Sanity Check by Thomas Kendall

thread-1484387_1920

Sanity Check by Thomas Kendall

Am I the only one weirdly relieved by the allegations against Trump?

Look—the Left has been digging into Trump so intensively from every angle for so long, something semi-real was going to come out eventually. I have a strong suspicion that one of life’s dirty secrets is that nobody makes it to the level of president without some skeletons buried somewhere.

Still— could be a lot worse, if this is what they’ve got. I mean, let’s say Trump paid off a porn star and some other girls on the side? So who gives a damn? I’m not even going to parse arguments about, oh-technically-his-lawyer-paid-them-and-Trump-paid-his-lawyer. That’s where the campaign finance argument comes in, but honestly, that’s a sideshow and it’s obvious it’s a sideshow. The Left wouldn’t play it up or really care at all, except it’s new fodder for a ten-second hate. Enough of these, they figure— enough tying random bits of yarn between the various push-pins that mark the locations of all their other Trump-themed cry-a-thons— and the resulting cat’s cradle will magically weave an attractive tapestry. I presume of the socialist paradise we’ll all unthinkingly head for—maybe it’ll be Ocasio-Cortez’s [Tom, if you insist on misspelling Occasional Cortex, I won’t let you do any more guest posts. – SAH]  slasher-smile and slightly over-protuberant eyeballs. Nothing like some natural charisma, eh?

I can’t help but notice how conveniently this latest waterfall of tears gives them an excuse to pretend to be high-toned and principled while actually pearl-clutching—and trying to encourage pearl-clutching—over the idea that he paid off women he slept with. Because forgive me my doubts, but we’re talking about the party that ran Hillary “Pay-To-Play” Clinton, who was all but handing a pricing menu to foreign leaders she met with before the 2016 election. I have trouble taking Democrats seriously when they find a sudden new respect for campaign finance laws. But muh illegal activities! Said the people who let Hillary Clinton skate on breaking so many laws regarding national security with her bathroom server, she could have temporarily rebranded her campaign as a 24 hour-a-day, 7 day-a-week show called “Hillary on Ice” (Not to be confused with the Left’s immigration, for want of a better term, plan, “Democrats off ICE”). But then if Hillary Clinton can dodge FOIA requests, well, that’s probably best for the Democratic party, and pretty much everyone who knows that that’s likely why she did it, also, shall we say, appreciates that political reality. Don’t even get me started about supporting the federal government in doing some of the most blatant election tampering in favor of the Democrats – maybe the worst perversion of the electoral system this side of the 3rd world. Law has a special meaning for Democrats: it’s another word for “institutionalized political warfare”. Going after Democrats with it is therefore nonsensical, and by the same token, we haven’t got a lot of reason to respect their opinions on it.

So it ain’t about that. But that’s okay, because as I said, it was kind of transparently obvious. So, okay, fine, Democrats. You want to talk ethics? You want to delve into the “what won’t he stoop to” strata and see what’s there? Okay, lets do that. Pull out that backhoe. I’ve always wanted to listen to moralizing about conduct with women from the party of Bill Clinton, JFK and Ted Kennedy. I mean, Seriously? And speaking of that last one, say what you want, Stormy still has a pulse. And she got paid, not just threatened and intimidated the way Bill Clinton’s old flames did. Even in scandals, Trump manages to look better in a side-by-side comparison, for Christ’s sake. Being a high-ranking Democrat’s ex-bit-on-the-side is less lucrative and more dangerous.

Just saying, as hills to die on go, Democrats picking this one is one step short of accusing Trump of being too focused on centralized projects managed from Washington. Oh, you can make the case, but if you were literally the party of giant Washington-managed projects, maybe it wouldn’t be your best play, right?

Anyway, even on a practical level, look, forgive me, I just don’t see a whole Hell of a lot to get exercised about here. Breaking news! Wealthy playboy billionaire playboys around and then pays women off not to talk about it using wealth! Also dropped rocks fall to the ground! And water makes things wet! We are making some exciting, totally groundbreaking discoveries here today!

I don’t feel myself suddenly wanting to rob the rich to give to the politically connected at this news, but who knows, maybe that’s just me. One of the most confusing things about the American electorate sometimes is that it’s not always particularly predictable. To me, the argument there comes down to: “Oh, Trump practiced marital infidelity. Thank the lord there’s an alternative party with equally bad problems with marital infidelity but way scarier problems regarding how they’ve managed it. Sign me up for huge taxes again—the economy will soon be so stagnant I’ll pay very little either way. That’ll show him! I’ll starve to death if I have to. Won’t that make him feel bad!”. From where I stand it all sounds stupider than trying to eat grilled rocks. With a plastic knife.  And no other utensils. Who knows how it plays on main-street, though. The press hopes it plays well.

But Democrats, let’s just suppose, by some tragic long shot, it doesn’t. Whatever might go wrong? Well, I’ll make this easy for you. Let’s just dispense with the idea there’s any serious journalism anymore regarding Trump. Hey, you. Yeah, you, in the audiovisual department of the Democratic party. You want to really damage Trump where I’m concerned? You might want to show examples of him supporting, well, your policies. Or really just any bad policies. I mean, honestly, there’s more air between he and I on the subject of protectionism than anything as is. If the “trade war” ends up being just a trade war, and not a complicated play to force re-negotiated trade agreements out of China—and if China doesn’t re-negotiate more favorable trade agreements, then, well, de facto that’s what it is—I can see how he could be fairly criticized for that. Not saying it’ll make me vote for Democrats—that probably won’t happen for a while, depending on how long it takes your party to get a mass prescription for anti-psychotics, put down the socialism and back away slowly. It’d make a Hell of a lot more progress towards that goal than you’re making right now, though.

But criticizing his personal conduct? Honeychild, you have no room to talk on that subject anymore. I don’t know if you’ve had room for a couple of decades now. Certainly not when you’re still actively having feverish wetdreams of how you almost elected the most corrupt politician maybe ever to hold office, if it hadn’t been for that meddling Trump and his little voters too. In any case, I voted for Trump to be president, not pope (though given what we have now—but I digress). I’m not asking him to be a moral and spiritual leader. Given where Washington has brought us already in terms of limiting freedom, increasing regulations, raising taxes and raising spending, I have more important things to worry about than Trump’s little black book. As long as Trump looks like the most viable way of stopping all that nonsense—and there’s no contest, really, when you stand him up next to someone like Ocasio-Cortez—he’s  still going to have my support.

And I don’t think I’m alone.

327 responses to “Sanity Check by Thomas Kendall

  1. You’re right … you’re not alone!

  2. I just asked my voices and none of us are alone, so we can offer you plenty of company all by myself. I look at the proglodyte indignation in my facebook and twitter streams and wonder, not if they’re right or wrong, but why would they think this would matter?!

  3. None I know voted Trump because they thought he was some super-moral human. Hell, I knew what a leftoids leftoid he was, donating the max allowed to the commie McCaulfy, running in Virginia just before coming out and saying he was running for the nomination as a Republican. I don’t/didn’t trust the man. I’m not NeverTrump, but can’t want happy he got the nomination. So far, he’s made me very happy to be wrong about him.
    Trump won for being Not Hillary. All his kept promises and rather nice judge picks is simply gravy.

    • Hope oh how does “wasn’t” become “can’t want” in Android? E-fecking-gad.

    • I’m fairly certain Melania knows all about her husband’s infidelities. Thing is, she doesn’t seem to have an informal goon squad going around trying to cover them up like a certain former resident of the Arkansas governor’s mansion.

      I’m sure that such flings hurt Melania. Who wouldn’t be hurt? On the other hand, Donald keeps coming back to her; and in all the material things, she’s got it made. No relationship is perfect.

      As long as the President doesn’t lie to an official inquiry (like Martha Stewart did), or under oath (like Bill Clinton), he can get away with saying pretty much anything

      • Do consider that at the upper echelons of most European society the triumvirate of wife, husband, mistress is hardly unheard of.
        And were Trump a liberal who announced that he, his wife, and his girlfriend had a very cozy relationship, well the left would laud them for their very open progressive relationship.

        • Yeah, didn’t these same Dems lecture us about that triumvirate in the 90s pointing to a recent state funeral in France where the former President’s wife and mistress sat together at the funeral?

          • Francois Mitterand. So very, very French.

          • Why yes, yes they did. Thanks for jogging my memory on that.

            Most Americans in flyover country probably relate more to the mistress wife relationship in Carrie Underwood’s song Two Black Cadillacs.

            • As the joke goes…

              A doctor, a lawyer and a scientist were discussing the relative merits of having a wife or a mistress.

              The lawyer says: “Certainly a mistress is better. If you have a wife and want a divorce, it causes all sorts of legal problems.”

              The doctor says: “It’s better to have a wife because the sense of security lowers your stress and that is good for your health.”

              The scientist says: “You’re both wrong. It’s best to have both so that when the wife thinks you’re with the mistress and the mistress thinks you’re with your wife — you can get some work done!”

      • I have yet to understand how Dems can condemn a woman for staying with her man for material wealth, but celebrate (as a feminist icon no less) one who stays with her man for a Senate seat.

      • IIRC, the claimed tryst with Ms. Daniels supposedly happened shortly after Trump married Melania. AFAIK, there’s only one other payoff that Trump has made recently – to a former Penthouse model – which suggests that he might have cut back on his playing the field.

