A liberal society is one in which everybody has free-speech rights. A society in which some people have free-speech rights and some do not, depending on the self-interested whim of people with political power, is a totalitarian society realized to a greater or lesser degree. Heinrich Heine’s advice on the connection between the treatment of books and the treatment of human beings is always and forever relevant.
As I wrote recently, Trump has never read the Constitution. She hates it.
A brilliant article the first time. How would you like your crow cooked? Trump is going to be the best president in your lifetime.
Please. Trump will be a horrid President. Rand makes that clear. There will be no crow for Rand to eat.
But even so he’ll be slightly better than Clinton. And, as Rand writes, the bar for impeachment will be much much lower.
There’s even a possibility that Trump will let Pence run the country while Trump fools around with the Wednesday evening entertainment as well as laying the groundwork for mega-business deals with potentates and big business once he gets out.
That actually would be pretty good.
What Rand makes clear, as do you Gregg, is that you believe you know what he will do while chiding others that they don’t.
It’s the same evil genius moron mastermind shtick the left always pulls. Reagan had reason and could communicate. Trump seems to have intuition which he communicates in a language you can’t understand… but still somehow gets through to people so they can see through the lying Narrative.
You always know the left’s evil because they always project it onto their enemies.
How about doing what you do so much better than predicting the future? Hold his feet to the fire for actual actions. That would be productive. But that implies patience.
“What Rand makes clear, as do you Gregg, is that you believe you know what he will do while chiding others that they don’t.”
I believe the odds are high regarding what he will NOT do. And those odds are created by his past ACTIONS and not words.
“Trump seems to have intuition which he communicates in a language you can’t understand…”
Actually I understand Trump’s stilted language very well. Lots of people talk that way and I don’t hold it against him. I even think that the actual idea he’s trying to get across is occasionally good and I DO NOT interpret his stilted language in the way the Totali-crats do – as evil incarnate. The “Lying Narrative” you speak of is a problem only because he is not precise and clear so he opens himself up for attack.
I don’t think Trump is evil.
I think Trump will deeply disappoint you.
I think Hillary is evil.
She will not disappoint the Totali-crats
At the same time Trump’s past ACTIONS leave me in the deepest doubt that he will come through with what he’s saying.
“How about doing what you do so much better than predicting the future?”
Ken let’s look as what you are saying with this statement:
You are saying that we should not try to imagine what a candidate will do because that’s in the future. NOBODY does that – not even you. Otherwise a vote would be a totally random thing.
We all vote for the person we vote for because we ALL predict the future if that person wins. Every voter calculates the odds that a particular candidate will do what the voter wants. That includes you.
So yes I’m predicting the future odds. So do you.
My prediction is that as Trump is by no means a Conservative, he will not fight for Conservative ideals. I’ve written COUNTLESS times in this forum that you really have no idea what Trump will do.
I don’t know for sure what he will do. But I know where my betting money goes and that’s to Conservative Disappointment. Liberty Disappointment. Freedom Disappointment. All based on past performance.
This is why I rooted for several people instead of Trump.
“How about doing what you do so much better than predicting the future? Hold his feet to the fire for actual actions. That would be productive. But that implies patience.”
Your insulting snark is noted (patience). It’s unnecessary, Ken and beneath you. Grow up (yes that’s a return insult) and learn to deal with someone who generally wants the same things you do, but disagrees with you on things like Trump but not in a destructive way.
How effective were you and I in holding Boehner’s feet to the fire?
Zero
Ryan?
Zero
McConnell?
Zero.
This is why I’ve been preaching that in order to save the Republic as a Republic we have to regain control of K-college education; inform lo-fo’s, Preach the Conservative Proposition in general as Reagan did for at least 10 years before he became President. The only way to get politicians to do what you want them to do is to present a genuine threat to their political career if they don’t.
Given the way things are now, the Conservative electorate does not have that power even against Republicans running. For example just look at the fact that Paul Ryan was re-elected. Same with McConnell.
Yrs, everybody predicts the future. But the detail they predict varies. Many predictions about Trump go beyond into slander.
The “Lying Narrative” you speak of is a problem only because he is not precise and clear
All language is imprecise. Most communication requires a high level of generous understanding “I know what he meant.” Trump just requires a bit more generosity. The media OTOH has committed proven libel.
yes, not yrs.
The problem with predicting odds with no money is there is little mechanism in place to keep those predictions reasonable.
Obama would rather play golf.
Hillary would rather steal the course and only let her friends play.
Trump will build the course for others… but he will brag about it.
The “Lying Narrative” you speak of is a problem only because he is not precise and clear so he opens himself up for attack.
