saint we trust Character will supercede power's sanctity of seduction.
The GOP would love to impeach Trump and get Pence, a reasonable man they can deal with, into to power.
The libs would unanimously impeach to satiate their diesel-fueled hatred of the GOP and its leader Trump, and those hateful bigot voters of his.
People possess, and maybe can be described as being possessed by but only as individuals, not as a group of "people" possessed by any singular or group of identical ethos-drivers, stupidity (not at all reasonable given the situation) that allows the negatives of the campaign and the office if successfully sought to be glossed-over and any potential benefits to be focused on and even indulged masturbatorily.
Hillary figures she can stay out of prison if she wins, Trump figures he can become a great man in history books and vids if he can win and MAGA.
Lots of people that have a chance to at least make the debate stage want to earn a high enough profile for a book deal, TV contract, lecture circuit position, or future business/academia appointment by folks impressed they were on the stage.
"It's not sabotage if people ahead of time said they can't be on Trump's side, that he's not a real conservative. "Screw you!" still isn't a selling point. Also, labeling anyone against Trump as somehow being GOPe isn't helpful. Nominate a questionable candidate, get questionable support."
That's exactly it. Romney, McCain, etc. had the similar problem--Republicans cannot get fully behind their candidates. We can argue all day whether it's because Republicans are too ornery to rally, or the candidates are to blame for not sufficiently pulling together support. But the apt comparison here is the Dems--they fear the Right enough to circle their wagons (and it helps them that the GOP controls Congress--they'd have no power at all if they lost the White House).
I still don't get how Trumpits can say on the one hand "to hell with you! You're irrelevant!" to the same people they later blame for not getting behind Trump. You either want them or you don't! Sometimes Trumpits sound like a psycho girlfriend.
"The fact is, Trump is the absolute perfect Uncle Milt Friedman politician: someone who has to do more of the right thing in office because of political pressure"
Where do you get the idea that Trump succumbs to political pressure? I thought his whole appeal was that he just does what he wants.
Where do you get the idea that Trump succumbs to political pressure? I thought his whole appeal was that he just does what he wants.
No. His whole appeal is he isn't an establishment politician. He can be a bad president. He can be a monumentally bad president and he still won't be as bad as what we have now or what we will have if Hillary is elected.
OK. Your saying to yourself. Pretty bold assertion for a one eyed fat man. Despite everything you've been told to believe about Trump, he isn't stupid. He knows that a strong nation means a strong economy. He's made political hay off the fact, in the last election, the Republicans lied to their constituents over immigration and Obama Care. Trump is the T.E.A. party's revenge.
I hope he wins.
I still don't get how Trumpits can say on the one hand "to hell with you! You're irrelevant!" to the same people they later blame for not getting behind Trump. You either want them or you don't! Sometimes Trumpits sound like a psycho girlfriend.
The problem is that the neverTrumpers are putting too high a price on their support. You want him substantively to do what you, the non-winners, want, instead of what the winners want; and superficially, you want him to kiss your asses in Macy's window. Even if he wanted to do so, it would a) compromise the platform which a majority of primary voters found desirable; and b) make him look weak.
His best bet is to figure that you'll come around, because Hillary is the death of the Republic and you will accept that you can't not vote for Trump for reasons on the level of having bad breath. You don't deserve to get half a loaf, let alone 90%, you deserve maybe a third for argument's sake (we can negotiate whether it's 25% or 40%, say). As the recent Presidential winner, one Barack Hussein Obama said, "We won."
On the margin if there was something that he could do, I agree he would be well advised to do it; but frankly his gestures haven't paid off. Hiring Manafort has not served him well, for instance.
One thing - these rallies - this is definitely the time and place to reach out to THESE people and get them to do GOTV type stuff. He specifically asked them, at the Erie rally, to volunteer to do election monitoring. He should also ask, and have signup sheets and people to organize, the ralliers to do GOTV, persuade neighbors, drive people to the polls, all that jazz. Assuming that he hasn't, he should start.
To the extent that he climbs down off some position that is odious to you, it often seems to turn out that he was substantially right all along. Anyone in an organization with "La Raza" in the name should be hounded out of public life. That Khan father is a miscreant and his wife is a whipped dog.
The fact that the media is willing to put the worst possible slant on anything he says doesn't mean that you should fall for it!
Try and make your criticisms more constructive. I agree it seems there are ways he could help himself. Usually such suggestions go over better not prepended with "Asshole!"
"The fact that the media is willing to put the worst possible slant on anything he says doesn't mean that you should fall for it!"
I don't take the media's word for it--I look at his actual words and actions. If I took the media's word for it I would have been supporting Democrats for years, and in this election as well. Trump has to be held to what he actually says.
"Try and make your criticisms more constructive. I agree it seems there are ways he could help himself. Usually such suggestions go over better not prepended with "Asshole!""
I think I've been pretty fair in not calling anyone "asshole", even by implication. Previously my suggestions have been along the vein of "answer specific concerns of those you can win over"--there's a large number of people who can't stomach Hillary. You say, "we won"--and yes, it was obnoxious for Obama to say it, but it would have been doubly stupid for him to say it about his vanquished primary opposition just when he's about to face off in the general election.
What constructive suggestions could I come up with (not that it matters--we're not advising any candidates here)? I'd start with building a ground game, matching the Dems' microtargeting operation, and focusing on the must win swing states with secondary emphasis on "nice to win" states. (For example--without Florida, Trump won't win). Focus his attacks on Hillary, all the time--and stop the attention grabbing stunts that give an already hostile media an excuse to cover that when there's another Hillary e-mail dump (these dumps have been monthly, but when's the last time they made top headlines?). Focus the attacks on Hillary's trustworthiness, which undermines everything she promises.
And if you do need an attention grabbing stunt? Do a big press conference with Juanita Broaddrick and focus on how Hillary just removed the "you have a right to be believed [about sexual assault]" on her web page. Rip out some of her support among millenials.
Help downballot candidates raise money and get them publicity--so their local machines are helping with GOTV drives, and undermine the "not credible candidate" meme. Stay on message.
Those sort of things (plus some coherent plans about reforming entitlements, revitalizing the economy with something more than "better trade agreements" which is what everyone claims to be for) could be worth at least a five point swing in the polls.
Brando, FTR you are not the worst or only.
As for not advising candidates, in fact, I wonder. Trump is not impervious to outside influences. Not always for good perhaps, but see him retweeting stuff. It is possible to reach him. How to reach him? The flapper problem. Tweet him these ideas? In a punchy 140 character format.
Stupidity only got the Republicans so far. The evil of the Democrats has them looking at another 8 years in the White House.
Post a Comment