OK, we have a regular commenter, probably the most prolific one (note that this is not a quantity with a quality all its own), who thinks that the Republicans would like to replace Trump with Hillary.
No, don’t laugh, he apparently really thinks this:
In about a femto-second the left would choose a new primary target so we could all suddenly realize how stupid and evil that person is. It would not be Pence because a tie breaking vote is not much real power. The GOP would try to enact law to retroactively make Hillary president so they can return to their safe space where nothing positive is actually accomplished.
So I responded:
Ken, even if that were legally possible, it would be politically impossible, and very few Republicans would have any desire to do it. That’s just stupid.
If you seriously believe that any Republican wants Hillary (as opposed to Not Trump) as president, you’re insane. The only reason any Republican supported Hillary last year was because she was the only serious alternative at the time. Every Republican would be perfectly happy to replace Trump with Pence. [Emphasis added for future reference]
Now note his response:
Many said they voted for Hillary. They could have just not voted. Bush voted for Hillary (and we wonder why the country moves left regardless of elections.)
That’s it. No recognition whatsoever of my emphasized words above. He is fantasizing that because they voted for Hillary a year ago, they want her to be president now, and would prefer that to a President Pence. He offers no sane rationale for this fantasy, but there we go.
There’s a lot more nuttiness over there if you want to wade through it, but it gets really great here:
You seem to be presuming Pence would get the vote of every Republican over Hillary. This is you asserting your faith because there is no logic based on any fact that provably reaches that conclusion.
About the only related fact we have is that some Republicans did vote for Hillary when some conditions existed. Neither you nor I know if Pence being the alternative would not be such a condition for every Republican.
I am not presuming that Pence would get the vote of every Republican over Hillary, and it is not necessary for me to assume that. I am assuming, because I didn’t chow down on lead paint chips when I was kid, that there is an insufficient number of Republicans who would prefer Hillary to Pence for this to occur. I think any assumption other than that is insane.
Set aside the fact that neither he, or anyone else has responded to my challenge to name a single Republican who would prefer a President Hillary to a President Pence. He doesn’t even posit a Constitutionally plausible mechanism by which this could occur, even if it had (and again, this would be insane) majority Republican support. All he says is that “The GOP would try to enact law to retroactively make Hillary president.” It betrays an utter ignorance of how our government works. Congress has no power to simply remove a president, bypass the existing vice president, and name someone else president.
Is he saying that they’ll impeach and remove both Trump and Pence? Really? Then Orrin HatchPaul Ryan is president. Will Orrin Hatch Paul Ryan nominate Hillary to be Vice President? Really? And a majority of the House will go along with that? Really? And then he’ll resign, or they’ll impeach and remove him so they can get their precious President Hillary? Really?
No, this is just anti-anti-Trump derangement. And I wish I didn’t have to waste time responding to blithering idiocy like this in my comments section. But I guess the only way to avoid it is to either ignore it, and let it continue to clog it up, because he clearly has no more self control than his Lord and Savior Trump to stop doing it, or to ban him.
[Late Monday-night update]
Part of the purpose of this post was to ferret out other loons in my comments section. It seems to have succeeded. Also note that Ken is now saying, “Oh, I didn’t mean it, I was just joking,” after repeated defenses of his original idiocy.
Sorry, no.
The worst thing about Trump is arguing with morons who support him, even when I compliment him on the rare good things he does, like tonight’s speech (which obviously someone else wrote, but with his input, to make sure he had the right 3rd-grade words in it, like “horrible”).
[Monday-afternoon update]
OK, so there are still some people operating under the delusion that there exist Republicans today, who would, if they could, remove Trump and replace him with Hillary, in preference to Mike Pence.
The “logic” (such as it is, but it isn’t) seems to be:
a) Some Republicans voted for Hillary over Trump last year
b) Republicans cannot be trustedTherefore, they will replace him with her at the first opportunity.
Folks, this is what is called a “broken syllogism.” It has two premises, both of which are true, and yet the conclusion in no way follows from them. It is a leap of logic that puts Evil Knievel’s attempted jump of the Snake River Canyon to shame. It makes as much (and as little) sense as “Roses are red, violets are blue, and therefore my chicken is unable to lay eggs.”
