I’ve been saying for a while (at least on Twitter) that the problem with Trump isn’t that he will lose to Hillary, but that if he wins, he will be a truly terrible and completely unpredictable president. Lileks agrees, at length. The finale:
To vote for Trump is to validate; to vote for Trump is to participate. He is a crass, gutter-tongued, vulgar man whose self-regard blinds his ability to understand his own ignorance. A man who casually encourages the worst, enables the mediocre, and wafts aloft cartoon concepts of American greatness with gusts of flatulent banalities. It takes a certain kind of historical illiterate not to realize his facial postures are literally aping a second-rate Italian fascist.
Sorry for taking the long way; could have just linked and agreed. But the author’s points deserve interrogation. Short version: no. Long version: hell no. On the off chance history makes marks in a ledger: I will not support Trump if he is the nominee. I will not vote for him. The devil you know is still a devil, and worse yet: you don’t really know him at all.
I have no idea what Trump will do as president, on any issue at all, including immigration. If you think you know, you are deluding yourself.
But, I do know what Hillary would do, and it would be abject ruination. So, I will vote for Trump, if it comes down to that. As it appears likely it will. But, I will not vote for him in the primary.
What do you think Clinton can do with a GOP House that would be worse than what Trump would do?
We’ve had a Democratic president and GOP House for the last five years. Has that time been ruinous? The country appears to be in better shape in most major respects.
There is some concern that a Trump presidency could cost the Republicans the House.
I suppose it’s possible, but I’d consider that an extreme long shot. Given district demographics, Democrats would need to win the national House vote by something like 5 or 6% to take a majority of seats. I could only see that happening in reaction to an extremely unpopular GOP president, as in 2006.
If Trump wins the general, it seems unlikely that people would vote for Democrats in all the other races.
That fear was largely based on Hillary winning the general, with coattails.
Then you’re a fool.
20 trillion in debt. But that doesn’t bother you because you’ll be passing it on to the younger generations.
The debt? Now that’s a throwback. Remember 2009-2010, when the GOP and Tea Party were sure that we were on the precipice of a debt crisis, which was going to send inflation and interest rates skyrocketing, and the dollar plummeting? And here we are six years later, with historically low inflation and interest rates, and a more valuable dollar.
Which presumably is why the leading three GOP candidates feel free to propose huge debt-financed tax cuts that would increase the debt by between 28% and 39% of GDP. The GOP is back to following the wisdom of Dick “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” Cheney.
But that doesn’t bother you because you’ll be passing it on to the younger generations.
Remember that we won’t just pass on the debt, we’ll also pass on the Treasury notes. We owe most of the debt to ourselves, and our children will owe most of it to themselves.
The country appears to be in better shape in most major respects.
Then you seriously need new glasses, dude.
In all seriousness, what major things seem worse? We have economic and job growth, whereas in 2009 we had neither. We have less unemployment, low interest rates, less crime, and fewer Americans dying in uniform overseas. I can’t think of a major developed nation that’s doing any better.
We have economic and job growth
Not sufficient to provide adequate-paying jobs to all who want them.
less unemployment
Not when you count the people who have dropped out of the work force, because they’ve given up.
Bragging about less Americans dying overseas while ignoring the conditions Afghanistan is in, where we still have troops, and Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and other countries due in large part to Obama’s policies is just a tad dishonest.
The hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced don’t matter? Is it cause they are brown people?
Obama ushered in world war, genocide, and slavery.
And Obama has nothing to do with lower crime rates. If all cities were run like Democrat cities, crime, especially murders, would be through the roof.
Not sufficient to provide adequate-paying jobs to all who want them.
More growth would certainly be welcome, but we’re doing much better than when Obama came in.
Not when you count the people who have dropped out of the work force, because they’ve given up.
Even then. The U6 unemployment rate (which includes discouraged workers) has come down from 14% in January, 2009 to 10% today.
And Obama has nothing to do with lower crime rates.
I didn’t claim that he did. Bart wrote that having Hillary Clinton in the White House would ruin the country. I replied that we have a Democrat in the White House now, and by most measures the country is doing better than it was 5 or 7 years ago. Our recent experience offers no reason to believe that more of the same would be ruinous.
More growth would certainly be welcome, but we’re doing much better than when Obama came in.
That’s a pathetic standard, given the depth of the economic collapse in 2008. We’re doing terribly compared to previous recoveries. It’s the worst since the Great Depression, for exactly the same reasons.
