The Good, The Bad, The Schadenfreude

Sorry this is so late.  Last night, absolutely convinced we were stuck with the dowager empress for four years, we went out for “a truly American meal” of burgers and (exceptionally, and trust me, I’m paying for it this morning eczema wise) fries.  Coming out of the restaurant, (where everyone was watching BASEBALL) I checked my phone and realized that Trump was now favored to win.

We dropped by home, then crashed the Vodkapundit’s home, where we stayed until Irene said goodnight…  and I drank half a bottle of Eagle Rare.  (What? Portuguese born, remember?)

So, this morning, and quickly — the GOOD —

I am so relieved Hillary is out of public life.  I wish I could tell you that my late change to “I’ll vote against HER” was because I’d discovered some great qualities in Trump.  Alas, it was mostly because of how reckless she was with national security and how she lied to us over Benghazi, and the sewer-people she surrounds herself with and covers up for.

The Clintons have been flushed out of the national bowl, and before they could foist their entitled spawn upon us for yet another election.  Let this be the end of political dynasties for a while.

(BTW between and I the over-under to Hillary dying of whatever she has is about a year.  But at least it won’t be presidential funeral and it won’t leave us stuck with the loathsome Kaine.)

The press is thoroughly discredited.  And they deserve it.  Discredited and rebuked, and I hope Newsweek eats that thrashed print run and chokes on it.

We have a largely non-socialist legislature who just MIGHT find their balls.

This country has a chance.  JUST a chance.  At least the male evil clown doesn’t hate us.  Let’s make the most of it.

Now the bad:

Trump has appointed Chris Christie head of his transition team.  I know, I know, Christie is a toad-eater who goes where the wind blows, but Trump, appointing Obama’s bestie who stabbed Romney in the back in 2012 will NOT endear you to many of us, and certainly not to the Mormons.  Bad move.

At best we get a self-obsessed guy, who loves the limelight so much he lets his appointees govern.  If he does that, and appoints good people, he might turn out to be one of our good presidents.  If he appoints the Chris Christie’s of this world, he’ll be a run of the mill democrat president circa 1960.  (BUT still better than Hillary.)

The Schadenfreude:
I’m going to spend at least a couple of hours eating schadenfreude with a spoon.  Everyone who told us the Republicans were finished, and the arrow of history was going their way is having major meltdowns.

What can I say, I’m not a good person.

And now, I have a post from the younger son tomorrow.  He sees a civil war in the dem side in the next four years.  I hope he’s right, but wrong about who’ll win it.  That party needs reform.

And I have a book to finish.

555 thoughts on “The Good, The Bad, The Schadenfreude

  1. You know, I used to think “selling one’s soul” was a metaphor, but whenever I see a picture of Chris Christie’s dead-eyed face, I realize it’s not. His spirit no longer resides within his flesh.

    1. One of the reasons I was so opposed to Trump is having listened to people noting said effect on Christie, and on others who have gone over to Trump. That might have caused me to fool myself about third party chances.

          1. Yog Sothoth would have better taste. And one shudders to think what comes into the empty house once the soul has been sold.

            1. There’s a line in Larry’s monster hunter books about not leaving your body vacant because you won’t like what will move in.

        1. If he wasn’t already that way, he damn sure was by the time he gave Obama that big buddy hug photo op for Jersey’s Sandy relief money…which by the way a lot of locals still haven’t seen…or by the time Obama blew him off at the airport at a later meeting.

        2. Not a fan of Christie and haven’t really paid attention, but — how much of that was his own will, and how much was political self-preservation? Cuz there’s a lot of that going around in D.C.

      1. Christie’s an East Coast Republican. In New Jersey. This ain’t the first time he’s sold his posterior…or screwed other Republicans.

        1. I just had the thought that “transition team” is a good place to put an experienced politician… where he gets a favor but can’t do much long-term damage in return.

    1. I figure he won’t really slow it down, but he’ll *change* the direction it’s going– not left/right, but the folks…
      *makes a conscious effort to be fair, because there ARE some honest folks involved*
      … the folks that will benefit from the push in his regulations are going to be different than the ones that benefited from the Clintons; I can’t see him protecting the EPA when they take water rights from people to raise the water level for a supposedly endangered fish, and it dang near wipes out the fish because they require warm shallows.
      (Example from Klamath Falls. It was a kind of sucker fish that thrives in irrigation ditches, because a deep irrigation ditch is maybe waist deep, and knee deep or less is more common– one of my mom’s first jobs was to stand in one with a pitchfork and pitch these suckerfish out of the area of the pump so they could put up pig wire and prevent them from clogging the pumps. It’s just AMAZING how much of the farm land was bought by associates of the folks involved in deciding the water had to be taken; my cousins are down in that area.)

      1. The biggest reason I had for wanting a change in party this cycle was to generate a wholesale change in the appointed bureaucracy – having D-appointed occupants for 12 or 16 years over 8 leads to entrenched D-ness that leads the career civil service to behave like Lois Lerner.

        I understand the career GS-x folks don’t think much of the political appointees, but swapping out the political appointees every so often still shakes things up, influences the approved-think to some degree, and makes things more uncertain for the career bureaucrats, which can only be a good thing.

        1. I think it may be a YMMV proposition. The State Department will always be filled with Progressives, because no one else wants to work there. Just like the Department of Defense (at least used) to tolerate conservative and independents better.
          What bothers me is that I’ve heard rumors about ‘converting’ political appointees to career positions… a very bad idea.

        2. That’s the main reason why I’d like to see term limits for federal employees. Congress is all well and good, but it’s the entrenched bureaucrats that really muck things up. Forcing them to work in the productive sector after a decade or so, and bringing in senior managers that have private sector experience, would cut down on the self-licking ice cream cones and empire building that plagues our country.

          1. Yep. Term limits not just for political appointees, but for all policy-setting management. It’s probably good for lower-level people who know how to keep things running to have long-term careers, but admin policy, including the kinds of regulations & interpretations that are made, need to be more responsive to the ebb and flow of intent of laws passed and philosphies of executive officers elected.
            Among other things – if elections mattered more at the daily-living level, more people might care about them as something other than entertainment.

            1. The nice thing about the modern age is it’s really easy to type up instructions for “How to do [job]” so that when you lose your old campaigners you don’t lose all of their institutional knowledge.

              1. Relatively.

                Not to be confused with really easy. 😀

                My husband spent the better part of several years writing out “how to do (job)”, usually after he’d been put in the job just long enough to find out how to do it to the satisfaction of the folks it was turned in to. (Not the person teaching him.)

                1. Exactly. The real reasons we can’t build another Saturn 5 or Boeing 707 is that, despite thousands of hours spent documenting them, there was still 3/4 of the actual “how to build it” that was jungle lore, of the “the drawing doesn’t say so but you’ve got to do X to make those two parts fit up properly” variety.

                  SOME government jobs are both necessary and non-policy-setting; there’s often a lot of overlap between those jobs and the ones which aren’t/can’t be completely documented.

            2. Leaving the low level folks just allows them to build their bureaucratic empires so instead on the Permanent Undersecretary actually running the ministry we have the Permanent Assistant Deputy Undersecretary that’s actually in charge.

              Part of the point is to force the bureaucracy to be simple enough that people with only a few years of experience can run it. That’s the only way the rest of us will have any prayer of being able to understand it, much less police it.

              1. Jeff, I’m not talking about the 2nd Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Deputy Undersecretary, or anything for several layers below that; I agree with your on those positions. I’m talking about the guy who mows the lawn, and his boss who coordinates the grounds crew, and maybe his boss that coordinates all the grounds crews in D.C.; about the building engineer who runs the HVAC & humidity-control systems for the Smithsonian at just the right level to preserve the exhibits, etc. These are the low-level, non-policy government jobs that have to be done, and although they sound simple, aren’t done as well if you have to train newbies every 4-8 years.

                1. These people, the ones who keep the ground and buildings operational hold, as you noted, non-policy government jobs.

                  Some government projects take more than 4-8 years from inception to completion. To have to regularly replace the entire staff and bring it up to full function would be counter productive. It is the entrenched body of bureaucrats, the advisers to advisers and paper pusher who stay in place continuing to institute the same programs whoever is elected that needs to be addressed. I am not sure if time limits on length of service is the best answer.

                  That reminds me, I need to watch Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister again.

                2. But they’re also jobs that are done in the private sector. I’m not saying that we hire completely inexperienced people, we hire experienced workers from the private sector at all levels. Meanwhile, those workers who gain experience working for the government take those skills into the private sector at the higher levels.

                  1. Privatizing is a partial solution, and likely worth doing more of.

                    However, there’s a lot of government corruption that is of the hides-in-the-cracks-between-public-&-private kind — so we can’t take privatizing as a good without pretty close case-by-case monitoring and validation… Unless, we can think of a way to make it more attractive to do the right thing than the corrupt thing.

                    An interesting study would be a comparison of the risks of lower-level government employees forming policy-resistant cultural networks vs. the risks of corruption in public-private contracting for the same lower-level jobs. (I’m assuming the risk assessments are different at the higher levels, because they’re closer to the direct political appointees and therefore potentially to political accountability.)

                    1. Seems hard to believe that private corruption could be worse than what we now have. Keep in mind the high pension and benefits paid to public employees:

                      ‘$100K Minimum Wage’ For 220,000 Highly-Compensated California Public Employees Costs Taxpayers $35B
                      In many states, public service has little to do with serving the public and everything to do with using the public’s money to serve politicians. Whenever we open the books, California is consistently among the worst offenders. Recently, we found ‘animal collection curators’ making $110,290; city librarians earning $222,320; public utility commission bosses at $550,028; and county hospital doctors making $1.274 million.

                      This spring, at Forbes, we exposed 50,000 Illinois public employees earning six-figure salaries who cost taxpayers $8 billion. In California the numbers are exponentially larger: 218,667 employees making six-figures who cost $35 billion. For example, Illinois has 72 ‘city managers’ out-earning every governor of the 50 states. But, in California, the salaries of 171 assistant city managers average $201,550!

                      Using our interactive mapping tool, quickly review (by ZIP code) the 220,000 California public employees who earn more than $100,000. Just click on a pin and scroll down to search the results rendered in the chart beneath the map.

                    2. The current value a former government employee has to the private sector is twofold: A knowledge of the bureaucracy and secret handshakes necessary to navigate the regulations and a rolodex of those still in government who can be called for advice and/or favors. Creating volatility in the government workforce greatly degrades that value.

            3. One way of putting in “term limits” on bureaucrats is to convert *all* of the positions to patronage. Great solution? Maybe not, but it would clearly add “churn” and retirement (and unions) would surely be changed.

                1. When Franklin said “A republic, if you can keep it” it is likely he meant keep as in “keeping a garden”, not as in “retain possession of.”

                  Any good gardener knows that means constant regular attention. You can adopt practices (heavy mulching, automatic drip irrigation) to reduce the effort but you can never eliminate it. As we know, even “separation of power” can only achieve so much.

                  1. Works both ways. Failing to regularly remove the weeds can lead to complete loss of the garden as a garden.

                    1. Monkeygrass. It’s not QUITE kudzu….

                      My dad put it in as a border when we moved to AL in 1972; wishes he’d never heard of the stuff.

      2. I’ve heard (from a K-Falls native) that part of the decline of the sucker fish was due to “trash fish” culling in the ’70s, where TPTB managed to kill off the suckers, too.

        We’re seeing a bit of sea-change in the Klamath area. Just before the primaries, a conservative husband (state senator) and wife (state representative) decided they were going to retire from politics. AFAIK, they haven’t been happy with the local GOPe, so they told told a couple of Tea party types. The two applied in the primary, and nobody else did. After the window closed, the husband and wife dropped out.

        The GOPe were furious. Running according to the establishment playbook, the mayor of K-Falls got 50 establishment types to select a “proper” candidate. A few ran for each office, all as write-ins. They got creamed. However, a couple of the people also did write-ins as democrats, and got the nomination.

        Thus, we had a bunch of advertising, portraying the democrats as the True Republicans, and with the self-titled “principled conservative”. Greg Walden (sole Republican Congressman) did advertising for one, a former county commissioner who had been voted out for mis-spending.

        With the voting ended, both “principled conservatives” running as democrats got beat. One 60% to 40, while the one opposed by Walden’s buddy won by a more slender margin. Nice revolt against the establishment.

        As the cherry on top of the Schadenfreude sundae, the mayor of Klamath Falls got defeated in his re-election bid. GOPe delenda est

        1. Grr, dang touchscreen…

          Just like the bald eagles had a population explosion as soon as you could admit to one on your land and not have the land effectively taken from you for their “protection.” Ranch near where I was little moved their calving grounds so nobody could prove the bald eagles ate there. (….they’re scavengers. Nuff said.)

          1. Yep. It’s still illegal to posses eagle feathers unless you’re a member of the Tribes. Not sure just what I’m supposed to do when one of the local eagles drops a feather on our land. I’ve resisted the urge to stick it in my hat. 🙂

            We’re also dealing with introduced wolves, and even if a rancher catches one killing his cattle, he’s supposed to let it go. He gets reimbursed (eventually) for the loss of the one bovine, but losses due to stress on the rest of the herd are part of his civic duty.

            One of the nastier wolves died under mysterious conditions. Nobody is talking to the authorities about it, regardless of any reward. Can’t say as I blame them; coyotes and cougars are bad enough, but wolf packs (small, so far) makes for another level of spooky.

            1. My parents had a whooping crane nest in the wetland behind their house. First nest in Florida for 70 years.
              Those lovely cranes hatched two little chicks… and sure enough, the bald eagles got one of them. The other one grew up, and was eventually caught and eaten by a bobcat.
              Dang it nature, don’t you have any mutual respect for endangered critters!!

            2. Of course, that’s if you catch the wolves killing the cows or sheep.
              If you don’t, the feds will “investigate” and find that the animal died from natural causes. The wolf bites and tracks were just opportunistic scavenging, of course!

