*This post is unusually typo-ey and has missing words.  Sorry.  Written between one and two am.  Those of you who program, this is like midnight code.  Sorry.  We’re headed out for TVIW and will be gone till Wednesday.  And I’ve been getting things ready.*

I’m not a Freudian, though I spent a lot of time studying Freudian theory when I was young and stupid.  My sympathies were always closer to Carl Jung, until of course I realized that both Freudianism and Jungism were just-so-stories to explain how people worked, and I moved on to writing outright fiction which has the advantage of being more fun. (Okay, I’m eliding several years as a multilingual translator and other jobs, but this makes a better story.)

However, both of them made way more sense than Behaviorism, that bastard child of Pavlov’s experiments and the reason I incapacitated myself with laughter when I stumbled on the Heinlein quote (I remember it in translation, as I first read it, so it might not be exact.  The Heinleins the boys didn’t steal are packed for the move) “Every time a dog drools, a Pavlovian has to ring a bell.”

The same thing that made me rolls my eyes at the whole stimulus/reaction nonsense also made me raise my eyebrow at Asimov’s contention that he didn’t believe in the subconscious.  And explained to me what I’d always felt about his characters, that they were convenient plot devices but unmemorable.

While both he and Heinlein would often go for the nutty soft science theories of the day, Heinlein is still eminently readable.  You might not like the plot and disagree with the message, but his characters move right in, sit beside you and nudge you for a drink.

Asimov wrote some great (or entertaining) stories.  I used to love his sf mysteries.  But I read the Foundation trilogy three times and not only fail to remember most of it, but none of the characters made an impression. They were there.  They did what they did, and then they were gone, like the taste of Californian wine.  One moment on the tongue and gone.

There is a point to this.

Heinlein was many things, in his life, starting arguably as a socialist, back int he innocent days when people didn’t fully realize socialism is always the primrose path to communism (or fascism) and when the twentieth century hadn’t been filled with the graves of the victims of socialist experimentation. He ended, if I can believe what his widow told me (and I think I can) by voting for Reagan, having moved in a libertarianish direction.  (Even if he had problems with the Libertarian Party itself.)  In the middle there, he helped Ginny campaign for Goldwater.  And no one can read his books without getting that most of all he put his face in the individual over the collective.  No one can read his books, either, without being fairly sure that he didn’t believe humans were infinitely perfectible.  Mostly his humans were humans. They smoked and spit, they cursed and sweated.  Humans, like us.

Asimov was a progressive in the current mold.  He didn’t believe in the subconscious.  I don’t know if he believed humans were infinitely perfectible.  I doubt it, because he wasn’t a complete fool.  But he might have.  It seems to be an article of faith among the progressives.

Yesterday I found myself in a comment section, reading comment after comment justifying things like Trump saying that he wants single payer care, because “well, he has to do something, and why not that.”

This in a conservative site, by so called “conservatives” who think that, oh, Cruz and Rubio are insufficiently conservative.

This is bad enough, because it’s a manifestation of the irrationality I keep meeting with in his supporters, even those whom I KNOW aren’t usually irrational.  I’ve heard everything from “I know he probably is as bad as the rest, but whom else can I vote for?” to “But Cruz is in league with banksters” (while Trump is Simon pure) to other pieces of insanity that boil down to: he could eat a live baby on camera and I’d still vote for him.

And the reason for that is always the same “He tells it like it is.”

Um… yeah, to an extent.  I mean.  He tells feminists to STFU, and he talks back.  But he also tells it like it isn’t, calling a “loser” to anyone who dares defy him, and generally acting like a crazy drunken uncle at a wedding.  And those aren’t usually that popular.

In the end, like Ross Perot, he’s doing something, though.

It is not what his supporters think it is or the reason they tell us they like him.  It’s something deeper, something I doubt he himself knows he’s tapping.  And I hope to heaven he has no idea what he’s unleashing.

I’ve spoken here before of talking to my boys when they were very little, and having them be puzzled at cartoons, and how in cartoons all the girls are brave and have adventures, while in real life girls just wanted to be pretty and do quiet stuff.

In the same way, my first year in the Us, as an exchange student, I was a little puzzled at commercials, which always showed a kid of each race, or an adult of each race.  In my experience of life, it was always self-segregated along racial lines.

And that’s what is driving the insanity.  You see, the progressives think there is no such thing as the subconscious.  So they think humans are infinitely perfectible, clay for the social engineer’s moldings.

But humans aren’t that.  Humans are built on an ape-frame.  That means that humans tend to resist attempts to make them over.

Only life is good and we have things to do, so we just make the right noises and exhibit surface compliance and after a while even the races mix more, and even guys make obligatory comments about how women are so much better and “strong” women and “empowering” women.  And society lurches on.

But there is a tension that builds in the human animal between what they are told is the truth and their lying eyes.

It is that tension Trump is tapping and its power is so great that it’s MOSTLY sweeping under the carpet the fact he’s as much a socialist as Hillary and probably as corrupt if one judges by his lifetime of “business” which is done the way it is in crony capitalism, by taking advantage of everyone else.  (But he’s a national socialist, so we have that, right?)

Reading the comments about not minding that he is crooked, not caring if he wants to institute single payer, and being okay with his support of planned parenthood, I just kept shaking my head.

But then there were the other comments, and you’ve seen them, and I’ve seen them.  I remember the days when Storm Fronters got kicked out of every even semi-decent arena, and got told to take their ideas of racial supremacy and their anti-scientific belief in their racial purity and fold it all in corners and put it where the sun don’t shine.

But people are so confused that they think they have to permit anything.  And so monsters of the id come out and strut about.  The repressed and its lunacy, the subconscious where infantile ideas compost explodes from otherwise rational people, which is why we had precious snowflakes here trying to maintain that you have to have anglo-saxon blood to understand the Constitution.  (I guess they don’t have any.) and other absurd ideas even the vile progs would disdain. (Btw being from the North of Portugal if I don’t have at least 50% anglo-saxon blood, it’s a miracle.)

And it goes back.  It goes back a long time.  Societies endure traumas and take damage that remains hidden, just like individuals do.  It probably wasn’t the best thing to react to the trauma of WWI and WWII with the prog project of reforming Man.  They interpreted it all wrong, took all the wrong lessons, and proceeded to fill more graves trying to mold us into shape.

And it spilled to the victors of those wars, too.  America took damage from — not civil rights, as such, not the legislated EQUALITY of opportunity  BUT  EQUALITY OF RESULTS — from enforced stupidity.  I mean, equal rights before the law and the right to compete equally, sure, but the only way the government knows to do that is to enforce quotas, which rob the exceptional of achievement and which distort what should be a meritocracy.  Then it set about enforcing non-sexism, the exact same way.  And it enforced non-monopoly and non-exploitation of workers (all of this in the name of remaking society) in such a way that only big corporations can run through all the gauntlets the government creates.  The small businessman can’t.  Innovation becomes more difficult.

But more importantly, the common man felt forced more and more to ignore what he saw and his own instincts.  I mean, really, low flush toilets?  So that you have to flush them four times, use more water and lose time too?  Or perhaps our lightbulbs, which were taken from us so we could be given poisonous twists of gas which didn’t work very well?  Or should we talk about California desertifying itself so that it can save the delta smelt?  (Which I understand makes a good fish fry.)

The absurdities multiply and the vile progs, convinced that what they see on the surface of humans is all there is, push and push and push.

If they’d stopped pushing it would be one thing, but the latest push into every single human endeavor, from science to comic books, trying to enshrine a “the more victimy the better” ethos has driven a lot of people nuts.

And then there was Trump.  No.  He’s not a great savior.  He’s a conventional democrat, so insulated and wealthy that he just blurts out whatever.  And the media build him up.  Of course they do. He’s one of them.  A reality TV star.  And the establishment, if they can’t have Jeb, will be happy with him.  He can deal.  Why, even Carter says so.  He’s flexible.

But the monsters of the ID don’t care for any of that.  They just care that they can dance naked in the sun after years of people not letting them out.

There aren’t that many raw racists in this country.  We’re too mixed for that.  But there is a fringe of every race that absolutely believes theirs is superior.

The problem is after years of lying to them and telling them that only whites are racists, you can’t put them back in the closet again.  You can’t shame them.

It would be one thing if the crazy White Supremacists only went after Black Lives Matter, but they won’t.  They’ll go after normal people, just like the crazy Black Supremacists do.

And it would be fine if every man who has ever made me cringe by going on about how women are smarter than men just said, “No, I’m sorry.   Women have some great qualities, but for most of them spatial reasoning sucks.”

But this is not what’s happening.  What’s happening is that we’re seeing men running around absolutely convinced that having a penis makes them better than any woman no matter how accomplished.  Yeah, they’re a minority.  But the common decency that would cause other guys to hold them in check is not there anymore (except here.  Thanks guys) because after all the lies, who knows how to stop the crazy without using more lies anymore?  And no one is sure where the truth is.  Even when it’s rather obvious.

The repressed looms much larger than simple reality and blinds people.  The unspeakable can be shouted and people are paralyzed, unsure where the boundaries are and why.

This is the result of twisting people and trying to change them beyond what human nature permits.

It will settle down.  But until it does it’s going to be ugly.  And dangerous.  And it’s going to foist creatures like Trump on us, whose only saving grace is stroking the monsters and flattering them.  And it will cause fights where no fight should be.  We might even get the prog’s hope for a race war.

When the dust settles, though, where will we be?  Will we have reset to pre WWII and a society of conformity which leads inevitably to 1984?

I hope not and I think our technology is pulling us the other way.

But the Monsters from the Id are as much as anything else an infantile safety mechanism, trying to drag us back to what is safe.

And in bringing our internal clock in line with reality, it’s very easy to also run back to that safe place in childhood where technology is predictable and where the “important men” (mostly women, but never mind) look after us and keep us fed and happy.

Which is why the Trump followers are okay with him mooting single payer.  (I wonder if they realize that there will be no doctors and substandard care.  I doubt it. And if I asked, they’d say that doctors will be FORCED to serve for salaries similar to teachers.  Because you know, daddy is going to make everything work, never mind if someone has to be enslaved.)

Whether he wins or not, things are going to get very dangerous.

Prepare and be ready.  And however many monsters of the ID stomp around you, remember you’re an adult and have responsibility for your actions.

In the crazy years, the best you can do is keep yourself sane.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre….


582 thoughts on “MONSTERS FROM THE ID

  1. That last line, though. It appears as an episode intro for Andromeda, the series tagline of which is “The long night has come. The systems commonwealth has fallen.” Much as I love that show, I don’t want it to be our future, with the Nietzscheans and the Restors and the Knights of Genetic Purity and the Collectors. I just really really don’t. The long night will not fall while I remain unfallen.

    1. “Those who fail to learn history
      are doomed to repeat it;
      those who fail to learn history correctly–
      why they are simply doomed.”
      Achem Dro’Hm
      “The Illusion of Historical Fact”
      C.Y. 4971

      Of course, your mention of Collectors reminds me of some-“I AM ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.”

      Er, wrong universe.

      1. those who fail to learn history correctly–
        why they are simply doomed.

        To retake the class in summer school?

        1. While those who did learn history are guaranteed to wreck their livers while they watch those who didn’t repeat it and drag them along with.

          1. I’m not sure if I’m fortunate or unfortunate that I never took up drinking alcoholic beverages. (I can’t stand the taste, never can get more than a sip in before I go drink something without alcohol.)

            So my liver might survive but my sanity? *sigh*

  2. The latter part, I cannot agree more.

    On Asimov – hmm. RAH (and his heirs, such as yourself) can bring a character to life within three paragraphs or less. (Working on that…)

    Asimov did a reasonable job when he had a large canvas to pick away at (which he did not in the Foundation books). Elijah Bailey (of the robot – crime novels) was fairly well rounded, IMHO; as was Seldon in the later “Foundation prequel” novels. (Ironically, though, I think the best character he ever created was a robot – in Bicentennial Man.)

    It does make it difficult to start his books, though – when you don’t know until about chapter three whether you want them to succeed, or suffer a horrible death…

    1. (Ironically, though, I think the best character he ever created was a robot – in Bicentennial Man.)

      I think I must concur, as of all the characters I’ve read of Asimov’s, that is the one I remember at all.

            1. Can I go hang out in the mad scientist corner? I’m not a real scientist, but I’m pretty good at coming up with mad scientist-type ideas.

              1. Most mad scientists are REALLY mad engineers. Just look at what they do. They don’t want to blow up the moon for knowledge, but to have it blown up.

                1. C’mon. Admit it. Watching the moon blow up would be AWESOME.

                  Yeah. I know. very bad idea. But then someone comes along and figures out how to blow up —A—- moon for fun, and we get fireworks and Mythbusters.

                  A little crazy isn’t so bad.

                    1. My shop fridge is full of hard cider like any good traditional American’s should be…none of that immigrants come lately beer stuff…damn Germans and other central Europeans ruinin’ our culture 🙂

                    2. I love this place…my abdominal muscles, however, hate it…too much laughter! It hurts!

                2. I’m thinking it’s “scientist” in the “tinker-er” sense– we DO want to figure out how it will work, after all, and scientist does include one who HAS science-knowledge, as well as one who finds science-knowledge.

        1. Quite true. Perhaps it should have been titled “The Bicentennial Perfected Man.” Still, though, an example of writing “message” sans two-by-four.

      1. Well, there was Lucky Starr (and the Oceans of Venus). But I was very young at the time.

        Come to think of it, the only thing I remember clearly from the book was a scene in a restaurant, where the owner cleaned the table after a meal by turning up the force field thickness just enough to zap all the crumbs left there. Gone in a little puff of light.

        I still hate doing dishes.

        1. I missed that one, but I remember Lucky Starr and the Moons of Jupiter. Nifty legal argument for system integrity in that one.

      2. The subconscious, eh? So that’s what the cool kids are calling the soul these days.

        Yeah. It’s hard to look around these days and not fall into a fit of giggles when some well-meaning atheist claims that the part about Christian theology that stretches rationalist credulity is original sin.

    2. Asimov had his strengths and his weaknesses. As a scholar, he was a brilliant polymath who studied virtually every field of human endeavor, from physics to chemistry to biology, from logic and mathematics to history and literary criticism, and even discovered new things due to his ability to coordinate knowledge from many disparate fields (he’s rarely credited for this because his seminal essays were mostly published in science fiction magazines).

      He didn’t really understand people very well, though. And thus his science fiction stories are often wonderful in terms of the ideas they contain, but a little bit flat in terms of characterization. Only a little bit flat, because he was an extremely competent writer, too competent to fail to characterize entirely, save in his earliest tales.

      Heinlein could match Asimov’s scientific understanding only in physics and some very specific technical fields (due to his US naval officer training) but he had a much more intuitive understanding of human nature. And it shows in his stories — Heinlein’s characters are much more colorful, and often more believable (save in his declining years when he rode off in odd directions on his hobbyhorses) than are Asimov’s.

      1. I’ve always preferred Asimov’s non-fiction to his fiction. Asimov on Numbers is still one of my favorite books (even if I do have some suspicion that the story about him making a fool of the sociology professor over imaginary numbers may not be non-fictional).

        1. I call that style of characterization – a way of helping or hindering the hero and a speech tic – the “Little Tin God” style in his honor. (My favorite in the genre is Lest Darkness Fall. No one can call Thomasus, Fritharik and Mathaswentha fully realized characters, but they’re loads of fun regardless.)