Agreed. Living, as I do, in California, neither my primary vote nor my general election vote will make any decisive difference. If Mr. Trump does as well as predicted on Super Tuesday, he’ll likely be all but officially the nominee by the time I get to chime in. If he is the nominee, I will vote for him. Mr. Trump would be a huge risk as President, but Hillary, Bernie or even Kindly Uncle Joe Biden would all be guaranteed disasters. I’ll take a risk over a certainty every time.
And who knows; perhaps the horse will learn to sing?
75 percent of the tech jobs in Silicon valley are H1B immigrants. That didn’t happen over night and it took Republican complicity. If Trump hadn’t entered the race, Rubio would be the candidate, and we all know what Rubio will do. The same as John “Build the damn fence” McCain. Lie and dump the base.
Trump sucks, he’s the devil risen up from the GOP’s cauldron of corruption. It’s as if the GOP were on a race course and entered a turn at 120 instead of the safe speed and now people are yelling to “slow down turn the wheel”. Unfortunately, the physics of the situation doesn’t allow that. Like 2008, one can ask where was the foresite.
This particularly galls me, BTW, as I have been talking to GOP pundits and congress critters for almost 10 years about fixing immigration before it was too late and being dismissed as a “nativist” or “xenophobe” (GOP for “racist”). The bed has been made, whining about it now won’t help.
Cruz 2016
Exactly right!
We know what we are getting from the democrat party. A felon and a socialist. (or maybe Bernie Sanders)
I’d like to say that there is still congress. Congress will suddenly remember that they are a co-equal branch of government. Democrats in government (congress and executive staff) and the media will certainly rein in any excess.
My only hope is that they’ll have to let something like a republican crib or two through.
Cruz 2016
(if not Associate Supreme Justice Cruz has a reassuring sound to it)
75 percent of the tech jobs in Silicon valley are H1B immigrants.
Where does that number come from? H1Bs make up 1.7% of the Silicon Valley workforce. STEM positions account for 15% of San Jose’s jobs. By that math, if every H1B is in tech, they make up only 11% of Silicon Valley tech jobs.
Meanwhile, something like 40% of Silicon Valley companies were founded by immigrants, many of whom came here on H1B visas.
Does anyone really think that Silicon Valley, and the country, would be better off with fewer immigrant tech workers?
Imagine if all of our immigrants were here legally. Democrats can’t even enact their open borders ideology legally. They do it illegally and dishonestly. A big part of it is racist too because they claim to want less white people.
Uh, H1B visa holders are here legally. If legality is your big concern, why not support increasing the number of visas so more people could come here legally?
Yes, I said imagine if all immigrants came legally. Its not a difficult concept and I stated it clearly.
I do support reforming the immigration system to make it easier for immigrants. However, the H1B visa program has been widely abused. There are a couple documentaries out there that show how workers are being taken advantage of.
I know a few people who might have jobs…
But wait, you’d prefer to get tech workers overseas rather than pay an American to do your work. That shows what a hypocrite you are: claim to advocate for the poor and be cheap about getting your labor.
Hmmmm, majority of STEM college grads not working in STEM fields. Maybe they’re asking for too much, like a living wage.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-130.html
75 percent of the tech jobs in Silicon valley are H1B immigrants.
Oh, but Gregg will be along any minute to claim that Immigration Warrriors *aren’t* against legal immigration!
“Oh, but Gregg will be along any minute to claim that Immigration Warrriors *aren’t* against legal immigration!”
Your predictive ability as to what I’m going to say is a total fail as is your ability to read/comprehend what I *have* said:
I already explained my position in my last response to you. Evidently you failed to read it or it’s too complex for you to understand.
You can’t comprehend what I’ve said (or don’t bother to read it…)
You can’t predict what I’m going to say….
You can’t accurately re-state what I did say but, rather, make up things and hope no one notices….
Past, Present and Future are complete fails for you.
I recommend you stick to what YOUR position is since you are the number one authority on your own opinion.
The recent precedents for celebrities winning election to chief executive jobs are Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Going strictly by those examples, the way to bet would be Trump ending up as another ineffectual one-termer, repeatedly rolled by his legislature.
But then, consider the legislature in question. It’s not clear they could roll a six-year old.
If the choice next November in fact comes down to Trump versus Hillary, there are going to be a LOT of lesser-of-two-evils calculations going on.