      • “Thing is, she doesn’t seem to have an informal goon squad going around trying to cover them up like a certain former resident of the Arkansas governor’s mansion.”

        And Trump didn’t use various AR and Federal agents as his pimps and procurers.

    • How did Trump win the Republican nomination?

      • A couple of things… the media wanted Hillary to face him. Hillary wanted Hillary to face him. There was some early cross isle voting that created momentum. The left was terrified of “dominionist” Ted Cruz (yeah, I’d never heard of that before either but still had to “talk down” random people from England who’d been convinced that it was a “thing”.)

        And I think that the bottom line was that Trump understood people better than anyone else. He understood that no one could be nice or reasonable enough to avoid the slander. He understood that the slander was directed at regular Americans on a daily basis and people were angry. He understood that the working man and woman cares about jobs and hadn’t seen crap-all from Obama’s “recovery”. And I think that he genuinely pulled blue collar Democrat votes once he got going.

        • My bottom line was “NOT HILLARY”.

          • I would have voted for Putin over Hillary had that been the choice.

            • Heh. It’s been weird. Putin would do or say something strongly partisan in favor of Russia and some Americans would compare that to Obama and say admirable things about Putin. That *never* meant that anyone liked him or trusted him, but having your own country’s leader act like they put your country first? What a wonderful concept.

              (If Putin can tell the difference between himself and his country is a different question, but there you go.)

              • He’s like a Russian Garak, hiding as Gul Dukat instead of as a tailor.

                Entertaining, but you don’t want to be in the same area.

              • Over a decade ago, I read a comment by a member of the Russian opposition talking about Putin. The gist of his comment was that Putin was a completely dishonest and corrupt bastard, *but* Putin did a lot of what he did because he genuinely thought it would help Russia. The opposition member was *really* worried about what would happen when Putin finally left office, and got replaced by someone who was just as corrupt, but who didn’t really care about Russia.

        • I have yet to get why Hillary wanted Trump over Cruz and:

          1. I’m a Cruz fan.
          2. I voted Cruz in the primaries.

          But even I realize the standard Dem Demonization Routine would have worked well on him. Much better than I thought it could on Trump (and orders of magnitude better than it really did on Trump).

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            Speaking as some who spent May 3 through election day in a state of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

            I’m significantly less of a Cruz fan these days. a) He sponsored SESTA. b) I think Trump’s response to Charlottesville was significantly more Presidential.

            Reasons for a Democrat to have preferred Trump over Cruz in the primaries. 1) Just as most long term Republican politicians knew that Trump’s approach would poison their chances at electoral success, so to did the Democrats. Cruz can win in Texas. Democrats had a lot of reason to expect that someone with a behavioral profile like Trump’s would be easy to demonize and defeat. They’ve even had some subsequent success with some of the would be Trump imitators. 2. Cruz had a reputation for being a sharp debator. I’m not sure how she would have fared against him in the general debates, but she might have feared him. Trump, whatever his ego issues are, is willing to look stupid. The professional wrestling thing, and many others, may have legitimately earned a reputation as a buffoon. More generally, after Obama the Democrats would have found it easy to get caught in a group think of “the more ‘educated’ will win”. 3. He’d spent time sucking up to the Clintons. Given Hillary’s obvious issues, would that have earned her respect, or convinced her he was a tool? 4. I have not discarded the ringer hypothesis. If she was strongly convinced of it, she would have preferred Trump.

            • ” Trump, whatever his ego issues are, is willing to look stupid. ”

              Or you could turn it around and say that Trump isn’t afraid to look stupid. Because that’s what makes a difference between him and a lot of other politicians. They FEAR being seen as being fallible in anything. The Donald makes a mistake, he just shrugs his shoulders and presses on.

            • The Ringer Hypothesis.

              For a while I was convinced that Trump was willingly playing a stalking goat for the Republicans, drawing all the flack (and mixing all of his metaphors), and at some point he’d back out and the relatively unscathed remaining candidate would step forward. I don’t know for how *long* I was convinced of that but the campaign season was so surreal.

              My husband, I think, thought Trump was working for Hillary outright. And still is halfway certain that it’s true but that one day he realized that he could win and his ego took over.

              Which is the problem with both theories.

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                I think he was surprised that he won.

                If true, the charitable explanation is that he understood the risks, the messaging strategy was calculated, and he honestly wanted to win.

                The hostile explanation is that he wasn’t serious about winning.

              • Seriously, even if *I* was the one running some kind of a rope-a-dope with that– it would be irresistible about the time Cruz dropped out.

          • The Democrats didn’t (and still don’t, really) understand what the American voters were looking for. As such, they thought that Trump’s appeal (which they still mistakenly believe is low brow racism) was going to fail miserably. And almost all of the polls were telling them that was the case (I think there were three polls total that indicated that the race was actually close right before Election Day).

            • I don’t see Trump as racist. If anything, he’s very anti-racist. Wipe out the affirmative action stuff, and let everyone compete in a playing field where you make your own advantages, i.e. you win or lose by your own merits.

              • One would hope that you don’t see him as racist. But racism is the standard Dem explanation for his statements and actions.

                • That seems to be the Dem/Left explanation for *everything*. It has the advantage of excusing everyone involved from ever having to engage another point of view or argue policy, after all, one does not engage with racists.

                  • It excuses even the need to THINK, much less engage anyone.

                  • Nah. They have sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and others too

                  • Patrick Chester

                    “You hate women and minorities!1!! REEEE!!!” -standard Prog/Dem answer to any dissent/opposition.

                    Heck, look at what the Hugo clique did in response to Sad Puppies. *sigh*

                    • I suppose that anyone should have expected it, all told.

                      But clearly *explaining your objection* is not enough. Your disagreement itself is proof of your crime. Right?

                      But Puppies committed a further crime, something even worse than whatever gets reflexively labeled misogynist or racist… Puppies (in so many words) told a whole bunch of older white women (counting Scalzi here) that *they weren’t good people.* By saying that what they were doing was damaging to the genre (and to “diverse” authors!), by pointing out that they *were* absolutely sacrificing adventure and fun and exploration… art itself… for their bit of virtue signaling, choosing and celebrating something other than an author’s skill at storytelling, by pointing out the damage caused by round robin voting for the same people year after year because it was their turn, Puppies attacked their very VALUE as human beings and said that their little performance did not make them GOOD.

                      Oopsie.

                    • Patrick Chester

                      It’s the problem with virtue signaling: It’s all signal, and no virtue.

                      I tend to just call it “signaling” nowadays.

          • Trump had a rather long “friendship” with Bill and Hill, and was still showing face at most of the same parties and was supporting people she would want supported right up until he called the two for a meeting to let them know he was running, and it would be as a Republican. Remember, Trump was one of Hillary’s leads in the Birther carp her people came up with in the run-up to 08. She figured, with his attacks, he’d weaken who ever got the nom, or if he got it himself then roll easy on her.
            She, the revenger who remembers slights with a purple passion, forgot someone else might as well.

          • herbn, don’t discount the fact that the Republican establishment hated, and still hates, Cruz more than they do Trump. Bob Dole famously admitted that, and further admitted that it was because they thought that Trump didn’t have Cruz’s principles, but could be negotiated with / bribed.

        • I still think he implied he’d go soft on Hillary when he met she and Bill just before declaring he was running.

      • Same way he won the election, by offering voters an alternative to the same old tired crap they’ve been fed for low these many years. He said things that resonated with all those forgotten souls in flyover country.

        • And will wonders ever cease? He’s actually delivering, in spite of all the Anarchists, Antifas, Commies, Dems, erzatz Fascists, Liberals, Leftists, Marxists, Maoists, Progressives, Socialists, RINOs and GOP Elitists fighting him every millimeter along the way.

          • Don’t forget the Libertarians. The party of Gary Johnson is going to be utterly opposed to a man trying to shrink government.

            -Albert

            • This was the same party whose platform as espoused by its representatives was ‘bake the cake’, gun control, unlimited immigration and pot.

            • I can’t see Trump shrinking government, though he’s working on reducing (or un-duplicating) regulations because he knows how stifling that is to business and the economy, but at his heart I think he’s an old fashioned “government should do all the things” sort of fellow.

              But there again, the choice was between him and Her, not him and a “small government” choice.

              • But there again, the choice was between him and Her, not him and a “small government” choice.

                This.

                I was not and am not a Trump fan. He has done much better than I expected after being elected, although I was totally unsurprised by him supporting gun control after election, despite his claims to the contrary while running. He has however in general kept much more of his campaign promises than the average politician. I didn’t like some of those promises, but I can’t fault him for staying true to them.

                If there was a reasonable choice I would have voted against him, but we had Hillary or if you want to include totally out of the realm imaginable long shots that technically had a possibility of winning (because he was on all fifty states ballots) Gary Johnson. Both of which were even FARTHER left than Trump. Like many/most elections it boiled down to the choice of the lesser evil. Frankly while I still don’t like him and would prefer a better choice he has somewhat favorably impressed me since being elected.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        See above explanation. Media gave Trump a great deal of coverage. They gave him significantly more than they gave any other Republican. Beyond thinking Hillary would surely beat Trump, they also have a strong need for ratings, and covering Trump brought ratings.

        Trump really did split off a lot of blue collar Democrats in the General Election. People who had voted for Obama at least once. That may have had some influence in the Primary.