    3. I was talking with an Asimov fan who had yet to read the Foundation series, warning him that by today’s standards the characters are a bit flat and the action slow. Asimov was interested most in ideas and explaining them, and I read most of his popular science books as a kid and enjoyed them immensely. He was kind and reached out to fans — I called him on the phone when I was twelve, pretending to be doing a book report, and he patiently questioned me, got my address, and sent me a postcard encouraging me to write.

      It’s great when characters are vivid and memorable, the story is full of interesting ideas and action, and all cylinders are firing. But you can be so good in only one or two of those things that your stories are still great reading. His cardboardy characters tended to be rational and scientific, as he was, and Homo Rationalis does not trigger our Ape character recognition circuits.

  3. Heinlein was a Jonathan Swift for our time.

    Save this post. When the balloon goes up you can point to it and say, “See?”

    For a thorough refutation of the whole behaviorist playpen see Dr. Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate.

    For a good account of how the field of anthropology was corrupted by the progressive doxology see the same book.

        1. Which is why I dragged myself in to work the phones for the despicable one, with a fever over 100. Not because I believed in the bastard but because I was trying to buy us time.
          In his own phone room, in the middle of working the phones, the chant would go up “Drag his skanky ass over the finish line. Drag, drag, drag.”
          The gentleman next to me was black, an army vet. His opinion of Obama was “Fool is going to get us all killed.” Looking at international situation? He was prescient.

          1. Funny. I worked with a fellow engineer who is black…his family owned la d and farmed since the 1850s in Alabama. Every once in while he would look at me and say “Why did the first black president have to be him? It will be a hundred years before we have another.” He might be wrong but his opiniin was certain. That was first term.

            1. 100 years? That’s optimistic. I would say he has good odds at being the last black president. It’ll take the categories dying before someone we today would call black will hold the office again. He did more to advance the liberal goal of “white consciousness” than any white supremist but, as anyone with 3 brains cells could have told liberals, white consciousness will never be based on white guilt (which it will destroy) but on white pride.

              1. I, for one, am not opposed to having a black President–I wouldn’t mind Ben Carson, for example–but at this point, I’m wondering “How much longer will we have a ‘United States of America’ that would even *have* a President?” The political situation is just crazy enough that it’s going to be hard to say for certain…

                1. The title will endure, even as the job more closely approximates Emperor or King – after all, “Imperator” didn’t actually mean “dude in charge of the Empire'” back when it was used in the Roman Republic. Look at how long and in how many ways the high chief has been called Caesar or Kaiser or Tzar.

                  “President” will be the chief overlord’s job title for a long time.

            2. I said much the same thing. “Why HIM? Why couldn’t our first black president be someone AWESOME who would bring America together rather than tear it apart?” Except, I’m obviously a white dude (with my ruggedly handsome, but admittedly pale, Viking face LOL) so “they” said it just proved what a horrible racist I was.

              1. Not just POTUS – I think it closed off most of the Cabinet and other high level positions as well. And there are many out there that I would far, far prefer over the majority of white contenders. (Can you image Dr. Sowell as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors? Compared to Furman?)

                1. Don’t TEASE me like that, darn you! I get my hopes up, and then… *wanders off, grumbling discontentedly*

            3. By Dixie custom, had Barack Hussein been born in Alabama, his birth certificate would most likely have said “white”.

              I found it vastly amusing that, from up in Yankeeland, he tried to push how black he was.

            4. ““Why did the first black president have to be [obama]? It will be a hundred years before we have another.”

              Oh Lordy yes. I was just talking to the spousal unit (okay, full disclosure: ranting) about that special brand of racialist folly that reigns over on .. um… the site that shall not be named is what we’re calling it this week? Anyhoo…

              That generation… the one about 10 or 15 years younger than mine, is the last of the Old News and before the social network breakthrough (Remember 15 years ago when you had to telnet to info on the internets?) They were marinating in the ideology of serfdom, collectivism and racialism: The left had a hard lock on education from kindergarten through grad school. Hard lock on mass media: newspapers, magazines, books, TV, movies… Those kids were marinated in it. It’s invisible. I had to watch a movie called the Amerian President three times (in the theatre, and years later on TV, and years later on video w/our Brasillian exchange student) before it dawned on me: the entire plot goes away if the main characters just get married before they start knockin’ boots.

              They don’t even know what they don’t know. I’m old enough to remember when the tall, blonde, blue-eyed kid I dated got hit with a nasty racial slur: Polack! Remember that? “White” race my aunt fanny. The only real “race” refers to tribe: 1 part genetics (give or take) to 2 parts culture. And in the land of the free and the home of the brave, you’re free to reinvent that, if you like, and steal the best bits from some other tribe to make your own. (Just like the English language does)

              The same is true for the sexes. One part genes + two parts culture.

              And the prog stupid gums up their mental furniture in the wierdest ways. Keep any of the slave-assumptions you grew up with and it will warp your philosophy and you’ll come out with pronouncements about women like Catherine Asaro and Mrs. Hoyt that blatantly ignore reality.

              It’s frustrating. We should all be on the same team, fighting the authoritarians and the “let’s pretend reality isn’t real” progs.

              1. How have Mrs. Hoyt’s pronouncements on women blatantly ignore reality?
                I was following along and mostly agreeing until that sentence.

                1. I think you misread that part. I think it meant that those who think like the Progs will say things about Catharine Asaro and Sarah which ignore reality.

                  1. Well, you don’t look like a White Mormon man so I’d say their pronouncements are definitely ignoring reality. 😉

  4. You know, the slavering Trump supporters don’t seem at all different to me than the former Perot, Ron Paul, or Obama supporters. Or the LaRousheys, come to that. They all seem to ignore the things their man-on-a-white-horse actually says (when he says anything substantive at all), and to take his vague pronouncements to mean he agrees with whatever they personally desire. Often their personal desires aren’t clear even to them, but are just inchoate feelings that something is wrong and ought to be remedied somehow.

    The only way they seem to be able to express themselves is in vicious attacks at those who point out that their “emperor” has no clothes.

    1. “The only way they seem to be able to express themselves is in vicious attacks at those who point out that their “emperor” has no clothes.”

      And then they complain about ill treatment when others respond in kind.

        1. Should we be surprised when their own nominees have called them hobbits and racists? Trump is, in the eyes of too many, how the game has been played against them for years including by their nominal champions. Is it any surprise they are finally doing the same and, along the way, lumping all their champions, nominal and otherwise, into the bad pot?

          1. No, it’s not surprising, but it is pretty decisive proof for the original sin conversation a few blog posts ago. It’s also not going to work. Adopting a “champion” with statist values and a bullying methodology to improve things is like becoming an SJW to oppose them.

            1. It is not a good choice but a critical mass thinks it is the only one left.


              You and I could argue with them from here until eternity it isn’t (although the fact we’d disagree on the others and their ordering wouldn’t help) but it is what it is. That’s why I say the GOP is dead. You compared the McGovern and Mondale loses not killing the Dems but:

              1. McGovern was a revolt but one added by the party in reaction to 1968, not a “we have no other choice” reaction.

              2. Mondale was a strategic choice to sacrifice him (already past his prime), get some cred while sidelining an unliked ambitious woman (Feraro), and regroup for 1988 when they wouldn’t face Reagan.

              This is a primal scream of frustration that is going to break things. It won’t end well but at this point the question is how to manage what comes from it not how to stop it. That chance was thrown away in October when it was decided to oppose Trump by screaming, “but he says not conservative things (never mind our actions match his words quite often) you stupid retarded racists hobbits” instead of addressing the real complaints building to critical mass.

              1. No, CACS brought up McGovern and Mondale.

                People who just want to scream and break things are always going to want to scream and break things. And they’d prove incapable to building anything back up. They come across as *wanting* to give up.

              2. McGovern was a revolt but one added by the party in reaction to 1968, not a “we have no other choice” reaction.

                Do you remember the ‘Buck Nixon’ campaign? I do.

                There were plenty of people who followed McGovern for McGovern, it was the zeitgeist of the times. With the party in disarray after 1968, and some very cleaver political manipulations from within – for which the party is still paying – they were able to get McGovern nominated. But no where near enough to get him elected…

                There are plenty of people who really think that Trump is just the man to do the job. (I don’t.) Again, as discussed elsewhere by others on this blog, it is a result of the times. Can they get Trump elected? Don’t know, won’t bet.

                November is still a long way away. Just a few months ago everyone was talking as if it were a sure thing that the choices would be Bush III and Clinton II. Look were we are now.

                1. Well, I’ll predict because my biggest prediction about this election looks pretty close to coming true:

                  It’s be the “repair and preserve Obamacare” (labeled repeal and replace to fool the base) Republicans against “single payer” (labeled Medicare for all) Democrats.

                  And the statist racket moves up again.

              3. One could argue the matter is driven by the weakness of the Democrats. Hillary is terrible, but Trump doesn’t feel he can beat her as a Democrat. So he goes over to the GOP, on paper, and drags his supporters with him. They aren’t moved by the fact that he is a Democrat, because they are Democrats, and would have been happy voting for him in the Democratic primary if he weren’t too afraid of Hillary.

                We shall see.

              4. I’ve realized that we’re watching the death throes of both parties this year, which makes things even more interesting. Whichever candidate wins in November, the parties in 2020 will be quite different.

          2. Sorry, “hobbits”? What can a hobbit do to offend Mitt Romney? This is a usage I’m not familiar with at all, I’m fairly sure.

            1. John McCain actually came up with that, It was intended to portray those who disagreed with him as rustic country bumpkins who were too ignorant to realize that they were wanting something that was a fantasy.

    2. I would urge caution in lumping folks together. It hasn’t been that long ago that those of us fighting to end puppy-related Sadness got lumped in with the rabid canids. As well as the creation of straw-trumpites (trump-eters? trump-lings?) to knock the stuffing out of.

      Mrs Hoyt wrote:
      “This in a conservative site, by so called “conservatives” who think that, oh, Cruz and Rubio are insufficiently conservative.”

      There’s an IF-THEN this elections season that goes like this:

      IF a Rubio [other candidate] were a real conservative
      THEN we would pick him because a real conservative would be worth it.

      IF Not a real conservative
      THEN not worth playing Lucy ball for again.

      So they’re making arguments to put that second (usually not stated because it’s something ALL the Trump supporters, even the Storm-fronter types agree on) bit of ratiocination in play.

      Because then you have to start looking for candidates to support using OTHER factors than conservatism.

      It’s why you have to have parallel arguments running:
      1. Cruz is really, really a conservative, not in leauge with the GOPe, and not going to play Lucy ball with us (which requires proof and is tough)


      2. Trumps character is so fundamentally flawed that he will wheel and deal his way into selling us all out. That he’s a con man, that he’s incompetent, that he’s in bed with the Clintons, etc. etc.


      1. But we’re not creating straw Trumpers. We’re observing the behavior of actual Trumpers. Are they all that way? Undoubtedly not. Are a great many of them that way? Most definitely.

        1. Comment for comments means I can check the “Notify me of new comments via email” box. It’s much easier to keep up that way, reading a handful of comments every now and then rather than having to scroll through the hundreds of comments that Sarah’s blog posts often get.

          1. Ah… at last I know. At first I thought it was some kind of secret message. It was maddening and the only answers I can find weren’t really answers. Thanks!

              1. I *knew* it, the Illuminati! They want to rule the world and the dreaded C4C is their sign. Ack, how did you get behind me, no! *quiet strangling noises*

              2. The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.
                Rule my heart with monotonous languor.
                The weather over the channel is predicted clear skies.
                Heil Hitler

                1. I am fIrlybcertain they broke the chalice from the palace. And replaced with a flagon with the figure of a dragon.

                  1. Meh. You really can.

                    Choose grass to indicate: this is functional message / take a literal meaning from the name of the plant

                    Iris: This is a message
                    Red+ white rose = discord / rebellion\
                    Chickweed = rendevous
                    Nightblooming cereus + 12 white poplar twigs bound together
                    dock wrapped in grass = the docks
                    Mouse-eared chickweed: My plan is sheer elegance in it’s simplicity.

                    You imbed this in a bunch of flower-messages of romantic intrigue and bob’s your uncle.

                    Lighter fluid: not invented yet, sorry.

                  2. To echo Overgrownhobbit’s point– that’s just what the interpretation websites say. They suck.

                    Big problem is choosing which “language of flowers” you’ll be using, and frankly it’d be better to just make your own.

                    1. I had a similar experience trying to explain fan language to one of our Can-Can girls.

                      I know it exsited, but for the life of me I can’t remember what any of it means!

              3. Dawn is breaking.

                (“Yes, upon the stones” is an excellent exact-opposite-of-a-countersign there.)

            1. Then there’s this email I got some years ago; it’s so weird I saved it:

              Received: from [ a “.cl” address???]
              Received: (from nobody@localhost)
              by [deleted]; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 23:23:14 -0400
              Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 23:23:14 -0400
              Message-Id: [deleted ] To: [29 email addresses, in alphabetical order]
              From: [doesn’t match anything above–faked?]
              Subject: Time Travelers PLEASE HELP!!! {garbage characters}

              If you are a time traveler or alien and or in possession of government or alien technology I need your help! My entire life and health has been messed with by evil beings! If you have access to the carbon copy replica model #50 3000 series, the dimensional warp, temporal reversion or something similar please reply! I simply need the safest method of transferring my consciousness or returning to my younger self with my current mind/memory. I need an advanced time traveler to work with who can help me, I would prefer someone with access to teleportation as well as a variety different types of time travel. This is not a joke! I am serious! Please send a separate email to me at: [deleted–not seen above] if you can help! Thanks

              I wonder what those “garbage characters” decoded to?

              1. I’m starting to think that the Sweet Meteor of Death is the better option. Sure, not as cool as Cthulhu but SMOD promises to get things done.

                    1. The natural born clause doesn’t count for candidates born before the Constitution was written. SMOD is about 4.2 Billion years old, give or take a couple hundred million years.

                    2. The natural born clause doesn’t count for candidates born before the Constitution was written.

                      That only applies if the SMOD had hit by the time it was adopted.

                    3. Randy I’s suggest the courts sort the issue of SMOD’s birth certificate out but the big guy can do whatever he wants if he wins . After all how many planet ending orbital deep strikes do the courts control?

                1. Over at Nicki Kenyon’s blog a couple of days ago, I suggested a SMOD/Yosemite ticket.

            2. Code has been compromised. Switch to Ultraviolet Protocols. Answer Epsilon with Sigma. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

                    1. So I’m not the only one who totally misunderstood those lyrics for way too many years?

                      Thanks goodness.

                    1. You can “hack” a reply to a walled out comment by taking, say, the address for your own comment in that can be found in the February 26, 2016 at 2:04 pm hotlink:
                      and edit it so that the end looks like this:

                      About the only purpose to that is for the email to have a “quote’ of the correct post you’re respondign to, and for them to get a little “someone replied” notification in the wordpress addon for chrome.

                    1. And geometries in general are a little too rigid. I’d suggest topology, where there is a lot more flexibility in what qualifies as a triangle…

                    2. The Schnauzer snores at 22, the kettle breathes fire on the docks.
                      Delta waves Only propagate in Yellow sections Of the Universal color spectrum; Ultraviolet light Narrowly focused Delays the Enhanced rectification Resulting from Simultaneously focusing Two unrectified Alpha sector Neutrino streams Dangerously upon an improperly prepared section, correct? Capital idea!


                    1. All angles should be equal. (and saxons, not to mention jutes, danes, and normans)


                      (okay, maybe not norman… he can be kind of a psycho. dane is pretty great, though)

          1. Actually, Sarah, it’s worse. WordPress has an option to let you get all the comments from every post on the site…. And then every so often it will ignore that setting, so you don’t get comments…. and every other so often it will leave the flag set on the dashboard so it looks like you are still set for getting them….. and every other other so often no matter how often you unset and reset the flag it will continue to ignore it.