I personally know some conservatives who voted for Hillary. For instance, I’m pretty sure that Bob Zubrin did. They were (and in some cases remain) “Never Trumpers.”
Why did they do this? Was it because they preferred her policy positions? Or her picks for the Supreme Court? Or that they didn’t believe all the stories about how corrupt she was?
No.
They did it because, as awful a president as they expected her to be, they thought that Trump would be even worse. They did it not as an affirmative vote for Hillary, but as the only effective way to vote against Trump. Ken wrote “they could have not voted.” Yes, they could. They could have also howled at the moon. But neither of those things would have done anything to reduce the chances of a Trump presidency in the way that voting for Hillary Clinton would.
Now you can disagree with their assessment, and in fact I do. I felt physically relieved that she lost, but I recognize that the last election presented us with the most awful presidential choice in our lifetime, and I’m not going criticize them for that decision at that time.
But the other thing I’m not going to do (unlike, apparently some here) is to fantasize that they’re idiotic enough to actively want Hillary to be president, either then or now (as opposed to Trump not being president). They weren’t voting for Hillary, they were voting for the only Not Trump available at the time. That was then, this is now, and the best Not Trump option is Mike Pence. The second, third, fourth, fifth…ten millionth next best option is any (actual, as opposed to Trump) Republican. This was, in fact, one of the reasons that I preferred him over her, because he was potentially removable, and she never would have been. As I’ve repeatedly said, the notion that there are any prominent Republicans, let alone a significantly large number of them that would, if they could, replace him with her today, is utterly deranged.
But my challenge stands. Name one.
my challenge to name a single Republican who would prefer a President Hillary to a President Pence
I decline that challenge. Which does not mean there aren’t any.
Peter said it better than I, “The whole Never Trump attitude in indefensible.”
I need some time before further response.
I am a little disappoint that you were not as brutal as promised.
So is the “Never Logical” attitude.
You will always be the king of snark. 😉
Video of classic clips of Ralph Kramden expelling his neighbor and otherwise best friend Ed Norton from the apartment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rtLg5nNP4Q
From the Frank Herbert science fiction/fantasy novel Dune:
“Kanly was the enactment of a formal feud or vendetta in a manner that complied with the Great Convention”
From the National Lampoon Doon parody of Dune:
“A formal state of feud, or vendetta, between two neighboring Houses or peoples, who by mutual acknowledgment ought rightly to be pals.”
The feud between those who ought rightly be pals is called “Kramden.”
Rand and Anthony are in a state of Kramden?
Alexander, Collins, Graham, McCain, Murkowski,
. . . Flake, Sasse, am I missing anyone?
Paul, do you seriously believe that any of those people would prefer Hillary Clinton to Mike Pence as president? And actually act to make that happen? Seriously?
Nah. Just like Rand said they would just impeach Trump and put the Vice-President Mike Pence as his replacement. There’s just no way they would revert the election. The time where that could happen is long gone.
[Ken] thinks that the Republicans would like to replace Trump with Hillary.
Some republicans voted for Hillary over Trump. Does that mean they would make that same choice today if they could? Nobody can say; however, since the election they have done all they can to continue to undermine the legally elected head of their party.
the left would choose a new primary target so we could all suddenly realize how stupid and evil that person is.
An undeniable historical fact.
The GOP would try to enact law to retroactively make Hillary president so they can return to their safe space where nothing positive is actually accomplished.
This is hyperbole. Obviously not meant to be taken literally. It does not represent in any way a correct procedure which should be the first clue that it was meant as humor.
So I responded:
Ken, even if that were legally possible, it would be politically impossible
Which indicates an inability to recognize humor.
If you seriously believe that any Republican wants Hillary (as opposed to Not Trump) as president, you’re insane.