        A lot of Republican politicians have internalized the idea that they have to behave very carefully, or the media will tear them to shreds. Trump hasn’t. I personally thought that would help cost him the election. I’m personally pissed at the Republican Establishment quislings for not seeing that there comes a time when go along to get along is no longer appropriate. I figured that people who felt likewise would find Trump too much of a Democrat to stomach. No, they just wanted someone who would stab the Democrats with the shards of the shattered norms. They wanted Trump.

        And Trump seems to have a lot of people smarts, even if with a rather peculiar focus.

        • To quote Lincoln about Grant, “he fights”.

          • OTOH, that’s also what Jeff Davis said about John Bell Hood, and look at what that got him.
            Now, I suspect that Trump isn’t as mindlessly aggressive as Hood was, but I’m still waiting on the midterms and the outcome of the investigations before I conclude that he won’t be a disaster.

        • The media didn’t “give” Trump the coverage. He played them the way a master violinist plays a Strad. And he’s still doing it to a large extent.

          • And the hysterical part is, they don’t seem to realize it. Trump treads on theor toes, and they scream and gibber every time…amd the Trup voter love it. Moreover, most people other than the Die Hard Left think the media reaction is imbecile.

          • even as a leftoids getting awards from leftoid orgs, Trump and the MSM rarely got along, and it did little to him business-wise, or personally. After all those years, you’d think they’d notice the same patterns, but then what’s that definition of insanity? (~_^)

      • When he got accused of everything Republicans get accused of he fought back.

        That was so weird and rare it stunned everyone into making him their second choice and he just waited for the others to fall.

      • How did Trump win the Republican nomination?

        Bottom line answer: Jeb!

        The R establishment could not winnow the way-too-large field without winnowing Jeb! and his disastrously flat campaign. Though he raised a lot of money. Jeb! was the anointed savior of the establishment Rs, so they had to leave the primary field too large for too long, which prevented a clear not-Donald primary leader from emerging.

        The way to have defeated Trump would have been to narrow down to the strongest two not-Trump candidates by the second R primary debate. The problem with that strategy was neither of those two could conceivably be Jeb!, plus the R establishment was nearly as allergic to Ted Cruz, who was almost certain to make that cut.

        I think the vast flow of money to Jeb! pre-primaries combined with his nothingburger campaign basically prolonged the too-many-kids-in-the-kiddy-pool effect as a variant of the sunk cost fallacy – it didn’t matter how much was given to Jeb!, because he sucked as a candidate. So they dithered and delayed strongarming any of the large R primary field from exiting stage left.

        And that time allowed people to start to listen to the Trump campaign message, which ended up resonating strongly with all those deplorables, especially in the states-skipped-by-Hillary.

        I really like Ted Cruz, but I’m not sure he would have been able to swing the win against all the media hurricane-force headwinds combined with all the October surprises the Clinton Machine had stacked up for him, and I’m certain all the others would have lost honorably like McCain and Romney.

        But Trump Fights, and he won. And so far, so good.

        • There was a quip during the primary – “The Republican establishment fears Trump. But they *hate* Cruz.”

          • Not sure it wasn’t the other way around, it could be argued both ways, but the bottom line was those were the only two that resonated with voters and the established despised both, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place and didn’t have a candidate to give them a hand out.

            • A lot of us suspect that they were hoping that Kasich could act as a spoiler. If neither Trump nor Cruz were able to get a clear majority, then the vote could be thrown to Kasich on the second ballot. Thus Kasich’s insistence on staying in the race long after it had ceased to be possible for him to win, and his sudden about face and withdrawal from the primary immediately after Cruz dropped out – which was contrary to what he (Kasich) had said just the day before.

        • The eulogies I read when Jeb! quit the race, all along the lines of “Farewell, sweet prince, and angels sing thee to thy rest,” convinced me that _he_ was the _planned_ opposition. The kind of guy who could be counted on to depress Republican turnout.

          They thought Trump was a buffoon, but he’s really an expert troll, the jester who can utter truths no one else dared to. (Alongside being an expert negotiator.) And it should be no surprise that the followers of a disciple of Lucifer Morningstar are so prideful that being mocked sends them into frothing rage.

          -Albert

      • By using the leftoids’s tactics against both the leftoids, and the others, but especially against the establishment gop. It helped that the GOP party folk always seem to work out for us to suffer perhaps the squishiest sots as candidates thinking we have to run center center (usually by an establishment lib rino running to the right of many of their normal positions) in order to woo the leftoid base or some similar foolishness.

      • The early primaries were open primaries where Democrats and independents could crossover and vote in the Republican primary- and did- encouraged by Democrat Party leaders to vote for the Republican’s weak candidate, Donald John Trump. After all, Hillary had the nomination locked up. Ooops- she didn’t, it became a horse race. By the time they realized that, Trump was the front runner. IF- IF Republican party leaders had united around Cruz and told everyone else to drop out, he likely could have beaten out Trump. But the party leaders hated Cruz as much as they hated Trump, and they figured Trump would lose and they would be blameless in the spectacle. And regain power over the party. He wasn’t supposed to win. He upset Republican party leader plans as much as Democrat plans by doing so.

        • And remember Kasich staying in the primary with just a handful of delegates until the exact moment when Cruz dropped out. Further, in dropping out, he reversed an announcement that he’d made just hours before.

    • Hillary: six cartridges in the revolver.
      Trump: five cartridges in the revolver.
      [VOTE]
      SPIN!
      Damn, we got lucky.

      • Ha! That too. “This WILL go bad,” vs. “This MIGHT go bad.”

      • Trump doesn’t have the extensive background of oikophobia, Internationalism, academic socialism, and a general hatred of America that Hillary and most Democrats cling to.

      • at least so far. I were worried, but then post election things became really clear why he ran and is doing what he is. 0bama went personal insults at the Press Dinner, and Hillary gave him a cold shoulder instead of support afterwards. Trump is rich enough he can be left or right and see little difference, but he takes personal revenge to the next level. He seems happy to do anything that will ensure 0bama’s legacy is only failures.so although we got 5 in the chambers, they might well be some snap-caps mixed in.

      • Pretty much how I felt about the election. With the two ‘outsider’ candidates being ‘don’t know how many rounds are in THOSE two revolvers.

    • None I know voted Trump because they thought he was some super-moral human.

      I know….although it is funny to see “Democrat then Catholic” types lecture me on the immorality of voting for notorious sinners.

  4. #MeToo was an anti-Trump op that backfired and set off a whole munitions factory in DemocRat-Land.

    Reason being, Trump sleeps around, and is a gentleman with it. Takes “no” for an answer, doesn’t beat up chicks, treats people right, and pays on time.

    AKA he’s a normal rich guy. Compare and contrast with the sick sh1t being exposed about the Left wing. They’re perverts. Plain and simple. Using power and position for access to new victims.

    This is just the stuff we already know about, not the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory business. The stuff so reluctantly reported by the New York Slimes.

    I was just mentioning to somebody that I used to hear people randomly going off on Obama or the national debt at the grocery store when I would visit the USA. I don’t hear that stuff anymore. Nobody is going off on Trump at the store.

  5. So, many quotes:

    “But criticizing his personal conduct? Honeychild, you have no room to talk on that subject anymore. I don’t know if you’ve had room for a couple of decades now. ”

    From my perspective, at least 1/2 a century. Before that I’m an infant & toddler, so I’ll give them the 50’s.

    “You might want to show examples of him supporting, well, your policies.”

    ** snort ** OTOH should it freeze where most theology say is hot, then they will scream about how bad the Trump supported policy is. /evil grin/ then President Trump can say “hmmm, you’re right horrible idea.” Shock (from “them”) … more screaming.

    “Breaking news! Wealthy playboy billionaire playboys around and then pays women off not to talk about it using wealth! Also dropped rocks fall to the ground! And water makes things wet!”

    What! Wait! A guy, not a widow, on what, his 3rd wife, had/has fidelity issues. No? Really? Wow. I thought only (pick your favorite version) who didn’t have money did that. AND water makes things WET? What? /sarcastic tag JIC

    Currently they are getting the same treatment that a screaming toddler throwing a tantrum, that isn’t mine, gets. Mine I’d at least stand there & make sure safe. Anyone else’s, walk away, well okay, run, very fast. Just keep an eye out to be sure something stupid isn’t sneaked in.

    FYI. FWIW. I’ve been known to make the this observation more than once. Not appreciated by my audience.

    No. You are not alone.

  6. Geesh Louise! Don’t give the Leftists really good ideas, Sarah. “You might want to show examples of him supporting, well, your policies” is exactly the best tactic the Democrats could use speaking to the conservative Right. Then the Republicans for Trump would have to scramble twice as fast to demonstrate that those policies are the ones held in common by both parties; and the anti-Trump GOP would use it to foist some leftist in RINO clothing on us.

  7. If we voted for “most morally upright individual,” Mitt Romney would be serving his third term. Instead we vote for “most likely to get done things I agree with,” or “anyone but that thing over there.”

    I look at what the current administration has actually done – cut regulation, trimmed taxes, thinned out the bureaucracy, gotten better trade agreements at least tentatively started, and improved the economy and public mood – and compare that to the latest media follies. I’ll take the womanizing rich dude who is honest in his vices over pretty much the entire (D) party menu, thankyouverymuch.