This is partially true except that people also need to realize that it doesn’t matter what is said by Trump, or any other Republican, when it comes to preventing the attacks that are used every single cycle.
The attack is what counts not the veracity of any attack. These are often attacks which can not be refuted and also can not be proved and rely on stereotypes that have been inculcated over generations.
Its also telling that the media suddenly stopped talking about fact checking when the Hillary campaign launched their swarm of groping claims.
Controlling 95% of the information channels is enormously powerful.
“Yrs, everybody predicts the future.”
Ok so then you admit your snide remark about how my predicting the future was wrong to do since…it’s not really so terrible.
You admit you got ht and steamed and ran off at the mouth over something you now admit is true, that everyone does, and isn’t terrible after all.
Ok.
“”The “Lying Narrative” you speak of is a problem only because he is not precise and clear”
All language is imprecise. Most communication requires a high level of generous understanding “I know what he meant.” Trump just requires a bit more generosity. ”
Which, as I said, I give him.
That doesn’t mean he actually means to or knows how to carry out any of his promises. That’s a whole other ball game.
“Controlling 95% of the information channels is enormously powerful.”
It was.
But this election has shown that the entire US mass media is anti-American, and willing to lie about anything and protect anyone, no matter how awful their crimes, in order to maintain The Narrative. No-one of clue believes anything it says any more.
If Trump wins, most of the dinosaur media is done. If Clinton wins, she’ll bail them out and officially turn them into Pravda USA.
you admit your snide remark about how my predicting the future was wrong
Why are you ignoring what I said? Not all predictions are the same. Where did this potential prediction come from…
Pence run the country while Trump fools around
Precisely nowhere. You pulled it out of your shorts.
“Why are you ignoring what I said? ”
I didn’t ignore what you said – I destroyed it.
I addressed your distaste for people predicting what Trump will do to point out that everybody votes based on a prediction – even you.
And you agreed.
So therefore you must admit your snide remark was uncalled for.
“Not all predictions are the same. Where did this potential prediction come from…”
From everything I’ve seen Trump do over decades.
Me: Pence run the country while Trump fools around
Ken: Precisely nowhere. You pulled it out of your shorts.
You’re not reading carefully. And you left out an important few words. Let me refresh your memory:
What I said was:
“There’s even a possibility that Trump will let Pence run the country while Trump fools around……”
Possibility Ken. Not absolute. I can’t even state the odds on this one.
I can’t even state the odds on this one.
I can. Zero. Trump may disappoint others, but not himself. Rand could certainly be right that he doesn’t know what he needs to, but absolutely wrong if you or he thinks this is a lark (or some mastermind purpose rather than what he claims.)
Expect 80% or more of his 100 day plan to be implemented almost immediately. Tell me he isn’t listening to Newt?
Hillary will try to steal the election (she’s got the organizations on her payroll in all the swing states.) But the polls are dead wrong. The only factor unknown is if Trump’s poll watchers and lawyers are up to the job.
BTW, did you note the Narrative? Trump’s poll watchers are just to intimidate the voters according to the media.
Umm, no. Aside from the fact that he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in Hades of being elected, because he is stupid, his sheer stupidity and ignorance would make him a very bad president if he were, somehow, to be elected. The best that can be said of him is that he does not have Clinton’s fantastic depths of corruption. Unfortunately, in a contest between a crook and a schnook, the crook is going to win. Nothing we can do but hunker down and wait for 2020.
You think there will still be an America in 2020 if she wins?
Clinton is hell-bent on starting a war with Russia. Won’t be easy to hold an election in 2020 in a radioactive wasteland.
On the other hand, most Democrat voters live in cities, so there’d be a much smaller Democrat vote if they did. On the third hand, that would mean a heck of a lot more dead voters, and we know that 99% of corpses vote Democrat.
The animosity that the Democrats are displaying toward Russia will magically disappear after the election just like it magically appeared a few weeks ago. This Red Scare is fake af.
Hillary has been committed to being friends with Russia her entire life, even if it means making the USA weaker and sacrificing our allies.
Hillary will go to war someplace to prove she is as tough as a man but it will be in a smaller country she perceives as being a cakewalk, like Libya. My guess is Nigeria or Somalia.
To turn the old saying on its head, if he’s so stupid, why is he rich?
This is the clearest description I’ve seen that describes the danger from the Totalitarians (i.e. Democrats)
I think I will coin a new word (new for me anyway):
Totalicrats – Totalitarian Democrats.