Here’s where it get’s slippery because the statement refers to multiple cases. If I respond to one case and not the others I failed. If I do respond to all, I’ve wasted bandwidth and failed. Let me respond now.
case Trump ) vs Hillary. Already answered above.
case Pense ) Introducing a new issue which wasn’t an issue I brought up. I don’t trust the GOP so have no idea to what extent they would ally with Hillary considering they’ve already allied with Hillary. Anyone thinking republicans are a perfectly predictable mono-ideology are possibly insane.
The only reason any Republican supported Hillary last year was…
Again we have assertion where contradictory evidence exists. I can’t read their minds as well as Rand.
Every Republican would be perfectly happy to replace Trump with Pence.
Only true under Rand’s written in stone assumption that no republican wants Trump as president. Reasons are key here. This is an aspect of TDS.
No recognition whatsoever of my emphasized words above. Not emphasized in the original?
So now you dictate how I should respond, so let’s consider those words now (The only reason at the time)
It is Rand’s fantasy, before Trump even took office that Trump be impeached andreplaced by Pence. Pence didn’t run for president. About what, 16 others did?
That proves Rand wrong. He’s essentially saying he didn’t like the results of the primary so let’s do it over because (THIS TIME!) they would get it right (from Rand’s perspective which is the only right perspective.)
He is fantasizing that because they voted for Hillary a year ago, they want her to be president now
I can see how that’s totally unreasonable. /sarc
and would prefer that to a President Pence.
This is your strawman. I never intended to consider Hillary vs. Pence because that’s an entirely separate issue from Trump bashing.
KEN: You seem to be presuming Pence would get the vote of
everyRepublican over Hillary. This is you asserting your faith because there is no logic based on any fact that provably reaches that conclusion.This is a literally true statement which makes no conclusion about actual results.
I am not presuming that Pence would get the vote of every Republican over Hillary
Acknowledged.
I am assuming that there is an insufficient number of Republicans who would prefer Hillary to Pence for this to occur.
I do not disagree with this? It’s not my issue.
Set aside the fact that neither he, or anyone else has responded to my challenge to name a single Republican who would prefer a President Hillary to a President Pence. He doesn’t even posit a Constitutionally plausible mechanism by which this could occur, even if it had (and again, this would be insane) majority Republican support. All he says is that “The GOP would try to enact law to retroactively make Hillary president.” It betrays an utter ignorance of how our government works. Congress has no power to simply remove a president, bypass the existing vice president, and name someone else president.
Assuming I’m stupid rather than unfunny. Thanks for the generous interpretation /sarc
Is he saying that they’ll impeach and remove both Trump and Pence?
No I am not. (See Hyperbole?) My point is the GOP can not be trusted and apologize if I did not make that clear instead using a lame joke.
his Lord and Savior Trump
This brings up another important point that needs to be addressed but this is enough for now.
Ken why do you so regale in displaying yourself to be an illogical asshat at my blog?
Ken, what part of “Stop flooding my comments section with your mental sewage” are you not understanding?
Is he saying that they’ll impeach and remove both Trump and Pence? Really? Then Orrin Hatch is president…
No, actually Paul Ryan becomes President, as he is the Speaker of the House.
But my experience mirrors your own in discussions with Ken.
Well Jim, in the spirit of many discussions here… you’re stupid and delusional.
Huh, don’t know why I was thinking it was President Pro Temp. My point stands either way.
…don’t know why I was thinking it was President Pro Temp.
Possibly, because that’s the way it used to be. The Constitution only specifies the Vice President in the order of Presidential succession; the remainder is specified by law. When Johnson was impeached there was no Vice President (he having succeeded Lincoln on the latter’s assassination) so the President Pro Tempore of the Senate was judging the man, whom if convicted, he would have succeeded (he voted to convict). That probably contributed to the law being changed.
Well, yes, but more importantly, it was the Constitution being changed. That does change the law, but it’s in a sense more fundamental…
his Lord and Savior Trump
Rand has indicated that Trump voters are stupid, Hillary voters are stupid, writers that make any case for Trump are stupid, anyone that disagrees is stupid and a Trump worshiper.
Did he learn nothing from the primary. Every week the media thought, now we’ve got him!. The people’s response? We already know that. We have other criteria.