    • Hell, I’ll take him over the entire current crop of Democrats and a Kennedy lookalike to be named later.

    • Which is why you are considered a horrible person by the Cruise Ship Conservatives like David French at NRO and Bill Kristol over at Weekly Standard, who are advising their ilk to vote for Democrats for the next two cycles so the Republicans will be out of power and properly purged.

  8. oh-technically-his-lawyer-paid-them-and-Trump-paid-his-lawyer

    That’s actually the important part right there if the charge is campaign finance related. If the lawyer just paid the settlement AND was never paid back, perhaps that money could, if one were to Hate Trump hard enough, seem like it comprised a Campaign Finance violation. HOWEVER, Since Trump paid the lawyer back (which of course he would, that’s how lawyers work.. DUH) the money in question, even if one were to believe (read HATE TRUMP) with every fiber of their being was an actual Campaign Contribution. The ultimate source of that money was TRUMP HIS OWN DISGUSTING SELF. Given that a candidate isn’t limited by Campaign Finance law as to how much of HIS OWN DAMN money he can spend on his OWN DAMN campaign, WITHOUT campaign finance rules even remotely being smudged, bruised, or feeling dirty after a particularly lame consensual encounter, this is all a bunch of hooey.

    • BINGO!

    • I think the argument would be:

      1. His lawyer made a campaign contribution.
      2. Trump reimbursed his lawyer’s campaign contribution.

      That is illegal and Obama even put a conservative writer in prison for it.

      I don’t buy it, because if they make that a campaign contribution the FEC is going to have to start fining CNN to death over donations to Dems and, honestly, to Trump for all the free media.

      • The assumption there is that there would be any action against the superior class. The law is just a bludgeon against those not inside or useful to rhe government

    • My burning question is: if you pay off a porn star to keep quiet, and later on she talks, shouldn’t you get your money back?

      • Yep. Clear violation of the contract. $100,000 makes it a felony, grand theft. Should draw prison time for it.

        • Wanna bet Trump didn’t expect this from the start. As we’ve said here, after they way they dismissed all the accusations against President Bubba they look damn foolish going after him for screwing around.

          • That assumes that the population is aware of bubba’s more serious transgressions. Their base barely knows who Clinton is. They are pretty sure that by distorting media, separating everyone into identity groups, and properly prosletyzing the students in schools they don’t need old people to vote for them.

            As bad as 8-16 were in terms of being trapped because no work, advancement, the daily lamentations that i should either pay out the nose twice or get less effective medical care so that trust fund kiddies don’t have to be worried or lift a finger to take responsibility, and so on, I don’t think it was dystopic, or nightmarish as was done (since masks were all on). But those are the terms tossed around by the dem base. And its motivating em well enough.

        • The argument made by Ms. Daniels is that because Cohen (i.e. Trump’s lawyer) started talking about the NDA, it was breached by Trump’s camp, and she gets to keep the money. Remember that right up until Cohen started talking, she was silent on the matter. I think I remember hearing that she was going to court to argue that, though I don’t think I heard anything beyond that.

  9. (Hm, WP took my comment and then didn’t save it. Weird)

    “Semi-real”, I don’t think so. Not the Cohen case, which I think is what’s the subject here. Prof. Alan Dershowitz explained it quite nicely the other day.

    The claim is that Trump made an illegal campaign contribution (by paying for a non-disclosure agreement), using Cohen as the conduit. For starters, it’s quite questionable whether considerations for an NDA are a campaign contribution rather than a normal business or personal transaction. But let’s stipulate that it is, in this particular instance. If so, there are two possibilities.

    a. The payment was made by Trump, and the other parties are channels or agents. If so, it’s a candidate contributing to his own campaign. By law, there are NO limits on such contributions (Buckley v. Valeo). There was some argument “but this was just before the election”. Irrelevant. Or “but it was to influence the election”. Well, yes, that’s the purpose of campaign contributions.
    b. The payment was NOT made by Trump. If so, perhaps there was a crime (excessive contribution) but then of course by definition the crime doesn’t involve Trump, otherwise you’re back at case (a).

    What’s going on in the Cohen case is that he was charged with excessive campaign contribution, and he actually pleaded guilty to (a) — saying “yes I did that but it was as the agent for Trump”. But since (a) isn’t a crime, that makes one wonder what Lanny Davis, Cohen’s attorney, was thinking. I can see some possibilities.

    1. Nothing. He didn’t understand that (a) isn’t a crime.
    2. He was trying to tarnish Trump to serve the interests of his main client, the Democratic party, and he was happy to throw his supposed client Cohen under the bus in the attempt.
    3. He’s a very clever dude who’s trying to get the government to agree that the actual charge is “Cohen paid xyz as agent for Trump” so he can turn around and say “Gotcha. Your Honor, that isn’t a crime, so please dismiss those charges”.

    I’m still not sure which of these three answer I believe is the correct one.

    • There seems to be a whole lot of threatening family members and coercing pleas going on.

      • Very typical behavior by the Clintons and their protege’s. They tried to destroy Bill Dale’s wife and kids families trying to get him to consent to a guilty plea. (And actually succeeded in causing Mrs. Dale to have a stroke from the stress of the trial and investigation. That alone is reason enough for me to cheer if someone feeds HRC a high velocity lead suppository.)

        • I don’t want her shot. I want her A) introduced to Large Marge in cellblock 3 or B) so diminished in importance, even to Democrats, that nobody will take her calls anymore (which she would hate more)

          • re: Large Marge.

            Frankly, I would rather HRC have a nice, safe, lengthy stay in jail. You know as well as I do that ANYTHING that happened to her in jail would be BIG NEWS (with intimations that the Republicans caused it), and keep her in the hearts and minds of the Leftists where she would soon rise to the level of martyr (whether she was killed or not, because that’s how it works on the left).

            Yea… a long boring slide into irrelevancy. That’s the ticket!

          • Geoff Withnell

            With regard to A) are you sure she wouldn’t enjoy that?

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      Lanny Davis appears to have spoken twice to a media organization in the same article. Once quoted on the record saying one thing. Another time anonymously saying the opposite. I’m inclined to conclude that he is a sack of shit, and that it will be some time before I can trust anything about the Cohen matter.

      • That much was apparent when Billy Jeff was infesting inhabiting the Oval Office.

      • Davis apparently was the unnamed source for certain comments about events that supposedly took place in Trump Tower. CNN reported what Davis had anonymously told them. Then Davis publicly said, “Actually, my client doesn’t know anything about that.” CNN publicly stood by its story, and has not issued a retraction or a correction. Due to this, Trump tweeted that CNN was lying. CNN, of course, acted like one would expect (hint – it doesn’t involve an apology or a retraction).

    • Embrace the power of “and” on 2&3. Davis might be trying to serve both masters via that ploy.

    • Lanny Davis is the House Clinton Consigliere, no matter what or who he claims to be representing.

      This understanding explains many mysteries.

      It would be interesting to ping the state bar on how Cohen’s counsel accepting a plea deal pleading Cohen guilty to something that is not a crime matches up to counsel’s duty to act in the best interest his client.

    • Actually, it’s more along the lines of Mueller and the Southern District New York US Attorney suborning perjury.

      “Mr Cohen, we’ve got six charges here: four of them are the tax evasions you personally did. Normally these would be handled in Tax Court with a fine and penalty, but we’re going to prosecute you on them and send you to jail. Oh, and because your wife signed your joint returns where you told her to, we’ll prosecute her too.

      However….. here are these other two “charges” that we’ve cooked up that make you committing a crime on behalf of Trump. Plead guilty to those and read our script, and we’ll drop the real charges.”

  10. Maybe if we ask the Chinese they might locate an email that they just happen to have in hand from The Dowager Empress to Mrs. Weiner that explains how evil Teh Donald is for negotiating and then paying NDA settlements to women instead of dispatching low class Private Investigator stooges to threaten them.

  11. I’m absolutely flummoxed at the family and friends who go on and on about this. Do they not remember gleefully cheering Clinton being acquitted in the Senate for lying about ‘just sex’? Do they not remember the MANY feminists who declared that they would have been HAPPY to get down on their knees with that ‘dreamboat’ in humble gratitude for being permitted to keep scraping the offspring outa their innards?
    Are they that clueless?
    Are they just incapable of logical thinking?

    • One of the shorter phone calls to family back east:
      $RELATIVE “We’re cutting this short; Stormy Daniels is on 60 minutes tonight:.”
      $ME: “Are they going to talk about Bill raping Juanita Broadrick?”

      No further discussion of politics has since transpired.

    • I ahocked a distant family connection with the observation, “Hey, at least he sticks to professionals, instead of banging the help”.

      • Reminds me of my mother and the Clarence Thomas thing. When Hill said Thomas told her about seeing a woman have sex with a horse Mom said, “If I saw that I’d tell everyone too.”

        Then again, her idea of what to say when Hill said Thomas bragged about how endowed his was….well, yeah, that’s my mom…crazy old coot.

      • Oh gawd, this.

        On the one hand, look, I totally disapprove of infidelity.

        On the other hand, Trump did not seem to prey on subordinates.

        • Exactly. Trump at least canoodles with volunteers with an acceptable degree of attractiveness. President Bubba took advantage of a star-struck chubby nobody.

  12. *rolls a d100

    • Ia! Ia! Cthulu fhtagn!

      • Campaign my husband is in, they were fighting an Old One who used a psychic attack on them.