            Checking the notification box on the comments works 100%…. so far.

            WordPress delenda est

              1. It shoots fish. It is therefore on the submarines. (Please note: Even the utterly evil US Navy does not fire carp from their subs. Sarah is in a catagory of her own as befits a Beautiful, but Evil Space Princess)

                1. Actually, the Evil But Beautiful Space Princess was multiple means of sending carps at her targets.

                  Just as you think you’re safe because you destroyed one means, you’ll find out that she is still armed and dangerous. 👿 👿 👿 👿

                1. Why limit yourself to orbital velocity strikes? Relativistic carp strikes do the job much more completely…

                  1. But whether a Carp is a Carp…the question is simply not subject to objective review, is it? It’s…all relative. 😈

                  2. because we remember what the relativistic carp strike did to the fifth planet, back when Jupiter was the sixth.

                    1. yeah well, we know to take you seriously when you say you’re going to start the day with a bang.

                    2. Aka, the day I made the asteroid belt?

                      Wasn’t that the last time someone told you we were out of coffee?

          2. Heh, I don’t get emails even when I remember to check the notification box. I don’t know if it’s because my email hates WordPress, or vice versa, or what, but they don’t even show up in the junk mail… >.<

            1. Check your ISP; it may be their e-mail server instead of your e-mail client. I know if I log into Verizon’s webmail, they have a “spam” folder up there with e-mails in it that I never saw.

            2. Every couple of moons I’ll suddenly not get half of the emails, to find that gmail has decided they’re spam again.

              Usually I notice because I stop getting stuff from The American Catholic at the same time.

        2. It does mean “Comment For Comments” and people are using it when they want to “check” the little box labeled “Notify me of new comments via email”.

          IE they want to receive new comment via email but don’t have any real comment at this time.

            1. Might as well not bother repeating the fact. Some people (I would NEVER be guilty of this. No way. Not me.) will see your question and add a response before noticing that there are already a hundred or so comments in the same comment tree beneath yours.

  5. The title is very appropriate — Forbidden Planet was all about the impossibility of totally repressing the irrational nature of human beings. Your take on Asimov is spot on. He dreamed of a science that could control all aspects of human nature. Your Yeats quote at the end was also wondefully chosen. I am surprised, though, that you missed the opportunity to call Trump the “rough beast”.

  6. Start with psychology that claims to be scientific, but isn’t, Oversimplify and popularize it. Turn it into political ideology. Stir and bake over a few decades. Presto! Insanity.

    1. Start by researching crazy people and then infer the exact same mechanisms work in normal people… Practice the Art of Psychology, there is darn little science in it, but it does act as a cookbook with ways to serve people.
      One would think that ever since the French Revolution, the concept of ‘perfectible’ people would have been avoided, instead of being embraced by the Progressives, Socialists and Communists, along with their unrealistic economic models.
      But, Monsters from the ID is still a good way to describe the Trump following. Things are not well. Our leaders are cowards and liars. When you totally ignore a part of your population, be it conservatives/libertarians that hold their nose and vote GOPe or Blacks that are automatically assumed to vote Democrat; well, you get a lot of people that are not being served by their representatives, so they want a choice, even if it is none of the above. Sanders is the Monster of the ID for a different following; those who’s ID says “I want free stuff”.

      1. Start by researching crazy people and then infer the exact same mechanisms work in normal people… Practice the Art of Psychology, there is darn little science in it, but it does act as a cookbook with ways to serve people.

        Is the cookbook entitled To Serve Man?

        1. That’s how Kinsey did his work. Researched prison inmates and said the statistics thus compiled applied to the general population.

      2. Ok, I try to find out these things by myself, but I haven’t seen any explanation of why I’ve been seeing “GOPe” lately, rather than simply “GOP”. Could someone clue me in?

          1. Seriously? I feel…simple. I’ve been saying GOP “eee” (as in droppy minus the “r” plus a “g”) derp.

      3. Start by researching crazy people and then infer the exact same mechanisms work in normal people…

        I was going to say something about how now a bunch of psychology is flawed because it’s done on college kids and especially college kids that are psychology students…then I thought about what I was like at, oh, 19 or 22 or so and decided to only comment in hopes of making someone smile.

        1. This is actually a problem we were taught in psychology classes; generally right before the grad students needed to start hitting up undergrads for test subjects.

          I would say however, any studies done in the last 5-8 years is going to be particularly skewed.

  7. When we’ve endured years of reasonable debate being suppressed with hysterical shrieking accusations of “RACIST!” and “FASCIST!”, it’s not surprising that people turn to an unreasonable person.

    1. Or that they’ve got ululating into insanity. For years I’ve said the problem with what the left was doing was that people would decide to embrace the opposite. And the opposite is still left, just left with a racialist, populist bend.

    2. There is communications problem. Some folks, like yourself, use the term ‘fascist’ to mean those like the ratfinks that made a huge mess of Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s. And then there are those who use the term ‘fascist’ to mean, “Anyone not with us or, somehow, even further left/statist of us.” This results in a political climate not fit for man nor beast – and I think I can claim at least some expertise on at least one of those. With sufficient ego (or is it ethanol?), perhaps both.

      1. What you’re saying is that some folks use the term for communication purposes, while others use it as a way to suppress communication. No surprise there. Those of us who understanding the meaning of the terms “racist” and “fascist” can only laugh at them and point out to bystanders their misuse and misrepresentation of the terms.

      2. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”

        In 1944.

      3. One Yuuuge problem with modern communication is that one side redefines the vocabulary. ie. Racism can only go white to black. Fascists are people who disagree with me. Compassion is government giving stolen money to the victim of the week. Dictionaries are racist tools of the patriarchy.

        You can’t communicate if you speak kinda/sorta the same language.

        1. Category error: when have you ever actually managed to communicate with a leftist? They quite literally cannot (or refuse to) understand what you say.

          1. It’s possible if they mistake you for someone who agrees with them at the start; then you can tell you’ve communicated because they suddenly become incredibly nasty, irrational and poo-flinging.

            1. That’s a form of communication, on a par with “play dead when confronted by a bear.” But to get real intellectual points across it’s somewhat lacking, I think. 🙂

              1. *sad* Oh, it got across. They just got mad when it did, and violently rejected it.

                Not all of them are innocent victims, or victims of anything but themselves.

                  1. *nod*

                    And it really, really hurt when I figured that out. The worst shock was when it was a very intelligent relative that I’d previously greatly respected, and though that he respected me.

                    Nope. Just liked me because I would listen, and didn’t disagree so I must agree; then he ran into some claims where I knew his facts were wrong, and could show it.

        2. It’s baked into the plot. If you can’t talk to each other, you can’t talk to each other. No one can be convinced that what he previously believed was in error, because there are literally *no words* that communicate that. It’s how you can confer “honorary whiteness” on folks with a definite beige to chocolate brown skin tone. Or honorary White Male Mormon-ness to warm beige female not-Mormons.

          If words mean things, and can’t change depending on the situation, the house of cards falls apart. Bad behavior is bad behavior again, no matter if the actor is from a disadvantaged minority immigrant family or a trust-fund suburbanite. You must call things by their right names. You must point out that whatever the happy rainbow colored intent, if the *effect* is horrible, then it is a bad idea.

          Similarly, if personal responsibility means standing on your own two feet (or four, for some of us), then victim status is something to be avoided, not sought out. These things are *anathema* to the left. Without a steady source of victims, of needy, helpless people, of greed, and dependence on government… they become irrelevant. Worse than losing an election, or ten, becoming irrelevant would end the progressive movement like a stake through the heart.

          Thus they can’t let us talk to each other. It’s too big a risk.

          1. So the plot is all about how we can’t just talk to one another? Does that mean that we’re all stuck in a Robert Jordan novel?

            1. “Does that mean that we’re all stuck in a Robert Jordan novel?”

              I’ve often felt exactly like I was stuck in a Robert Jordan novel… my friends have always been SO much better at talking to girls…

            2. On the other hand, languages naturally change over time. Otherwise we’d be writing on this blog in Proto-Indo-European.

              1. Yes, but now we are in a cultural fight over the dictionary. Change over time/generations is natural. So is adaptation to new technology. Hell word appropriation is a design feature in English. Political redefinition on the other hand is sabotage.

              2. Some of us own the dictionary…well, one of proto-Indo-European roots…and consider reading it straight as an enjoyable activity.

              3. There’s a difference between changing and being changed– sort of like how dying and “being died” aren’t the same at all.
                (my new favorite kidism, from a discussion with my 6 year old about a walk-by armed robbery; it can be very hard to deal with a big serious subject like that when you’re trying not to die of cute)

                1. Ooh, that reminds me. We went to Outback Steakhouse tonight, and while we were waiting, this couple with a little girl who was probably between two and three came in. Shortly after they sat down to wait, she decided that she was going to the dining room to eat. I spoke to her, telling her that she needed to wait (since she stopped, her mother stayed put and just agreed with me), and she very matter-of-factly told me that she was going to eat, then pointed at her father and said, “da-da”, then pointed at her mother and said, “ma-ma”, pointed to the dining room again and said “dinner”. Finally, after I had agreed with her, but followed up with, “But you have to wait until they are ready for you”, she went back to her parents.

                  Little girl kind of looked like an even smaller than in her movies Shirley Temple. Talk about dying of cute…

    3. To me Fascist means Authoritarianism which is the root of Socialism, Nazism, communism and their ilk. This charge is usually leveled by people pretending to be benevolent but merely want godlike powers.

  8. I forgot yesterday to name Chesterton’s books on the US: What I Saw in America, and Sidelights on New Loondon and Newer York. They are sorta scattered, like his other travel/essay books, but the scattered thoughts are interesting.

  9. I went to get dinner (so I’d stop referring to Wilson when I meant Roosevelt) out last night, and as I was devouring my turkey platter I could hear the kitchen and wait staff talking among themselves. They were all in late teens and twenties, and were discussing the merits of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and which of them they should support. One person brought up Hillary but she was quickly disposed of as having blood on her hands over Benghazi and covering it up. Actual Republicans were never mentioned. To paraphrase the gist of what I was hearing: Sanders “has his heart in the right place” but his policies go a little too far, and with Trump they agree with a lot of what he says but find his words too aggressive, or abrasive. Take this anecdote for what it is worth, but it might offer some little insight into what some of the younger voters are saying in my neck of the woods are saying.

    1. So evil Republicans are not even considered. Trump is only a pretend Republican so he’s OK, if a bit abrasive. Bernie is a nice old grandpa but his policies are a little too far out. Hillary is just a bad person.

  10. Look: I think we all agree that Trump is…problematic. I for one am a Cruz man, and I’m not even a little bit enamored of Trump.
    At the same time, let’s be realistic: unless some miracle occurs, it’s looking more and more as if Trump will be the GOP nominee. And–as I observed yesterday in commenting on a piece proposing we all fall in behind the author’s preferred candidate (Rubio) in order to “stop Trump”–if we try earnestly and diligently to block his nomination, his voters will–rightly–reject the alternative GOP nominee.
    So, where does that leave us? Well, as Secretary Rumsfeld famously observed, you don’t go to the polls with the candidate you want, you go to the polls with the candidate you have.
    If November comes and the choices are Trump or Clinton–or Sanders–I’m voting for Trump. And I’m not a bit bashful to admit it.
    Feel free to try and explain what a terrible mistake this would be. But then you need to answer the core question in the discipline I was trained in, political science–“Compared to what?”
    And contemplate the fact that–right now, this very second–we have a President who apparently doesn’t think the Constitution’s separation of powers keeps him from doing…well, whatever he likes. Think that’s going to get any better under a Clinton or Sanders Administration…especially if the GOP takes a pounding at the lower levels of the ballot?
    Again…if the choice is between President Trump and retaining control of Congress on the one side, and President Clinton and a Democratic Congress on the other…well, I know what I like.

    1. Trump is the third term of Obama. In what he has actually supported and done. No. I’m not voting for that. If the Libertarians nominate Johnson, I’m going to go Unicorn cavalry at the top of the ticket. If they don’t, I’ll write in Mickey Mouse.

      1. I’ll probably vote Trump over Clinton or Sanders for one reason and one reason only. His tendency to get angry may, in foreign policy, translate into smackdowns delivered against countries who have been asking for it for a long time. Of course, the downside is that he might bite off more than he can chew.

        In terms of domestic affairs, I don’t see that Trump will attempt to be tyrannical any more (or less) than Clinton or Sanders. He’ll do it out of pique while Clinton or Sanders will do it out of corruption and ideology respectively, but it’ll amount to the same thing. The only difference is that Trump is more likely to be opposed when he does it.

        I really wish Cruz would win the Republican nomination. I could be more or less happy voting for him. Or Rubio. Cruz and Rubio need to get their act together and unite as a Presidential-VIce Presidential ticket soon, or we’ll have nothing but bad choices.

          1. His followers scare me more than [he does]

            I had that feeling in the last two Presidential elections. It’s not that O tries things, but that so many simply let him get away with them. Right now it’s to the point that I’m about ready to vote for Caligula’s horse rather than any of the current Big Three (Hillary, Sanders, Trump). Still, there is Tuesday. I have that night off. Doing what little I can. I suspect I’ll need something potent (the Aunt Roberta cocktail comes to mind – mixer? what, and water it down?! – ouch) to deal with the aftertaste, but an ox has gotta do what an ox has gotta do.

            1. Exactly…I get fearing Trump’s supporters but I fear BLM types even more and they are only going to get worse regardless of who wins. A Dem Justice Department will excuse them but a Trump’s might not.

              We are rapidly approaching a point a feared, where the choice isn’t a Republic or a charismatic dictator but it is their charismatic dictator or a kinda ours charismatic dictator. In that respect Trump is a less dangerous kinda ours charismatic dictator than the next one is going to be in reaction to another four years of their charismatic dictator.

              Seriously, say we get Hillary and four years of “can’t criticize or sexist” (Sanders fans are already complaining about this). If Trump is the ID monster 8 years of “racist troglodyte” cries that are de facto supported by the GOP against their base what is the ID monster 12 years of that is going to create?

              Having been told over and over “vote $SQUISH or $DEMOCRAT or it wil be worse” I am very close to saying “Vote Trump or $DEMOCRAT or it will be worse” although admittedly on a different axis (policy will be the same either way but the backlash will be uglier for cultural reasons).

              1. This is exactly why I’m promoting the Convention of States movement to everyone I can (we recently passed a resolution calling for such a convention here in Tennessee). There’s pretty much no way to recover the political system to constitutionality by action of anyone in D.C.; they will never decide on their own to agree to reduce their power to merely what is constitutionally allowable. A convention of states for the purpose of amending the Constitution is the only way this will ever be addressed without tyranny and/or bloodshed.

                  1. It’s either that, pleading with the administrative state to give up some of it’s power, or armed insurrection. I know which I’d like to try next (we’ve tried the second repeatedly, to basically no effect).

                1. What, specifically, would you expect such a Convention to accomplish? I’m hard pressed to see anything that a narrowly-limited one can do that would have much effect, and I’m terrified of what one that sets out to essentially rewrite the entire Constitution would do.

                  1. I keep reading that fear and history doesn’t support it. The Constitution Convention still reported via the Aricles Congress and required the support of 9 states which they got readily.

                    A new attempt at that would need the support of 38 states (a slightly larger margin…the 9 is a direct number used in two extreme circumstances clauses of the Articles) but lower than the amendment requirement of the Articles (which is often brought up to prove the danger but the Constitution was arguably under the treaties between states external to the Articles clause of the articles that required purpose, duration, and requirements be set by Congress which is what was done when the Continential Congress voted to send the Constitution to the states).