The media’s conclusion: They’re stupid, didn’t they just hear what we said?
Yes, they did. Why can’t the media hear that?
The people didn’t get conned by Trump. The media got conned by their own lying narrative. Trump is a really poor conman. The good conmen are those in both parties that have gotten away with their cons for decades.
So which side does Rand fall? He ignores the fact that we acknowledge Trump’s flaws and repeatedly asserts the god king BS.
To the extent you do that in retaliation of me causing you frustration, please accept my sincere apology. My intent is always to be true. I’m frustrated myself that I am not an effective communicator.
Rand has indicated that Trump voters are stupid, Hillary voters are stupid, writers that make any case for Trump are stupid, anyone that disagrees is stupid and a Trump worshiper.
And yet it doesn’t follow from any of that that Republicans would prefer Hillary as president. That’s a bat-guano notion for which you continue to provide zero evidence. Because you cannot. Because it (and you) are nuts.
Ken you are a wonderful communicator of the fact that you are utterly bereft of logic. You make it very clear with almost every comment here. I wish you’d stop doing it.
You get your wish.
Well, Ken, my wish is that not that you stop commenting, but that you give at least a few moments thought before you comment here, not that you not comment at all. I just see no evidence (as with Trump’s tweets) that you are able to do so. If you can finally do so, then you are welcome. But, as I’ve said repeatedly, in both cases, there’s no evidence that that’s possible. As with both you and him, you’re a walking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It would be impolite of me not to acknowledge this comment addressed directly to me and thank you for allowing that I am still being welcome. I will limit my comments in the future. For the record it is clear that my intended thoughts are still being misunderstood and I take full responsibility for mot being succinct and clear.
Again, the problem is not your lack of clarity of expression. You are perfectly clear. The problem is your lack of clarity of thought. If you don’t even understand your problem, you have no hope of solving it.
If you don’t even understand your problem, you have no hope of solving it.
That would be a more fundamental problem. Don’t know the answer for that other than contemplation.
Well, I’m just proud that you guys have embraced the zeitgeist of blowing every minor quibble totally out of proportion. This is the dawning of the age of histrionics. When the Moon is in the outhouse, and Jupiter aligns with Bizarro-world…
Really?
A statement that the goal of Republicans is to install Hillary Clinton as president is a “minor quibble”? Really?
Did you give even a femptomoment’s thought before writing that?
This thead seems to be extremely illuminating of loons in my comments section.
” statement that the goal of Republicans is to install Hillary Clinton as president is a “minor quibble”? Really?”
Let me wade in briefly Rand. Do I think the current intention of Republicans is to replace Trump with Hillary somehow? No. Don’t think Ken is right about it being a current “plan” on their part (if that’s what he actually thinks) aside from a not so secret aspiration on their part, “if only”. Don’t say I have objective proof of that just a belief on my part. I do think allot of them (Graham, McCain, Ryan etc.) would have been secretly pleased if business-as-usual corrupt Hillary Clinton had won back in November. Sure they would have preferred a one of their own candidate like Jeb Bush but once it was clear Trump was going to get it they actually preferred Hillary. That they not so secretly hate/fear Trump that much. Like being able (the republican establishment) to vote to repeal Obama care to appeal to their base; with Prez Hillary they could have done so knowing she would veto if it even got enough votes to pass. They hate/fear Trump because they know he isn’t kidding about the wall for instance; both parties don’t really want to do anything about illegal aliens just for different reasons. There is as Ken like to say plenty of rot in our federal government..10 + years to approved any federal construction project of any consequence says it all.
I do think allot of them (Graham, McCain, Ryan etc.) would have been secretly pleased if business-as-usual corrupt Hillary Clinton had won back in November.
I think “relieved” might be a better word than “pleased,” but even if that’s true, the notion that they would now somehow magically undertake the political mechanations necessary to replace Trump with her remains utterly insane.
Chill out. It’s a comment on a blog. It’s not a big deal.
I am truly sorry for us. No one we elect can possibly keep their word, it seems. Get out now!