        ….husband’s character is basically a cleric of the power that is in charge of psychic damage, is both resistant to it and only takes half damage above that resistance with the other half being channeled back to the attacker.

        Old One wiped himself out.

        • Don’t you love it whem the GM doesn’t do his/her due dilligence beforehand?

          • In this case, the DM wrote up the campaign ahead of time to avoid creating a conflict dynamic where he was trying to beat the players, because he knew if he didn’t he’d slip into it…told nobody nothing, and the background for my husband’s character was literally randomly rolled and then fleshed out. All the relevant details came out of Roll20’s RNG.

            So it was the Old One who didn’t do his research. ^.^

  13. “Oh, Trump practiced marital infidelity. Thank the lord there’s an alternative party with equally bad problems with marital infidelity but way scarier problems regarding how they’ve managed it. (…)”

    LOL! OMG. You’d think, right?

    • Reminds me of Gene Simmon’s observation during the 2012 Republican primary that the only presidential candidate who’d been married only once was the Mormon (i.e. Romney).

      • An old story in LDS circles (which is actually true-ish) concerns an early Utah Senator, Reed Smoot, who faced opposition to being seated in Congress in 1904 (he had, and had had, only one wife, like Romney).
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Smoot_hearings
        One supporter was Senator Boies Penrose of Pennsylvania. Addressing the subject of polygamy, Penrose reportedly glared at one or more of his Senate colleagues who had a reputation for philandering and said, “As for me, I would rather have seated beside me in this chamber a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than a monogamist who doesn’t monag.”[8]

        • ::laughs:: I used that exact same point when folks I spoke to while serving my mission brought up the whole polygamy thing. “Look, we don’t practice it anymore, and we haven’t in more than a century…but let me also put it this way: which is worse, to have more than one wife you are legally married to and must take care of, or to cheat on your wife?” Most folks reaction to that was “Huh. I never thought of it that way…”

          • In some college anthropology class ages ago the instructor called it serial polygamy, or something like that. One wife (or husband) at a time, or one partner at a time, but many successive partners.

            And how is that better than more than one, officially and legally, at the same time?

            Oh, I think there are really good reasons to keep it all to two people because it’s already hard enough that way, but if we’re going to normalize having more than one “spouse” having them sequentially or concurrently doesn’t seem like a huge difference.

            • In a lot of instances, result is the same. You have prior wives or older-sister-wives & children living in near poverty & governmental assistance, while the newer wife & younger children that gets the attention & financial resources. Get an older wife (regardless of which version) with “I can get what I am owed” out of the guy, it is the newest family that suffers financially. Does not matter. Not advocating for either situation. Both are about money & power for the serial polyg.

            • I think you mean serial monogamy.

        • “As for me, I would rather have seated beside me in this chamber a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than a monogamist who doesn’t monag.”[8]

          LOL! That’s perfect.

  14. Christopher M. Chupik

    The thing is, I do think Trump is his own worst enemy. All the media has to do is wait and he’ll give them something. Instead, they’re doing the headless chicken dance, trying to play an endless game of “GOTCHA!” while their credibility burns.

    • Even better… by the time Trump does trip over his own… ahem… boy parts… and gives them something that they can actually use against him, everyone will be so tired of their incessant nattering, they’ll just assume it’s yet another freak-out over a made-up story.

      Apparently, the person who wrote that story about the boy who cried wolf must have been a cis-person, gender-normative, racist, homophobic, science denying, member of the patriarchy, so the Left refused to read it.

    • I don’t think he will give them something. Remember they could really find NOTHING in his past. He’s had a lifetime in the public eye.
      I think that’s why they’re nuts.

      • Aye.

        “Hey, we have sooper-sekrit tapes locked in a doomsday vault for-”

        “No, you don’t. If you had such tapes, you’d be playing them on all channels on endless repeat. You ain’t. You ain’t got no tapes. You ain’t got squat. As usual.”

        • Also note that everyone knew the LA Times had (and has) sooper-seekrit embarrassing tapes on Barry, which they have refused to release to this day.

          You just can’t keep the existence of that stuff secret.

          And as noted, it would by now have been made public far and wide if it could harm Teh Donald.

          • Folks who followed politics know. The general population had absolutely no clue and would have given him a third term. They just see a nice man who spoke well. They believe he had no scandals, a transparent rule, and thst things were just as good then.

            • not so sure about that third term thing. That was part of the Shrill One’s “appeal. Extending 0bama’s grand policies or making them even better . . . too many (and not that many is too many for them) saw right through that after 8 years of “New Normal”

              • Eh, she was an extremely bad retail politician and she depressed their turnout, especially with the polls. Plus she did very little actual speaking or politiking outside of fundraising. Barack was a lot more aggressive in terms of politicking and had a draw that she didn’t. I’ve lost track of acquaintances who would have given him terms, possibly until he died in office. Had the same interactions regarding our friendly neighborhood socialist.

                • This. In February of last year, a group at NYU put on a performance that essentially gender-flipped the debates. Apparently a lot of Hillary supporters who saw it suddenly realized just how awful she’d been as a candidate.

                  • If there wasn’t more than one of those done, I’ve seen that. It’s a great video. Everyone is all “women can’t act like men” “patriarchy” and what-not, that women are punished for being assertive or bold. Right?

                    So they had a female actor study Trump, his body language and voice and everything, and then put on the debate with a male actor doing the same with Hillary.

                    It turns out that people were not put off by a woman with the exact same aggressive body language and way of speaking. She was someone who would be described as a “character”. Maybe even a “force of nature.” And the audience who were interviewed afterward as part of the study mentioned knowing some favored aunt they were reminded of and someone you felt warm toward.

                    There may be something to the feminist canard of how they can’t “act like men” because women are judged differently but that “something” has to be considered with the base truth that *feminists don’t know how men act*… and they get it wrong. An actress carefully acting like Trump came across as strong and engaging. Perhaps a bit shocking, but not in a bad way.

                    • That was such a fascinating thing to read about, and I was impressed by their being honest enough not to just bury their unexpected results. (Which, I’ve got to admit, surprised me too.)

          • And as noted, it would by now have been made public far and wide if it could harm Teh Donald.

            Witness the apparent fizzling of the so-called “But he used the N-word!” tape. All over the last two weeks, not a peep about it this week. This is my shocked face: 😐

        • That’s why I think the whole “N”-word story is fake. If there actually was a recording of it, they’d have found it and blasted it out to the world by now.

          • But by blasting the innuendo it’s part of public consciousness at this point. Some folks will learn or guess that it was another mudball but majority never will. Same as all the news stories that include the reveal that this evil program being revealed has been running over a decade down in the last paragraph.

    • Do you? Really? Because I notice a pattern whereby Trump does or says something regretable, the Media go batsh*t over it, and while they are distracted something substantive gets pushed through.

      • Christopher M Chupik

        It’s hard to tell if he’s a genius or his enemies are so fantastically stupid, or some combo of both.

      • Donald Stephens

        It is a tactic. The left has been using it for a long time: they call it “stray voltage”. Do something meaningless but deliberately offensive, while working on their goals off-camera, so to speak.

      • He’s trolling them, and making them look ridiculous to the public.

        -Albert

      • “while they are distracted something substantive gets pushed through”
        Like this:
        https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/08/30/breaking.-president-trump-cancels-federal-pay-hikes

        • And speaking as a federal employee? Sure, the raise would be nice (and Congress might still force it through) BUT…I would not object to seeing reforms along the lines of “let’s run this more like a private sector business.” And while yes, many/most private businesses also do standard pay raises on a timetable in order to keep employees, they *also* generally don’t award other raises unless you’ve earned it.

          I’m totally cool with having our raises reflect how well we’re doing our actual jobs. And making it easier to get rid of the problem children, whereas right now the process is along the lines of “promote them somewhere else so we don’t have to deal with them”, which of course presents some serious flaws in logic.

          (I am also all for trimming the fat. No, I don’t want to lose my job, not when I finally have medical insurance I both need and can actually afford, but I’m also not entirely sorry to see the ongoing “No, you don’t need that position filled, not truly.” and otherwise making efforts to cut down on sheer numbers. Yes, my field office as it currently stands is somewhat understaffed in some areas, but…)

          • Geoff Withnell

            “my field office as it currently stands is somewhat understaffed in some areas” Key word is “field office” Headquarters has every slot filled I’m sure.

            • Donald Stephens

              …. and you would find that many of the headquarters drones are being paid out of field-office fund codes.

        • That is the second place I’ve seen that isn’t clear on how locality pay works…is it really that obscure? You have the base pay, then different areas have different “locality pay” which is what you increase that base by, so you don’t have someone in, oh, El Paso getting paid what it costs to survive in San Diego or DC.
          It’s part of WHY I want them to start decentralizing the bureaucracy, with preference to places with a lower requirement for locality pay. Just make sure there’s a major airport and you’re good, it’d probably be faster than DC traffic.

          Note: current blood-space social circle is a lot of federal employees. Yeah, not getting more money isn’t something that you really celebrate, but thus far I haven’t even heard anybody being upset, much less histrionic about it.

          • Locality-pay-based bureaucracy staffing levels is a great idea – any new hire is easier for an agency in anyplace with locality pay under the halfway point, and harder in the top-half places. Brilliant.