                1. I used to live in an area full of “endangered” kangaroo rats. Find one on your property and the feds would effectively confiscate your land as rat habitat (you still owned and were taxed for it, but couldn’t do anything with it). Problem was the rats were censused during the day, and they’re nocturnal… Damn things managed to suicide in my front garden fence fairly regularly.

  2. I think any war on the Dem side will be very uncivil. As mentioned before, look at what/who they have to offer America for the next four years.

    Lizzie Warren 2020?

    I don’t think so.

          1. Chelsea? Okay, Michelle is scarier – woman, black, and wife of a historical president (however you want to see it he still is the first black one – also, about as educated as he is, right? Or at least it can be presented that way) – and could Chelsea do it without her parents’ influence anyway? As said parents seem to be in somewhat ill health, both of them, they might not have it for long.

            1. If I’m racist for suggesting it so be it, but I don’t think, with the legacy and filmed record of Barack Obama as an example, that this country will elect another black President in our lifetimes. Obama has poisoned that well.

              1. I disagree. Give it another four to eight years and we might just be able to see Mia Love run for President. Black, female, somewhat liberty-minded, conservative member of a religious minority.

              2. It depends. If we can get a Reagan-esque black president — one who is conservative/libertarian, and knows how to sell it — then there’s a good chance that he’s a shoo-in…if he can get past the GOPe that saw the success of that model, and concluded that we can only win with liberals and moderates…

                Sadly, Trump’s win isn’t going to fix that particular GOPe blind spot. Like the election of George W. Bush, it only reinforces it. (The GOPe doesn’t see that such candidates win only because the alternative tends to be worse…)

                1. Trump spoke in his acceptance speech about rebuilding our inner cities. If he can actually do that it is an incredible opportunity for the GOP.

                  Likewise, every time Trump goes on TV and displays the mien he exhibited during that acceptance speech it undermines the efforts to depict him as evil, shredding what little credibility they have.

              3. If by another black President you mean one who, like Barack Obama, is authentically black, we can only hope. If you mean we would not elect a black person like Tim Scott, J. C. Watts, Mia Love, we can only regret.

                If Ben Saxon or Herman Cain had been a Democrat the Whirled would have sung his praises and any question of his worthiness for the office would have been prima facie evidence of racist views. The Democrat’s machine has suppressed and destroyed the fame of conservatives among their chattel and Academia has ensured few would follow the path of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Shelby Steele.

                BTW – it occurs to me that one of the leaders for the next Great Democrat Hope will be Cory Booker, likely with the not so hidden support of Senate Minority Leader Schmuck Chumer who will see Booker’s promotion as enhancing his power and his hope for Senate Majority status.

                1. Could we add Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal to the “persons of color” who are not authentic enough to become president?

                  It is amazing to consider that South Carolina has three persons of color representing them in their three most public elected positions: Nikki Haley, who is brown, Tim Scott, who is black, and Lindsey Graham, who is yellow.

                  (Yes, that is gratuitous and I apologize … but the joke was too much to resist.)

                  1. (Yes, that is gratuitous and I apologize … but the joke was too much to resist.)

                    I LOLd ^_^

                1. Sowell and Williams both predate Affirmative Action, the former being 86 and the latter 80. Neither is running for president in 2020 or beyond.

                  I wonder what protégés they may have, black economists who have stayed publicly apolitical who might be willing to step forward now.

                  1. Yeah, neither is a practical candidate, but I can dream 🙂

                    But that’s a good thought about possible protégés, and now certainly would be the time to raise their hands. Williams is a particularly good teacher (I’ve watched a few of his lectures; who knew economics could be so entertaining?), and I think more flexible at need.

            2. Chelsea might be able to get herself elected to some public office on the strength of her maiden name–but I don’t think that that office would be the president. Think the endless parade of Kennedys that march through Massachusetts politics. They’ve gotten a lot of congressmen and I think a few senators, but no one within shouting distance of the presidency since Ted and his vehicular homicide issues. So she might be able to manage to buy herself a house or maybe even a senate seat like her mother did, but I don’t see her getting anywhere close to the nomination, even in these desperate times, unless she does something to distinguish herself in that lower office. And nothing I’ve seen of her so far suggests that she would be likely to.

          2. If The Donald is successful at governing, Obama’s legacy will be further diminished, and Michelle’s electability will be affected by that.

      1. My money’s on a Cuomo, or perhaps the current NY Atty Gen; or maybe they’ll scare up a new Senator like the lady from Nevada who just won. They will find options.

        1. Cuomo is a possibility, except for the fact that he has a big gaping hole in his foot from a certain mis-fired “SAFE” Act….

    1. A lot can change in four years. Still, this year the Dems dug up a septuagenarian crone whose major achievement was marrying the right lawyer and a fossilized USSR groupie who wasn’t even technically a member of their party. Hard to see an obvious heir apparent in that mess.

    2. Yeah, the fact that the entirety of the Democrat Party bench is Elizabeth Warren should be giving the D party leaders nightmares.

      My bet is currently on Chuck Schumer in a Bob Dole-esq “It’s My Turn” run.

    3. Lizzie Warren, Sherrod Brown, Kamala Harris, the Castro boys…their bench is weak…

        1. And “horrible” and “awful” pretty much sum up Kamala Harris. And, for that matter, governance in California in general, dominated as it is by flamingly-left Democrats.

          1. That’s why I don’t understand why anyone is objecting to a the idea of California seceding.

            The only downside I see is that it would lengthen our southern border.

            1. California’s secession movement is being funded by Silicon Valley, with Oregon and Washington talking of going with them. That would immediately remove about one-third of the aliens here illegally and guarantee GOP control of the Presidency and Congress for a generation, eliminating 74 electoral votes that consistently go to the Dems, reducing the count to 361 or, as of last election, 274 to 145 (with 45 still to be determined.)

              It would also change the Senate and House, making each more solidly Republican, from respectively, 52-48 to 52-42 and 241-194 to 222-145 (assuming no House seats in those three states changed in the 2016 elections … and assuming the state boundaries remain the same after secession, a highly dubious assumption.)

              1. As someone pointed out on FB today, it would also cut off a huge chunk of our agricultural capacity, all our western ports, and a hefty chunk of our industry in general. Rather than secession, I’d much rather see California broken up into several. Much less messy. I’ve seen various schemes for that; the one that appealed the most to me was a five-state solution broken up on cultural and geographic lines. Still, any redivision is likely to be a good thing for the republic and the inhabitants of the Golden State both. Heck, I might be able to go back some day! I still miss the Sacramento Valley sometimes, and those of my friends and family still there; it’s the politicos and their nonsense that keep our clan in exile.

      1. That’s because Hillary and the Democratic party myrmidons spent the last 8 years making sure no charismatic young upstart would take her rightful place in 2016, like Obama did in ’08.
        The fun stuff about her is yet to come out.

        1. This, very much this: Hillary was so determined to become President, she gutted the party just so she could get the nomination. That *can’t* be good for the party!

          Combine this with the fact that Republicans are taking over governorships and state-level representatives, it’s that much smaller of a pool for the Democrat party to draw from.

          OTOH, there’s talk in the Democrat Party that Reagan was a celebrity, and Trump was a celebrity, they just need to run their own celebrities, like Tom Hanks and Oprah Winfrey. That almost seems like a sure-fire win for the Democrats…but we *do* have a few celebrities of our own…such as Bruce Willis (wow — Bruce Willis vs Tom Hanks or O…that’s going to be interesting!)

          I can’t help but think two things, though: (1) Making the Presidency a Popularity Contest will be *very bad* for the Republic, and (2) While it would seem that this would last forever, all it would take is two or three particularly *bad* celebrities to end this trend.

          I think it overlooks a third thing, too, now that I think about it: Reagan wasn’t just a celebrity, he was also a well-established politician who knew how to sell Conservatism and Liberty. Indeed, this “selling Conservatism and Liberty” thing is precisely the thing that the GOPe consistently rejects, to our country’s detriment.

          1. Making the Presidency a Popularity Contest will be *very bad* for the Republic

            Based on the views expressed by the Left, this would constitute a feature, not a bug.

            It is also consistent with the idea that an Administration is more than the president, reinforcing the role of president as “front man” for the administration and not actually the person running things. Viewers of the BBC series Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister will appreciate the origins of this view. Anything that enhances the power of the Administrative State is desirable to such folk.

  3. From last Thursday to Monday I took a near complete break from political news as I was putting in more hours that God gave me working at an Anime con. I am glad of it. I was getting tired of hearing that all the dire predictions and the chewing on entrails before there had even been an election.

    Went to bed early because I did not want another Bush/Gore experience. Woke up and padded down the hall to see how The Spouse was doing just as Trump was leaving the stage having given his speech celebrating his victory. That worked far better than 2000.

    1. That was my approach last night. As a result, I was far less stressed out than I was back in 12…

    2. Youmacon? We were selling there, and while it was a long hard push for us, at least it was a profitable one. Next year we’ll cut back on the t-shirts and bring more porcelain, because it’s hard to complete with twenty other sellers.

      1. No, Nekocon in Hampton, VA. Our Vendor’s Room Department Head works very hard to see that there are not too many vendors carrying the same merchandise, her goal is to see they all can do well.

  4. I look forward to the next 4-8 years of people saying: “What? You’re a libertarian? You mean you’re a Trump supporter?”


    1. LOL…yeah, I know it isn’t funny but in a sad way it is.

      My boss didn’t come in and gave no reason. I’m going to keep my head down for a while (and I was never very open beyond “being conservative”).

    2. I would have seriously considered voting Libertarian, but unfortunately the party nominated a candidate who isn’t a Libertarian, and a VP candidate who’s much worse than that.

          1. At the inability to organize, or at agreeing that we need to work together at least for 12 months in order to be able to go our own ways for the next three years? 😉

            1. Oh, the whole “the planet has other people and we need some of them” thing, I’d guess. Just, y’know, as long as we can have them at arms reach or more away? We like our space. Spaaaaaace. *grin*

              Seriously though. There are a few basic things that are important, like practical, useful education (the proven stuff that works, not this Common Core crap), enforcing the laws and not making nonsense new ones (no, not even “regulations” that have the force of law), protecting our borders and interests abroad, and figuring out a way to get the wrong people to do the right thing…

              Eh, that’s job enough, I think. As individualists, we’ve got a lot of varied experience to bring to the table. As long as we’ve got the goals set and the method nailed down (with railroad spikes, if necessary), we’ll get it done. We’re Americans. Individually, we may be “deplorable” or not even all that impressive… But the lot of us are pretty darned impressive with what we *do* manage.

            2. I think it is a mental defect of some sort to actively want to boss other people around. The problem with libertarians is who wants to get stuck telling other people how to run their lives? Let them run their own damn lies and leave me alone. I can run my own life, especially if you just keep out of the way.

                  1. I seem to recall that there’s an ironclad Internet law that requires a typo when a grammar Nazi tries to correct one.

                    It’s not supposed to apply to people making corrections to their own mistakes! 🙂

              1. *sad* Most of the libertarians folks meet are going to be the ones that DO want to spend all their time telling people what they’re supposed to do….

                I think I just figured out how that makes sense.

                You know that thing where other people aren’t exactly real people? No, I don’t mean psychopath– I mean, like with little kids, how you have to teach them that other people are their own people, too. And even when you’re a perfectly decent grownup, it can be hard to remember at times. Most of the world only bothers to try to expand the “are real people like me” to a fairly small group.

                Well, that makes the Totalitarian Libertarian– like the ones we sometimes have come through here– make sense!

                It’s basically “what other people aren’t allowed to do to me” without the “and I’m not allowed to do to them” part, and that makes sense given the allergy so many of them seem to have to even vague and fluffy religion.

                1. I’ve been saying for some time now that all social skills are based on two realizations:

                  1. Other people are real people, just as you are.
                  2. Other people are not the same as you.

                  The totalitarian Left is a ready haven for people who have never got realization #1. Totalitarian Libertarians have generally got that far, but have never really wrapped their heads round #2.

                  1. Trying hard to be fair– there are a lot of ways to be ‘not the same as me’ that I don’t even consider until they’re there. 😉

                    Pretty sure everybody here that’s thought about it has run into the same thing, where folks are responding to ‘of course, this person here will think ________ because everyone does,’ and we…don’t.

            3. Mostly at the managing to organize bit, heh. But probably yes to the second bit as well 😀

          2. “This is Sarah Hoyt’s shocked face. Hers is so much better than mine, so I appropriated it.”

      1. Me, too. My husband did vote for the Libertarian, but I could not. I held my nose and picked Trump because I could not stand the thought of Hillary being in charge.

        1. The same in our house. I can’t say that I’m happy that Trump won, but I’m delighted that Hillary lost. And that the MSM got a black eye. Not that that will change them any.

          1. Me too. I don’t have very high hopes for a Trump presidency, but at least this time the nation refused to sit down, shut up, and vote as Our Moral Superiors instructed. So I have more hope for our country than before. We’re not as far gone as I feared.

            1. To me, Trump represents ‘we the people’ refusing to have a lying felon shoved down our throats. Honestly, if Hillary was the best either of the two established parties could offer, we would be better off with them all gone.

          2. It’ll hasten, at least slightly, the redirecting of the market for news away from MSM sources to internet [or ?] sources.

          3. Exactly my reaction.

            I’m not really thrilled with Trump . . . as in, I would have preferred over half the contenders for the Republican nomination over him.

            But I would have voted for almost anyone this side of Satan over Hillary. And at least thought seriously about the trade-offs before rejecting Old Scratch.

            1. Before the parties had nominated their candidates, I told my wife that if the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton and the Republicans nominated a dead dog, I planned on voting for the dead dog. I also expressed a sincere desire that neither party nominate someone whose last name was Bush or Clinton – we’re not supposed to be a !$#@ hereditary aristocracy. So yes, I too would have thought long and hard and may have decided to vote for the Devil over Hillary. So, while I voted for Trump in the general election (consistent with my thoughts pre-nomination, though I guess I should have specified a live dog), I voted for the remaining candidate I viewed as most likely to beat Trump in the primary. So, color me delighted Hillary lost – and less than perfectly thrilled by the phrase “President Trump”. However, we don’t know what Trump is going to do and/or will be able to do. Who knows – there is even a hope that maybe Chris Christie will get it right this time on the transition.