Or of three, or maybe even four evils – Bloomberg might jump in, and the GOPe has also been making noises about organizing an insurgent run. At that point, all the contest would need is a Sanders-Warren entry! Pop some popcorn, crack open a beer, and get into the schadenfreude…
This is where I depart from the prevailing arguments. Republican in the House and Senate have absolutely no problem whatsoever sabotaging a Republican president. It’s a Democrat president that terrifies them into submission. I rather think that a Trump presidency would give Congress in general, and Republican congresspersons in general, to grow a pair and keep the Executive branch in check.
Yes, to me this is the only potential up side of a Trump presidency.
I loathe Trump, but the delight of watching Hillary lose to him, watching her life-long pursuit of the presidency end in defeat, not just to anyone but to arguably the worst candidate (worst human being?) in the last century…no….that would be the true upside of a Trump presidency.
But yes, the press, Congress, etc. discovering that they have some interest in asserting themselves against the ravages of an out of control Executive would also be nice…
I’m not a Trump supporter (my preference is Cruz), but I consider the histrionics over Trump possibly being the nominee a bit much.
Remember the GOP establishment? Just a few short months ago, many of us were furious with them, and would not support them. Yet, now, some people who fit that description (I’m not alluding to anyone on this site) are happily supporting the establishment candidate, Rubio, he of Gang of 8 fame.
One of my qualms about Trump is I don’t trust him to mean what he says. On the other hand, with Rubio (or Clinton) I darn well already know that they are liars; they’ve both deliberately told falsehoods to voters just to get elected. If it comes down to it, I’ll take suspected perfidy over the proven-perfidious.
Who will I vote for today? Nobody (My state doesn’t vote until mid-March). I shall therefor embrace the mighty power of procrastination (assuming I get around to it).
The turning of the PJ Media bloggers, National Review, Ace, and others have been fascinating to watch. At least I’ll be wasting less time by not reading those sites again.
The PJ Media bloggers aren’t monolithic.
Brett Stephens of the Wall Street Journal writes of Trump: “It would be terrible to think that the left was right about the right all these years. Nativist bigotries must not be allowed to become the animating spirit of the Republican Party.”
If Trump does as well today as the polls project we’ll know that they already have.
It doesn’t matter what Republicans do or don’t do, Democrats will always accuse them of being racists because that is the game they play and their identity depends on it.
Take for example David Duke. It isn’t enough Trump disavows the man, he has to meet some unwritten rule on how enthusiastic that denunciation is. Spoiler alert: it would never have been enthusiastic enough for people whose identity is dehumanizing non racist people as racist in order to feel supreme.
Its also crazy that people, Democrats, who are more bigoted than Americans at any point in our history make these claims and they do it by claiming justice. Their justice comes through being extra racist and bigoted and punishing scapegoats.
“Nativist”– The word that people with no patriotism use to describe people who do. See “bigot”.
If Trump does as well today as the polls project we’ll know that they already have.
No, but don’t worry Jim, you just keep honking on about nativist bigotries. We know you’ll see them whether they’re there or not. And stay blind to the racist bigotries in your own neck of the woods.
Nativist? I thought worshiping Native Americans was sacrosanct on the Left. When did that change?
Maybe their SAT scores got too high.
Rand, as was already written above, we *know* what Rubio and the other GOPe candidates will do about immigration: scr*w us until we can’t walk. In the case of Trump, for his supporters, the unknown devil is preferable to the known.
Trump is entirely a creation of the GOPe. Don’t blame his supporters. The only reason he gained traction is that the elites have been spitting on the base for over a decade. I feel only disgust for the party elites and the “conservative” bloggers who are raining scorn and derision on the base for not coming back home for the next beating.
Myself, I’d prefer Cruz, but I’m willing to vote for Trump in November. I would stay home before voting for Rubio, and I might even vote for Hillary and the entire Dem downballot if the GOPe goes all “smoke-filled room” and puts Bush/Rubio/Romney forward as the nominee.
Isn’t it an unknown how any first term President will rule? I think Trump cultivates this to some degree to emulate Obama’s blank slate effect. He has literally said he can’t be too specific on some issues in order to be unpredictable.
The problem with this strategy is that some people use their imagination to project the worst thing they can imagine.
Many Trump detractors waffle between saying that he won’t do anything he claims he will and he will be especially bad because he will do what he says he will. But if you don’t know how he will do, can you possible say it must be bad and not just bad but evil akin to the worst we have seen from humans?
I don’t think the risk is any worse than electing any other establishment candidate. But I don’t know. The only things I think I know for sure, are that Trump doesn’t hate the USA and wants to make our country stronger economically and militarilary.