Williamnson correctly points out the rampant hypocrisy and fact dodging that the Totalicrats engage in when they say journalists will be protected yet companies are not people:
He points to the NY Times which daily engages in political speech and which is….gasp….a company.
This sort of Orwellian dodging will fool the Jim’s of the world but not sensible thinking people.
But the lo-fo’s need to be educated. The Totalicrats have successfully infiltrated academia from K through Phd so it will be a difficult job.
Yes and is what some should stick with rather than telling us what someone will do before they’ve had a chance to do it. These explanations are important. Slander really isn’t.
Slander? Do you even have the slightest notion as to what that word means?
Tell me how have my words in this forum have damaged Trump in any way.
Ken, again you are attacking people who, in the main, are on the same side as you and want the same sorts of things for the country as you do, just because we disagree with your assessment of Trump.
Chill man…we’re on the same general side.
It’s slander because I’ve been paying more attention to Trump. Celebrities have an image and I bought into Trump’s just like everyone else. But there’s another Trump beyond the facade.
He’s not stupid, but he does focus on things I’ve missed. In many cases I assumed Trump was wrong until I discovered he was right and this has happened too many times. I know from first hand experience how poorly some things are reported but this has opened my eyes to a whole new level.
Take another look at what Rand wrote…
Trump is also profoundly ignorant about our system of government, our military defenses, the nature and purpose of our alliances, basic economics, recent history, the principles on which the nation was founded … face it, the subjects about which he is clueless, and perfectly willing to remain so…
Our govt: Trump is pointing out problems with it that are true that others prefer were not spoken about.
Our military: He knows we face threats that require it to be stronger.
Alliances: He knows not to embrace our enemies. Putin wants to reconstitute the soviet union, but otherwise can be reasoned with. In world affairs you could always tell who the bad actors were because they were the ones Obama embraced in both hemispheres.
Economics: He’s basically Reagan on this issue.
History: That’s one purpose of the CIA. Trump has demonstrated he listens (which does not require he do everything his subordinates suggest.)
Founding principles: Yeah, like the rest of our leaders. He has the basics which is our principles are worthy of living up to.
Calling him ignorant isn’t the slander. “Willing to remain ignorant” is the slander. I’ve seen him change with my own lying eyes which completely negates any gaslighting to say he has not.
I’m not relying on mind reading assertions about a cartoon character some have built in their minds. I’m looking at a real person with human flaws who has many more positives than negatives.
I can see his negatives. Why do so many see his positives that others can’t acknowledge? It’s just packaging.
“It’s slander because I’ve been paying more attention to Trump.”
Ok you do not know what the word means.
And how can you POSSIBLY know that you’ve paid more attention to Trump than I or anyone else?
I hate to say this Ken but now you are entering “Jim” territory.
how can you POSSIBLY know that you’ve paid more attention
What I know is I’ve paid a lot more attention than I initially did and it changes the whole picture regarding Trump. If you see Trump the same way you always have, that’s strong evidence of not paying more attention.
Trump has depth that isn’t revealed by a casual look. Likely because his bragging is tedious.
I see in Trump’s latest speech that he would stop the big media mergers. This just proves Trump is clearly naht a really and truly Republican. The signature move of the ‘phants in such cases is to grant the media their whims while whining incessantly about media bias rather than exacting a heavy price for same.
Trump has been saying a lot of good things but it would have been better had he said them six months ago instead of in the last 3 weeks of the election.
Well I wonder about that. I don’t see Hillary’s standing getting any better. I think it’s dipping a little.
And for a lot of people, who remembers what was said 6 months ago? You and I and a lot of us here but not lots of other people.
What with the timing of the PV videos and Wikileaks, maybe it’s not bad timing at all. Maybe the assessment is that the attention span of the voters he wants is that of a fruit fly?
Every move in politics is a risk. But you could be right.
Yes, we all have short memories but it sounds like Trump has been reading Instapundit and if he had expressed similar ideas a while back, maybe he could have brought the party together.
But who knows, this election was never about issues anyway.
Hillary’s standing isn’t getting any better? She’s six points ahead in the popular opinion polls and has 265 electoral votes leaning her way. How much better can she actually get? Or does she need to? As I have been pointing out on various boards for weeks now, in order to win, Trump needs to flip at least six states that are leaning toward Hillary and win Florida, Ohio, or two other tossup states. Do you have any idea how he might do that? Because he sure doesn’t. He has done nothing whatsoever to *persuade* people who aren’t already committed to him to change their minds. He lost this six months ago when he arrogantly, and stupidly, refused to do any serious fundraising or establish a national campaign organization. The only thing we can do now is hunker down and wait for 2020.