            2. If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
              Winston Churchill

      2. Gary Johnson seemed more interested in proving that he wasn’t a Republican than in seriously advancing either the prospects of the Libertarian party or libertarian principles in general. As far as I could tell, the only freedom he seemed to be conclusively for was the freedom to smoke pot.

        1. He was doing well in Utah until he started championing gay privilege over religious freedom, which went over about like Hillary Clinton campaigning on global warming in coal country.

          1. This is a major reason why I chose to vote for McMullen over Johnson.

            I’m *really* disappointed that McMullen didn’t get at least second place.

            And as others have said, while I’m sad that Trump won, I’m absolutely delighted that Hillary lost!

          2. At the time I thought that was an incredible misstep, certainly not one any practiced politician should have made. Only in Wyoming did Clinton receive a lower % of the vote.

            1. In 1992, Bill Clinton came in third behind Ross Perot in Utah. Hillary was well and truly despised there. Utah voters were looking desperately for an alternative better than Trump, and not finding.

              1. For some reason, I thought Bill took third place in 1996 too, but my memory could be flawed in that regard…

      3. Having spent some time at Libertarian meetings (invited by a true-believer friend a few years ago), it seems to me that there is basically two paths to the libertarian party.

        One is being a small-government-staying-out-of-the-lives-of-the-people type who is fed-up with the Republican candidates getting worse and worse, and tired of being told by fellow Republicans to just shut up and vote R “because the D is worse” (sometimes all friendly like, more recently though, often rather rudely).

        The other seems (to me) to be Democrats who are more Classical Liberals who care about civil rights (as in the real ones, as opposed to the made-up PC ones), freedom, and liberty; that are fed-up with how the Democrat party has moved away from those ideals (except for when pandering for votes) and towards larger and larger government with more government control over everything.

        There is actually quite a bit of overlap with those two groups strangely enough. There can also be some stark, surprising disconnects (after all, Bill Mahr has actually described himself as a Libertarian, and I’m pretty sure he wasn’t intentionally trying to be ironic). One meeting I went to featured a (supposed) Libertarian speaker, who ranted about income inequality and the absolute need for federal government intervention… Needless to say, he was thrown out of the meeting (yelling the whole time “WAIT!!! I’m one of you guys!”) That the Libertarian party basically nominated what amounts to “one of those” tells me the LP is a lot sicker than I suspected when I decided that it was all a waste of time and stopped going.

        1. Bill Mahr has actually described himself as a Libertarian, and I’m pretty sure he wasn’t intentionally trying to be ironic …

          My impression has been that the Libertarian Party has much in common with the Christian Church, in that many more members believe themselves committed to the ideology than are actually committed to living according to the creed.

      4. The Libertarian Party no more supports libertarianism than the Democrat Party supports democracy. The Republican Party generally supports republicanism, but mostly in the way aristocracy supports aristos.

        1. The Libertarian Party basically died 10 years ago in Portland. I sat and watched (Okay, I actually stood and screamed) in disbelief as the Party platform was stripped of any semblance of Libertarian principle by a bunch of newcomer neocon upstarts in the name of ‘electability’, which primed the pump for the nomination two years later of Bob Barr (Really? Bob freaking Barr?) for President.

      5. I’ve watched the Libterarians for years. Their problem isn’t lack of organization, it’s far too *much* organization. Or, more specifically, too many people who won’t co-operate unless things go their way.

        I’m always reminded me of the episode of WKRP in Cincinnati where Les Nessman was organizing a union. When Andy asked him if that conflicted with his political views, Les said, “But Andy… they said I could be in charge!”

      6. Glad to see I’m not the only one who noticed that. The extent of Gary Johnson’s “libertarian-ness” was centered on the very weakest aspect of libertarianism. Coming out strongly for the right to be an irresponsible drug user just doesn’t make much of a case for “elect me to the most demanding job in the world, where I will literally be responsible for defending 300+ million people.” Sorry, but if YOUR most important issue appears to be getting high without being hassled by The Man, you ain’t ready to BE The Man. No matter how many feel-good comedies have played that trope.

        That Johnson was perfectly willing to see government destroy the livelihood of people who didn’t want to do business with the “protected class de jeur” straight up disqualified him.

  5. Both political parties need reform, both sides had good viable options for this election i.e. Cruz and Sanders and they ignored the will of the people and we’re now reaping those consequences. I survived 8 years under Bush I’ll survive this. And remember kids, be careful what you wish for.

      1. We’ll survive because that’s what people do. Most of the humans who have ever lived in the history of mankind have been ruled poorly. We can take some solace in the fact that we’re no worse off than the billions who have come before us.

      2. Its funny I keep wanting to ask you the same question. But politics history is subjective, so to each their own I guess.

        1. Bah. Under Obama I DID run the risk of being audited. Under the leftist domination of SF, I DID run the risk of being unemployed once I opened my mouth. That shit doesn’t turn around as you think.

          1. No shit, there he was. During Bush’s administration, my best friend ran an operation in the US killing hundreds of leftists annually. He tells me that this particular entity spent years on their target list, which wasn’t unusual due to budget limitations. He had to quit when Obama was elected.


            1. Those are history, and are of the political flavor of history. If political history is subjective, then there is no objective truth in whether or not these happened.

          1. Conflating segregation, Holodomor and the Holocaust fully justifies your name. One of these is not the same as the others.

            1. So the Democrats never filled any mass graves as part of Segregation? Mr. Hippy who tried to convince us that Hippies had some worthwhile qualities by citing alternative energy.

              1. Please tell me where ONE mass grave is in the United States that was filled as part of Segregation.

                1. Well, there was a mass lynching just post-WWI that left over 200 dead. I don’t know if there was a mass grave, per se, but it was surely a mass killing. And it was definitely white supremacy-inspired, as segregation cranked up in the wake of black soldiers returning home.

                  1. Segregation, no. That was only one facet of the entire picture.

                    For sheer body count – page the ghost of Margaret Sanger. Plan going beautifully. Even including her idol’s ovens…

                    1. The question was to name one mass grave filled by segregation in the US. This fits that bill. Like it or not.

                2. Last I heard on the search for the Tulsa 1921 mass grave, a geophysics team had investigated where a purported eye witness placed it, and not found anything.

                  I do not know what happened to the bodies in Elaine, Arkansas during 1919.

                  I’m haven’t learned much about deaths in the Saint Louis race riots.

                  I honestly think Segregation may have involved murdering people by the dozen more than once, that some of the victims probably ended up in mass graves, and that some of these events were close enough in time to the likes of Lidice, Katynn, and the Armenian genocide that the same standards of ‘statute of limitations’ should apply.

        2. I have friends who were fired for having the wrong politics, and it being found out.

          It’s not even that uncommon–it’s been on the news rather strongly.

          Political judgement may be subjective; the facts of who is abusing who is objective.

          1. I too have had friends fired for their politics. Both sides are guilty, so one could easily argue that the facts surrounding who is abusing who is also subjective.

            1. Funny, I find when someone gives actual details of someone on the left being fired “for their politics,” it’s that they were acually doing something wrong, usually on company time. Like the guy who verbally assaulted the drive up window lady, videotaped it and posted it.

              In contrast to national stories of people forced out of their jobs for donations to a campaign– one that won in the political arena, to boot.

              1. Nod.

                I’d want cites for people losing jobs for having Liberal Politics.

                Mind you, I suspect that most times a Liberal lost a job because of his Politics, it was because the Liberal was being an Asshole/Jerk.

                1. Heard of one last week…. he was using the company’s facebook page for political attacks.

                  Or various folks who were stealing from their company to support “causes.”

                2. Basically: listen to tge song “Signs” and consider that the one about long haired hippy freaks need not apply was *justified* by the song-character’s actions.

                  1. You know, I was thinking the same thing the other day, that the viewpoint character in that song was an ass that I wouldn’t have hired either, even if I had been a hippy myself.

                    1. Yup. Or “Rent.” I watched that with my wife and came away convinced that Benny was actually the hero of the story – a guy who was friends with the whole group, and who maybe didn’t have their creativity, so he went into business school, law, and put that knowledge to use to try to make their creative work profitable.

                      As thanks they called him a sellout; when he said it would make the neighborhood safer and give them a living, they chased him off, even as one of their friends was getting the tar beat out of him downstairs; when he arranged for investors to watch a performance, they started a riot; when he convinced said investors to give these hippy types another chance, go to a local joint for great food and a taste of the neighborhood, they showed up and intentionally insulted them and drove them off. That doesn’t even touch showing up at a social function and nearly causing a big scene about him.

                      What the hell else was Benny supposed to do? I really felt for that guy.

                    2. The only good thing about “Rent” was the “Everyone Has Aids!” song from Team America.

            2. I have yet to hear a specific account of someone fired for being not conservative or Republican, and not suing the company. When it’s even been talked about as a speculation, it’s been met with outraged howling. Yet, when someone talks about actually happening to conservative or Republicans, those same people say they deserved it.

              1. Leftists have a huge part of their identity invested in being oppressed (which I don’t get but different strokes) and actually seem harmed when they are forced to realize they aren’t for that very reason, it attacks their identity.

                Look at all the writers loving the women “finally winning awards in scifi thus overcoming the oppression I experience every day as a woman writing scifi” when women have been winning awards longer than they have been alive. If they aren’t oppressed by the patriarchy they have no identity.

                Same for liberals forced to realize they are the man and have been for 30 years.

                1. To be fair, there have been people fired by churches for reasons that are currently filed under “political” by secularists, but which fit under “theological” or “moral” for the churches in question.

                  But the Supremes have mostly ruled that such things go under “freedom of religion” and “freedom of association,” particularly when churches explicitly include morals clauses and theological declarations in their employment contracts.

                  1. Yeah — there was that Lutheran(?) pastor lady who was fired for declaring herself simultaneously Muslim, and those Catholic professors fired for insisting that abortion was just hunky-dory and no concern for the Church.

                    OTOH, there remain Bishops in good Episcopal standing in spite of having declared there is no G-d, so there is that.

                    1. There are some Episcopalians fighting that trend.

                      IMO it’s the Unitarian Universalist Association that’s more the social club (with a strong leftish streak).

                  2. There was the teacher who claimed it was about discrimination when it was actually about binding arbitration.

                    (For those not familiar:
                    “How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones? Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not everyday matters? If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church? I say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to be able to settle a case between brothers? But rather brother goes to court against brother, and that before unbelievers? Now indeed it is, in any case, a failure on your part that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated?”

                2. “The trouble with basing your identity on fighting discrimination is that if you run out of discrimination, you don’t know who you are.”

                  – Fred Reed

              2. I vaguely recall a few stories about leftists being fired for politics and not suing. They filed EEOC discrimination complaints and got the taxpayers to underwrite their suit.

          2. You mean like this?


            “The CEO of Grubhub, an online food delivery service, sent a company wide email Wednesday suggesting employees who agree with President-elect Donald Trump’s behaviors and his campaign rhetoric should resign.

            “If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here,” wrote Matt Maloney, Co-Founder of Grubhub. “We do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team.””

            1. That sounds like the same sort of gobbly gook as when Mozilla fired Eich because the wanted their company to be welcoming to people of all opinions.

              1. In the last year, I have probably spent somewhere north of 4 grand ordering from them while working out in LA. I was a guaranteed customer for $100 per week. They will get no more of my business, and I am going back through my order history, compiling a list of the restaurants I ordered from, and calling each of them to tell them “This is how much I ordered from you through Grubhub. I will never order through them again, and they were your only channel to sell to me. If you don’t like losing business, you might call them and tell them how much you won’t be paying them because their young punk CEO has let his pit bull mouth get his poodle ass in a crack.” Then I’m going to call GrubHub and tell them the same thing.

            2. Geeze – you know how hard it is to run a business these days without accountants?

              Accountants tend to be among the most politically conservative professions, for reasons that likely don’t require explanation. I would guess perhaps 1 in 20 corporate accountants is not conservative.

              I wonder whether the company is buying out the investments of any shareholders who don’t share their enlightened, tolerant opinions. I know I certainly wouldn’t want to accept seed money from Hitler.

            3. Hopefully someone replied with dissent along with a demand that Maloney fire him to show his “open-mindedness” towards others.

        3. Interesting. Anyone who’s been alive long enough knows what it’s like to have politicians who disagree with their beliefs and interests. That’s part of life in a republic, and you grit your teeth and hope for better results in the next election.

          Then there’s corruption. Corruption is a whole other subject. It was Bill Clinton and Jim Baen’s two audits that changed me from Democrat to Republican. It’s one thing to have different political opinions; quite another to use government to go after those who hold them.

          That’s why I voted against Hillary. Had she been just a mildly liberal Democrat, I might have voted for her over Trump because I’m really not impressed with him. But she’s been in scandals through Benghazi to Whitewater; I’ve seen what’s gone on with the Justice Department and the IRS under Obama; and I remember Bill wasn’t above the same when he was in there.

          Now, the other side of this coin is that there are those who’ve seen the exact same information and either dismissed it or decided it wasn’t enough not to vote for her. So I’m curious. This isn’t to put you on the spot but I’d like to know: If you voted for Hillary or against Trump, what was more important than the scandals and corruption?

          1. By all reports, Hillary was the Clinton much more inclined to use the machinery of government to reward her supporters (remember Travelgate?) and punish her enemies.

          2. I met a lady earlier today who was quite distraught. Her purported reason was that Trump made fun of a disabled man, that she had a disabled child, and that had made it personal beyond her ability to manage.

            1. Well, at least one person is worried about the effects on high-risk pools. Unfortunately, this came wrapped with hostility and a complete ignorance that ACA had had as bad effect on other people as its lack might have on her.