                    I see the fact that any amendments would require 38 states to be proof of the relative powerlessness of an Article V convention not something to fear. Like 1787 only things that answered extreme issues (such as Connecticut trying to colonize western Pennsylvannia) were going to get through Congress.

                  2. The narrow limit that you mention is the ability to propose amendments to the Constitution. In what way is that narrow? The effect it might have would be to propose amendments that the states and the people would find desirable but that the federal government would never be willing to propose because they would limit its power.

                    1. If no useful amendments get passed, we’ve lost nothing. If some do, we’ve gained. So why not try?

                    2. We should all be careful in what we seek — remember that the original Constitutional Convention was only supposed to provide adjustments to the Articles of Confederation — not an entire new document.

                    3. A convention may work as long as conservatives keep winning at the state level. Also how will delegates be chosen. Democrats seem to be past masters at gaming systems and warping them to their own ends. We could have the republic renewed or SMOD destroying it. It would be exciting anyway.

                2. Actually its a highly probable thing that a Con-Con or the like would end up either a complete failure or in the dissolution of the union.

                  The differences are so great and temptation to cram down something a large number of people do not want is too high.

                  That said a peaceful dissolution of the union into smaller homogeneous polities lawfully and peacefully would not be a bad thing.

                  As for insurrection, its possible but it will not happen until a critical mass of people decides exactly what they want and has a plan to govern. It can be “Constitutional Government” according to X definition but it will have to be rather specific. American rebels are mostly dumb as bags of hammers and end up like the Bundy’s , good people with no savvy ro real idea of what they want or what the state they replace would be like

                  if they do it wrong, its too weak, someone else will just take it. That nearly happened to the nascent US in the War of 1812 in fact.

                  Anyway before anyone rules, they need the mandate of heaven if they are to do it right

                  In no sense does the Liberty movement the fairly peaceful sorts here or your cousins at Western Rifle Shooters and Sipsey Street Irregulars and the others have the mandate

                  You might be worthy, can’t accept power and can’t rule

                  Trump for all his flaws appears to his supporters to be worthy of power, will take power and will rule.

                  So long as does the rudiments of what he promises, good enough.

                  A rather elucidating article from Anti Democracy Activist on the topic. Its all Game of Thrones’y but its quite good


                  Also re: what y’all seem to want is basically Constitutionalism + Minarchy . Not to put to fine a point on it, very few people want that. Its not a popularity contest per-se but a bunch of folks with that philosophy are over-matched by people willing and able to act together to a common purpose.

                  The kind of back-door deals that founded this country aren’t going to happen again and if it comes to a fight, its to the knife or to separation.

                  I’d rather make it work but there are some things that are not negotiable and some of them involve trade, immigration and such require boots on necks.

                  Trump appears to be the one with the gumption to do what needs to be done and if be he betrays everyone and he might, oh well. The Overton moves one more notch to burn it down and no one will ever trust in political solution. If it blows, oh well. I’m a bit long in the tooth for such things but so be it. It is a win in any case.

                  1. As so many do, you dismiss an Article V convention without understanding how it would work.

                    “Actually its a highly probable thing that a Con-Con or the like would end up either a complete failure or in the dissolution of the union.” This is balderdash. There’s no way you can possibly determine such a probability. And any amendments proposed would have to be ratified by 38 states before taking effect. In what conceivable way would that lead to the dissolution of the union?

                    “Trump for all his flaws appears to his supporters to be worthy of power, will take power and will rule.”

                    So you’re saying that Trump supporters are looking for a dictator who will enforce their (very disparate) desires upon the rest of the country? How very freedom-loving of them. Dammit, anyone with that attitude should be required to take the citizenship courses immigrants must take for naturalization. We don’t want to be ruled; we want a government that abides by the Constitution, nothing more.

                    1. You can’t reeducate people into wanting negative liberty. It doesn’t work that. Most people don’t want it anyway. Most people migrate because corruption or economic failures mean they have to. Some migrate out of a need for excitement and a few like our hostess simply are odd ducks.

                      The sucks I’km afraid are small in number even here in America

                      In any case there are significant disputes on what the Constitution means and how to interpret it as you well know. There are also big disputes as to what era of the Constitutions was the best or if some of the amendments were wise,

                      Heck there are big disputes as to what general welfare means and whether it allows wealth redistribution

                      There are disputes as to what the 2nd amendment means and while its currently regarded as an individual right as it should be, there are arguments over the militia clause even among supporters.

                      There is no general agreement on a great many things and often as not agreements do not come down on the side of minrachy.

                      Also the current methods and systems simply do not work very well, the US cannot or will not reduce its warmongering, does not control immigration and does not control trade all of these things allowed to it under the strictest interpretations.

                      Frankly this “freedom” has ended up turning the US Cultural Marxist , ruining the family, flooding the US with unnecessary immigrants and turning a somewhat functional economy into an oligarchy.

                      I suppose we could reduce the prison state by legalizing drugs but frankly a nation full of addicts and users is neither free nor functional in any case,

                      As for Trump, his supporters love much the same ideas of nation you do, they just realize getting back to it is not a “generational” project we don’t have that long. It takes leadership and a strong man or a strongman to get things done in the sea of corruption. They are also aware that Trump might well not be that guy but the others certainly or not. Cruz is somewhat OK but he is still a vote for the system and that is hopelessly broken.

                      If Trump kicks out many immigrants or at least builds a wall, limits Muslim entry ,negotiates better trade deals and has a sounder foreign policy and avoids more gun control which is about all he is promising, I won’t be worse off in any respect.

                      It would be great if he’d do more say send back 30 million or so, really handles trade and does this on roids, well in no case no anyone think Trump is going to be a quasi dictator but in the unlikely event he does and he accomplishes those needed needed goals, so?

                      The US will recover quickly from its interregnum and probably end up pretty much as it needs to be. It too well armed and independent minded to end up like the USSR or something.

                      Its highly unlikely he’ll do anything atrocious anyway as some ex CIA/NSA types basically hinted the military won’t follow his orders oif they deem them unlawful


                      Of course those statements ought to scare you more than Trump as it means the control over the intelligence agencies has likely been lost. That, not a loudmouth is how you get a dangerous dictatorship

                    2. Again, I want to remind everyone this poster has a changing ip and disappeared for years after I almost bannedhim for leaving white supremacist scat. Keep an eye and ping me if there’s an issue.

                  2. Sara.

                    I’m not changing my I.P. address to evade a ban.


                    If you didn’t want me to post, you merely have to ask specifically “please do not post here at all” or you can get a bit more tech savvy and handle all future commentators at the same time.

                    The easiest solution is to require an account before a person can comment. It can reduce occasional posters like myself or more wanted ones and new posters especially outside the WordPress ecosystem though. Like anything it a trade off.

                    It won’t effect the regulars much as most I would assume will sign up. depending on your user base and how WP works it could take a few days to get ready, each account approved and so on

                    Upside, you’ll have a more agreeable user base, downside as above.

                    Now re: #usaloveitorleaveit

                    Its way to late for that, the USA I was born in and loved was murdered by its elite.

                    Trump isn’t proven but he is the only candidate who might be able to bring back something that resembles what I grew up with and loved without well unthinkable things.

                    Cruz sure won’t he is a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and another Neo-Con not to mention not even born on US Soil and by tradition though probably not law is not even natural born, i.,e born here to a citizen. He shouldn’t be allowed to hold the office if the Founding Fathers were respected.

                    If Trump wasn’t in I could tolerate Cruz but we’ve had many like him before and nothing gets better.

                    Trump probably won’t fix things all that much but I’ll take my chances over the others. What the hell, there is not downside and Trump getting elected giving the GOPe the finger is its own reward.

                    And if he provokes a junta against him or marital law by him or any of the other highly unlikely worries people have at least the masks will be off . It may be and I don’t think so, the issues are insolvable without the awfulness that afflicts so many states . In that case so be it. The easy years are over, time to get serious.

                    Me I think it will just get slowly worse till something bad happens Trump or no Trump. The Donald though will make things a little better by some definitions, buy some time and maybe some lulz. Good enough for me.

                    1. I don`t ban. I just remember the last time you posted here, we’d told you to drop the white power crap. If you don’t post white power crap, we’re fine. This is not discussion of differences between races, but slogeneering. If yoengage discussion, no problem. Having a variable ip is reason to be watched, but Herb for x has one and behaves, so we just accept his ip is nuts.

                3. As I’ve previously stated, there are enough deep deep blue states, or states run by deep deep blue enclaves, to make a convention something you don’t want.

                1. You think Hillary’s world is less likely to involve it? Hillary will learn every single one of Obama’s lessons and combine it with a ruthlessness and long memory.

                  Like I said, Trump is no more likely to be pleasent for those who attract his gaze than Hillary. What is different is Trump is less focused on settling 50 years of scores against both individuals and the system that denied her and forced her to hitch herself to Bill. Nor does he have a big book of theory on how to redesign it all.

                  Hillary is Mao and his long shadow. Trump is Shelly’s Ozymandius. Bot are terrible in their time but only one is terrible 50 years after.

                  1. Jim Geraghty wrote about the same topic (Trump & political retaliation) a few days ago, and here’s how I responded:

                    You seem to believe that retaliation for wrongthink and bad feelz is new and only began with Obama, but even I’m not that foolish. Political retaliation is as old as politics itself — even the cavemen had it! In the US, we can thank Obama for dragging this into the light, but he can’t have been the first President to use federal agencies in this fashion — his blatant attacks are rather new (haven’t seen anything like that since Clinton).

                    So, your examples of a pattern are simply politics as usual. Most politicians would cheerfully sell their mothers (not to mention wives/children) to get ahead; they aren’t in the business because they want to “help” people — they want to help themselves first, and if the teeming masses somehow benefit from their actions then they’ll claim that was the original goal.

                    So, call me cynical, but political retaliation isn’t new, even in this country. Some cities/regions are better at hiding these things, but (IMHO) this is indemic to any sort of group wielding power over others.

              2. I’m more worried that BLM will try something stupid, but I’m much less worried about them actually being able to pull it off than I am about Trump supporters.

            2. This may be the best reason to vote Trump if he is nominated. Impeachment willl be back in play and Congress will not allow him to get away with nearly as much as they allowed Obama.

              1. Impeachment maybe, but Senatorial conviction is essentially impossible in the modern political environment. Impeachment is no impediment to politicians today.

                1. I wouldn’t be so certain. Especially if his VP is somewhere on the scale of allowable or at least ‘slightly better’ to the senate. It is pure politics but if he did 1/10th of the current occupant you could probably find 27 reps to convict. Honestly I see the same with Cruz. And what would worry me with him is whether it would actually be over an overreach or over not overreaching.

                  1. You only need a majority of representatives to impeach, but 67 senators to convict. Do you really think you could ever get that in Washington today?

                    1. Honestly, yes. Get someone that hurts both parties and you can. And that’s why I said 27 reps. A palace coup I could see. Especially if the cronies in the legislature find themselves unable to run the favors expected of their purchased asses.

                      Unlikely, yeah. But possible.

                    2. With Trumps ability to alienate and/or piss people off I do believe that we could indeed see an impeachment.

                    3. Only if he actually does any of the things on immigration he claims he’ll do. Otherwise, the GOPe will present him with a deal: You can talk all you like, but you will do what we say. And he’ll fold like a cheap suit.

                  1. I’ve always said Biden was an insurance policy. No one is going to off Barry when the next president is America’s Favorite Crazy Uncle.

              2. He’d have to do something egregious enough to warrant impeachment first

                Trump is highly unlikely to do anything like that. He is a loudmouthed moderate who might try to contain immigration and negotiate some new trade policies, maybe if we are very lucky deport some people Nothing special.

                If somehow he did something really bad you’d have to have the votes

                Worse if he is as bad as you think, you’d best hope he doesn’t declare martial law and that if he does the military doesn’t follow him.

                They might and everyone hates Congress.

                No one is likely to rebel unless its gun confiscation anyway which didn’t happen under Obama is even less likely under Trump.

                In the martial law case you’d have him an extra 4-8 years or so over the time he might serve if elected twice, Not much more than that. He isn’t that young.

                Now his VP could be an issue, I have no idea who he might pick. A military man would shore up some weaknesses but if to goes martial law and he is young and well liked we’ll have a problem.

                Otherwise 4-8 year so Trump will maybe make things a bit better, maybe not and if he fails spectacularly we’ll probably get our overdo civil war by 2030 or so anyway. Oh well.

                  1. At last for a change the candidate might do something regular folks want. I’d find that a bit refreshing.

                    And as I said if he turnscoat people will never trust anyone and will no, there is no hope for any voting solution.

                    That too is not a bad outcome.

                  1. Given his four bankruptcies, a better analogy would be: “A man who will screw his investors will screw his voters.”

                    1. Who is he going to screw when he realizes that America has the largest national debt in the history of the world?

          2. Honestly? I’m waiting to see who a Trump VP choice is going to be. Then I’ll decide. (Yes, that makes me a bad person, but I don’t see any other hope than a successful nutcase in the scenario that is playing out.)

        1. I’ll probably vote Trump over Clinton or Sanders for one reason and one reason only.

          For me, it will be because its the only way to get the media to do their job. With a Democrat in office, the Fourth Estate is nothing but a Fifth Column.

          1. Admittedly the question will be whether they agree with his policies and how will they guide him. With him there is a nonzero chance he could be opposed. With Bernie or Billary, that is a zero chance.

            Any other rep candidate is a 100% chance

        2. Of course, the downside is that he might bite off more than he can chew.

          I think you mean ….”we can chew”. He’ll bite, but the taxpaying citizens and the grunts will have to do the chewing….

      2. Trump may be the third term of Obama, but it’s one where he might actually be impeached. We all know that the Dems in the Senate will never vote to convict a Democrat, so Democrats have no real check on their aspirations. Maybe the Dems will vote to impeach a progressive “Republican.”

        1. Why? The Dems have proven they are masters of political warfare and one key rule of warfare is “never get in the way of the enemy when he is destroying himself”.

          Trump is the GOP destroying itself. And it choose to and still actively does. I was yelling as long ago as October and maybe even Septemeber that attacking Trump for not being conservative was besides the point because it not only failed to understand Trump but reinforced him because, all the changes that may have occurred, the GOP isn’t 1/10th as conservative in policy as it is in campaigning and post-2014 that frustration hit a critical mass (I think Sarah saw this in writing her “don’t bolt” post in February 2015 (I think that was it) after the cave on amnesty and in which’s comment I got accused of being a Democrat false flag for advocating trying to repeat the GOP’s birth out of the Whings.

          Trump will be the nominee and with it the GOP as a party is dead. It is now a rump of “socialism tomorrow” moderates and “who care as long as I get my daucha” functionaries. As the brand becomes even more meaningless (barring a Trump embrace of social conservatitism) up and comers will become the new “moderate” Democrats while the LP proves they are tha Palestinians of American politics by never missing the opportunity to miss and opportunity.

          We are past, “who do we vote for to avoid crisis” and at “who do we back to get past the crisis with the best platform to rebuild and in the shortest time” (a 2 vairable linear algebra fitting problem). I think Trump and I’ve outlined my reasons. I’m willing to entertain other choices but unless they are framed in a context of “the GOP is dead, we are at the crisis, the goals are survivial, minimizing crisis time, and maximizing rebuilding bases, in that order, I doubt I’ll be convinced.

          1. Why should I believe you, that the GOP is dead, when that prediction turned out to be false after each of the last five presidential elections? That you can’t see a future doesn’t mean we live at a turning point in history.