Maybe. I have tired in the past of clutching at straws, yet there are reasons to suspect this time could be different.
There are the three outlier polls that show Trump ahead. Yes, these are thin reeds to grasp, but hear me out.
The polls that show Clinton with a sizable lead tend to oversample D voters. On the face of it, that appears nefarious, but I think it has more to do with models for voter turnout. Models that may not be accurate this go-around.
The models are based on past performance. But, definitely in the last two elections, and probably before going all the way back to Reagan, the Democrats have been energized, while the Republicans have been blase. Obama, in particular, generated beaucoup enthusiasm on the Left, while McCain and Romney garnered a great big “Meh” on the other side.
This year, Clinton’s crowds have been desultory at best, while DJT has been packing them in, standing room only. And, while a significant portion of the Republican base has considerable antipathy towards Trump, I suspect that, when they focus on their actual ballots in hand, they will break toward preventing the Witch of the West from reaching the Emerald City.
So, the turnout models may be substantially off, and the ensuing polls may be as well. This is, after all, the year of Brexit. This is the year of the rise of the little people against their elite overlords. The results may be far different than the punters’ project.
But, says the Vodkapundit, Trump still loses the Electoral College. Yeah, well, that’s possible. But, a popular vote blowout may flip some of those states currently assumed to be firmly in the Blue column.
Delusion, or vain hope? Maybe. But, maybe not. We shall see…
Except if you look at actual honest polls. She’s going to make Mondale look like a winner.
She’s six points ahead in the popular opinion polls and has 265 electoral votes leaning her way. How much better can she actually get?
The Democrats have had a favorable electoral map the entire time. It was a daunting task even before battlegrounds started trending toward Hillary.
He lost this six months ago when he arrogantly, and stupidly, refused to do any serious fundraising or establish a national campaign organization.
His strategy worked in the primary but it is stupid to not maximize his chances. But I also don’t live in a battleground state so the only commercials I see are for Hillary that run nationally. Very few Trump ads on the stations I watch.
Bart,
Maybe this latest from Wikileaks will buck you up:
“Now, for all of you out there who still aren’t convinced that the polls are rigged, we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in startling detail, exactly how to rig them. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.”
I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
Research, microtargeting & polling projects
– Over-sample Hispanics
– Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
– Over-sample the Native American population
For Florida, the report recommends “consistently monitoring” samples to makes sure they’re “not too old” and “has enough African American and Hispanic voters.” Meanwhile, “independent” voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.
– Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
– On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
Meanwhile, it’s suggested that national polls over sample “key districts / regions” and “ethnic” groups “as needed.”
– General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
– Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
– Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed
“
There is also this, Greg.
I sure hope so. But, in 1996, I put my hopes on the Battleground poll, which IIRC was the only one showing Dole with a chance. In 2008 and 2012, I focused on other polls that told me what I wanted to see. So, I’m a little thrice bitten 6x shy about lulling myself with tenuous comforts.
It is what it is. The polls are always right, up to the minute they are not. We shall see…
“This just proves Trump is clearly naht a really and truly Republican.”
Does it? I think…
Oh, wait. I think what you think. You are a devious fellow, Fenster 🙂
“This just proves Trump is clearly naht a really and truly Republican.”
To me that was always clear. Anyone sitting in their chair drooling for all the freedom-True Conservative actions from Trump are due for a very large disappointment
Except he has been endorsing positions that many conservatives endorse. If those are the people that put him in office, it stands to reason he would want to keep those people happy. A lot of these things he should have been saying much sooner and if any other Republican had said them, they would be praised for their conservatism.
Trump doesn’t come to it naturally, no one does, but as Milton Friedman said, you want to make it beneficial for the wrong people to do the right thing.
“…..but as Milton Friedman said, you want to make it beneficial for the wrong people to do the right thing.”
I’ve always loved the power of Friedman’s statement there, but I never saw him describe how that is done. I wish he had expounded on that more. Or if he had, that I found it.
The first 100 days will prove you wrong.
In less than four months we will know who the delusional are. I’m prepared to apologize. Are you?
If you include being deluded that he can win, I suspect we’ll know in less than three weeks.
Of course. My comment only applies if he wins. If Hillary wins we have no further need to discuss politics because the republic is over. We didn’t keep it.
So that mean you mean you would apologize if YOU were wrong eh?
Yes I’ll be very happy to say I was wrong. It would be fantastic if, in this case, I was wrong.
But I’m not.
Sounds fair Gregg. I’ll try to back off ’til then. I haven’t fixed the whole internet yet!
Four months? Try two weeks. Definitely apologize when that idiot badly loses this imminently winnable election.