            2. Between a guy who mocked one individual disabled person the same way he mocks every other individual whom he mocks; and a woman who is totally okay with aborting, euthanizing, and assisting the suicide of any and all disabled persons, including her supporters…

              I think a disabled person would be a lot safer with Trump as president.

          3. Oh, I will never admit to voting for either of them, but I did have an option to hold my nose and vote against both.

            I think I’ve articulated my fixations and reasoning enough in the past that repetition would be annoying.

          4. I voted against Hillary, but I also voted against Trump, and voted for McMullen. I did this in large part because Trump gives me the impression that he can be as corrupt as Hillary, but he hasn’t been able to be corrupt in a way that Hillary has been only because he hasn’t been in government: there are simply some things you can’t do unless you are in a position of government power.

            But then, I’ve never been in favor of Democrats, and I can see that Trump is a Democrat. I’m not entirely sure if I could have voted for a “reasonable” Democrat, had one been running against Trump, because Democrats have betrayed freedom enough that I’m not entirely sure if there exists such a beast as a “reasonable” Democrat.

            I’m not sure if I was a target of your question, though; I think I’d like to know how someone could bring themselves to vote for Hillary, whether for her or against Trump as well…

            (Two thoughts come to mind, though: the belief that Trump will do far more damage to the country, because he’ll damage the idea of conservatism so much that it won’t have any influence in government in the next 20 years; the understanding that Hillary may be corrupt and dishonest in her various personal dealings, but when it comes to leftist government policy, she’s as honest as the arctic summer day is long*.)

            *I was going to say as honest as the day is long, but I was reading “Wee Free Men”, and Tiffany Aching doesn’t like the saying: which day, after all? in mid-winter, some days are *really* short!

      3. I got a Christmas card from Bush every year he was President. I got not a damn thing from Obama (save possibly my taxes and health insurance deductibles being increased).

        1. You’re not being fair. Under Obama you also got your intelligence insulted, your ethics ridiculed, and your morality denigrated. He also greatly increased you opportunities for being nuked by Iranian supported terrorists.

          We won’t even attempt to count his gift that will keep on giving: an open invitation for extremists of [unknown faith] to move here and establish terrorist cells.

          Then there are all those new members of MS13 he’s granted refugee status to, who can be relied upon to provide much greater opportunities to be killed in ongoing gang violence (a possibility also enhanced by his “guidelines” to ensure police departments do not engage in racist policies.)

    1. Sanders identified as a Nationalist Socialist, and got into politics because of Hitler’s example. Calling him a Nazi is not much of a stretch.

      1. There were quite a few people of my acquaintence who were miffed when I pointed out he’d Godwin’d himself. More so, when I pointed out that if he didn’t realize what he was saying did we really want him as president? And the counterpoint: If he DID understand the reference and therefore was making it deliberately, was that better or worse?

          1. It is amazing the gymnastics a human mind can do. Still, there are quite a number of Jews who adopted intellectualism and are rather embarrassed by this thing with hashem.

            I gather he was thrown out of a kibbutz because he wouldn’t work to the best of his ability, all he wanted to do is talk theory to the best of his ability.

        1. Hillary and Mao suits. What do they say about someone her age, who doesn’t have the excuse of having grown up in the People’s Republic of China?

          1. Along with the lack of nuanced understanding of the message conveyed by clothes that made people think Mao suits, her choice expressed: I am aging and don’t want to show my neck or the shape of my torso.

    2. Trump will most likely govern like a moderate old-time Democrat (remember when we had those?) with a hyperbolic mouth, which most people will learn to discount appropriately, a few blind spots, and a thin skin. It won’t be great, but it won’t be terrible either.

  6. Hahahahahahaaaaaaaa!

    There is a funny UK comment in the Daily Mail by one Katie Hopkins. I love her “leftie luvvies” label. I don’t know what it means, but I like the insulting sound of it.

    On a more sober note, I feel sorry for whoever has to scrape stickers off Susan B. Anthony’s headstone. I hope they don’t accidentally damage the stone. But since Anthony was Republican, I like to think she is amused now.

    1. ‘luvvies’ is an English term for overpaid elites who moved to overpriced McMansions in rural areas then started to dictate to the locals who had lived there for generations how the locals could live their lives. because most of them are actors the term is sometimes used to describe actors who insist on lecturing on subjects the actors have no understanding of, think Leo DiCaprio on global warming.

      1. Indeed. DiCaprio believes his private jet runs on recycled unicorn farts. I enjoy the hypocrisy of someone with the same carbon footprint as a large African village to lecture me on my ‘evil’.

    2. Oh, heck. That one I could do. Get some hot water and baby shampoo. Steam those stickers off. No damage to the stone, and it comes out pretty clean after!

      Heck, it’d be an honor. That’s history right there- the kind of history you respect, not the kind that serves as a horrible warning, thank goodness!

  7. One point on Christie, it appears his staff was cut to help the campaign and since the convictions it appears Jeff Session has started taking a larger role in the transition. Not sure how much bigger and you’re right Christie is a toad and a black mark on hiring good people.

    As for the schadenfreude I was pleasently surprised that MSNBC served pretty poor quality with Chris Matthews being optimistic and most of the rest subdued. I had to switch to CNN.

    As I said on the other thread to my mind this is when the work starts. Even if he is the guy the GOPe can work with I still think Trump is not a creature of it by not having made politics his life. That narrow crack, and it is a very narrow crack, is where the water of…some metaphor beyond me at the moment, can seep in and perhaps do what I have thought impossible: reforming the GOP without burning it down or a major gutting.

  8. The good news is the election is over; The bad news is one of the bastages won.

    And despite my (alleged) friends on the left melting down faster than a LOCA over it, there is at least some chance of things not being completely lousy. Might still be mostly lousy, but we know mostly lousing is still at least a little bit not-lousy.

    And my, that’s a non-trivial amount of bourbon. Sure you should be in Colorado and not Wiscons*hic*in? }:o)

    And this morning… Sazerac rye. Neat. But not all that much.

    1. As Miracle Max said, mostly lousy is partly OK. If it’s completely lousy, there’s only one thing to do: go through the body politic’s pockets and look for loose change.

      1. Looking back at the last 8 years, I don’t see how it could be any worse. I think the best option is 4 years of Congressional gridlock with Trump ignoring everyone.
        At least the ‘wall’ will be ‘shovel ready’.

      2. …go through the body politic’s pockets and look for loose change.

        …go through the body politic’s pockets and look for loose hope and change?

      3. I’m still nervous that Obama’s Iran “deal” might mean that we’ll be looking through the body politic’s loose, radioactive rubble, rather than looking through their pockets, for loose change…

  9. I revel in the tears of my enemies. For all who say the Christian thing to do is forgive and reach out – HYPOCRITES! Why didn’t they before now? They expect a response from me that they denied to me? Not gonna happen.
    I’m not a Trump fan – I’m scarcely and most reluctantly a Trump voter. I do know who was well behaved last week. Reciprocal response ahead.

      1. Already been assassination calls on social media. Plus the cries of ‘if it weren’t for you meddling old farts’

        1. Hillary never had Bill’s charisma. If money alone could have won, hers would.

          1. Eh. Lots of woulda coulda shoulda right now. A little more feigned compassion for us flyover people and she may have saved herself.

            Well not me. We went 2:1.

            1. A little more feigned compassion for us flyover people and she may have saved herself.

              To do that would mean that she wasn’t Hillary. 👿

            2. Ah … “sincerity is everything. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made”? Give H credit for trying, but she really wasn’t that good at faking it.

      2. It must sting that they’re getting Obama’s smug “I won” thrown back at them.

        More seriously, I’m mostly just eyerolling at the histrionics in response to Trump’s win and not actively seeking them out for mockery, but I feel no particular urge to restrain myself on the occasions where I decide it’s worth the effort to mock them.

      3. The calls for unity from one group are an interesting contrast to the rioters … er, I mean protesters chanting something about “Not My President”. Anyone have some links to cars burning after Obama’s wins?


    1. You know we will be nicer than they would– it’s part of our world view.

      I can’t really see anybody here trying to actually destroy folks’ lives because they’re liberals; not buying what they offer, sure, but not trying to make it so they can’t work at all.

        1. Exactly. Pretty much the entirety of my political philosophy is covered in these three concepts:
          1. I’m not bothering anyone.
          2. It’s none of your business.
          3. Leave me alone!

            1. ““Well, I’m bothered by your very existence!””

              That particular statement properly needs no reply, other than the sound of a slide being racked to the rear in order to ensure that one has properly chambered a round, or the sound of a magazine being slammed home, followed by the sound of a bolt going forward. The speaker should hear, as their last earthly experience, a suitably loud “bang”, and witness a flash of light.

              Because, believe me, that little marker they just chose to emote? That “…I’m bothered by your very existence!” statement? That was the precursor to everything leading up to the Holocaust and the Holodomor. Preemptive action is a must, unless you want a job as one of the Kapos, herding your people into the gas chamber.

              Someone tells you that they mean to eliminate you and yours, take them at their word. Odds are that they mean what they say, and will do unto you unless you do unto them, first.

              1. I completely agree with what you just wrote, but I want to make one little…nitpick?…actually, it’s not a nitpick, so much as an observation.

                I find it odd that we use “odds” here so often to refer how we as Americans don’t fit in with the rest of the world, and we as Huns don’t fit in with typical American society, and so forth, that using “Odds” in the context of probabilities confuses me….

      1. With respect to, say, writers. I would be delighted to buy what they offer — if it was any good. Eric Flint comes to mind; I’ve been told he is somewhat liberal. Don’t care what he is, as long as he keeps writing well. But Ancillary Drivel? Don’t make me laugh.

        1. You might almost call Eric an “old-timey Socialist.” He believes in “according to their needs” and “according to their ability.”

          “New-timey” Socialists conveniently forget that both parts of that mantra are supposed to apply to the same people.

          (Doesn’t make it workable, of course, for humans. But I can deal with such a Socialist, not the ones that are in the majority these days.)

          1. Flint is a pretty much a card holding Red.
            But, he writes well, and works with very Not socialists easily (as long as their name is not Ringo)

            1. You do know that Eric did write a short story to go in the Black Tide anthology? Eric also is more than happy to concede that Ringo is a popular author and, based on his comments, he has clearly read the Black Tide series (and commented “John’s actually very good on this subject, which is part of the reason I enjoyed the series.” That being said, I view Eric’s comment that Faith and Sophia have a bit too much in the way of martial skills and ability to survive where they should have died as a fair complaint. Ringo doesn’t usually hesitate to kill off major characters either, so I’m kind of surprised he didn’t off one of the sisters in the earlier books.)

              Eric also said the following about Ringo:
              “The answer is that, like any good writer—and whatever my (many) political disagreements with John, he’s a damn good writer—he tries to embed his stories into the world he created for them.”
              From Eric, I take that as high praise … so, maybe the 2 could work together directly — god knows I’d buy it if they did.

              1. IIRC Eric has said that his sense-of-humor and John’s sense-of-humor are very close so he thinks that he could co-write an humorous story with John.

        2. I’ve held off on his latest Empire book because I expected political content, and the election has had me too keyed up for that to be enjoyable. Skipped the Honorverse book, and would’ve skipped the latest Safehold for the same reason. I am happy I’m happier now.

    2. For all who say the Christian thing to do is forgive and reach out …

      Repent, ask forgiveness and forgiveness may be yours; persist in your sinful ways and there is no help for you.

      1. They will say, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” and I will respond:

        And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”

        which is the part they always want to ignore.

      2. We are taught to forgive all, but I’m not aware of anywhere in scripture where we are commanded to trust all. I may forgive you for embezzling money from my company, and I may even hire you to do something for my company, but that “something” will *not* involve handling money (so no more accounting for you!) until after *years* of demonstrating that you are now trustworthy.

        Yes, men can change — men are not leopards, after all — but we should trust and verify too.

        1. Arguably, “trusting” someone that you know is weak to overcome that weakness, without good and sufficient reason to believe they will, is to put them into temptation.

          If you know a guy has trouble with lust, you don’t take him to Hooters.

        2. Right – we normally offer a limited, conditional trust to strangers simply because social and commercial interaction is very hard without it. But if it’s abused, our subsequent relationship is encapsulated in a couple of secular sayings:
          1) “first time, shame on you; second time, shame on me”; and
          2) “one aw-sh*t cancels ten attaboys” (with the reverse implication also being true, and numbers being very approximate.)

          Even Christian forgiveness may be limited (“seventy times seven”); at the end of forgiveness of the unrepentant comes no longer having anything to do with the person.

          1. The seven and seventy bits are figures of speech– like if we said “even a million times?” “Even if it was a gazillion!

            If I remember right, ‘seven’ meant something like ‘everything.’ That’s part of why the 8 nights for Hanukkah, to quote The Maccabeats: Eight is the number of infinity/ one more than you know how to be. Also why Catholics don’t insist on a literal 7 days of creation.

            1. Yes, I’ve heard the “seven and seventy” explained similarly.

              OTOH, there are commands from Jesus (Matt 18:15) and Paul (several letters) that would result in Christians separating themselves from someone who continues to offend against them, after trying several ways to re-establish a relationship of trust. That may be considered an end to forgiveness, depending on how you define the word.

              1. Forgiveness by the one harmed doesn’t fix the harm done–as a rather well known appologist put it, if he tells his son not to play ball in the house, and the son breaks a window, the father forgiving doesn’t fix the window.

                Trying to make stuff even is an external sign of internal repentance.

    3. Doug,

      The Christian thing is to forgive. And when the bastards repent, THEN fellowship can be restored. As long as the VileProgs persist in their vileness, I will persist in both forgiving them, and blasting them to smithereens. Well, perhaps I’ll reserve the blasting to when such a level of force is actually called for. Perhaps. Nonetheless, vigorous opposition will be ongoing.