            And on the pay increases or lack thereof, all of the Federal GS employee folks with whom I am acquainted received annual pay increases all the way through every single recession period while I, in private industry, saw squat. Or mass layoffs, which are also not a thing in the GS world. Skipping one year’s increase better not give any GS the vapors.

          • About the extent I’ve seen, which is admittedly myself and my carpool partner (who is also my father–we work in the same field office, though not the same area) was some grumbling–because a raise would be nice, and it would help tight finances–that quickly turned into “Man, wouldn’t it be nice if we got raises based on how GOOD we did our job, and not as participation trophy garbage?”

            Me, I’m almost to my first year anniversary and due to be bumped up a grade. I work hard, and I try to do my job well, so I am greatly looking forward to the paybump that will bring. (And it means I can shoot for a better-paying job soon.)

            My only real issue with the ‘shrink the bureaucracy!’ crowd isn’t that they want to shrink it, it’s the attitude that ALL federal employees are lazy incompetent freeloaders. (And not everyone has that attitude, obviously, but in articles like the linked one that viewpoint comes out very clearly.)

            Yes, there are an unfortunate number of them. Those of us who do not fall under that category hate working with them as much as everyone else hates dealing with them. And because of the whole “the govt is so paranoid about lawsuits that they won’t fire people unless it’s insanely egregious” is deeply frustrating, because it also allows stuff that is egregious, but not insanely so, to slide.

            But I want smaller government too. Certainly, my government job would be a lot easier with fewer regs, and fewer layers of red tape to deal with, and fewer higher ups who bend/break the rules whenever it suits them, either because they don’t like being “mean” or because they’re currying favor with companies that don’t think rules (whether silly or not–and at least some of those on our side of things, at least, are not) don’t apply to them.

            • It’s a lot easier to hate a big group and scream “burn it down” than to think up useful solutions, and do actual work promoting imperfect but realistic solutions.

              • Yeah. It’s pretty much human nature. And I’ve met just enough utter lunatics in my government job, that I’ll even acknowledge that the people hollering about the federal employees are not entirely without some good points… O.O (Holy crap, the only place I’ve met more lunatics in one workspace was retail.)

            • My only real issue with the ‘shrink the bureaucracy!’ crowd isn’t that they want to shrink it, it’s the attitude that ALL federal employees are lazy incompetent freeloaders.

              Thought of a way to summarize it:
              We want to clean out the stables, not burn them down.

        • I’m not wondering what’s in the bill that had the increase, that the Dems are now pushing to pass– a triple Xanatos gambit would be nice.

          Cut goes through:
          savings.
          Cut gets over-ruled by Republicans:
          unions lose more of their power, and maybe their people.
          Increase already in the Senate goes through:
          Same as #2, and maybe some tricky stuff inside.

        • Oooh, a thought:

          Aren’t Congress critters Fed employees?

  15. If this tofu is the closest the Democrats come to finding red meat in the Trump investigation, they really need to give up politics and reform as a chowder society.

    It occurs to me that with the prospect of their ‘Blue Wave’ receding like a mirage into the distance, the November elections are likely to see the Democrats absolutely frantic, and frantic people make mistakes. I think it’s possible that that is the opportunity Trump has been waiting for; let the Democrats do some ostentatious and impolitic voting fraud, AND STILL LOSE GROUND in Congress, and Trump will have the pretext he needs to launch a widespread investigation into Democrat vote-fiddling. The Democrats will be reeling, the Republicans will smell blood in the water, and with a little luck the whole mess will be spread out in public and getting pretty ripe just in time for the 2020 elections.

    Giving Trump a perfect opportunity to knock the Progressive Left into a cocked hat.

    • The Democrats have done little but make mistakes for the last 2 years. None of their tactics have gained traction outside of their base demographic and (at least judging by appearances) done a great deal of damage to their chances at winning in November.

      We’re just getting into the benefits of the tax cuts so it would be really eff-ing stupid to vote in a people that are going to make them and the person that gave them to us go away.

      • “None of their tactics have gained traction outside of their base demographic”

        I’ve mentioned several times (indeed I may be becoming the Club Bore on the subject) but I think that may not be a mistake. The Democrat Party Establishment screwed up BIG in 2016. The rank and file were on their way to nominating an Outsider and the establishment mugged him with the Super Delegates and substituted their hand-picked nominee…..who lost the biggest upset since Beauregard Normal beat Notre Dame. I think the establishment thinks they need to convince the rank and file that ‘we’re all in this together against The Evil One’, lest said peasants begin to wonder just what the establishment types are doing to justify their lofty positions.

        So, they may be concentrating on welding the base ever closer, and actual elections are secondary. But that’s where I think Trump has an opportunity. Just because the Democrat Party Establishment isn’t putting winning elections first doesn’t mean they won’t pull their ususal tricks….and if they lose even more seats in Congress, that would be the time to clobber them with an investigation into voting fraud.

        • The only problem I see with that is that their ‘base’ is increasingly made up of socialist who actively hate this country and agitate to get rid of the entire system.

          Looking at polling and other data that base is maybe 20-25% and mostly confined to the expected geographic areas. Outside of that base and those areas? Don’t see those ideas catching on all that much.

          I think it’s actually a bit late, with the #WalkAway movement seeming to be both organic and growing they seem to be doing a better job of peeling off support than gaining it.

          My other biggest worry is that the Republican campaign organizers usually seem to have all the tactical sense of a stoned monkey. The Dems have given us 2 years of insane antics, from pussy hats to riots, and some of the dumbest statements made by politicians in the history of politics. I could make a 2 minute advertisement out of the SOTU address alone!

          • My point is that the Democrat party’s tactics don’t make sense if you assume that they are trying to attract undecideds, but DO it you consider that the Democrat panjandrums might be trying to reiforce their positions as party leaders.

        • The Bernie lovers do, I trust, HATE the DNC.

          • OTOH they aren’t about to vote for Republicans. If the DNC can keep them feeling embattled, then the Democrat establishment may hold on. If the wild left decides to make a fight for control of the DNC, a lot of (self) important people might be looking for work.

            • And same can be said for the actions of the washington generals called reps. It is very much “we dun wanna” on anything but judges. Even tax reform was passed and ignored. Leadership at best has safe districts with tight reins on the party and at worst will get a 6+ figure lobbying job if they are ousted. But if you rein in the flow of money from the hinterlands to dc, ny, la, etc you get less of that pie if they let you in at all.

              They don’t care if they throw an election if it means they can go back to just saying nice words with no effect or expectation. It won’t hurt them.

        • The Democratic Party is not exempt from Pournelle’s Iron Law. Much of the radical turn makes sense if you look at their actions in light of bureaucratic empire building. It’s not an appeal to the normal old rank and file Democratic voters, but instead to political action groups, lobbying organizations, protestors, and similar.

          • In short; the kind of people who might be able to put together in in-party coup. They’re organized, full of energy, and decent at fund raising. If they weld themselves to the existing power structure, the current crop of Democrat panjandrums can probably hang on until retirement. They may not win many elections, but they won’t be out in the cold peddling resumes that feature the clusterf*ck of a campaign of 2016.

            • It’s kind of funny, as the current crop of Party Panjandrums were the Clean for Gene Young Radicals of the ’68 & ’72 era.
              It may be that the whole radical Bernie Bro thing is more of a coup by the younger members trying to shove the old guard off on an iceburg for being “out of touch” with the Socialist friendly youth zeitgeist.

    • Your mouth, G-d’s ears.
      Because we can survive crazy. We can’t survive voter fraud as is and will become.

      • I’m seriously hoping that after 2018 curbing voter fraud becomes a major priority. With all the ‘Russia hacked the election’ crap that’s spewed forth from the Democrats it’s seemed like the perfect time to hammer them with the issue. Hammer in some other fixes that’ll make sure that we can actually trust the electoral process and not have things like dead people voting, people voting twice, etc.

        I still remember how quickly Jill Stein’s investigation into voter fraud got dropped when it turned out it was in favor of the Democrats.

        • An attorney general with a spine should ride the whole Russian influence surf board to a massive wave of election oversight. Voter fraud caught and penalties enforced would go a long way towards restoring a very shaky perception of American rule of law these days.

          • Not to mention killing the ‘Clinton won the popular vote’ meme dead. And reducing the Democrat Party to manageable proportions.

          • Agreed. They opened the door and it’s just sitting right there waiting to get slammed in their face.

            Not sure it’ll restore faith in the rule of law, but it will start the process of restoring some faith in the integrity of the voting process.

            • Which is why I picture Trump watching the whole ‘Russian Collusion’ far e and saying to himself “Softly, softly catchee monkee!”

              • One can only hope.

              • I think Trump has been doing a lot of that and he seems to be very good at catching those monkeys!

                He throws grenades and they return fire with poo. He does it entirely to frequently for it to be an accident.

          • Uncle Lar, even in Texas, we have state and Federal judges, not to mention local DAs, who just flat refuse to cooperate with investigations. Like I said, I’m a supporter of TrueTheVote here, and it’s mind-blowing what has been going on.

        • Blue states are going to dig their heels in over it. And it will take some very careful maneuvering to get them to relent on the matter without shots being fired. California’s pretty much in open rebellion at this point (and I say this as a Californian), with the Feds carefully tiptoeing around the fact that California has basically been telling the Federal government that it’s ignoring any Federal laws that it doesn’t like. The question is how far California pushes it before most people start to notice.