The election may not be over in 2 weeks. Remember 2000?
I’m looking forward to all the grim-eyed horror by all the people screaming about how he can’t win, if and when he does. He couldn’t break 10%, then he couldn’t break 20%, then he couldn’t break 30% in all the primaries, and so on and so on, and in the end he destroyed 16 other challengers.
Oh, but he’s too stupid to beat the Haggard Queen, if you believe all the polls conducted by the media that are all on her side.
Here – just for Ken…I’ll mention one thing that could really be great if Trump wins:
There are indications that Giuliani might be named Attorney General by Trump if he wins.
That would be a pretty good thing.
And here’s another – John Bolton might be named Secretary of State. That might be good too.
Giuliani would be good, but I’d prefer Marquis de Sade. Or better yet, Jason from Friday the 13th. I want a dozen Giuliani’s working for Jason.
Trey Gowdy would be a pitbull as AG.
Even Judge Jeanine. Trey would be great.
Ed,
I have to wonder about Gowdy. He argues a good game when on camera…but has he actually accomplished anything?
I’m not saying he’s a fraud – I’m saying I think the jury is out on whether or not he’s really effective.
Yes, those would be excellent things. He would also sign an Obamacare repeal bill. He would probably also sign a number of other excellent bills that might come out of a Republican congress concerning things that he doesn’t know grits from gravy about, but all of that is irrelevant because in sixteen days he is going to lose this election and then we can get down to planning for 2020.
See my comment above.
One more thing. I think that the standard that has been bruted about in the media in the past, the “who would you rather have a beer with” standard, has been a fairly reliable predictor of the winner in the Presidential contest. Affability is a strong predictor of poll success.
As much as I loathe his policies, I would rather kick out the jams with suave and worldly Obama than grumpy McCain or squeeky clean Romney. Good ol’ boy GWB was far more appealing than high school principal Al Gore or whiny self-promoter Kerry. Bill Clinton was more so than old man Dole or quavering GHWB. Reagan more so than twin scolds Mondale or Carter.
And, larger-than-life Donald Trump is far more appealing than glassy-eyed Stepford Wife Clinton.
I find both candidates loathesome, in their own ways. I have no interest in having a beer with Donald Trump, or even being in the same room with him.
Well, how do you feel about advising him on space policy? Any luck getting Safe Is Not An Option into the hands of someone on his team? Because I guarantee you Hillary will double down on the STStupid.
No, Hillary would probably listen to Lori Garver, as she did the last time.
Lori Garver might be the choice for either candidate.
Let me put it another way. Hillary is not the Change candidate. She’s not going to be the one saying “we’re going to do space differently”.With her the best you get is the status quo.
On the other hand, Trump would likely be far more amenable to shaking up the Administration from top to bottom. Including NASA, assuming someone with a clear vision laid out in a relatively short book can get it to him before he locks himself into a policy position.
“On the other hand, Trump would likely be far more amenable to shaking up the Administration from top to bottom.”
“likely”???
At best I would say it’s possible. I think it’s just as possible that space policy won’t even pop up on his radar and he’ll let it bumble along as it is.
We don’t know enough about what Trump thinks to be able to say “likely”.
You think it is more likely that Hillary will shake up the Administration from top to bottom? Really?
No.
“You think it is more likely that Hillary will shake up the Administration from top to bottom? Really?”
No. Where did I say that? (If this question was directed to me)
Well, yes Gregg. My assertion was that Trump would be far more likely to be making changes within the Administration (which includes NASA) than would Hillary. You don’t think it likely, but note I’m comparing what Trump is likely to do compared to what Hillary is likely to do. You agree it is possible Trump will make changes, do you think it is more likely that Hillary will do so?
There is no 2020.
…when we can get another milquetoast like Romney or Jeb, a loser guaranteed to keep the Republicans’ place as the junior partner in the Uniparty, eh?
we can get down to planning for 2020
If this includes more backstabbing from the establishment and dum dum intellectual typists, it wont generate much support.
I’ve always voted Republican out of rebellion against my fascist Democrat overlords but if the Republican establishment wants to shiv me in the back, I can go vote for some other party.
Did you catch the news that Hillary gave out classified info during 3rd debate and generals are furious? It was about the presidents 4 minute response time for nukes.
This thread is the story to of the 2016 election. It begins with the fact Hillary is running for President and the evidence she is corrupt.
All the responses are about the degrees of how terrible Trump and the GOP are.
A republic, if you can keep it. The alternative is seemingly more likely.
Indeed. Trump is flawed. Hillary is evil incarnate.