    4. Okay, I admit, with drink in hand – I was taunting Van on CNN to cry – come let us taste the sweet sweet tears of our enemies…. Not my best hour. But his “whitelash” comments are a little too hard to take. The KKK would find him as a boon companion if his color was swapped. He is an odious toad of a person and a stunted soul.

      There is more I could write, but I should probably leave it here. Hope I can talk to a friend of a friend who knows someone at CNN – have to find out how it was on the inside.


  10. America dodged a bullet.. barely. Electing such a mendacious, corrupt, fool such as Hillary has shown herself to be would certainly have been disastrous. But it was too close.

      1. True. But Trump is a black swan event, not so much the result of anything conservatives did, so I’m not confident we’ve learned anything (or enough) to improve our strategies on the political side of this war.
        The cultural side, I think we have a better understanding of – and if that can be strengthened enough, the political side will probably follow.

      1. We certainly dodged an artillery shell, but I’m convinced another artillery shell is coming our way….

        However, it was fantastic to see the first artillery shell meant for us hit the Main Stream Media instead! I wonder if Trump is going to manage get a copy of Newsweek to hold up for all the photographers, Truman style…

  11. I’m positively relishing the meltdown of the SJW left… but there’s a good chance Chris Christie becomes Attorney General, Giuliani is Secretary of Homeland Security, and Flynn is National Security Advisor. All nightmarishly bad.

      1. We shall see.

        🙂 I’m am saying that while happy inside. Which may just being rid of the first installment of uncertainty.

        1. Under bush we managed to stop amnesty and Miers. I can only hope that we have a chance of exerting some control over the Congress and pushing back.

              1. He was the first GOP leader to lead to Congressional control AND re-election for the first time in six decades. He is obnoxious and enemies, who never won Congress, used it to oust him.

                That ousting is probably going to be seen as a key stop on the road to Trump…perhaps the first stop.

                1. Consider that one of the things they had AGAINST Newt was that he taught a history course on the radio; the “evil” was that he accepted money for it, and did it while he was performing an elected office. I heard a little of it – seemed pretty decent to me.

                  1. “Seemed” pretty decent to you? Shows how much you know!

                    There was nothing in it about ruthless exploitation of slave labor, nor about stealing land from the Indians, nor how the Robber Barons™ ruthlessly exploited the working class, much less how the GOP “Southern Strategy” stole all the racists from the Democrats.

                    He was the Anti-Zinn that their prophets had warned against.

                  2. He also had at least one course televised. It was probably when I still had C-band satellite TV, so it might have been a private feed. However, I watched a few lectures. He was interesting and on topic, in no way offensive.

                    1. Hmm – loves teaching, is good at it, and teaches real history instead of post-modern/SJ claptrap. Not really that good at politics, despite a few successes.

                      I know! Newt for Dept of Education! (NEA ‘splody-heads all over the place!!!)

                2. The GOPe stabbing him in the back in 1998 was what lead me to drop my Republican Party membership. He threatened their little corner of the federal trough.

              2. Congressional “Contract with America” – actually got about 1/2 of the stuff done they promised for the first 100 days while Newt was Speaker of the House. And this was before Bill Clinton began to triangulate effectively.

                  1. Not precisely — Bill provoked the government shutdown and the MSM whipped it up into a conservative caused crisis for him.

              3. I don’t trust Newt — Newt thinks that with the advent of computers, we can actually create effective government, ignoring that while computers can amplify the abilities of bureaucrats to know things and to calculate things, they *also* amplify the abilities of non-bureaucrats to do the very same, *and* there’s *always* a lot more non-bureaucrats than there are bureaucrats.

                Having said that, he *did* manage to show that Conservatism can, indeed, win, if we would just practice it, darn it!

            1. All depends where he falls. I’m personally hoping for AG Giuliani. But at least there is a chance for listening.

              1. Like him or not, the man did successfully run New York City, and turned wide swaths of it from a dangerous cesspit into a respectable, clean, prosperous place. The Left have never forgiven him for doing this, nor for his incredible response to 9/11… but I was there, and I recall that some people in those few first terrible weeks were wishing Giuliani could be president instead of W. That’s why he seemed like a viable option in ’08 and beyond.

                That deep bench of candidates the GOP ran out translates into many credible people who can assume positions of trust and responsibility without being raging dumpster fires of corruption and patronage like Lynch, Lerner, Psaki, and all their merry band.

            2. Dr. Pournelle has always spoken highly of him. E.g.,

              “I have known Speaker Gingrich a very long time, having met him when my phone rang decades ago and a voice said, ‘This is Newt Gingrich. I’ve been elected as a Congressman from Georgia. I’ve read A Step Farther Out, and I’d like to discuss it with you.’…I have found Newt to be one of the most astute politicians I have ever known, and I find his views on Trump rather close to those I have formed on my own. Note that Newt does not endorse Mr. Trump, but accepts him as a candidate with some interesting policies, and rejects neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Cruz.”
              -April 2, 2016

              1. That was one of the great failures of the left side of sf fandom. We had one of the biggest pols in Washington pushing space, and they rejected him because he wasn’t a Democrat and leftist. It was like, “What more do you want? Candy?”

            3. Gingrich has his good and bad.

              Keep in mind that Gingrich was the guy who in 2012 attacked Romney for being able to speak French (Romney served his LDS mission in France). When it was subsequently pointed out that Gingrich also knew French (something to do with a paper that he’d written, though I can’t remember the details), Gingrich claimed that he wasn’t being a hypocrite because he last spoke it oh so long ago, and had forgotten it in the meantime.

              1. I don’t fully understand this hatred of “Oh, he can speak language X” or even “He’s lived in country X for a little while!” even if there are good reasons to dislike or despise X. A little bit of empathy never hurts someone.

                I learned a bit of Spanish in junior high, and French in College; oddly enough, despite French being more nasal than other languages, I actually think it’s a fairly pretty language. But then, I also think that German, Russian and Japanese are pretty languages as well. (I haven’t really studied these languages much, mind you — and it’s very likely that I simply get a little thrill when I try to understand something foreign, and I mistake that for beauty…)

    1. I’m hoping Cruz as AG but can see why you think Christie.

      Why do you see Giuliani as HS and why is that nighmarishly bad?

      I don’t know Flynn enough to have an opinion.

      1. Rather than looking at the persons available and figuring where to slot them, Trump should look at the slots available and determine what he wants done there before looking at personnel.

        For example, the DOJ needs to be cleansed by a SOB who doesn’t care about the political backlash. The entire Department of Civil Rights section, for example, needs to be flushed and replaced. Keep in mind that the AG is a managerial position first and foremost, and Justice is in serious need of management.

        1. One of my out there hopes (and this was why I started out as a Walker guy) is as a manager type he’ll root out the useless (in terms of getting things done) but highly effective deep state liberals in the bureaucracy in general.

        2. No temporary positions, but one- just one- cabinet minister. Remember the guy whispering in the emperor’s ear, “you, too, are mortal”? This guy would whisper “Fire the sonofab—-, and anyone and everyone under him who *didn’t* balk him.” One ruthless, pragmatic, focused person whose *sole* job would be to cut the cancer out before it eats the body. That’s all I ask. Today.

          Okay, that’s all I ask in this comment. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves… *chuckle*

        3. The entire [DoJ] Department of Civil Rights section, for example, needs to be flushed and replaced.

          I’m not so sure on the “replaced” part, given they’re one of the big pushers behind using Title IX as a weapon against colleges that dare to consider “guilty until proven innocent” (in regards to men accused of rape) as a good thing.

          1. They are also the DOJ dept that’s supposed to regularly re-evaluate whether certain listed areas of the country may be presumed to still be so racist that their elections should get special oversight. If they followed the law instead of political masters, some areas would have been taken off the list long ago. So, flushed AND replaced with people that will do their job, yes.

            1. Ok, I can see that.

              However, I’m concerned they will come from the same pool that offered the current buttheads, and it’s “Henry the Eighth” (song, not monarch) time. “Second verse, same as the first.”

              1. Yeah, I know, it’s hard to get it done right; even the philosophy of designing systems that make it easier/better/more profitable for bad people to do the good thing runs up against The Iron Law of Bureaucracy and the consequent degradation of organizational devotion to mission.
                In the long run, a cycle of constructive demolition and rebuilding is pretty much unavoidable, at least until the perceived need for the mission goes away.
                That’s not actually a bad thing – kind of like a sunset rule in a law. Problem is coming up with a reliable process to make sure it happens.

            2. Not anymore. That part of the VRA was struck down by the Supreme Court a couple of years back precisely because Congress never bothered to re-evaluate if polities threatened minority voting, they just renewed the old law.

          2. I think the Title IX “Dear Citizen Comrade Colleague” letters were the work of the Deportment of Education, which ought be downgraded to sub-sub-sub-cabinet status and relocated to Kansas City*.

            *No, I have nothing against KC, it just seemed funnier than some of the alternatives. Move the DOE to Provo for all I care — wherever yu send them the average IQ would suffer even as the average number of years of education increased.

            1. Hey, now, Provo’s a weird town, I’ll grant you (I know, I went to school there on two separate occasions!), but they don’t deserve THAT!!

              (Anyway, at least half the population there would probably run them out of town in fairly short order…)

            2. Wikipedia says the Department of Education has 5,000 employeers and a budget of $73 billion.

              I’m not sure what we get for that, other than jobfare for the bureaucratic class…

              1. I think that a large percentage of that consists of transfer payments of one form or another, such as student aid, various grants and subsisidies to schools, etc.

                1. And considering what Federal financial aid has done to the state of education, we would do well to eliminate that $73 billion budget!

            3. Every so often there’s a call to de-centralize the central stuff– so put the Department of the Interior in, oh, Nebraska, the FBI here, the CIA there…..

              I’d keep the Pentagon where it is, but for the places that don’t really NEED to be in DC, and have four or five buildings?
              Pick one, make it the DC office, and put their headquarters SOMEWHERE ELSE.

                  1. Digging around a bit more– because the details DO matter– it looks like the FBI “Headquarters” is symbolic and they started moving out after 9/11.

                    Quote from one of their pages:
                    The Criminal Justice Information Services Division is located in Clarksburg, West Virginia. The Laboratory Division, Operational Technology Division, and FBI Academy are located in Quantico, Virginia. Other specialized facilities, such as high-tech computer forensics centers, are at various locations across the country.

                    This is GOOD.

                    You want to keep rot from setting in? Make it so that the folks don’t all share one culture– and you don’t have folks jumping across a lot of agencies at fairly high levels. Group stuff by similar focuses (So you’d have a place that does border control related stuff, where the different agencies have their surveillance intel guys– that gets the people who are doing a similar job talking, and they might switch around, but it keeps huge blind spots from developing.) and then have the ones that don’t actually REQUIRE being near DC being someplace a lot cheaper to live in. (Um…basically everywhere but Hawaii?)

                    1. One of the good things about the Homeland Security thing is it got a lot more interaction between groups– a lot of my military buddies worked with government agencies that do similar jobs, and now they’re going gov’t.

                      Why, yes, that does make me a bit encouraged. 😀

                1. They are, but methinks the thrust of Foxfier’s point is put the headquarters FAR AWAY from DC. Decentralize the bureaucracy. Hell, were I President and I couldn’t get Congress to go along with simply eliminating all of the Not Authorized by the Constitution departments, agencies, bureaus, offices, etc of the Federal gov’t, I’d move all of the headquarters to Attu and Kiska. The Japanese tried to capture them, so they must be important places, right?

              1. One of the disadvantages to this is that it will make it harder for Iran (and other countries willing to volunteer to help) to help clear out the cruft that collects in our bureaucracies.

                Having said that, I would *really* like to see a decentralization of Congress: it would be fun to be able to challenge our Representatives and our Senators on issues *immediately*, rather than wait for them to come home from DC for a little while. It also means that our Representatives and Senators are less likely to become saturated in DC culture and values…

                1. Technology would pretty much support that; actual face-to-face meetings are somewhat overrated.
                  And, the internet traffic that would result from distributing Congress would probably motivate the next step of improvement in national backbone speeds!

                  1. Skype ( or its secure-channel equivalent) completely eliminates the need for there to be a centralized government.

                    1. I wouldn’t go so far as “completely eliminates”.
                      We use Skype for Business for on-line participation in meetings at work – it lacks a little immediacy and nuance for delicate negotiations where a lot of the communication is non-verbal.

                      Also, it’s harder to slip a $100 bill to a staffer for improved access over a Skype link…

        1. He could appoint him to the committee when he re-opens the JFK assassination investigation.

        1. Cruz would be awesome there.

          Barring that, however, the best place for Cruz is probably right where he is, helping to encourage the Senate leadership to act in a more conservative fashion.

    2. I was thinking Giuliani as SecState, and Christie at HUD.

      The latter is unfortunately just wishful thinking.

        1. Yeah, but the only reason Giuliani won’t be rewarded for his early and sustained Trump support would be ill health, and absent that I would think jaunting around as Secretary of State would suit him better than being Attorney General at DOJ, even with all his experience as a prosecutor.

          For Defense, I would think someone with experience more along the lines of Interim President Ashton Carter would be a better choice than a retired General Officer with all their associated baggage.

          Were it me I’d give Christie a prestigious ambassadorship (Ambassador to Japan maybe? That’s where the Clintons sent Mondale. Wait, he’s Roman Catholic – make him the Ambassador to the Holy See?) to get him gone, but I think he’ll end up in the cabinet somewhere. Have any ex-governors ended up as Chief of Staff?

          1. Christie is also Italian, making ambassador to the Holy See an extremely attractive posting.

            I’m wondering where they’ll put Huckabee. Interior?

            Maybe we will see White House press secretary Sean Hannity? It would certainly make the news gaggles the most interesting DC sideshow since Rumsfeld. It would also serve Hannity right.

          2. Wait, he’s Roman Catholic – make him the Ambassador to the Holy See?

            I don’t know if I’m utterly horrified at the idea, or think it’s awesome.