            1. Because Trump is the civil war the GOP has been skirting.

              I think the GOP is dead EVEN IF TRUMP wins. Trump winning the nomination is the proof the party is dead.

              You don’t have to believe me but that’s the framework I’m working in. A winning Trump will be no conservative savior and turn off that part of the base even more and not send them to unite with the establishment who have already proved that while they don’t want Trump the want Cruz even less (if the establishment didn’t want Trump instead of all the Rubio endorsements elders would have called him and told him to step down and be ready to be Cruz’s VP not endorsing him and giving him money). A losing Trump would be the establishment’s signal to purge the conservatives once and for all.

              The GOP is a rump and dead the minute Trump accepts the nomination. Something called the GOP may rise in the mid-2020s to be the second party again (ballot access laws and the first past the post system of 95+% of US elections make reanimating the shell easier than creating a new structure) but the GOP of my lifetime is finally sucumming to the arsenic it has been feeding itself for at least 20 years.

              1. Do living parties return phone calls to the party county chair from someone who is registered to their party and calls and says “I want to get involved, here’s my number, when’s the next meeting?”
                Because if that signifies life, my local Republican party is dead!

          2. I don’t see the GOP as dead. People are trying to kill it, but they’re trying to use an egomaniac against a bunch of egomaniacs. The establishment is reviled for making deals with Democrats. Trump is a Democrat whose big premise is that he makes deals. This isn’t linear algebra, it’s basic arithmetic.

              1. *shrug*

                Then vote third party and convince yourself that stopping socialism by voting Republican is just around the corner in 2020 after Hillary’s first term and a Dem Senate by 2019.

                I mean look at all the Hubert Humphrey goo-goo types running the Democrats today. Certainly the old Scoop Jackson New Dealer types that dominated the Dems and which represented the pre-McGovern party and were the base for Mondale have had a great eight years.

                1. A vote for Trump *is* a vote for socialism. He likes Obamacare, except when he doesn’t. He wants to build a wall, but employed illegals. He’s for the little guy – except the ones he put out of work at the Old Post Office Pavilion. Statist (arrogant thug) is not the way to stop statist (left people to die) or statist (doesn’t understand reality).

                  1. Let’s unpack that:

                    1. “He likes Obamacare expect when he doesn’t” which is straight GOP policy with “repeal and replace” which they insist will include things such as pre-existing conditions exemptions, subsidies for those who can’t afford insurance, and so on. What it never includes is reducing the role of government in medical care.

                    2. “He wants to build a wall, but employed illegals.” which is straight GOP policy with “write a wall into law but never fund it and try to push amnesty twice in the past decade claiming not doing so ensures we can’t win elections”.

                    3. “He’s for the little guy – except the ones he put out of work at the Old Post Office Pavilion.” which is close to GOP policy as they want whatever big donors want however I’ll give you this one.

                    So, you are arguing he shouldn’t be the nominee because he’s a big government statist Republican like most of the Republicans.

                    Yet you are confused that people think tatist (arrogant thug) is the way to stop statist (left people to die) or statist (doesn’t understand reality) when your argument is statist (“me too but not as fast”) is the way to stop statist (left people to die) or statist (doesn’t understand reality) despite evidence that statist (“me too but not as fast”) has been failing since at least 2000.

                    This is not how you stop Trump but keep trying…it will work next week much better than it has been all month.

                    1. It might not be but a party that has endeveroed to create cynicism in its base for 30+ years by laying the fact they like want the opposite of what they campaign on when they held it all better be prepared for that base to vote based on cynicism.

                      You can say it shouldn’t be that way but Trump pretty much proves it is. Acting like we’re in a better world isn’t going to make it so. If you want to stop Trump you have to fight the reasons people are voting for him not the reasons you aren’t.

                      Trump is riding what amounts to “I choose a socialist who lies about it and calls me names (the GOP), a socialist who is open about it and calls me names (Dems), or a socialist who lies about it half the time but shits on the people who call me names.”

                      Claiming he is lying and calling his supporters names is not an effective (or even very bright) strategy. Hell, ignoring him would have worked better.

                    2. Cruz is the exception but I think the brand damage is so great it has splashed on him and he stinks of it. Sure, he talks a go game, like other Republicans, but he’s an elected Republican and thus they are probably all lies.

                      That is grossly unfair to Ted and his record but that is the cost of one too many “vote for our squish or $DEMOCRAT”. Given the odds were low any Republican could have won in 2008 in retrospect we should have run a well known, end of career hardcare conservative to prove we really mean it and gotten an energized base.

                      Then again, I still think shutdowing the government over executive amnesty and fighting in 2015 with the spoils of 2014 would have avoided Trump.

    2. That’s basically my logic too. I’ve settled on supporting Cruz, but come to it, I would vote for ANY of the Rep or even RINO candidates over either of the Dem candidates. Not only because I’ve concluded the Dem candidates are somewhat crazier, but because Congress is not going to tamely go along with Trump like they would Hillary or Bernie, and our government works best when it achieves the gridlock the Founders envisioned. Trump would fight with Congress and nothing would get done, and that’s a surefire better thing than Hillary or Bernie Proposes and Congress Disposes.

    3. Right now the issue with a lot of people is that the core party has spent considerable capital pushing ideas in opposition to a good portion of the base. The interest has been only at the moneyed interests that exist in the beltway (Amnesty, Cronyism, etc). Lots of people no longer trust the words of the politicians from the core party and are starting to overturn tables. Trump is seen as being not of that core party and is intended to ‘send a message’. Same as how Sanders is not part of the core Democrat party and is looked at as more trustworthy than Billary.

      I dislike Trump as a first, second or third tier candidate (Cruz is probably the only one of my preferred candidates still in the race) but I’m more concerned about the likely media, bureaucrat, government triad of Crony rule under the democrats. Will it be better, not likely but after 2012 it feels like we’re already in freefall

      1. It will be the same under Trump. Or worse. Because mob. Imagine the Ronulans in power. Now imagine that RP was as unhinged as Trump.
        I don’t see where this doesn’t end with us renaming the moon Trump and changing the days of the week to rhyme with Trump ala French revolution insanity (without Trump, the lucky bastages.)
        I never wanted to live in interesting times, and these are going to be outright riveting. I think we emerge okay on the other side, but can I be sure? Who can?

        1. I am both hoping you are wrong and right at the same time. Admittedly will probably be voting GJ again in this case and at top of ticket my vote means jack (And reps have closed primaries here).

          Once more we’re eating a shit sandwich.

      2. My biggest fear is that Trump implodes in the general, either by design or because people confused the media pulling their punches with Trump being media-proof, which will cause the establishment to say “If you had listened to us professionals we wouldn’t have lost an eminently winnable election against the weakest Democrat field in a generation. Now sit down, shut up, and let the grown-ups do their jobs.”

        1. Why not…the establishment tried that after their candidate lost in 2012 and they blamed it on their voters anyway. Why would Trump cause them to react differently or the base to respond differently to that lecture?

          1. It’s hard to say that it’s not the establishment’s fault when the establishment’s candidate was running. Between the people who kept Bush in the race until last week and the ones celebrating Trump’s wins there is a vast sea of Republicans who just want to win. A lot of those people are voting for Trump because he looks like a winner. If Trump implodes spectacularly, they’ll reject the rejection of the establishment that got Trump the nomination.

            1. Maybe…I could have blinders because I consider Trump essentially an establishment candidate (both in his policies and the fact they consider destroying Cruz more important than stopping him) whose only sin in the establishment’s eyes is not sucking up enough first (running for Senate in NY say) before claiming the prize.

              1. He *is* an establishment candidate, but most of his support comes from people who are rabidly anti-establishment.

                1. Yes but he isn’t perceived as one and your analysis relies on that perception. I think you’ve got a point I’ve blinded myself to by the policy analysis.

                  1. That perception is going to change. It will either change before the election, in which case say hello to Madame President, or it will change after the election, in which case Trump will be a one-termer. People have a powerful ability to see only what they want to see and their ego demands that they change their opinion only reluctantly, so I think the wishful thinking will continue until after the election. On the other hand, the media will love tearing into Trump once he’s secured the nomination, and he’s certainly handed them enough ammunition.

    4. The tone of the entire country is now centered around the idea that we are a nation of men not laws, competing tribes not a nation. BLM, Sander’s Free S*** Army, Benito M. Trump, Vote for Hil Coz She’s Got Lady Parts, etc. Cruz seems to be the only one who gives a damn about the Constitution, and yet his seems to be a voice in the wilderness. I’m starting to weight the pros and cons of Cthulhu vs SMOD 😦

      1. And this is the issue. In rejecting the libs, the alt right has bought into the libs “people are widgets, easily classifiable according to external characteristics.” This does NOT end well.

        1. No it doesn’t but we are now at the point not of avoiding it (which surprises me…I thought we’d limp along another decade at least and had resigned to stop fighting to stop it and just push it past my death) and having to pick which side of the interesting days we think is the best path to emerging okay on the far side.

          I do not think letting Hillary hold the White House is even close. If Sanders gets the nomination I’d be less worried about him winning than Hillary to be quite honest although not by much. I honestly think with Trump it would be four years like the last eight (and I do mean the shit of eight years in four) but I think Hillary would be the last eight years squared in four years AND more likely to be re-elected. One saving grace is I’m not even sure Trump would seek re-election but Hillary would.

          I think the shit storm of Trump won’t be as bad as Hillary in no small part due to his impulsiveness although for people caught in his gaze it will be as bad as Hillary. What I do think will be different is we’d get a chance to move beyond sooner and the damage to the system will be more tied to the man than to the actual structures.

          1. See, I see it as a third Dem term (And we’ll almost for sure get it once the media deconstructs DT) is the only way to lay the damn zombie of socialism. While socialism under a “right wing” brand will just tell people there’s nowhere to run.

            1. I think I see where we diverge. You think people haven’t yet concluded there is no where to run from socialism but a Trump presidency would convince them because there is no alternative. I think Trump proves they have concluded that already and is an expression of that conclusion in a very angry way (they still want an alternative but if they can’t have one they’ll make sure the rest of the socialist have to suffer too).

      2. I agree and I think that the only long-term solution is it amend the Constitution to add an affirmative defense of “Proper defense of the Constitution” to any crime against a poltician or government agent.

    5. At the moment, I again think Cruz is going to win. It looks like he may have been waiting for the last debate to set up his ad blitz for Tuesday.

      We shall see.

      1. From your lips to the voter’s ears.

        Then we just have to defeat the establishment’s attempts to sabotage him before the electin so we can fight the GOP in Congress’s attempts to sabotage him after 🙂

  11. Let me see if I’m catching this right: After years of being told that White Cis-male Heterosexuals are The Devil, along comes a guy who says “So what? Vote for me and you can let your devil out!” and some people are saying “Hey! That’s great! I’m tired of the crap I’m seeing so yes, let’s vote for him and let it all hang out!”?

    Or to put it another way “A vote for Trump is a vote for getting back at all the people who have told you you’re evil”?

    I can see how some would jump on that.

    1. Yes. I can see it too. But they’re also killing the republic by doing it. They’re voting like liberals “The personal is political.” And it’s not. It’s just a way for people with power to manipulate you.
      Yes, it’s understandable. Germany in WWII was understandable too. To understand all is NOT to forgive all.

      1. It’s quite possibly true that a Trump presidency would end up killing something. If it killed a Republic, however, what it killed would be the Fourth Republic, which is an abomination that needs badly to die in any case. The Second Republic, which had some significant things to recommend it back when it still existed, is long dead and dust already, and though most of what’s good about our current situation is its relic, there’s no way back from here to there. (The Fourth Republic has for the past fifty years or so been busily engaged in burning every remnant of the Second it can find, in order to fuel its own continuance. If Trump hadn’t existed, the ongoing process would have finished it off in no more than twenty years anyway.)

        Which isn’t to say that Trump isn’t an enormous risk. I can see worst-case scenarios from him that are very bad indeed, which is why I’m not voting. But if he kills the Fourth Republic, I’ll do nothing but applaud him for it.

        1. No. Trump will send the GOP the message “we want socialists.” It’s what he is, whatever you think it is.
          Fourth republic. Good Lord, you people have weird history. So you love the Pre-Reagan times? Good to know. And who is the leader you’d choose? FDR?
          Yep. It all ends in 1984.

          1. So what. The GOP already has that delusion. They have hung onto it despite massive evidence that it is a delusion. What additional harm can them claiming that this supports their delusion do.

            1. No. You’re confusing old-style statists with socialists. It can AND WILL get MUCH worse. Trust me. I’ve been there. I’d show you the t-shirt but I shot it and buried it.

          2. Fourth Republic… the term comes from Moldbug, and refers to the bureaucratic government with democratic justification whose seeds were sown by the Pendleton Act, and which was fully instituted by FDR. Second Republic is the real constitutional government in force 1791-1860.

            Trump is certainly not anything good from a libertarian perspective. Likely some other of the current Republican candidates are better. But Trump is the only candidate who has even a small chance of actually taking on and damaging the Fourth Republic, which would otherwise neutralize him the same way it neutralizes any other elected politician who it doesn’t like.

            There are no good options. I judge, from limited information, that Trump is the best of several bad options. Certainly he’s the most entertaining. Calling him a socialist, while true, misses the point. Socialism is the policy of the Fourth Republic anyway, and Trump couldn’t really make things worse on that front. The downside risk of Trump is if he actually does go full fascist.

            1. Certainly he’s the most entertaining.

              Way back in the fall I argued for Trump (in an attempt at humor not as a serious choice) on the “funniest clown theory”. The nominee is always some clown who isn’t really conservation so why not select the funniest one.

              I guess the universe didn’t realize it was a joke.

    2. Have you been spending a lot of time with Anita Sarkeesian? Yours is a pretty good take on how SJW’s consider Trump; by vilifying his supporters.
      As with the Krell ID Monster, Dr. Morbius is never aware that his base instincts and desires are being fulfilled. Now, I don’t doubt that any evil redneck cousin-marrying White Cis-male Heterosexuals out there what do want to get back at all the people that have called them evil probably support Trump. But I suspect that the vast majority are upset and angry with our politicians, and revenge beyond voting all the b*st*rds out of office is minimal.

      1. But that doesn’t make any sense, when you’re voting the guy they favor into office. Hence Monsters from the Id. This is not a rational reaction.
        And the “evil redneck” whatever is not the problem. Some of them might vote for Trump. Most don’t vote.
        These are highly educated people, the forefront of the progressive mind-altering project.

        1. It is the ID after all, “Hulk – Smash” is about as rational as it gets. My main point was meant to be an observation since Megyn Kelly “He said bad things about me.” faux-outrage. Conservatives and moderates are reacting to Trump and framing the argument in the Progressive manner; White Cis-male Heterosexuals is itself a progressive term. I would suggest ‘blue collar workers’. It illustrates meat eating, hard working, frustrated Trump voters better than fearful people of low intelligence clinging desperately to their guns and Bibles.

            1. I think that Trump gets his support from frustrated former cubicle dwellers. And others who’ve “transitioned” to seemingly permanent unemployment. And don’t see much sunlight or hope in the future. A class of people that have become unpersons on so many levels these days. Look when you are over fifty and have had your life wrecked by uncaring forces outside your control and have no real prospects, your id is going to be screaming for blood. The amazing thing is that none of the people Washington want to acknowledge that there are millions of people just waiting for a chance to hit back and HUGE reasons to want to.

              1. frustrated former cubicle dwellers


                I got laid off after the crisis and after one false start that also laid me off got the best job of my life.

                I’m voting Cruz Tuesday.