The only candidate I actually fear being President is Sanders. The others could be good or bad but probably both. None of them are perfect and all of them are sleezy to one degree or another. We had our chance to elect an honest man but Romney didn’t get the votes. Now our choice is which pig rolls in the mud the best.
One thing for all the Trump supporters, if you want Trump to be president, Go sign up for Trump University/ Trump Entrepreneurial Institute.
Now on the rest of the filed
Unfortunately 3 out of the 5 serious candidates now are impeachment bait.
Hilliary is obvious other than the dems will never allow it.
Trump will most likely do something ignoring the constitution and deserve it and both sides would impeach him. Which may be best part of having president other than it would put republican into hinter lands or destroy the party.
Cruz the republican senate and congress might just impeach him on general principal for no good reason. Besides the fact that my honest opinion on him is he Nixon 2.0 , a smart but scheming conniving individual.
Citations or Specifics on this screaming Nixonian claim. Or are you just throwing feces to see what sticks?
Trump did comment about Amazon having to watch out over something and blustered about suing news organizations.
But IMO, all of our future Presidents will be Nixonian/Obamaian because no one acted to reign in Obama and now the precedent has been set. Hillary and Bernie already made exceeding Obama’s imperial presidency part of their platforms.
Maybe Cruz would act differently but what if he used an executive order to outlaw public sector unions?
What would be wrong with that (as long as it was only federal)? It’s how they were created, by Kennedy. It would be totally within his purview as head of the Executive branch..
Yes but if people are upset with imperial presidency, then it comes off as a little hypocritical.
I threw that out there as an example that some people would support and there are others.
Oh if I was throwing feces I would say my 76 year old mother’s comparison of him to a snake oil salesman/ Bill Clinton. Which I don’t see it, if he had the charisma/salesmanship of Clinton he be unstoppable. Though do have a feeling he ran slightly differently on the national stage than the Senate local level. Which is part of what the article I link to later refers back to.
No my reason for call Cruz, Nixon 2.0 , is the Carson stuff, his general lack of charisma, lots of ambition and willingness to do whatever it takes to get there, I can see him walking along a beach in a 2piece suit and wingtips.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-is-nixon-not-goldwater-213509
Trump being unpredictable is a feature, not a bug. Obama is purely predictable allowing others to dictate our policies to our detriment.
Yes, Trump could use a conservative education… but there is a baby in his bath water. A very important baby that both the left and right have been trying to kill for decades… exceptionalism and a winning spirit.
Trump has the exact same problem as Palin (and no, neither is stupid) in how they communicate turns many off, but if you pay attention to details (that most seem deaf to …by too much ‘reason’…) they are often brilliant.
Elitism is the enemy.
Before Putin grabs his next near abroad country I’d like him to sweat out what that crazy Trump would do.
You’re alive! Dude, wtf happened to you?
Doctors have been shipping me around AZ (riding in a small old plane during a storm was serious real fun for me) for various specialists since August. Currently trying to keep ahead of another similar health situation.
But I’m not that easy to kill. (So I’m not going to lug around a defibrillator every where I go. Lousy h/w and s/w.)
Man did I miss ya all.
I’ve said it on your blog, and I’ll say it here; I’m so glad to see you back!!!!!!
That’s it! I’m moving to L5!
…is a thing people will probably be saying a century or two from now.
I’m sick of this place, it’s just McDonald’s in space,
And living up here is a bore.
Tell the shiggies, “Don’t cry,” they can kiss me goodbye
‘Cause I’m moving next week to L4!
A number to bear in mind is 1237; that’s the number of delegates needed to win on the first ballot at the convention.
An oft forgotten rule change (from 2012) may be very important too; Rule 40 (b).
(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States
and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of
the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the
secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business
So, under this rule, a candidate has to have control (half plus 1) of the delegate delegations from 8 states in order for their name to be placed in nomination. Trump, so far, only has (of the ones known; there are others still within reach as the district level vote totals are finalized) that level of delegate control for North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. No other candidate has any yet. I wonder how they’d handle this at a brokered convention, if Trump makes it to 8 but no one else does?
>I wonder how they’d handle this at a brokered convention, if Trump makes it to 8 but no one else does?
We’d probably have a Jeb!/Marco ticket that would lose at least 48 states. Gotta face it folks, the ones in charge are just crapweasels, no matter the flag under which they sail, R or D.