            “Papa Frank” would either get along great, or there’d be fireworks.
            And there’s possible sin in wanting to see what on EARTH the career twits (That’s BISHOP twit to me….) over there make of it, and frankly I think the Swiss Guard could use a little moral support in their “try to keep Pope Francis from getting himself killed” quest……

  12. I am very hopeful. My depression seems to be lifting. I have feared a continuation of Democratic Party Progressive bs for years if Hillary was elected.
    We can keep our guns for another four years. I’m praying that Trump makes good Supreme Court picks — people who will follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

    1. He published his list of SCOTUS candidates. I don’t know ’em, but most conservative commenters thought it was pretty good.

      1. I’ll hope someone keeps him from his previous stance where he thinks his Sister would be the Ideal SCOTUS Justice.
        His Sis is left of Kagan on some things.
        Now, we won’t get his Sis, as he knows that’d be a massive conflict of interest, but it did not bode well for the future if he lurches back to the left where he normally lurks.

        1. … You know… I have to wonder if he mantioned his sister so that all of his other scotus choices would look sane and reasonable…

          1. I think she really is his ideal in many ways, but once he got closer to winning, and his ego took hold (I must win, and to do so will need to give my base what they want, loudly) I think he got some coaching on who might be better acceptable choices to his core support as well as those of us who were “Well, we need to keep Hillary out” who if he did try to go with totally unacceptables might not bother voting.

      2. He has, on several occasions, promised his judicial picks will be from such a list.

        My suspicion is that he doesn’t much care about judicial appointments and will view them as sops for his conservative supporters to be trotted out whenver there’s complaint from the Right about one of his policies, “But look at all those fabulous judges I’ve given you.”

        1. And I would actually take that, considering that the courts are the only branch that still matters. At least until we can rebuild.

          1. PBS pundits were ttalking after Trump won about how the Supreme Court role in government should be expanded as it was now their only hope of maintaining progressive policies.

            1. At a guess, nobody on the panel of pundits suggested that, perhaps, just perhaps, the majority of the American people don’t want progressive policies and that therefore they ought not be maintained?

        2. That would be good. Once a judge, hard to get rid of, so “not caring…” could build a pretty good base of jurists to balance the power of the Presidency.

    2. Now would be a good time to dust off a Glenn Reynolds proposal: activate the “advice” part of “advice and consent”, and have Congress send Trump a list of Justices to select from, that would be fast-tracked through the approval process if chosen, while any candidates chosen off of that list would go through the regular hearing process.

  13. The Democrats’ bench is empty, although the successor to Gov, Brown will be a prime candidate. As far as the party goes there will be blood. The Republicans perhaps not so much so there will be bruising and broken bones.

    1. Wellllll … not quite empty. There’s DeBlasio in NY, Emanuel in Chicago, Garcetti in LA … Baltimore’s Stephanie Rawlings-Blake may yet harbor dreams of turning it around.

      Evan bayh was highly regarded as a Left-fielder who can play Center, but I suspect he isn’t stepping up to the plate in 2020.

      1. Eric Garcetti, Gavin Newsom, and Tom Steyer, will be the main candidates. Steyer mad sure his face was all over the news during this election. I believe that Villagrosa will not be a contender.

        1. Once it could have been said that Steyer, having never held public office, was unqualified for the job … Life has shown me that the only purpose Democrats have for high standards is to hold Republicans to them.

          He might have difficulty with his background as a hedge fund operator who catered to institutions and rich dudes, but I am confident the MSM can redirect public attention on squirrels!

        2. Do not discount the ambition of the new Junior Senator-elect from California, Kamala Harris. Barry Soetero proved experience does not matter once you have a Senate seat, and Kamala checks multiple grievance group checkboxes that are so important in D politics.

      2. I doubt Garcetti will go anywhere. Yes, Los Angeles is a big city, and in theory it’d be a good place to start your political career. But the Bay Area has a lock on California’s politics. And Los Angeles is from the wrong end of the state.

        Pretty much *everyone* elected in state-wide contests in California these days is a Bay Area Democrat.

      3. The ongoing bloodbath in Chicago means Rahm is toast at the national level. He totally owns that, and has continuously and persistently allowed the crisis to go to waste.

        1. Oh he’s tried to use it to help himself. His problem is that he’s way too wedded to keeping with the narrative that the main reason is too many guns, too many cops, and not enough government aid to effectively solve the problem. Rahm’s too entangled with leftist solutions that have failed in Chicago for 60 years to truly solve the problem, and the city is way too far down the death spiral for those methods to hold the lid down any longer.

  14. What I would say the real “good news” is from this cycle is the fact that the Republicans kept Congress. That means that there is at least a chance that they’ll force the Witless Ape into keeping a campaign promise or two, and maybe one of those judges on his list will actually get a nomination. All day yesterday I was fretting that we’d get Hillary and a Democratic congress, meaning her capacity to do damage would be almost unchecked. A President Trump and a Democratic congress wouldn’t be much better. As it is, the House of Clinton has fallen, and the Ape has a check on his naturally Leftist instincts. Given the choices in front of us, this was probably as good as it was going to get.

    And, oh do I wish I could have been watching Hillary when she got the news. I’m thinking her reaction would make Hitler in that Downfall of the Third Reich scene look restrained and reasonable.

      1. My hope is that Congress takes this opportunity to take some of it’s power back from the Executive.

    1. I’d assume Trump already wants a second term. If he doesn’t give his voters at least something of the things he promised that is unlikely. So perhaps you have some hope due to that too.

      1. Oh, he’s thinking 8 years already – he said something to the in-crowd last night in his surprisingly good speech along the lines of “I hope you can look back on this night in 4, or even 8, years and be proud that you worked to make this happen.”

      2. Trump believes that he could commit murder and his followers wouldn’t desert him. I doubt he believes that a teeny tiny thing like breaking a campaign promise (“look, they all do it”) would even register with them. And he might be right.

        1. I console myself knowing that he’s just as likely to anger his supporters as his enemies in the years to come.

      3. Whether or not Trump wants a second term is irrelevant. As soon as it looks like he’s a 1-and-done he becomes a lame duck and loses much of his leverage. So I expect him to act as if he wants a second term, at least until the party has to select a 2020 candidate.

        1. Everyone learned the lesson from Teddy Roosevelt’s “no, I’m out” statement and the resulting chaos that eventually elected Wilson. Trump will enthusiastically run in 2020.

          1. His Ego will make him do it.
            I do think he might well have been the plant to get Hillary in, get her an ideal candidate (likely not planned to be him) and earn him some more notoriety, then his Ego got the best of him once he became an actual front runner.

            1. Once he discovered in primary season how easy it was to distract the MSM (may have known it pretty well before that), he may have just said “shoot, this ain’t that hard, I can do this. Why not go for it all!”

              1. The MSM also played into that when they found attacking him made him more popular, so the continued. Last year someone (Insty? Ed at Insty?) said The Media have chosen their own destructor, and Ed made a Stay Puft with Trumps face.

    2. [Trump] has a check on his naturally Leftist instincts.

      I think that is a good way to express it. I also think that check will be more successful than with say Jeb! is as a businessman and deal maker I think he is going to be more willing to be swayed than a long term politician.

    3. Hillary’s public concession speech was supposed to be this morning – as of when I was driving into work, she was late, one conjecture being illness from the stress of the campaign AND the loss.

    1. That was a once in a lifetime treat! Still is for that matter, and the SJWs on facebook are a hoot, poor babies.

  15. Michael Moore is apparently going on about how Clinton won the popular vote. It’s a good thing he’s a propagandist; he would have flunked Stat 1. Out of an electorate of 120,000,000, a lead of 240,000 is a statistical tie. The country is exactly evenly divided.

    So the margin of victory is Trump carrying a larger number of states. We’re going to see the usual cries for doing away with the electoral college, not that they’re going anywhere with Republican control of both houses. But to me this says the system is working as it’s designed to: As a federal republic where the states with big populations can’t run roughshed over the ones with small populations. I live in the biggest of those states, but I’m glad California doesn’t control the federal government outright.

    1. Some of the counts I’m seeing have Trump winning the popular vote– and a lot of states only require ballots be postmarked by election day, not even to have arrived.

      Even the ones that require them to be arrived by election night haven’t had time to even open all the ballots.

      And then there’s the provisionals……

        1. And add to the (Trump) count just about all of those who voted for “I’m only in this to defeat Trump” (muttered “and elect Hillary”) McMullin, or “My running mate just told every one of my supporters to vote for Hillary” Johnson.

      1. I’ve read it in many places, but have never been able to confirm it as true or false, or possibly both true and false depending on where you’re talking about. But according to what I’ve read, many jurisdictions don’t bother counting absentee ballots, UNLESS there are enough they might affect the election outcome. If true, we’ll never know who won the popular vote, because all the ballots will never have been counted.

    2. We’re going to see the usual cries for doing away with the electoral college, not that they’re going anywhere with Republican control of both houses.

      They wouldn’t go anywhere if both houses and the President were 100% Democrat. It would require a constitutional amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states – when about three-fourths of the states would see their interests directly damaged by such an amendment.

        1. Amendments don’t get sent to the White House for a presidential signature. The president has nothing to do with the process.

        2. Proposed constitutional amendments don’t need the President’s signature. They do need two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress. Either that, or two thirds of state legislatures. (US Constitution, article 5.) Historically, it’s been far easier to get a proposal through Congress.

          The electoral college was set up in the first place to limit the demographic power of the most populous states and slightly favor the smaller, more rural and less densely populated ones. That’s just as much a concern in 2016 as it was in 1787. It’s one of the reasons why proposals for its abolition tend to come from large cities, and it’s also the reason why those proposals go nowhere.

          In practical terms, it means that a Presidential candidate who focuses on issues preferred by big-city dwellers and ignores flyover country is pursuing a perilous strategy, as Mrs. Clinton has just demonstrated. This rural-versus-urban demographic doesn’t have much of an effect on local congressional races, but it does come into play at the national level.

          1. I was until recently a proponent of abolishing the electoral college, but then I did some reading up on it (I attended grade school on the cusp when they started phasing stuff like that out of the classrooms) and have instead come to the conclusion that it’s necessary, but possibly in need of stricter rules/updating/something to please-God stop giving California so much inordinate sway.

            1. I think I already said this, but– make the Electoral Votes go off of Citizen population, and nuke this BS about “estimating” how many people are there.

              Oooh! Oooh! I just thought of a way to do this without screwing it up too much!

              Tax returns! (Note: this assumes the IRS gets off of its fad for auditing as punishment and actually gets to work to make sure that tax returns are from the people they’re supposed to be from.)
              Do electoral votes off of how many different socials are claimed in that state– you’re either filing, or you’re claimed.

              1. That would disenfranchise a lot of retired folks, exactly the ones you want to keep voting.

                But … how about this: a mini electoral college at the state level, done on a by-county basis. That way just *maybe* the vast swath of rural California might overbalance the two clots of urbanites, and occasionally get a different outcome. And it might help balance out some other states with a sharp urban/rural divide, too (Washington, Oregon, and Colorado leap to mind).

                  1. Oh, I agree… especially since the guessing gets skewed to the benefit of the guessees (new word), no doubt inflated whenever the federal teat may be sucked. But we have reasonably exact numbers from the census, or are supposed to — hey, if a state can’t get its act together and DO the damn census, well, no new representatives for you!

                    1. But we have reasonably exact numbers from the census, or are supposed to — hey, if a state can’t get its act together and DO the damn census, well, no new representatives for you!

                      That is where they were doing “walk on the street and estimate the undercounted” inflation trick.

                1. Nice idea, but Arizona and many other states used to have their State legislatures organized on such a basis, with counties represented in the state Senate and districts by population in the state House of Representatives, in imitation of the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that since counties are a creation of the State and not a federal union, a “Republican Form of Government” required one-man, one vote in both houses of state legislatures. This, in turn, lets the big cities dominate the states.

                  1. I would propose that we re-organize our States then. Make it explicit, just as it is in the Constitution, that a county cannot have its borders changed by the State legislature; that any county borders would have to change in the same way that State borders are Constitutionally subject to change today.

                2. > at the state level

                  The states have their own electoral laws. Mine are split among 75 counties, each which does exactly as it damned well pleases.

                  Any of these fancy Federal election laws are going to require an amendment, not just to the Constitution of the USA, but to the Constitutions of the various states as well.

                  “Let me know how that works out for you.”

            1. California is currently a one party state – all Democrat. The recent rules changes led to the final vote for Babs Boxer’s Senate seat being a choice between two Democrat candidates. The CAGOP is at most a nod to the fact that there’s so much money in the state that they can’t abandon fundraising here, but as far as political power, there’s none.

              Nothing but D for California from now on, unless there’s a major scandal.

              1. …and “major scandal” has to exceed “State Senate Democratic Party Leader Convicted in Gun Running, Organized Crime, and Political Influence Peddling Scheme” which is a pretty high bar.

                1. Fun fact –

                  Yee was running for Sec State when he was busted by the Feds. His arrest occurred at too late of a date for the state to remove his name from the ballot.

                  He got 10% of the vote.

          2. Thank you. I hadn’t looked up Article 5. In any case, so many Republicans in Congress come from small states that a Republican Congress won’t even consider such a proposal.

            And in any case, if such a thing could be passed, it would be a big step toward changing the United States from a federal state to a unitary one, not merely de facto but de jure.

    3. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put a Clinton on the throne again . . .

    4. I pointed out on my facebook page that if we had a national popular vote, right now as I type this every ballot in the United States would be under lock and key waiting to be officially recounted, and that every voting machine with no paper trail would be investigated to ensure proper functioning- and what a nightmare if it were found not to be so. 0.16% difference is within the margin of error for counting, and also well within the margin of Democrat fraud. The election might not be over until after January.

      1. I have a hard time explaining to people how the EC amplifies results beyond the margin of error, because statistics is an arcane science to many.

        1. I haven’t yet tried pointing out that the EC effectively gives Yellowstone Park and Lake Tahoe a share of the vote. Hey, I have *some* sympathy with environmentalists, although those that carry their earth-worship to the point of hating the people that live on it are a plague and a pestilence.