                If I was stuck proctoring tests for college students (many of them foreingers) on Saturdays in between contracts and odd jobs still, eight years later, I can see myself being so mad I’d vote Trump next Tuesday (and in Texas instead of Georgia).

                1. Hmm. Not quite sure about that. (I’m in a similar boat – but not quite at the “best job of my life” stage yet.)

                  Maybe it is the frustrated former cubicle dwellers – but I know of at least one rabid Trumper who is a truck driver (albeit one who is quite well self-educated, on commerce matters anyway).

                  I think the real key word is “frustrated.” At least among our generation. We went through the “malaise” of Carter – had our hopes raised by Reagan – then went through BCB. And now are at Obama.

                  Some of us do know that “id” is the first two letters of “idiot,” so we don’t trust the yelling, screaming voice in our heads (yep, mine has been screaming “Go Trump!” every time he skewers the MSM). But many never came to that realization.

                  1. I keep wishing my id had said “become a standup comic” as apparently that is good line of work for letting your id hang out. Then again my flute teacher says my flute personality is starting to show so maybe not.

              2. John, we’re over fifty ourselves now. We hear. And if you start a business you get sucked dry between taxes and regulations. PLUS labor regulations don’t allow you to expand beyond a certain point.

                1. Sarah, I don’t want to add to your depression and despair. I don’t want the depression and despair that I feel. But just take a look on linked in and other job sites, to see, on the one side the total cluelessness of those in charge on one side and the endless frustration on the other. If Trump is a monster, he’s a monster of the establishment’s own creation. The only thing I can say is that France survived the revolution somewhat and the US has a very strong reputation of outlasting the people trying to destroy it. In the end we WILL win.

              3. This is my point. They’re angry, they want to smash things and they see Trump as the Perfect Hammer to do it. They just aren’t looking past the smashing and thinking “OK, now who has to clean this up?”

                1. You’ll recognize this as the phenomenon that’s been turning popular movements into blood-soaked shitshows since popular movements first became a thing.

                  Dear anyone interested in a radical insurrection: Be sure to recognize when victory is secured, and at that point give the defeated a hand up. And if your key allies in insurrection don’t agree with that statement, drop out of the alliance so that they never win in the first place: once they do win, they’ll eat you alive.

                  1. We might be saved by how popular the “beat them, then HELP THEM UP” trope is in anime– my husband calls it the Naruto effect.

                    Stories form how we think.

                    (even if I’d much prefer Fairy Tail, myself)

            2. I think the Trump voter is pissed at conventional politics. Let’s blow politics up. These people can be found everywhere. They don’t agree with each other on anything but blowing up the system. Trump is the convenient bomb, Trump has been on so many sides politically that anyone can think of something he said that they agree with. They are blind to everything else.

              Monsters of the Id indeed. There is no rationality this election.

              1. Political Irrationality got us the Republic.

                Political Rationality turned the US from a prosperous province of Europe into what it is today. Brazil Del Norte with less charm

            3. Likely. My two supposedly-libertarian coworkers think that a hybridization of Trump’s and Sanders’s platforms would be a good idea.

              1. So I take it they are liberty loving libertarians but “I should be able to smoke pot without consequence” libertarians?

                1. I really don’t know how to categorize these two. On one hand, they want their liberty, but on the other, they want single-payer healthcare, because they think it will solve the problems caused by the insurance companies. They also confuse Free Market Capitalism with Corporatism. That’s as much as I can think of at the moment.

                2. Second choice of words crystallized a lot of the “libertarian” folks’ actions– they want liberty from consequences. Even if it means that nobody else is allowed to react to their actions.

          1. I meant white Cis-male heterosexual in the sense of “If that’s what you’re going to call me and that makes me the root of all evil, I’ll wear it with pride while I’m burning everything down.” Intersectionalist crap is part of the issue.

    3. Let’s see, I have the horns, the cloven hooves, the tail already. Shall I get a pitchfork or trident and maybe some red dye?

      After all, if you’re gonna have a ‘devil’ isn’t it ‘Stick to the devil you know’? And you at least sort of know me? Oh wait. Even dumb ox smart enough not want that job. Wait. Ox not so dumb as want any of the Three Little Thinguses to have it either. Alright, ox make ONE (non)campaign promise: Will do as much as possible to cause gridlock and seize-up. Nothing (new) stupid gets done, hopefully.

      1. But do you play the fiddle/violin? I think that’s the true hallmark of being Old Scratch. (Although in some circles, playing the kazoo would probably work just as well.)

        1. But do you play the fiddle/violin?

          Not even as well as Jack Benny (well, his character. I understand he had to be quite good to ‘play’ that bad.)

          I can probably manage the kazoo. Though rather than take up time with golf, perhaps any copious free time as President should be taken up practicing the theremin. Even if it doesn’t spook people, the results of attempting a notoriously tricky instrument might keep/drive many away. Though the explodaphone has much to recommend it, too.

        2. Or his real name could be Johnnie, he’s from Georgia, and the winner of a golden fiddle. 🙂

          1. I am not now, nor have I ever been, named “Johnnie’ (and considering who/what all I have been, or been called, that’s almost surprising. I have passed through Georgia but never lived there, and I’ve not won a golden musical instrument of any sort. (Nor have I a lost a contest and awarded such a thing, either.) I might have attempted the violin when my sister was learning to play the one my grandmother had, which was an aged wonder (the violin!) then as we saw the rosin with the words, ‘MADE IN GERMANY’ rather than West Germany. However, while some can produce music or something at least recognizable as an attempt at music, what I got was… the sound of scraping a horse’s tail across a cat’s innards stretched across a dead tree.

              1. The problem with that contest is that the guy Johnny was competing against would not play fair or be willing to admit that a mortal had beat him. 😈 😈 😈 😈

                1. Heh. If I had read that more closely, I might have worked it out. I thought you said “…lost a contest and been awarded such a thing…

                  Which, of course, made no sense at all, but I kind of skimmed over that. 🙂

      2. Making sure that nothing stupid gets done is a reason to vote for Ronald Reagan. Sure, he’s dead but that means he can’t be bought, doesn’t care what anyone thinks and won’t do something simply to be seen to be doing something.

            1. Why do you think Dems around the country are fighting against True the Vote’s attempts to get states and counties to remove the dead and moved from voter rolls.

                1. You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
                  Another day older and deeper in debt
                  Saint Peter don´t you call me ´cause I can´t go
                  I owe my soul to the government* store

                  *updated for the Age of Obama

            2. In New Orleans, the dead not only vote Democrat they walk themselves to the polling place…. 😎

        1. While the dead, by presidence, are considered eligible to vote in many parts of the nation, I think that to take office the winner must have a pulse and be able to breath on their own accord.

  12. “But Cruz is in league with banksters” (while Trump is Simon pure)

    Yep. Trump is in the New York/New Jersey real estate business, which means he’s not only in league with the New York bankers, he’s also mobbed up.

      1. I’m a banker and I’m not voting for Cruz. Colorado GOP decided they didn’t want to have anything Binding so they’re sending all their representatives unbound. I think they’re afraid of what us hicks might send.

        1. Yeah, but your a banker not a bankser and thus the root of all evil like us quants in MBS land (well more, MSR but you get the point) 🙂

          I heard about Colorado…waiting for more states to try and do that in an attempt to get a broked convention that gives us some combination of Bush, Rubio, and Kaisch.

          1. I think that’s why they did it. They wanted to be able to vote for Jeb but were worried they’d have to vote for Cruz or Trump. So screw you provincial idiots, we’re going to decide how to vote. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy toward the State GOP.

  13. Asimov seemed to think Hegel was right. And his psychometric shadow operatives were just Central Planning a la Stalin writ across the Galaxy.

    Still, it’s great stuff for teens. As long as they grow out of it.

    1. This may explain why the only Asimov I’ve been able to read (or reread) in adulthood have been the mysteries and the non-fiction.

      1. I take that back – the robot stories I can also still read and enjoy. But the original Foundation trilogy and various other works of his I’ve tried to read as an adult have been induce a “meh” reaction, and I enjoyed the Foundation trilogy as a teen.

    2. Actually Psychohistory falls apart by the second Foundation story. It requires the population not knowing it is being observed and guided to work and by the second story the leaders of the Foundation are intentionally not acting because “a Seldon crisis is coming and it will force me to act the right way”.

  14. “But the common decency that would cause other guys to hold them in check is not there anymore … because after all the lies, who knows how to stop the crazy without using more lies anymore? And no one is sure where the truth is. Even when it’s rather obvious.”

    This may be just another way of saying the same thing, but I’ve often thought that the problem is an essential loss of good faith; it’s not so much that nobody is sure about what the truth is as that they’ve simply stopped caring, because they sincerely believe those whom they see as opposing them have already made that same choice and seem to have become more effective for it. There is even a certain ruthless game logic to it: good faith in an opponent’s intentions and statements is a losing tactic when that opponent has nothing but bad faith in yours, because you will continue trying to make deals and compromises that they will never believe to be sincere and feel no obligation to uphold. The tragedy is when this mutual despairing of faith is made when it’s not correct or necessary, simply because passions have been too inflamed on both sides for clear judgment to prevail.

    One thesis I have seen a lot in recent months at The Blog Which Is A Misspelled Religious Latin Term is, to boil it down to its harshest formulation, “Shoot the Moderates”, because essentially the community there has given up on the idea that anything less than the extremism therein advocated will work, and that any attempt to restrain, control or suspend that extremism — for the sake of preserving future strategic alliances, for example — amounts to shooting your soldiers in the back when they look like they might be winning. From a certain point of view, I understand this reaction, but to me it is essentially saying, “We are sliding backwards so fast that we may as well disconnect the brakes,” without worrying about what will happen if you do successfully reverse the slide only to rocket back up the slope and go over the peak too fast. Reasonable men can argue in good faith over the difference in judgment required, but it strikes me as the stance of an unreasonable man to insist that even to ask to have the argument is sufficient grounds for rejecting it.

    1. From a certain point of view, I understand this reaction, but to me it is essentially saying, “We are sliding backwards so fast that we may as well disconnect the brakes,”

      THIS. and that’s why I said “they’re killing the republic I love and it feels like they’re killing me.” And when we respond we get told we’re insulting THEM. Oh, for heaven’s sake people, we’re just trying to understand why otherwise rational people would respond so irrationally. We would like you to leave us our republic. We’d like to keep it. And it’s not like I haven’t been fighting the progs all along. It’s not like I haven’t been in the trenches. What more could I do? Defend and imaginary “white race?” Screw that. any philosophy that enshrines your pasty white middle aged guy over Dr. Sowell is sick. I will not shut up. I will not submit.

    2. The Dems have thoroughly purged their moderates, culminating in the Massacre of the Blue Dogs in 2010. I view this as the Dems completely giving up on the white working class (as well as the sliding-back-down-the-hill-we-climbed middle class). Since the GOP decided to ignore these voters in favor of sucking up the Donor Class, it was only a matter of time before SOME candidate-looking-for-votes found these voters-in-search-of-a-candidate. The GOP had almost a decade to do something, but could never get off of the ‘open borders and tax cuts’ position and throw a bone to these ‘lost’ voters.

      1. I know. But that’s not even it. Look, immigration is not even a real thing anymore, because our economy it sucketh. Sure we still have some here, more in the wealthy enclaves, but judging by my area we’re down 2/3. This is Monsters from the Id. Not really rational, but knowing they’re being done down, somehow.
        All of which would be less terrifying if they weren’t running to a guy who’ll be worse. What’s left then? Madame Guillotine, she’s always hungry, but a little … indiscriminate in her eating.

        1. I disagree. Yes those people who came here to work and send money home have left, but we are having people forced on us now who are very dangerous either because of Islam or disease.

          1. Yes, I know, but the solution to that i STOP ADVERTISING OUR WELFARE BENEFITS ABROAD which Obama is doing, but I don’t see anyone else (even Hillary) doing. Okay, maybe Bernie. The point is, there are more urgent issues.

      2. The problem is that Trump is feeding these voters a line of crap. It started with opposition to amnesty. In order to drum up political support for a policy our “betters” were forcing on us, amnesty opponents used an economic argument. Now, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose amnesty and limit immigration, but economics isn’t one of them. Blue collar workers aren’t suffering because functionally-illiterate peasants are crossing the southern border, they’re suffering because of things like Dodd-Frank restricting the amount of capital that small businesses have access to, labor unions and minimum wage laws pricing employers out of the labor market, and Obamacare making it impossible to grow a business beyond 50 employees. We need to be making the case that Democrat policies are what is hurting the working class and we aren’t doing it. Trump’s just going to be four more years of railing at a scapegoat.

        1. I’m going to 90% agree…the 90% is here:

          [Blue collar are] suffering because of things like Dodd-Frank restricting the amount of capital that small businesses have access to, labor unions and minimum wage laws pricing employers out of the labor market, and Obamacare making it impossible to grow a business beyond 50 employees.

          Mostly correct (there are some other issues such as automation but that was speeded up by the various cost factors you mentioned) and there has been some replacement in health care (Megan McArddle’s latest is an interesting reference to that).

          However, I think you are slightly off here:

          Blue collar workers aren’t suffering because functionally-illiterate peasants are crossing the southern border

          If the things you diagnose as their core problems weren’t happening this would be true. Because they are happening those blue collar workers are in some part trying to compete for the unskilled jobs those illegals are taking. It is a follow-up although here the sequence isn’t jab then cross but cross then jab.

          Also, in at least one skilled sector, construction, it is the illegals out competing native works for a lot of positions. Perhpas not the top tier in things like equipment operation but a lot at the base and one step up which is lowering the apprentice opportunities to get started on that ladder.

          Trump et al are seizing on the jab which is more in the average worker’s face as time after the cross (loss of capital intense jobs) fades (including workers under 25 who weren’t around for most of the cross).

          1. You, and most of the people making the economic argument against immigration, are looking on too short a timescale. Immigrants, legal and illegal, push down the cost of labor. In a robust economy, lowering the price of an input like labor is a good thing. It allows producers to lower their prices which allows consumers to enjoy more wealth. The problem we’re having is that because the economy is hobbled by regulations instead of just lowering prices for labor immigration creates a surplus of labor. Those surplus workers then blame the immigrants.

            1. This isn’t a logical election. It is, as most are, an emotional one. Trump, like all populists, is an emotional politician,

            2. From an economist POV that is too short a time scale (remember what I do for a living now…things like that are inputs to some of our models although admittedly not the principle ones I work on).

              From a worker who can’t find a job and whose rent it due on the first your “free the economy and have great jobs roaring back” is on way too long a time scale. His rent is due Tuesday and the eviction threat first paperwork will be there on Friday the 10th (varies by state and lease but you get the point). Sure, maybe the factory will reopen in 2018 but with half the workers but by then he’ll have been couch surfacing for 3 years.

              What he does know that trying to get day labor work, fast food work, or get an apprentice shit job at a construction site means completing with a bunch of Mexicans. Maybe they lower the cost of labor for the contractor but it’s not like the contractor is using it to hire him today.

              So, yes, sitting in my cubical I can tell him, “your real problem is the government has driven up the cost of labor to the point that there is no job for hire you for and if we only remove those obstacles you’ll get a job in a year or three” (just because we’re funding them with a free economy rather than stimulus doesn’t make jobs that much more shovel ready…even a 50% decrease in the post approval as a good business idea setup won’t pull much work to 2016).

              What I can’t tell him is how to pay his rent today. That’s why I say if we didn’t do the former (inflate the price of labor) the later (cheap immigrants who cut it by short circuiting laws at the bottom end) wouldn’t matter but since we are it does matter and is more in his face today.

              I’m not making an economic argument but a perception one. The later is much more likely to effect an election.