Peggy Noonan, her significant missteps aside, has a talent for reading the Zeitgeist. Her “protected” class members are essentially the “uniparty” or “permanent bipartisan fusion party” that many of us grumble about. Maintaining the supremacy of their political/technocratic elite is all they care about, and that’s why you hear of “Republican insiders” openly supporting Hillary if Trump wins. Hillary will be good for them; about Trump, they’re not sure.
Obama breaks rules. Trump breaks rules. But the Presidency is not a job for a rule-breaker.
We desperately need fidelity to the Constitution.
Cruz.
Life requires rule breaking. The secret is knowing when.
Or having someone who effectively resists or moderates that rule breaking when it becomes harmful.
In the abundance of counselors there is wisdom. But the counseled still must figure out the good from the bad. We need more self responsible people (especially if they vote.)
I think it’s fair to say that outside of the US Trump is seen as a loose cannon, unpredictable possibly very dangerous, likely to turn manageable international crises into disasters for all, whereas Hillary is seen as more of a run of the mill Democrat. We’ve survived the latter before.
Andrew, it’s worth noting that your description is how Reagan was seen outside the US. I’m not comparing Reagan to Trump, just the perception outside the US.
Personally, I’ve always found foreign opinion to be a superb negative indicator.
Some of us in the US think the same way about Trump.
He is advocating a lot less war than Hillary and is talking up letting Russia deal with ISIS. I’m fine with that after ISIS is pushed out of Iraq. Dealing with ISIS is exactly what Russia, Syria, and Iran deserve after their sponsoring of the group while the USA was at war in Iraq during the Bush years.
Trump even offered to save Europe’s bacon by establishing a safe zone for refugees closer to their homelands.
Being a loose cannon fits with being a good negotiator (or poker player.) It’s not the person, but others reaction to them you want to pay close attention to. Being deliberately ‘crazy’ puts you inside the OODA loop for those that use it as a tool.
It benefits Trump to be thought of as stupid. (Yes, he has his blind spots, but his detractors no less) Is Stephen Hawking stupid because he talks funny? Trumps intelligence is simply different from what elitists consider the right indicators. The OED is not the final word.
People aren’t just reacting emotionally. There is substance. Trump has told us what he will do, repeatedly… replace idiots with competent people that put America first. He’s not so full of himself knowing (as Eastwood put it) his own limitations. Plus, he has a right to be proud of his own accomplishments. Insecure New Yorkers commonly brag about their accomplishments (loudly in restaurants usually) because they live in a city where it’s easy to be ignored. He can and is learning to tone it down.
“There is substance. Trump has told us what he will do, repeatedly… replace idiots with competent people that put America first. ”
Ken, the problem is: I simply do not believe him.
Understandable, so what to do? Does he have a history of using good people? I don’t know, but he does have a history of accomplishment (even with road-bumps as any flawed human might have.)
Accomplishment? Well Trump won some and lost some. But Cruz has demonstrated accomplishments that I value more.
They both share the accomplishment that the GOPe hates them.
I have far more confidence that the level of disappointment I get form Cruz would be less than Trumps. Nothing is certain of course. But you have to go with what you know.
I am far more impressed with Trump’s father’s history of accomplishment. That guy was a self-made man.
And having read The Art of The Deal, lemme tell ya, if my daddy gave me $250 million on my eighteenth birthday, SpaceX would have started in 1986.
My uncle got both legs flattened in a car accident and lost one eventually getting a $5m settlement.
We here all know he should have lived off the interest (11% for CDs under Carter) but instead he spent it all in less than five years and now has nothing (His stupid kids say, “it was great while it lasted.”)
My uncle had a lot in common with Trump (Loud and self important.)
If Trump turned his inheritance into $10b he did ok, even
if he’s not who he thinks he is. None of us are our own self image.
That’s why you have to look past the outer man and see the heart. Problem there is only god knows that for sure.
The bible says “the heart is treacherous and who can know it?” Not even ourselves.
Welcome back Ken.
“He’s not so full of himself knowing (as Eastwood put it) his own limitations.”
That’s where I see his biggest short coming, I would put him right at the top of a list of people who don’t know their own limitations, he seems to have unlimited confidence in his own greatness and infallibility, and when people like that make mistakes rather than acknowledge and correct their mistake, they go and find ways to blame everyone else (yeah I know that does sound like a typical politician), I really distrust people like that.
Sounds like Barack Obama, actually. Eastwood nailed him at the convention.