        2. I suspect the difficulty is increased by the fact that the people complaining do not actually want to know. What is important is that other people know how angry they are and (pretend to) take action to assuage them.

  16. Some sprinkles atop that schadenfreude sundae?

    Union president: ‘We are all in and lost’.

    Few in the liberal movement bet as much on a victory by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as the leaders of organized labor. Republican candidate Donald Trump’s unexpected victory not only presents a blow for them politically but could result in severe recriminations within the ranks.

    Union leaders were stunned by the losses. The AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, ended its election live-blog shortly after 6 p.m. on election night. It “postponed until otherwise noted” a post-election press conference scheduled for Wednesday morning.


    Broadly speaking, Trump agrees with labor’s agenda on issues such as international trade and has called for penalizing companies that outsource jobs. He has spoken in favor of right-to-work laws, which prohibit union contracts that force workers to join or otherwise financially support unions as a condition of employment. Unions despise the laws, which are associated with membership losses and depleted treasuries. Trump has given contradictory statements on minimum wage laws.

    Conservatives are nevertheless optimistic regarding Trump. “Everything we have seen suggests that he would be fairly conservative on labor issues,” said James Sherk, labor policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation.

    Most union leaders made scathing attacks against Trump. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called him “hateful and racist.”

    Labor leaders were more subdued Wednesday morning.

      1. I wouldn’t go that far. The Sun was not running for office and so has no reason to improve it’s recent performance.

    1. And State of Disobediance. I’m feeling rather optomistic that those are both alt-history now.

      1. Which, for those of you not in the know, is free on the Baen website right now (amazon apparently did not cooperate). A State of Disobedience is a good read, and well worth your time.

        Of course, I tend to read most of his stuff. He’s been right about things I don’t like more often than I’d like, too- and that’s worth my attention, and anyone else’s.

  17. I took a lovely long walk and watched the stars and listened to spiritually uplifting music, because you CANNOT be in the dumps and listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing Moses Hogan’s arrangement of “Joshua Fit the Battle” and stay down. For a while Mom and Dad had the weather channel on because it was showing lovely landscape films. Then I went to bed. (I told the students this AM that I wanted 24 hours without politics so they could go into the hall and talk until class started officially. Stampede.)

    1. I’m always cheered up by the Red Army singing “Battle Hymn of the Republic” in heavily-accented English…

      1. My preferred patriotic song is “The Star-Spangled Banner,” with all four verses, especially the third:

        And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
        That the havoc of war, and the battle’s confusion,
        A home and a country should leave us no more?
        Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.

  18. They say things happen in threes.

    1. World Champions Chicago Cubs
    2. Hillary Clinton NOT elected President
    3. ???

      1. Unlike many I post, this conversation actually happened once upon time:

        * purchases a few lottery tickets, different ‘games’ *

        Clerk: And they’re all winners!

        Orvan: Wouldn’t that be an… investigation!

        Clerk: Hrm, yes, it would.

      1. I want cheap cost to orbit, dag nabbit. C’mon folks, we need (okay, I *really really want*) the stars.

        And in the long term, yes, we do need off this rock.

        1. Tell President Trump that if he builds a space elevator, he can name it the Trump Space Transport. He’ll be all over that like a Clinton on a “donation” check.

      2. Contact with Aliens.

        Couldn’t you just go to Daily KOS or Democratic Underground for that?


    1. An honest assessment of their failures by the pollsters and the MSM.

      Hah-ha-hah! Just kidding! Bill Clinton announces he’s gay.

    2. Gay rights activists tell couples in large cities say, “You know, you could just go to a baker who wants your business.”

    3. Leftists say, “You know, you folks in flyover country have a point; we’ll back off and let you manage your own affairs.”

  19. Regarding Schadenfreude, I have been gorging on it today. So delicious and piping hot.

    Apparently some Economics prof at Yale cancelled a midterm today because the poor widdle snowfwakes were upsetted.

    The sweetness of watching certain idiots at Cameltoe Flopatrons blog say EXACTLY what they’ve been denigrating me for saying about vote fraud, gerrymandering and lying polsters, well, let’s just say I may need an insulin infusion!

    Yeah, I’m a bit giddy today. Way to step up and prove the Phantom right, America!

    Because that’s what’s most important here, after all. Me, being right. ~:D

    1. I see the precious little snowflakes are protesting Trump’s election, proving they don’t quite grasp the concept of republics. Especially since I’ve heard from two different sources that some of them didn’t bother to vote.

      1. “But Hillary’s Election Was The Wave Of The Future! It had to happen so we didn’t need to vote!” [Sarcastic Grin]

        1. More seriously, I suspect those snowflakes fell into “Nobody Could Support Trumps” territory.

          IE “Nobody I know voted for Nixon”.

          1. PBS’ pundits were certainly in that camp. One of them literally said, on air, “We don’t know where Trump’s support is coming from”

    2. It’s really amusing to see them argue that there can’t possibly be any vote rigging, even though they’ve just seen Hillary doing just that throughout their primary season — ranging from the public (but stinky) “superdelegate” bullshit, through the various Sanders backstabbings coordinated by the Clinton organization and the DNC, right down to the eighth-grade level crapola of being of cheating on the debate questions.

  20. It seems to me that we now have an opening, an opportunity– nothing more. This election is a wrench in the works of the all-devouring machine, but if we don’t exploit it, they’ll pull the wrench out eventually. That wrench is the reason I pulled the lever for Trump, warts and all, and I suspect I’m not alone.

    Like our hostess, I’ve allotted some time for schadenfreude– one day, to be specific. Tomorrow, I’ll be looking for opportunities to exploit this hiccup. Any advice or opportunity to combine efforts with like-minded lovers of liberty is appreciated. “Build under, build over, build around” is much easier when you’re not alone.

  21. I guess I was one of the few that thought Trump would win and by a fair margin.

    That aside, My Lady you have excellent taste in bourbon. 😀

  22. The fact that he is giving Christie Kreme a large role in transition worries me, because that will probably lead to his appointment as AG. Aside from being a pernicious cockbag, who dutifully sniffed Obama’s jockstrap a few years ago, the Fatass is also an avowed authoritarian. He loves violations of civil rights in the name of a nebulous “national security” concept. As AG he will have the authority to approve spying on pretty much anyone, which in my view puts a lot of the safeguards against such activities at risk. Same goes for that jackass Giuliani.

  23. Has anyone noticed how the election reporting has consistently referred to the “Trump Base” as uneducated rather than non-college educated?

    As if there isn’t ample evidence that college graduates measure as less knowledgeable than when they entered.

    1. This election, and their professors’ reactions to it, may be one of the more useful lessons a lot of kids learn in college.

    2. Although a lot of their writers have forgotten it, NR founder William F. Buckley’s quip about being governed by the first 100 names in the Cambridge phone book comes to mind when they use “uneducated”.

      1. Support for this theory:
        they think that having a high school education leaves you insufficiently educated to teach a small child reading, writing and basic math.

        1. To be fair, given the state of government education these days, they might not be completely wrong.

            1. Of course! Because we all know that if your policies produce the opposite of their stated intent, the solution is to do them more, for longer, until the work the way they were supposed to.

  24. Also note the stock market’s “plunge” is not so plungey after all – the only big drops on my stock watchlist are Smith & Wesson and Ruger, which are both understandable given there’s no Banny-Dowager-Empress driven run in prospect.

    1. That’s also because stock markets dislike volatility. So when Trump won when no one really expected him to, they went into a bit of a shock. It’s normal.

      1. Yep. If things like the repeal (NOT replacement) of the ACA, which I want, happen- volatility. Markets favor stability, but I’ll take a slightly volatile future with the possibility of hope and increasing freedom over the stability of a steady decline (with a sharp drop at the end) any day.

      2. Even CNN pointed out that stock markets fluctuate when there’s uncertainty. Actually, I give props to whoever set up their tech system last night. It was very clear, the anchors had obviously had practice with it, and while they looked flabbergasted, I think they kept it together well (for the portion I watched.)

  25. My acting ability this family’s Thanksgiving dinner is going to be Oscar winning quality, must suppress my sh*t eating grin.

    1. Where I live it’s a “red” state, but the city is more blue than not, and plenty of “conservatives” who think only a hateful racist bigot would possibly vote for the other person than Hillary, and can’t imagine a “good” conservative like me not voting Hillary either.

      My reply is generally “I used to have a secret clearance, and no.”

      1. This was my strongest motivation: There’s either one law for everyone or you will have no laws for anyone.

    2. Over heard someone on campus say “Yeah, the mood on campus is pretty subdued today.”

      Did not butt in with “That’s because Clinton’s supporters are all depressed and Trump’s are all hungover.”

    3. Not me. I WILL RUB IT IN the faces of those snarky relatives (all in-laws) who were gleeful about 0bama the last 8 years……

  26. Now is the time for a Human Wave literary surge! 😀 Can we get something ready for the Inauguration? Or just January in general. Let’s change the headspace all around…

    1. Working on it. Anybody interested in Orcs vs Bolos? Spoiler, Bolos win. Because megatons per second, baby.

    2. The first Powers book is due in December, and teh Alexi Omnibus in print about that time as well. I’ve submitted the “RajWorld” books to A Small Human Wave Press and we’ll see what comes of them. Then comes the next Cat book, and the next Colplatschki book, and . . . oh! The Christmas short story! *smacks forehead* Right, add “get cover art” to list. (It’s not Christmas-Christmas this year, but I fear I have created a monster . . .)

  27. Hmmm…. None other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself all but promised to move to New Zealand if Trump won. Just that one thing, if she followed through with it, would make Trump winning all worth while. Especially if he picks her replacement from the same list he promised to pick Scalia’s replacement from.

    Of course, this is all also assuming his dog didn’t eat that list and he doesn’t just up and put his sister on SCOTUS as he has been known to joke about.

      1. Quite possibly. At the very least, she would not be any better.

        On the other hand, she does not have Harriet Miers chance of getting through an R congress.

      2. Not really, in this instance Trump’s sister was a stand-in for any idiotic idea that Trump might get into his head of a person to nominate. Perhaps you didn’t see the dumb grin on my face… I’ll have to work on that.

    1. Oh, he thinks she’d be great, but knows she’d be, at best, a massive conflict of interest. With ‘R’ s control also a Snowball’s Chance in Hades

    1. Definitely some good advice, there. I’ve got my reservations, but I’m willing to be persuaded. (And as someone who, in the end, held her nose and voted for Trump after all, I definitely won’t be gloating, but I definitely want to see some healing!)

      1. I think societal healing will happen just due to the campaigning being over, and the resulting ending of the the continuous ritual stabbing of the body politic by both sides that has been going on since the conventions.

        But I’m also not expecting much healiness from the Dems, who will be too busy dismembering each other in their civil war for control of their party. If that fully shakes out in time for the midterms in 2018 I will be surprised.

        1. No, I’m not expecting any reconciliation from the Dems (I have a few semi-rational left-leaning friends–most of us agree to just avoid discussing politics with each other) as a whole. I am happy to encourage them (errr, the party, not the friends) in their little civil war, though–maybe something resembling humans will emerge from it.

          Heh. In fact, one of my Democrat friends expressed a wish/hope that the Democratic party will now take this opportunity to clean house and reform.

        2. Clearly, we need more lost dogs …

          Healing, OTOH, requires concession that the person who disagrees with you might possibly be right, or have good reasons for their views, ones that call for your thoughtful and sympathetic attention before you call them racist, sexist, something-or-other-phobic and all around poopy-heads.

        3. Remember that to Democrats “compromise” means “you give me everything I want and I praise you for your bipartisanship. Until you’re running for reelection, at which point you become Satan’s less moral cousin.”

  28. Last night was surprisingly entertaining. I had been watching Netflix because I wanted to avoid the herp-a-derp gloating I was expecting from the lefticle media. One of my coworkers came in about 7 and wanted to watch the election, so I threw on CommunistNewsNetwork. And the schadenfreude was glorious! I kept it on CNN the rest of the night simply because I loved the look of compete and utter disbelief on their faces. Of course later we got hear all about how horrid the racist, sexist, misogynist was going to be and how they didn’t know how to put their kids to bed with the coming horror show, and it was all white people’s fault.

    Locally, my very red state increased its super majorities in both the state House and Senate, holding over 3/4 of the seats in both houses, and not a single Democrat running for a statewide election garnered even 30% of the vote. Both the House and Senate Minority leaders lost, along with the state’s Democratic Party Chairwoman.

  29. “The Schadenfreude:
    I’m going to spend at least a couple of hours eating schadenfreude with a spoon. Everyone who told us the Republicans were finished, and the arrow of history was going their way is having major meltdowns.

    What can I say, I’m not a good person.”

    I trust it will have sprinkles, chocolate chips, peppermint chips, caramel topping, marshmallows and everything else one might want on it. Because you ARE a GOOD person.

  30. Mark Davis (former occasional fill in for Rush) has long said people would crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary.
    I guess he was right.
    I’m glad he was right.
    I just wish it wasn’t trump

      1. No. he didn’t survive the buyout, and is on AM660 the Answer. The morning crew, doing only news and not the fun stuff any longer, and the Truckers radio show got changed to Red Eye radio and they had limits put on what they can do too. Rush, Levin are about the only things left on BAP that remain unchanged

  31. In an interesting post at NRO’s The Corner, Veronique de Rugy suggests several concrete steps Trump could take upon entering office, if not before. Most interesting/important seems to be

    Dismantle Obamacare. I like Michael Cannon’s list of four things Trump can announce in the next few days to make sure the Republican Congress does indeed repeal the law: 1) Aannounce that the subsidies that have been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge will indeed end, 2) announce that the subsidies that the Government Accountability Office has found to be illegal will end, too, 3) refuse to bailout insurance companies, and 4) announce that Congress’s exemption from Obamacare will end in January. Cannon explains that if Trump does these four things, Congress will have to reopen Obamacare in January and repeal it. What you replace it with is a big question, especially since Republicans have not yet coalesced around a single plan. I hope that they will resist the temptation to replace it with “Obamacare Light” and instead consider health-care-savings accounts.

    although the most quickly and least disruptively implemented step to redress the loss of Obamacare might be a two-year refundable tax credit for personal insurance to encourage the individual market — especially if they allow interstate policy sales.