          • California has so much overhanging debt and such asinine spending priorities that the state government should really be worrying about how a state bankruptcy might turn into a Federal Receivership, and who might be in charge of the Federal Government when that happens.
            CA is back to spending like drunk sailors right now on the back of the revenues from inflated housing sales and the tech boom, not retiring any debt or doing anything else fiscally responsible, so the next time there’s a crunch, especially if that happens while the pension payments are going sky high driven by the boomers retiring, y’all in the rest of eth country could see what the first State bankruptcy looks like.
            I would expect the Federal Receivership folks that Washington puts in place will be looking closely at individuals and agencies which are doing all the current “ignoring” (i.e. violating) of Federal law.
            But it’s been clear for a long time that California’s government at all levels does not do this thing known as “thinking ahead”.

            • They figure it’s even odds as to whether gov will be nominally Republican or completely Dem. And if they go down they take everything else with it. Plus might even get a fig leaf repub patsy like in Michigan (lead is all Snyder’s fault/Puerto Rico all because of fedgov, etc)

              None of the current bankruptcies did any significant disenfranchisement to my knowledge.

    • RE: tofu.
      Costco had a sample for it today.

      Three year old declared it “slimy grease chunks.”

      (They used it like feta for a salad. Added ranch. She ate it, but she was NOT pleased about the tofu.)

    • count on the Stupid Party to eff it up though.

      • The Evil party will also be working hard to screw it up for themselves even more. Both parties will put forth every effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

  16. I’m convinced that the ONLY reason that Harvey Weinstein might have to pay for his sins this time (instead of paying them off with political donations for gun control) is that everyone on that side was too busy pretending that a vulgar boast was the same thing as rape and they could not *at the very same time* let Harvey slip away *again*. (Heck, if you look at what Trump said, he may even have been talking the generalized “you” in Hollywood and been talking about Harvey.)

    It’s true that no one wanted much to shine the light on the Clintons shady money (“my government’s donation to your foundation has *nothing* to do with what we want the US government to do, Madam Secretary, nudge nudge, wink, wink.”) because they’d fear that light turned on themselves, but has anyone else been sort of flummoxed by the lack of self-preservation evident in those who seem not to have the first thought that investigations of the same sort may now be turned on them if they succeed with Trump?

    (Also, the proof that Hillary wasn’t given a pass by the FBI is that the FBI never charged her with anything. Yup. Totally reasonable argument there.)

  17. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    IMO the reason that the Dim-o-crats and the News Media is focusing on Trump’s “loose-living” is only partially because “they don’t have anything else to hit him with”.

    The main reason is that they “imagine” that Trump’s supporters are those “nutty religious folks who have a thing about sex outside of marriage” or at least the ones who are those types will automatically reject Trump. Side note, I don’t think they care if those types support Dim-o-crats, they just don’t want those types to continue to support Trump.

    They don’t understand that us “nutty religious types” have other reasons to support Trump and/or to actively fight the Dim-o-crats.

    Trump isn’t the type of person that we might prefer, but he’ll do until somebody much better comes along. 😀

    • “I have consistently misrepresented what you believe, why, and how you think it applies to the world. Now I am upset that you don’t conform to my preferred version of your ideology. How dare you! Also, have you seen this naked picture of Melania? Huh? Have you?”

      It’s not new, though. Remember John Kerry doing the nudge-nudge, wink-wink, over Cheney’s lesbian daughter?

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      They have plenty to hit him with. They have two problems. One is fabricating bogus crap that discredits their legitimate reporting. The second is that most of what they can say against him will have already been factored into the decision by any informed supporter. Of whom there are a lot.

      He sucks up to Putin. We have that picture of him at his third wedding sucking up to the Clintons. A man like that has no judgement about who to admire. He doesn’t really know good people from evil people.

      He is a petty vindictive jerk. We knew that already.

      We knew about his relationship with with truth.

      People who made that decision with their eyes open knew about all of it, if they cared a gnat’s fart. People who closed their eyes to stuff that would matter to them, because they were desperate, are not much less angry and frightened.

      • Or, he’s a very pragmatic man who is used to dealing with Mafia types and decided that there are times to be clean and honest, and times when you have to grit your teeth and deal with sleez in order to even survive, let alone prosper. You want a Trump hotel in Russia? You act nice to Tsar Vladimir. You need politicians to leave you alone? You act nice to politicians. You want the Mafia to leave you alone? Well…

        • Yeah. This, really. He didn’t always get what he wanted by sucking-up, sometimes he played dirty, like when he forced Palm Beach (?) to let him build Mar-a-lago… and then to punish them for being asses he made a *point* of admitting black people and Jews to his country club. BUT he had to do business and he did it in New York and all sorts of other places and mostly by sucking up. No doubt AT ALL in my mind that he greased the palms of a whole heck of a lot of Democrat politicians. No doubt AT ALL in my mind that a crap ton of that grease went to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

          So I ask myself…. do I vote for the politician who (I have no doubt AT ALL) took payments for favors to grease the wheels of business by twisting the purpose of government? OR do I vote for the shady business guy on the other half of that equation who had the choice of playing that game or simply not having a business?

          • I am strongly reminded of the effort to discredit the Board of the effort to build the Brooklyn Bridge by trumpeting their payoffs to the since disgraced Boss Tweed. It went halooing along until somebody said (approximately) “As matters were at the time, can you imagine a successful attempt to build the bridge WITHOUT paying off Tweed?”. Whereuponn the whole business deflated like a leaky baloon.

            If I haven’t mentioned it, two of the most thrilling Hugo Gernsback “How we built the Space Service and conquored Mars” stories ever written are THE PATH BETWEEN THE SEAS and THE GREAT BRIDGE by David McCullough. And they happen to be nonfiction.

          • Mar-a-lago has an interesting history. It was a large estate and mansion in Palm Beach that had been built by the cereal heiress Marjorie Post, who bequeathed it to the National Park Service. Upkeep on it was so high that the NPS sought to sell it. Trump ultimately bought it, but then ran into some financial troubles in the 90’s, and decided to subdivide it and sell off some of the resulting lots. Palm Beach was alarmed and fought the subdivision attempt, so Trump went to plan B – private club. And he did, indeed, offend some of the locals by allowing blacks, Jews, and people who drew attention, to join the club.

          • That thing he did with the American flag and flagpole size and such was a thing of beauty, I should note. *gringringrin*

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          My confidence that I correctly judge his sincerity in that photo is suspect. I am not very people smart. Trump would have to be pretty good at manipulating people on a personal level. There’s no theory based on the data that I trust enough to discard my emotional conclusion.

        • twas telling when he was thinking of building in New Orleans he left weeks early and said “I wouldn’t build an outhouse in this state!”

      • He’s unusual in that he has Nixon & Regan’s understanding that the American public hates the press.

        • And at least sometimes seems to catch that the DC establishment won’t have his back unless, and possibly even if, he grabs the party electorate and breaks the current ‘he beats me but he’s my husband’ that is endemic. Otherwise they figure he can be sacrificed to appease their friends on the left and they’ll still be in no danger of losing cushy position.

          • One of the big things I noticed during the Florida primaries is that everyone on the Republican side was running very pro Trump ads.
            It may be that he’ll get a House that’s more amenable to his reforms.

            • If the rep side holds he will. Most of the folks decamping are not helpful at best.

              And he has stellar support on the right so definitely try and espouse it. The question is how much the indies split (we see benefits and the positives because we look. What percentage of it ever makes news.) And how gotv and fraud play out. Unless the indies get the news of what is happening and why at least from both sides, Trump is caricatured as blood dripping demon vs reality.

    • The other thing is, the “nutty religious types” have to put up with the loose living Dim-o-crats, so why should they go crazy over anyone else living that way?

      • Plus, what those types object to is the *hypocrisy* of someone not living up toe the values they espoused. Someone who owns up to his mistakes, and tries to live better? *Feeds into* the religious narrative of sinner going straight.

        Most people don’t care about someone else’s personal life. They just don’t like being lied to about it, and think that if someone is willing to lie to their nearest and dearest, then they’re willing to lie to voters about it. Yet another example of leftists being unable to understand how other people *actually* think, rather than how they think we think.

        • Yet another example of leftists being unable to understand how other people *actually* think, rather than how they think we think.

          Odd timing there– last night I accidentally heard some of the Moe Kelly show (forgot California is an hour behind us, was turning on Dark Secret Place) and was “treated” to a ten minute long rant about lecture about how the ‘only’ reason that Those People object to “diverse” characters is because we think that the only way to be a real person is to be like us, so we’re upset if the characters aren’t 100% “representative” of us.

          My response at the time was “exactly how dumb do you have to be to take the rather long list of reasons folks give and get THAT junk out of it?”

          What I just realized is that he thinks ‘we’ are like that because that’s how he feels– if there isn’t someone that checks the boxes as being “representative” of him, he feels left out.

          He went on to explain how we’re all dum-dums because Superman is an illegal alien– “an actual alien!”– and Thor is a Norse god and I didn’t catch what the next example was. (I was busy, which is the only reason I didn’t turn it off as soon as I heard Moe Kelly, he of the head-banging stupidity.)

          At no point did he consider that if there are examples going back 50-75 years of people who are definitely not like us, just maaaaaaaybe the reason he provided was not accurate.