I’ll give you odds that in 3 years we will be no closer to “fixing” Afghanistan. It is broken and the reason is Islam. Nothing can save them other than themselves and that is unlikely.
The Islamist know we will eventually leave. Then the jahed will begin again after we have spent more blood and treasure.
“And I wish I didn’t have to waste time responding to blithering idiocy like this in my comments section. But I guess the only way to avoid it is to either ignore it, and let it continue to clog it up, because he clearly has no more self control than his Lord and Savior Trump to stop doing it, or to ban him.”
You don’t have to waste time responding to Ken. You could ignore him completely. You even admit that:
“……But I guess the only way to avoid it is to either ignore it, and let it continue to clog it up, …..”
So does Ken use up so much server disk space that it’s causing you a problem? I doubt it.
I went after Jim’s responses almost every time he entered a topic because I did not want his blather to exist without serious stressing of the premises. I think Jim was economically and politically ignorant as well as ignorant of human nature.
But I would never want him banned.
Your other choice – to ban him is, I think, unbecoming.
Ok so you disagree with Ken and think a lot of what he says is stupid. I think part of that is that may be that Ken writes as if he’s speaking. he just throws it out there and doesn’t carefully qualify his statements. So in a way he’s like Trump – there’s a grain of truth in the essence of some of the things he says but it’s so carelessly said that it looks entirely bogus.
Then there’s the fact that, yes, sometimes Ken doesn’t read carefully and doesn’t check his instant picture of what a person just wrote. We all do that to some degree – ken isn’t the only one.
Instead of thinking I have to respond and correct a poster that does that, I oftentimes either ignore it or simply write:
“That’s not what I said.”
Sometimes I add snark…sometimes not.
I don’t think creating a blog thread about how much you dislike the posts of one of the attendees is a good idea. But it’s not my blog.
He not only blathers and floods my blog comments, but he continually insults both my and everyone else’s intelligence in the process, and doesn’t even realize he’s doing it. It significantly reduces the quality of my comments sections, because others have to wade through his continual crap to get to useful comments. I’m at my wit’s end about it.
“It significantly reduces the quality of my comments sections, because others have to wade through his continual crap to get to useful comments. ”
I can manage the wading. But if you get tons of complaints from other bloggers then I suppose you could consider doing something.
“I’m at my wit’s end about it.”
Clearly. But some people have more time to blog than others. Ken seems to have a lot of time on his hands.
You can either live with it and ignore it, or ban him. Attempts to “train” Ken (or anyone else) are futile and bound to fail and cause more misery. And in my opinion, banning him is a bad idea. It smacks of silencing…ejecting someone because you don’t like what they say…..that’s what the Left likes to do.
And you are not of the Left.
Everyone has a right to their opinion. No one has a right to express it at my web site.
Absolutely correct. However, what if the host in question is someone like Google? What if the govt. decides it must control access? What if alternate channels exist but people can’t find them?
“No one has a right to express it at my web site.”
Absolutely true…and totally irrelevant.
To ban or not to ban? The reflexion on the action to ban is on you…not him. You have the power – he does not.
Were he to, say, flood the blog with 500 spam posts a day – none of which have anything to do with the topic – the reflexion on you in banning him would most likely be positive.
Were you to ban him because you disagree with him and think he’s dumb….the reflexion would be different.
As I say – it’s your blog – “man has to do what he thinks is best” (Hondo).
But do not imagine that any choice you make is free of consequences.
I never imagine that any choice I make is free of consequences. I wrote a book about that.
“The worst thing about Trump is arguing with morons who support him . . . .”
That’s been my experience. The comments sections of many a pro-freedom blog have been almost ruined by the proliferation of the Dumb Trumpkins on the message boards.
Or, the hysterics who appear to imagine he is the devil incarnate. It’s all so emotional. All so driven by tribal virtue signaling. It makes me ill.
I was about to make a comment on the “Pick A Side” post…
Mothers know the question is “who started it.” Violence is justified in cases of actual defense. It’s clear that people are taking sides without making any serious attempt to find the answer to that question.