    If they cannot come up with a replacement by the end of two years the credit can be extended.

      1. There was a good study a few years back that directly ties the skyrocketing cost of health care to the fact that insurance *exists*. And as I was reading it, I was like… yup, I watched the exact same thing happen when pet insurance came along in the 1990s. When it hit a critical mass of about 1% of pets, within a few years veterinary charges went up by a factor of TEN, because now everything had to be itemized for the insurance company.. so there was a separate charge for every item. This was exactly what happened when human health insurance became the middleman between patient and doctor.

        One of my sister’s friends works up in the bowels of the health insurance industry, and he says flat out that ACA was designed by and for the benefit and profit of insurance (remember that laws are typically written by lobbyists, not by congresscritters). And it came to me that the ACA might be a deliberate exit strategy for a lot of ’em that can see the socialist writing on the wall, so they figured to get while the getting was good, then get out.

        1. Good reason that any ACA replacement should NOT be universal, not apply to enough people to distort the market. Rather, it should be for exceptional cases that normal health insurance doesn’t handle well, e.g. the person who is transitioning jobs and gets caught by existing-condition clauses, people who plain can’t afford basic coverage; etc.
          The tax-credits idea would probably work well enough for a lot of this, and the total cost be a lot less than operation of exchanges + broad subsidies, etc.

  32. I expect the Dems to become even more hateful than they already have been. They are not the type of people for introspection and the media will be more than happy to continue the rant of -isms to explain the loss.

    Part of me wonders if Trump is actually the only R that could have won this. The constant media attacks did a great job of show-casing media bias to the point you have to be a) not watching or b) a total moron not to see it.

    I still see mostly trouble headed our way. Obama can probably find a way to funnel a few hundred million more into Iran’s nuclear program and the fruits of Obama’s economic failures are still coming our way. The parties that have been helping keep the illusion of a (semi) healthy economy aren’t going to be nearly as interested in doing that for Trump.

    1. I expect the Dems to become even more hateful than they already have been.

      My Facebook feed today has been filled with posts about “bigots”, and how Womens’ Rights suffered a setback. It’s getting me cranky.

      I think before I go to bed tonight, I’m going to throw up a post about the fact that a larger percentage of minorities voted for Trump than voted for Romney.

      1. Today I spent an enjoyable hour sipping leftist tears at a forum I used to frequent, but abandoned when the socialist BS got piled too deep. It got downright comical, as they proclaimed themselves each more frightened than the last. Same nonsense that went around when Reagan was elected. How’d that work out for ya??

      2. Shhh, don’t try and confuse them with reality. Plus, by those minorities voting for Trump, they lost all protections associated with their minority status.

        On the plus side liberals are amazingly predictable.

  33. There’s a Heinlein quote I knew about but didn’t see or think about through the election cycle. And, prescient as normal. Described my vote, and a possible best explanation for Trump winning:

    There may be no candidates and measures you want to vote for… But there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.

  34. Took the boy out for lunch today. He was wearing his Trump shirt under his dress shirt with his suit. Flashed it to let me know he was wearing it for gym class. I told him to make sure he earns the suspension if any of the other kids start trouble (he won’t, he knows better). A couple of our fellow diners came over to compliment the suit and give him a high five for the t-shirt.

    I’m breathing better today. I didn’t realize until I started seeing the results coming in just how badly the dread had started sitting on my chest. We haven’t won much of anything beyond a little space but it might be enough. Space to work, to fight, to keep carving out and shoring up the idea of America so we can pass it down to our kids.

    My daughter helped on her first political campaign this year (he lost, badly) and she’s excited to do it again. At this point, she can recite the preamble and tell me what it means. My son is reading everything he can get and has a copy of the constitution in his backpack. When it’s his turn to vote, he’ll be ready. He’s buying himself airsoft guns. I’ve been invited to ladies night at a local gun club and I might be making the time to go.

    I feel optimistic and that’s something I haven’t been able to say for a long time.

    1. I ❤ you so much.
      I feel the same way exactly. I realized the dread of Clinton inc. taking our governance was like a headache that had gone on so long I wasn't aware of feeling it. This morning I woke up relieved.

  35. Some interesting demographics obtained from Pew Research –

    White voters preferred Trump over Clinton by 21 points.
    White voters preferred Romney over Obama by 20 points.

    Black voters preferred Clinton over Trump by 80 points.
    Black voters preferred Obama over Romney by 87 points.

    That’s a 7 point shift.

    Hispanic voters preferred Clinton over Trump by 65 points.
    Hispanic voters preferred Obama over Romney by 71 points.

    That’s a 6 point shift.

  36. Ain’t this inneresting:

    Six Takeaways About the Supreme Court from Last Night’s Election
    6. On Inauguration Day, nearly half of the seats on the U.S. Courts of Appeals will be either vacant or occupied by a judge eligible to take senior status. I look forward to seeing President-elect Trump continue to identify highly-qualified and principled nominees for these seats. As important as the Supreme Court is, the vast majority of cases are decided in the lower courts and their importance cannot be overstated.

    Emphasis added. Heh.

  37. Oh shoot … I hate to root for a Cubbie, but …

    Cubs’ Jake Arrieta offers to help Hollywood ‘head for the border’ after Trump win
    It’s a message that isn’t sitting well with the pitcher’s fans.

    Jake Arrieta, the Chicago Cubs’ pitching ace and World Series star, delivered a little chin music after Donald Trump was elected president overnight.

    He fired off a tweet mid-morning Wednesday in which he told “Hollywood” to “head for the border,” adding, “#illhelpyoupack #beatit.”

    Time for Hollywood to pony up and head for the border #illhelpyoupack #beatit
    — Jake Arrieta (@JArrieta34) November 9, 2016


      1. I have decided some time ago that such arguments are akin to the kid who argues, ‘If you don’t play my way then I’ll take my ball and go home!’ only to find out that no one cares to baby him.

      2. And if I recall correctly, the few that actually DO head for a border, crawl back a year or so later discovering the rest of the world is not what they thought it.

    1. Yeah, and the local SJW’s are having a screaming snit fit over that too……I laughed so hard I almost had to pull over on I55 on the way home yesterday afternoon. Even Roe Conn was having a hard time with it…..

  38. Let’s not forget, we just elected someone who:

    – Doesn’t support the First Amendment. Trump has talked about changing libel law so that he can sue reporters (or anyone else) who says things about him that he does not like.

    – Doesn’t strongly support the Second Amendment. In his book, Trump talked about supporting “Assault Weapon” bans and I believe some of the other hair brained anti-gun BS. He has a New York concealed carry lic. but seems fine with the idea that that is impossible to get for nearly everyone else. He was also awful quick to agree with Hillary about banning people on the “No Fly” list from purchasing (or owning) firearms.

    – Is not a big fan of property rights. Trump has used Imminent Domain to force people to sell him their property for some of his projects.

    – Isn’t a big supporter of Due Process rights or Probable Cause. See Second Amendment note above, and his admitted support for stop and frisk laws.

    Granted, he has “walked back” on a some of these… or has he? Wouldn’t be the first (nor last) time someone fibbed about their beliefs in the name of political expediency. Also, Hillary is worse (and then some) on all, or nearly all, of these points in addition to her many other flaws.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m very glad that Hillary didn’t win. It’s all kind-of like the choice between starving to death or eating pig slop. You eat the pig slop because you don’t want to die, and in a way you have to admit that you are glad to have it since eating pig slop and living is a much better outcome than just sitting there and starving to death. BUT that doesn’t require you to enjoy the taste. Personally, I’m hoping there is a nice piece of cast off watermelon in my pig slop that isn’t too awful gross (in the form of a good SCOTUS appointment, or two, from Trump), but I’m not counting on it.

    1. “Doesn’t support the First Amendment. Trump has talked about changing libel law so that he can sue reporters (or anyone else) who says things about him that he does not like.”

      You mean the First Amendment that liberals love when they use “private” companies as government propagandists and censors in the classic definition of Fascism? That one?

      1. Well, considering the “proving malice” requirement when a “Public Figure” is libeled, I don’t blame Trump or anybody trying to change the Libel Laws.

        Mind you, that change may require changes to the Supreme Court.

        Note, the problem with Libel Laws (thanks to the Supreme Court) is that if you’re a “Public Figure”, it isn’t enough to prove that the newspaper knowingly lied about you.

        You have to prove that the newspaper lied “maliciously”.

        Mind you, I can’t understand “why knowingly repeating a lie or out-right lying” isn’t malicious by its very nature. 😦

        1. Mind you, I can’t understand “why knowingly repeating a lie or out-right lying” isn’t malicious by its very nature.


          BTW: It was Alexander Hamilton whose argument was responsible for the truth being a sufficient defense when charged with libel.

          1. In the Carrollian logic of the process, one can become a public figure by virtue of having been publicly libeled.

            See: George Zimmerman
            See also: Richard Jewell

            1. Nod.

              That’s the “Catch 22”.

              The News Media decides who is a “Public Figure” and are allowed to libel “Public Figures”.

      2. First, being able to sue for libel is not the same thing as being able to win a libel suit.

        Second, the changes Trump would presumably make would apply for all plaintiffs, not just socially identified special snowflake castes.

        1. RES, there IS a danger in making it easier to file any kind of suit: The process is the punishment. File enough lawsuits, and anyone can be bankrupted even if they “win”. Why do you think the Left is so hot to repeal PLCAA, the law that prevents gun dealers, manufacturers, etc. from being sued just because some low-life uses a gun to shoot someone? They won’t HAVE to go through the process to repeal the Second Amendment.

          Trump’s proposal needs to be tied to a “loser pays” tort reform.

          1. The current standard does nothing to block filing suits, it just makes such suits harder (as in, nearly impossible) to win. A plaintiff with sufficient funds can, as you know, make life hell even with a losing suit.

            That said, I agree with your complaint that the process is abused and agree that tort reform is seriously needed, although I am not sure an absolute “loser pays” standard ought apply — there needs to be a distinction between frivolous suit, suits constituting an abuse of process, and suits brought in absence of clarity in the law and/or facts.

            There also needs to be reform of the process whereby activist groups are funded by the agency they sue in order to force that agency to expand the scope of its regulatory authority.

  39. Krugman’s kat kicked again!

    Wall Street Journal:

    Dow Surges Into Record Territory
    The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a new intraday high and bonds remained under pressure, as investors bet that a Donald Trump presidency could mean more fiscal stimulus, lower corporate taxes and higher inflation.
    5 minutes ago

    Bank Stocks Rally in Europe
    European bank stocks surged as investors bet that a Donald Trump U.S. presidency would herald a watering down of incoming regulation and an increase in interest rates.
    28 minutes ago

    The All-Powerful Bond Market Is Getting Rocked by Trump
    A selloff in government bonds picked up more momentum Thursday, spreading across the world as investors reacted to the prospect of increased fiscal stimulus under a Donald Trump presidency.
    36 minutes ago

  40. I don’t have a problem with Christie being head of the transisiton team. It gives something to him that isn’t as permamently damamging to the USA as a regular cabinet post. Christie still has a govenorship to finish out. I don’t see him doing that aright now so hes contained in New Jersey. He’s Trump’s only person that could administrator a changeover for the presidency, I guess by being a governor and having some idea what to expect.

  41. Apparently some in California want to secede:

    # A fringe political group in California wants to opt out of a Donald Trump presidency by leaving the union.

    # The Yes California Independence Campaign aims to hold a referendum in 2019 that, if passed, would make California an independent country.

    # Far-fetched as it may sound, the plan started gathering steam after Tuesday night’s surprising presidential vote. The movement has an impressive backer in Shervin Pishevar, a well-known angel investor who offered to bankroll a campaign to secede.

    It is an interesting idea. Presuming they agree too certain defense pacts, agree to reimburse the Federal government for various properties and infrastructure held by the national government, mint their own money (or pay an appropriate licensing fee for use of the dollar) and take their share of the national debt I think it could be arranged.

    We would need border checkpoints, of course, with passports required to visit Vegas, Tahoe or Aspen, and there would be a cessation of money transfers covering provision of such services as Medicaid. They’d need to renegotiate fees for water from (for example) Colorado and as any electricity, gas, oil or other energy would now be transiting a national boundary there would have to be appropriate adjustments made.

    Fortunately, we now have an American president who knows how to craft a deal.

    1. National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke offers an alternative to secession:

      … If Californians so wished, they could use their influence in Congress and elsewhere to limit the reach of Washington D.C., and thus of the world’s Donald Trumps. Why don’t they?

      The answer, I think, is that the temptation to control is stronger than the fear of losing concentrated power. It is amazing to me how much overlap there is between those who talk of secession whenever they don’t get their way and those who want to nationalize every political question. How is it, I have wondered aloud for years, that the champions of a big, centralized government cannot see how easily their creation could back to bite them? Did the kids of the Obama era they really believe they were going to win forever? Do they honestly think that History takes sides?

      The great thing about a robust federal system is that it allows people who have different conceptions of the Good Life to live out their lives without ruining everybody else’s day. A smaller federal government doesn’t stop Californians from doing whatever they want in their state; it merely stops them from imposing their will on Florida or Maine or Idaho. And, in turn, it stops the people of Florida or Maine or Idaho from imposing their will on California in such cases as they obtain the upper hand. Or, put another way, federalism permits Californians to live as they see fit and it limits their exposure to those they dislike. Given how different people are in Brooklyn and Mississippi, I’d expect to see more interest in this arrangement than I do.

      1. True, federalism would be a better answer to California’s different values; similarly, the proposals to subdivide California into (3?) states would help Californians have governments that better reflected local values.

Comments are closed.