              1. Well laid out, there. The vast majority of people do not think in the long term. Or even rationally in the short term. OK, make all the furriners go “poof” tomorrow – they don’t realize that what they’ll see is even more unemployment in the short term, as businesses that depend on them finish their collapse under the regulatory burden.

                The problem is that there are only black and white solutions on the table right now – open borders, or deport every last one (yes, the latter is actually one of the Trump big lies, I know, but go with the facade here).

                Actually controlled immigration – at the level that the economy can absorb, without the perverse incentives to come here and not work. Not on the table.

                Reducing the regulatory burden first (or at least in concert) with controlled immigration. Not on the table.

                Reducing the incentives to use H1-B, H2, etc. visas in a controlled manner, with a phase-out to the level where they only make up the real deficit in native trained workers. Not on the table. (And we do have such a deficit, with the education system in the shambles it is – but not such a large one as the corporatists would have you believe.)

                1. yes, the latter is actually one of the Trump big lies, I know, but go with the facade here

                  Here again is where lies and basic thought have given Trump the power of impression.

                  We keep getting quoted 12 million illegals and we could never deport them all. I don’t disagree but the problem is “can’t deport them all” has become the excuse for amnesty.

                  Most people can figure if 12 million Americans just up and quit withholding taxes and never filed that the government would never go from “well, no matter how hard we try we can’t catch all of them” to “we’ll just amnesty the lot”. They know the government would pull out the stops to get so many it scares most of the others into compliance, including fines, without any effort by the government.

                  So, when the major parties say, “can’t catch them all so amnesty” people realize they’re being fed a bill of good and jump tot he conclusion the bill of goods begins back at the true statement: can’t catch them all and not in how that truth is being misused.

                  1. Yep. Here in AZ, before SB1070 was gutted by a leftist judge – we had a major exodus of illegals out of the State. If that had been nationwide…

                    I keep driving to (approximately) the speed limit, even when it is ridiculously low. Not because I will be caught, but because there is a darn good chance of it. And I will pay heavily if I am.

                    Same thing works for anything illegal – the chances of being caught, and whether there are any real consequences to being caught.

              2. One item to remember from 2012 was that on many of the exit polls, the one question Romney was bested by was “Cares about someone like me”. Conservatism sucks at bumperstickers and that’s the mentality today.

        2. The economic arguments I’ve heard suggest that the situation is a lot more complicated. Most suggest that immigration is a slight net positive in terms of economic activity, but those benefits aren’t evenly distributed, and it’s mostly poorer communities that have to pay the cost.

          Now, I tend to agree that the arguments against immigration are more cultural than economic, but you really can’t make those without the RACIST!!! screams reaching 11.

          1. *looks around her area, speaks in a fake-bright voice* Yeah, all that economic activity sparked by replacing the yard stuff that walks off, selling extra locks for doors, replacing radios in your car, and replacing the car that gets totaled by a car that hasn’t been registered for a decade, driven by someone who ran off and didn’t have a license or insurance anyways.

          2. Bah, anyone who calls you racist for pointing out that different cultures have different abilities to raise their people out of the abject poverty that is the default human condition deserves to be mocked and ignored.

  15. There’s a lot of “might as well be hung for a ram as a sheep” (which expression I really do not get but there it is).

    If we’re going to be accused of the crime, and automatically assumed to be guilty, then where’s the incentive not to go ahead and commit the crime?

    The only thing saving them is the number of basically decent people who will muddle along being basically decent people despite the wonky external incentives.

    1. The expression as I’ve heard it is, “As well to be hung for a sheep as a lamb.” The relevant meaning being, I think, not that if you’re going to be accused and found guilty whether you commit the crime or not, you may as well commit the crime, but that if the penalty for a small crime and a large are the same — if you’re going to get shot if caught whether you steal $10 or $1000 — you may as well commit the large crime if you’re going to commit a crime at all. That last caveat is the subtle but vital difference between the formulations, I think.

        1. While I agree with Stephen’s comment on the meaning of the term, the problem a lot of people face is that “disagreeing with the SJW is the minor crime” and they get the “full blast” from the SJW.

          So why shouldn’t they/we do more against the SJW types including getting into the realm of real nastiness?

          1. You have asked the armour-piercing question that reveals the basic clash between a paradigm which believes the ends justify the means and a paradigm which does not.

            1. Basic self-defense theory: You stop the threat. It is a matter of indifference if the threat is breathing afterwards.

              It is not about justice (that is delt with later) it is about survival.

              The SJW’s are becoming a threat.

              1. If someone punches my wife, they should expect me to break both their hands, both their arms, and both their legs (if I’m feeling compassionate that day) to insure they cannot hurt her again. And since they started it, they should not complain or bad mouth her, either.

                I hold my utter contempt for SJWs and other leftists in check because we are all Americans. If they make the choice to endanger “Columbia”, I might react poorly and regret it later.

                1. If someone punches *my* wife he will abruptly realize he just had “an acute failure of the victim selection process.”

                  She loads her own ammunition, too.

            2. If your ends do not justify your means, you have failed to properly define your ends. The SJW paradigm has power as its only end. Conservatives hold values like fairness and kindness to be as, if not more, important than power.

                1. True. But if you have nothing for which you are willing to suffer and die, “virtue” has a disquieting tendency to devolve back to its original Roman meaning, which was simply “potency”. Either might makes right or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, then sometimes (as Mal Reynolds observed) the right side is the losing side.

    2. “There’s a lot of “might as well be hung for a ram as a sheep” (which expression I really do not get but there it is).”
      Back in the 1600’s, much of the English economy was based on exporting wool; exporting a living sheep required royal permission. A first offender’s hand would be chopped off and displayed in the market place; second time was a hanging offense. Since a breeding ram would net you a lot more money than a lamb, and since exporting either would get you hung, might as well go with the more lucrative option.

  16. It really is a shame that no one has thought to make you a thumb drive with over a hundred Heinlein stories in multiple electronic formats. I expect it would prove most useful.
    Someone really should do that…
    Maybe next time at LC.

      1. I see your head. It’s right here on this web page… actually, there’s tens of copies of it! Have your sons been conducting cloning experiments using you as a guinea pig?

  17. And so monsters of the id come out and strut about.

    My wife an I recently discovered the comic Bill Burr. By the time we finished the first special of his we watched I turned to her and said, “It’s like my id walked out on stage as a stand up comic.” She thought for a few second and agreed.

    I think it is no surprise that he is both popular and routinely stuns his audience into silence (which he remarks about). Those ideas need to be able to come out, be discussed in why they exist and mediated.

    We are no longer allowed to do that with broader and broader swaths of life. That is what the college represion is about. It is what Bill Burr’s act is about. It is, to my think, a large degree what VD is about*.

    It is probably what Donald Trump is about. I recognize my willingness to vote for him in the general in some of your statements. You analysis maps nicely to a lot of the “sure, he’s a Democrat but we’ll get one anyway and at least he fights” thinking. In fact if you consider Trump the Rabid Puppies of American politics in contrast to a Cruz or similar as Sad Puppies you might not be that far off although you could stretch it too far.

    If we can’t take our dark sides out and explore why we have them and come to an accommodation they will grow in hiding and come out as monsters. In politics that oppression hit its limit in a critical mass of people during eight years of “criticizing the President is racism” which they get damned for doing while their nominal champions hid. It built up pressure to the point it has shattered rationality in that critical mass and the “riots” have begun.

    * I think that is a better explanation than pure reactionary opposition to whatever SJWs say. Tribalism is real among humans and attempt to repress it bring it out in ugly ways. Mix in with the recent (20 years or so) effort to force white people to be conscious of their whiteness and you get VD. What the idiots pushing white consciousness didn’t think was there was no way such a think would be based on white guilt, like they wanted, instead of white pride.

    1. The issue I run into with the whole thing is that the closest thing to a golden lining with Trump is that he may at least be a pressure valve. I am honestly surprised we have not had more McVeighs in the environment we’re in atm. Lots of black clouds around it and too many have no trust of him but as usual we have the bad, worse and worst and are playing the game of tribalism for the candidates (Who’s getting all the hispanics (About Rubio), or the ‘He’s religious’ calls to (formerly) Huck and Cruz and the money arguments for Jeb.) The same thing hurt in 2012 where Romney was probably a “least bad” candidate (After Perry stepped on his crank) but the FiCon Vs.SoCon war hurt and even after that the election was won on Social Mores.

      I’m hoping Sarah is right on the hopefullness because more and more it seems like we have already crossed that event horizon.

      1. I’d heard Pelosi and Obama were pressure valves for the loony left. Heck, I’d heard that punching pillows was a pressure valve for people with anger issues, and that’s not really the truth, either – habits are like building a muscle, not depressurizing a steam engine. But at least when people go punch pillows after work, they don’t appoint people and draft legislation to ensure the continuance of the vital pillow-punching program.

        The hydraulic idiom needs to burn.

    1. If you look at the genetics of the British Isles are a whole if you want to credit them with the culture Viking is more important than Anglo-Saxon anyway. Those boys got around.

    2. (Btw being from the North of Portugal if I don’t have at least 50% anglo-saxon blood, it’s a miracle.)

      Not Visigoth or Vandal perhaps? Or did they get to that area?

      1. I should have mentioned Suev, but there is some confusion over their identity. But it is entirely possible that they are related to Anglo-Saxons.

          1. The Swabians were also called Alemanni or Suebi, but the term Swabians is used more commonly. I guess that I didn’t think this through because I tend to associate the Swabians with the German region of Swabia which allegedly my family came from, But the historical record is not accurate that far back.

  18. For the Sake of my sanity (what there is of it), I’m going to stop reading this Thread. [Sad Smile]

    No offense intended to anybody else.

    1. Ditto. I’m a little stressed over a major field trip tomorrow (four teachers, 80 students, two busses, leave at 0-dark thirty and get back at long-after-my-bedtime), among other stuff, as it is. I’ll see y’all later, once my to-do list is whittled back down to less than a parsec.

  19. Gov. Christie has endorsed Trump as ‘the person best prepared to lead the country’ and ‘the best person to beat Hillary.’ 😦

        1. Throw around as much of other people’s money as Trump did in NJ and Crispy Creme would be your cuddle buddy too.

          1. Oh, it’s being thrown in both directions. Christie Creme just approved 340 million in “development tax breaks” for the company run by Trump’s son.

            But Trump has principles. My ass.

          1. Eh. As a semi-professional asshole, I can appreciate the difference between someone’s public persona and their personal one. I don’t find it inconceivable that I could enjoy having a beer or two with Trump.

      1. The VP choice is traditionally made from another section of the country, both Trump and Christie are from the same section. I wouldn’t be surprised with Secretary of Homeland Security and possible court nomination — Federal Circuit or higher.

    1. Christie’s appeal was always his “tell it like it is” persona. It was fun to see him say the things that “couldn’t be said” and insult the people who deserved to be insulted. But once you got beneath the insults, there was no there there. He hugged Obama, declined to help campaign for Romney, and has generally indicated that he’s out for what helps Christie, rather than Republicans or conservative ideals.

      Remind you of anyone else?

  20. People have been bringing up the movie “Idiocracy” as the endpoint of Trumpism. Worldwide Wrestling as the new circus in the Executive Office. I had been hoping for the new Coolidge, someone who doesn’t need to get his face on the news every day but calmly vetoes the overspending bills and tries to get back to the enumerated powers as central focus. But when entertainment has overwhelmed the news function and ratings for ad sales fund mass communication for three generations, Idiocracy is what you get. Vouchers for K-12 education will help, slowly.

    What you pay for directly is most likely to satisfy. Health insurance as middleman gets blamed by both patients and doctors for denying care, though when combined as in HMOs politicians used HMO’s denials to outlaw the costsaving aspects of them. I know lots of liberal doctors who supported ACA and want single payer now — they tend not to want to acknowledge how awful the ACA turned out for the small percentage of their patients forced into those plans. But they yearn for freedom — high salaries, no paperwork nonsense, no questions about payments or pushback! Single payer would be great! Is it wrong of me to want a Trump single-payer plan to draft them into Trump Medical Corps with gold-trimmed uniforms, long hours at half their current pay, and a formulary and practices manual that disallows all costly new drugs and procedures? Because that’s what would make a Trump or Sanders single payer plan affordable. Just like Europe. Doctoring becomes a lower-status, lower-paid profession, and the best care is only available with extra-cost private insurance.

    1. Any healthcare professional who supports single payer thinking they will make more or even the same as now needs to look at Medicaid reinbursements.

      I don’t want the Trump Medical Cops for just that reason but then again I figure Obamacare or whatever the GOP replacement is will start triaging me out in my 60s to insure I don’t live to retire and cost them even more so go for it. The schendenfrude will nearly match that I’m getting from Sanders’s supporters complaining about being called sexist for not supporting Hillary.

      1. Doctors have a mostly justified reputation for having been trained to decide quickly and have faith in their snap judgments, which makes them terrible investors. It’s no surprise that they (younger ones, anyway) have no depth of knowledge in history, economics, etc., and have no idea what will actually happen in a government-run system. They see that it’s easier to deal with Medicare and think extending it to everyone would be the same easy gravy train, but we can’t afford current Medicare, much less Medicare-for-All a la Sanders with no copays or exclusions. In another decade the budget will collapse largely because Medicare is no longer affordable.

        1. It’s not just that, Jeb. The ones that have graduated recently have been put through a very thorough selection process (medschool takes one in ten applicants, and it’s NOT on grades or even test scores only. This is from people with near perfect ones of those) for … PC and … well… a certain type of politics. I’ve talked to the doctors who are Huns and who just graduated. They’ve been selected for “social compassion” for lack of a better word but also leftist behaviors. Doctors who have practiced ten years tend to move to the right (reality does that) and are primarily libertarians. BUT the young ones are political bobble heads (Huns excepted, of course. Huns — both recent graduates and at least one medschool dean who comments here — are sneaky and underhanded and passing.

          1. “Sneaky and underhanded” comes in handy in the big managed care practices that are taking over. I would have expected the academic rot to take longer to reach med schools, but I guess it has. Few new doctors will try to start their own practices or take over existing ones — the economics make that hard, just as it’s now hard to survive as a small bank. Regulation crushes small units. So doctors ready to be cogs may well be properly prepared. But then no need to give them much freedom, and most medical needs can be taken care of by trained PAs, so…

        2. Doctors have a mostly justified reputation for having been trained to decide quickly and have faith in their snap judgments, which makes them terrible investors.

          Y’know, that makes some very good sense– medicine is one of those areas where even a bad choice, if you keep going with confidence, is survivable. A good choice you’re hesitant and wishy-washy about can still result in the patient being dead because you’re just too slow.

          I’m going to have to file that away for future musing.

          1. I have a friend who was a Navy corpsman, and he has a t-shirt which reads: “A sergeant in motion is always superior to a lieutenant in thought.”
            or something to that effect.

      2. Ya. I had a number of other techs all in for the single payer. And what drives me nuts is that I know that medicare barely pays the cost of a transport. Ambulances lose money on Caid. That’s a huge part of why stuff is expensive. But they are enamored of having someone else pay for their booboo.