However, I stopped myself (and I know you won’t believe how often I do that) when it occurred to me there is a way to mitigate the problem for you that I represent with a simple policy.
I will simply not comment on any post in a timely manner (does 3 days seem reasonable?) You may not have noticed but I also have refrained from comment when others have already made essentially my same point. Although this runs the risk of diminishing my points; I am concerned that my mere presence (no matter what I say) is irritating to you.
I am not trying to irritate. I do challenge because that has value to everybody. You don’t need to ban me. If you tell me not to comment I would not. I am appreciative that you allow me to participate in the conversation.
No man is an island, but solitary holds no terror for me.
“But my challenge stands. Name one.”
As you say it makes no sense.
I think there are number of reasons people hate Trump.
I think there is fewer reasons and more intense dislike
in terms of these republicans who are members of congress
and/or ‘the republican establishment”.
I think Trump saying the system is rigged [and winning- so not just a loser with sour grapes] amounted to a personal insult – and obviously considered a dangerous thing to say.
And I would say the “personal insult” was the more lingering aspect.
Connected to this is “the establishment” opposed Trump and try to take action against him [and still trying to take action against him].
The worst thing said about the republicans isn’t that they are stupid, but rather, they are weak. So failing their coup, is weak. Even vaguely thinking about doing it, is weak.
Of course saying republicans have rigged system [which it has to be to some extent- it’s a frigging political party] did more damage to the Dem party in which Clinton was chosen before primaries started, and Dems were terrified Sander might even win despite the Dem’s obviously rigged election- and we got the emails to prove it.
Obviously, the republican party primary is more open and transparent then dem primary system.
But a more “rigged thing” is the DC swamp. The swamp is what the establishment all about. There is good reason to assume the swamp is unbeatable.
There lots of confidence of the swamp, but then again Trump has been shattering a lot things people were quite confident about.
Rand, why have you not banned Mr. Anthony from your blog?
Well, that’s an interesting question, isn’t it, Paul?
It’s complicated. Run a blog for a while, and then we’ll discuss…
The ideal solution is a shadow ban, where the banned person can still post comments, but only he (as determined by IP address) sees them. Done properly they never even know they’ve been banned, although they never seem to get any responses.
I don’t know if your blog software supports this.
It seems like better that if want short post, define what that is, and require it.
And if want a limited number of replies, pick a number.
One could also want limited responses which involve the owner of the blog- because that takes away from the owner’s time. Or running a blog take up enough time as it is.
I hope Rand isn’t evil enough to impose a shadow ban.
I am wondering if it’s delusional to think this is related.
–It is just possible that skirling pack of witch hunters will manage to drive Trump from office or so undermine his effectiveness that he becomes a spent force. I do not think that will happen. It seems to me more likely that Conrad Black, writing last week in the aftermath of Charlottesville, was right: “The campaign of defamation against Trump will fail, and if the Democrats and pseudo-Republicans don’t get to higher ground soon, Trump will pull together the responsible Right and most of the center and wax the Warren Democrats by a margin that will make the Nixon and Reagan reelections look like photo-finishes.”–
https://amgreatness.com/2017/08/22/rage-trump-builds/
Some thought Trump could become some kind of Juggernaut [and that was a bad thing] and I didn’t think so- or wasn’t “a threat of it”
But I might have miscalculated how stupid the rep and dem would be.
I am bit shocked that I could miscalculated Lefty stupidity- because I thought I knew of how dismal they were.
One thing they are really bad at lately is picking their battlefield, and I thought they had some brains in that department.
I thought it likely Trump would have only one term. Though now, it’s possible that if Trump had only wanted one term, he might change his mind about this.
Or one thing about Trump is he does seem to have a vindictive natural. Or perhaps at some future time and when on his deathbed, he might be excessively proud of this virtue.
Or as saying goes, presidencies change people.
Though I always thought the Left were terrified of Trump getting a head of steam- but I just thought it was mostly lefty delusional thing.
Anyways, it seems Trump is doing well recently. I liked his speech- worth listening to. And I actually believe, he has been doing his homework.