      1. How’s this for ya? I know someone who has had to use Louisiana’s Charity Hospital and free clinics. Charity used to be just that, then the state took it over, and it does have decent doctoring if you get really sick, as it is used as a teaching hospital for LSU Medical, so if you got something really nasty, you get the professors. But a typical walk in for say Tonsillitis was/might still be an all day wait (sufferer left house at 6am, got called to see doc at 11:30pm). I knew of a lady claiming to have heart pain who waited 12 hours. she ate nitro pills like tic-tacs. It was a mild attack, but her weight, and anxiety kept her in pain like the attack was ongoing according to her doc. Anyhow, this person (not the tonsill person) hated having to go to Charity (diehard dem, but a racist, only registered to vote for David Duke), so they caged rides to Independence to another free clinic there. Still hated the system (state run “free” healthcare, what can you say?) so they wanted Single Payer, because then they could go to wheresoever they wanted and get better care. see, making it all free and run by the state would mean Ochsner quality care would be free and they’d not have to go to Charity and wait with “all the [expletive deleted] **insert now controversial “n” word here**”
        They hated state run healthcare so all healthcare needed to become state run.
        This passes for logic to far far too many people in this world.

      2. Most doctors hate the idea of single payer. In Portugal single payer lasted ten years and now anyone who doesn’t want to die has private insurance.
        Even so I’d say single payer is the leading cause of death there.

  21. Newt Gingrich says get used to Trump, because he’s the future:

      1. Newt actually was the future for a brief time. His contract with America was brilliant. A Republican House majority was a pipe dream until it happened. He forced Clinton down the path to reforming welfare among other things.

        But other Republicrats hated him. His head swelled to big. and he was suddenly yesterday’s news. Maybe not a supernova but definitely a nova.

        1. If the GOP had learned from him in 2001 in terms of what to do with it all Trump wouldn’t be the nominee this year IMHO. In the 90s he was good at both the art of the possible and the easy symbolic win that played well with his base.

          1. The shrubs are basically progressive republicans in the TR mode. My wife hated W from the left and I was deeply disappointed from the right.

    1. I suspect this is colored by a healthy amount of schadenfreude. If it weren’t for the fact that I am terrified of living sixty-plus years in Donald Trump’s America, I would be inclined to think the same way.
      Watching the same people who did their level best to destroy you and undo all the work you did have their world crumble around them has to be at least somewhat satisfying.

    2. I doubt Trump is “the future,” but the GOP had better be watching and taking notes. There’s a reason, for example, Trump’s talk about illegal immigration is so popular with his supporters. This is a serious issue both parties have ignored for a long time, no matter what the electorate said it wanted.

      1. The thing is there are at least three approaches to immigration. I’d like to try option 2 and see how many leave on their own.
        1. Trump wants to build a wall to keep them out.
        2. Many here want to remove the carrots of welfare and amnesty. Plus enforce the existing laws. I think that is part of the President’s job description.
        3. Trump also seems ready to employ police state tactics to forcibly remove the illegals.

        1. Don’t forget killing people at the border, or stopping the problem by force on the Mexican side.

  22. Heh. I’m a woman and I freely admit my spatial reasoning and sense of direction both suck. I still can’t parallel park and I could get lost in my own museum.

    1. My spatial reasoning also sucks. Can’t parallel park at all. My sense of direction is pretty good, though. And I can math pretty well, also. So well that the Navy has tried to persuade me to become a nuke multiple times. SO NOT HAPPENING. Mostly due to the aforementioned spatial reasoning issues. I can math. I can’t physics.

      But I realize that the things that mark me as Odd for a female, would just make me a regular guy, if I were in fact a guy. I like being a girl, though. Except at certain times.

      1. I can physics. Math I have to be very careful of. I understand all the concepts but those tricksy digits move around, so that 234 becomes 432. It’s a bugger for doing carpentry, too.
        And yep, on I’d just be a regular guy. And I also like being a girl. Particularly when I’m not quite so heavy (Thyroid will get right, it will) and I can play with makeup and shoes… Only you know… I could be a regular guy who… but I like guys… um… yep. I’m fine being a mormon male with great front mounted radar emplacements, thank you so much.

  23. One important point to note: a great many of the people who are making outrageous, morally reprehensible statements online are doing so entirely to upset the regressive, totalitarian Special Snowflakes, who believe they have a right not to hear those statements.

    That might not be much comfort, but it is important to keep in mind. This is the internet, as you know how people get when they’re anonymous.

  24. Hi Sarah,

    Just read Vox talking on his site.

    Here’s a novel approach you might try. Instead of viewing him as a “rational person acting irrationally,” look at him like Al Sharpton. That is, like a race-baiter.

    Instead of STATING: “any philosophy that enshrines your pasty white middle aged guy over Dr. Sowell is sick.”

    just ask him: “would you rather live in a neighborhood of Thomas Sowell’s or “pasty white middle aged guy?”

    And whatever he says, respond as if you are speaking to Al Sharpton.

    1. To be clear: his world and mine don’t intersect. I don’t particularly care what he thinks. I think it was stupid to kick him out of SFWA when we have actual murderers in there, but other than that what he does with his life affects me not at all and I HONESTLY couldn’t care less what he thinks.

      1. Murderers and child molesters. But saying mean triggering things is worthy of expulsion.

        That’s not an organization I want to have any part of, even if it were capable of finding its collective ass with both hands, a map, and several attempts.

  25. I will never comprehend why anyone needs a Fearless Leader in order to stop being straitjacketed by politically correct idioms. But then, I have trouble comprehending why anyone needs a Fearless Leader to do a lot of things, but that seems to have been the going idea, at least since I started paying attention to elections: can’t do anything about abortion if we don’t have Bush, can’t further environmentalism if we don’t have Gore… and Obama, and now Bernie and Trump, make the two previous assessments look totally rational.

    Seriously, there are two things the government has a natural monopoly on: foreign policy and law enforcement. (If they REALLY screw it up and private citizens REALLY get it right, as in San Francisco under the Australian mafia, the law enforcement part is negotiable.) Other than that… feel free to compete in your personal capacity. No one really believes the line about how “public servants” are our employees, but if we can’t fire a President Trump, we can quietly put him, and more importantly the federal behemoth, out of work.

    Harry Tuttle for Citizen, 2016!

    1. This both troubled and annoyed me when I read it yesterday evening. If you don’t support someone means you hate them? Really?

      I do not hate Trump. I have never even met him and I certainly don’t know the man. I dislike his style of politics. I don’t think that the policies that he proposes, when he does actually propose policy, will address things for the better. His record points to socialist leanings, and I am decidedly not a socialist. I make my voting decisions through thinking. Therefore, having thought about Trump, I don’t think he is qualified for the job of President of this republic.

      The assume that because you don’t want a person in a position because you think they are unsuitable is equivalent to hate is part of the problem in politics at the present.

      1. I don’t hate The Donald, and I think the Republic will survive a Trump Presidency, but I also think that the international community will Eat Trumps Lunch.

        If you thought Barry The Super Genius’ international diplomacy results were bad, wait until President Donald’s Yuuuuge Ego gets played seven or eight times in a row.

    2. I get the feeling that neither of you bothered to read the article at the link.
      Denninger has a list of points on which Trump has been consistent for a long time. A small sample;
      “You can disagree with Trump’s vision if you’d like, but people really need to cut the crap because when you get down to it the principles, which Trump has not changed on in all the years I’ve been able to find evidence of, are pretty simple:

      American jobs are being destroyed by open-border policies combined with our welfare state and this must stop. There was a recent hit piece on Trump’s use of immigrant labor at some of his properties. It missed the mark; he’s not only bringing them in legally he’s paying them roughly 30-40% above the minimum wage. These are not illegal Mexicans putting roofs on houses and paying no taxes or workman’s comp insurance premiums, they’re workers that are coming here through lawful means earning a wage well above state and local minimums.

      Offshoring is destroying our manufacturing base. Trump has said this for literally 20 years and he’s right. I’ve been saying so too. This goes back to Perot and even before; the message has been consistent. None of the Republican or Democrat rivals has taken a position consistent with improving manufacturing in the United States. None.

      Medical costs are destroying our nation, starting with prescription drugs. The Democrats have raised this but their answer is to have the government “pay for it all.” This is an open and notorious fraud since the government can’t pay for anything; they can only take someone’s money and spend it. Among the Republicans only Trump has gone after this aspect of the problem. It’s a small part of the whole, but he clearly gets it.

      There’s much more.

        1. The Trumpers seem to be channelling the Obamaites: they pick and choose from the varying things Trump has said from time to time, taking just those bits that they can interpret as agreeing with their desires and studiously pretending that’s all there is.

          1. I think you may be making assumptions about “Trumpers”. Politics is often about choosing the least bad choice, and comparing people who would choose Trump over Hillary to Obamalites is just plain asinine and insulting.
            Here’s a pretty good explanation of why Trump is winning right now-

            ‘It’s all about the economy and jobs this time. Yes, I’m sure that Trump will pick appropriately conservative Supreme Court justices to nominate because the advisors who help him select will be conservative. Trump is not an ideologue, and while I tend to be, interest rates are at 0% and the economy is still growing at just about 0%. Am I the only one alarmed by that? By the fact that China and even Mexico walk all over us? America has changed and Trump is the only one who has tapped into that. It’s why he’s ahead.”


            1. …comparing people who would choose Trump over Hillary…

              At at this point the choice is not Trump or Hillary, and neither are inevitable.

              …because the advisors who help him select will be conservative…

              Are you sure? I am not. I am familiar with northeastern Republicans; I grew up among them.

              We know the problems. What you don’t seem to get is that, as a group, we believe that socialism in any form is worth what it costs.

              1. Dang me.
                Dang me.
                They oughta take a rope and hang me.
                Hang me from the highest tree.
                Woman don’t you weep for me.
                Do do doot do do do do do…

                We do NOT believe that socialism in any form is worth what it costs.

              1. Evidence? links? I get most of my info from technical blogs, and while some of them really don’t like Trump, few, if any, of them are insulting those with different ideas.
                FWIW San Diego just got handed 3400 “refugees” – most of any city in US, which makes some of Trump’s platform attractive. At least he’s removed the scab.

      1. As you say, Trump has been out there for a good while. None of what you have mentioned or what others have recently written about him is news to me. Sure the man gets things done, but I do not believe that results justify the means. Just because I have not come to the same conclusions as you does not mean I have not thought it through. As I said: his record points to socialist leanings. I am decidedly not a socialist.

  26. Mood booster:
    Our youngest daughter, the Duchess, is blowing raspberries on my arm. To try to get me to save her from the demon sleep.

    Juicy raspberries.

    It is entirely as cute as it sounds.

  27. Remember when Obama said “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”? And do you recall almost like it was yesterday (because it was) “progressives” saying that conservatives were on the wrong side of history, that they shouldn’t be given a say at all but rather ignored and ostracized? And do you remember the resounding silence of the Republican party establishment at those remarks and that attitude?

    That’s your Trump vote right there. Sure, the guy’s a narcissistic and megalomaniacal liberal Democrat; the point is he’s willing to say what cannot be said and spit back at those who spit at him and those he’s pretending to be on the side of. Previously someone like him would attract only the worst cranks… but the hubris of the left and the ineffectiveness of the establishment right have combined to produce a whole LOT of cranks.

    I still have hopes for a brokered convention with a non-Trump candidate on top (Cruz or Rubio, probably; Kasich seems to be shaping himself as the Democrats’ Republican, which seems like a lousy position). But if it comes down to it, Trump is STILL better than Hillary. Or Sanders, probably. One can at least hope that Trump manages to antagonize Congress into inaction and be distracted from really harmful stuff into merely wasteful self-aggrandizement; there’s no such hope with Hillary.

    1. You’ve nailed it. I’d rather see Cruz, but Trump is way better than H or S and given the press bias will not get a free ride like Obama has.

        1. Well…I mean…if the choice (good LORD all my tea I hope not) eventually comes down to Sanders or Trump…I mean…a “nationalist socialist” or a crony capitalist, possible pseudo-socialist? I…my head hurts. And Hillary V Trump? I’m getting depressed just thinking about it. *goes up-thread to read about babies blowing raspberries again* *melts into a happy puddle* Ah. Much better.

      1. Oh, I think the press will fall in line for Tsar Donald. Don’t forget the Trump admires Vladimir Putin; and ask Anna Politkovskaya how Putin deals with journalists who confront him.

        *Spoiler Alert*
        Ms. Politkovskaya is unavailable for comment because of an extreme case of the 9mm flu.

  28. Best post from you in a while.

    Trump is the most discouraging thing I’ve seen in politics in as long as I can remember. Which is a salubrious reminder to me that there is no salvation in politics.

    For what it’s worth, I can’t even vote for Trump after holding my nose. I’m willing to vote for a pretty flawed candidate if he is nevertheless nowhere near as evil as the other candidates. Trump doesn’t meet that threshold. So I’ll be voting third party or write-in.

        1. sigh. Chances of his winning are nill. I’m trying to get across “not towards socialism, thank you.” Though my friends in NM — conservatives — have a different opinion.

  29. I am maybe more hopeful. See, if you look at 538 blog, only something like 25% of Republicans or Democrats identify as significantly racist.

    I think Trump is a symptom of a single problem – that being that our politics have ignored the middle class for decades. If it was just a conservative crisis, sure, but I think Sanders indicates that both parties have had their heads in the sand.

    And, yes, Trump isn’t an attractive spokesman, but he is making at least some of the right noises. Same with Sanders. If you inflate the labor supply by opening free trade with a massively larger country; if you import legal immigrants to lower wages; and if you farm out low paying jobs to illegal immigrants, yes, wages fall, for decades. And lots of people notice that they are worse off than their parents. They probably then notice massive bailouts of Wall Street…

    And, yes, you get a populist revolt.

    That said, the level of Trump’s support, relative to, eg, Rand Paul, indicates that small government policies have limited support. So, to really accomplish something, you’ll need a coalition. Personally, I’m hoping for a collapse of both parties.

  30. Here ya go anti-trumpers. This is what we need to counter with (pace He Who Must Not Be Named – and Oy! But there’s a comic in there) rhetoric and dialectic.

    “The arguments in favour of Trump, so far as I understand them, have always boiled down essentially to the idea that he is (pragmatically if not in principle) the least bad of a bad lot, in that he has the virtue of actually being electable against Clinton or Sanders, is demonstrably resistant to and destructive of the politicized power of the media as no other candidate could be, and by virtue of sheer unpredictability and (presumed) immunity to political influence due to prior extant wealth may accomplish more good than the career politicians bound into the system can do. His populism seems to be part and parcel of all those traits, unfortunately.”

    That said, if despite our efforts, we end up with Trump as the Republican nominee I will vote for him.

    The U.S. republic was set up to handle Boss Tweed. We are ill-equipped to handle True Believers.

    Mr. Sanders and Mrs Clinton are those AND the latter is even more of an amoral criminal thug than that wanna-be alpha Trump.

    “If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.” (From A Reply to Professor Haldane in ON STORIES)

      1. Clinton as Boss Tweed? I can see Bill fitting that profile, but Hillary…no, I can’t see it. She’s (imo) even less capable of feeling shame than her famously shameless husband is…and quite frankly I’m 80% convinced she is an evil, psychopathic narcissist. Trump is a narcissist (oh BOY is he a narcissist) and he has a slavishly devoted following…but I’m not certain he’s as *deliberately* evil as she is. I get the feeling that most of *his* evil would be a result of clueless decisions and vanity. Her evil, I suspect, would be deliberate and coldly calculated. He’s (or he thinks he is…I hate this analogy, but my brain won’t let me not use it…darn it.) an old, arrogant lion, kind of. She’s a snake. But I really REALLY pray Cruz is the nominee…I’m just afraid he won’t be, and I’m pretty sure (not certain…far from it, in fact) that Hillary or Bernie would be even worse than Trump. And at least Trump gave lip service to nominating a replacement for Scalia that shared Scalia’s view of the constitution, though I know words are cheap. I need a stiff drink. God bless! (also, I LOVE this place!) 😀

Comments are closed.