          And just realized, doesn’t that make THEM hypocrites? Isn’t “empathy” a big deal for them?

  18. As I posted elsewhere:
    ===
    Exactly. Unsubstantiated and all-too-convenient accusations of relatively minor social infringements? Not knowing everything his lawyer was up to behind his back? Falls under, “So what.” I’m too busy taking my country back to care who slept with whom anyway. And you can’t police everything your hirelings do on their own time. Some of ’em are going to prove to be weasels no matter how carefully chosen or how longstanding the relationship.

    And compared to what? Fine-tooth the lives of the average Democrat and the whole party would be in prison under multiple counts, including major felonies. Prosecuting Hillary alone, just for her already-documented crimes, would tie up the entire judicial branch for the next decade. (Which may be why that’s not happening.. We all know what she’s done and given she holds no office, it’s more effective to investigate current swamp-dwellers who actually are inside the federal gov’t.)

    Meanwhile, Dems are all aghast because Trump *might* have slept with a golddigger, maybe, or at least so the golddigger claims. Oh dear, my pearls need clutching.

    • He’s a billionaire. How many women he slept with *weren’t* gold diggers? Any woman worth less than a hundred million or so might as well be on Welfare…

      • Since he doesn’t seem to have coerced employees, I’d guess the number of women who weren’t gold-diggers (or at least *aware*) is probably zero.

      • Expecting women not to be aware of the advantages of a wealthy man is like expecting a man not to be aware of boobs.

  19. BobtheRegisterredFool

    I didn’t vote for Trump. I have a long standing policy in place that covers the circumstances in which I would vote for Trump. I have no need to revisit that decision before 2020, because it has no relevance to the midterms.

    • Oh, hell, I did. Offered the choice between a Clown and a criminal shrew, I went for the clown, figuring he would at least be entertaining.

      I stand by my choice. Watching the Progressive Left come completely unglued is worth what I expected from four to eight years of Trump, which was lots of crony pandering. I have been pleasantly surprised with what he’s actually doing.

      • I remember saying in early 2016 every four years twenty odd clowns run for President and if we’re not careful on day people will figure, “well, we might as well elect a funny one.”

        Read funny broadly (as entertaining) and it fits.

        • He’s putting on one hell of a show , that’s for sure. That he’s trimming the EPA, and seriously addressing a bunch of problems nobody else seemed willing to take beyond the Kabuki Theatre level is all gravy.

          • He got a LOT of good will in Utah with that removing-national-designation-handing-it-back-to-the-locals-oh-and-half-are-the-local-INDIAN-TRIBE trick, too.

      • While Trump did get my vote, I did not vote for Trump, but against something far, far worse.

      • Honestly, the ‘Left’s meltdown would be entertaining’ was probably enough for me to want to vote for him; heck, the fact that he actually does what he said he would do for the most part (I still really want that damn wall) made me wish I could vote for him.

      • I voted for the Clown Prince of the Business World. An HRC win would have had, grave, regret-able, personal impact on me and quite a number of people. That evil woman has a long memory of the slightest slights, a vengeful streak a mile wide, and too many tools in her box to allow her to indulge herself at will.

  20. I thought there was no way Trump could win. I didn’t like him much although I did get his appeal. I went through Walker then Jindal and when the primaries got to Georgia voted Cruz.

    Still, I voted for him thinking all I was doing was “these are my middle finger…they’re a matched pair”.

    Turns out a lot of us did.

    So we got him and I figured, “Well, we survived Bill Clinton and to be honest Trump sounds a lot like Bill, even on immigration, so we’ll survive him.” That’s about what I hoped for, Clinton II, the okay version (as opposed to Clinton II, the nightmare, which we dodged).

    But holy sh!t was I wrong.

    Trump, in terms of actual policies enacted, is the most conservative president since Reagan and probably could do better than Reagan if the GOP Congress wasn’t closer to Tip O’Neil half the time than Reagan. His Scalia replacement was solid and instead of other Republicans named Bush he did not appoint a “moderate” to replace a “moderate” in Kennedy. Even with the midterms looming he’s got probably better than even odds to replace Ginsberg with a Kavannaugh after the Dems shot themselves in the foot over judges.

    Plus, he has for the first time in my life actually taken a knife to the Federal Register. He’s ahead of the 79-84 or so deregulation of the late Carter/early Reagan years (yes, late Carter…things like the Staggers Rail Act were signed by James Earl himself).

    And that is before we consider him annoying the right people from everyone at CNN to Bill Kristol.

    In 2016 my vote was a “these are my middle fingers”.

    In 2020 my vote will be, barring a 180 in policy, a “hell yeah”.

    • THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

    • He’s closer to a small-government conservative than any other President in my lifetime, and I think I can include Reagan in that.

      -Albert

    • I am close to your position. For me, it was less middle fingers than having sworn to support a dead dog nominated by the Republicans over Hillary (before the first primary vote was cast). My vote in Illinois did not help in the electoral college either … but I still voted against Hillary. Have I been pleasantly surprised as well!

    • I think Trump was my third or fourth choice (Walker, [not sure if any], Cruz, Trump) I used to listen to Hannity in the Obama years (quit; his tolerance for his progressive callers/guests is far higher than mine), and he’d interview Trump long before he announced. I got the impression that DJT actually loved America and really wanted to see it better than what we were getting from Zero.

      For various reasons, I switched from Cruz to Trump before he sewed it up. Count me in the MAGA, KAGA-2020 camp with a Hell to the Yeah!

  21. Someone at Ricochet noted that the Dem slogan now might as well be ‘We will Beria you”….referring to the Soviet secret police chief’s remark about “Show me the man and I will show you the crime.”

    • They don’t even seem to be managing THAT. Nearly two years since the election, all the sound and fury, and they seem to have bupkis. I guess we’ll see if there’s anything bigger round about October…

    • Yep. Masks have definitely come off and revealed that all the makings of a police state are, if not there, well on the way. Just a matter of has the structure rotted to the point it is irreparable.

      • This morning I just re-watched Prelude to War (film one of the ‘Why We Fight’ series of WWII) and… it can be more than a bit unnerving. But that’s *why* I re-watch it every few years.

        • Yep. Germany went from normal but impovershed to totalitarian and genocidal. It can happen anywhere.

          • Ehh- “normal” pre-WWII Germany (Imperial and Wiemar) was very much into the big government, people are subjects, “complain, but obey!”, “good Germans don’t stand out” Statist thing well before the Shicklegrubers became the Hitlers. The foundations of Nazi totalitarianism were well laid and widely accepted in Germany going back to Hegel and other advocates of the all powerful state under an allpowerful leader.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              And Tokugawa Japan was likewise conducive to tyranny, and Meiji Japan’s ‘reforms’ were in hindsight prep work for the mess that was Showa prior to to the occupation.

            • Sadly that is the human normal. And for the world that was the rising mentality. Wilson had already put down foundation that FDR was quickly building upon when hitler entered the chancellery. Long, Coughlin, and others were doing much the same demagoguery. Media was already so far up Stalin’s backside they tasted his breakfast and until the invasion of Russia (when sentiments started being inflamed) there was enough support for Germany in the US to be noticed.

            • Some of this may have even predated the Imperial era. Goethe noted that the Weimar girls tended to be more attracted to visiting Englishmen than to the local guy…When his friend Eckermann objected that Englishmen were not “more clever, better informed, or more excellent at heart than other people,” Goethe responded:

              “The secret does not lie in these things, my good friend, Neither does it lie in birth and riches; it lies in the courage which they have to be that for which nature has made them. There is nothing vitiated or spoilt about them, there is nothing halfway or crooked; but such as they are, they are thoroughly complete men. That they are also sometimes complete fools, I allow with all my heart; but that is still something, and has still always some weight in the scale of nature.”

              “In our own dear Weimar, I need only look out of the window to discover how matters stand with us. Lately, when the snow was lying upon the ground, and my neighbour’s children were trying their little sledges in the street, the police was immediately at hand, and I saw the poor little things fly as quickly as they could. Now, when the spring sun tempts them from the houses, and they would like to play with their companions before the door, I see them always constrained, as if they were not safe, and feared the approach of some despot of the police. Not a boy may crack a whip, or sing or shout; the police is immediately at hand to forbid it. This has the effect with us all of taming youth prematurely, and of driving out all originality and all wildness, so that in the end nothing remains but the Philistine.”

              Interestingly, 94 years later, the former Kaiser Wilhelm II made a rather parallel observation:

              “Another thing that struck me, in addition to the one-sidedness of the education in the schools, was the tendency, among youths planning their careers in those days, to turn their attention to becoming Government officials, and always consider the profession of lawyer or judge the most worthy goal…As long as the state consisted, so to speak, of government and administration, this tendency among German youths in the shaping of their lives was understandable and justified; since we were living in a country of officials, the right road for a young man to select was the service of the state. British youths of that time, self-reliant and made robust by sports, were already talking, to be sure, of colonial conquests, of expeditions to explore new regions of the earth, of extending British commerce; and they were trying, in the guise of pioneers of their country, to make Great Britain still stronger and greater, by practical, free action, not as paid hirelings of the state.”

              and

              “To be sure, there were even then enterprising men in Germany—brilliant names can be cited among them—but the conception of serving the fatherland, not by traveling along a definite, officially certified road, but by independent competition, had not yet become sufficiently generalized. Therefore I held up the English as an example, for it seems to me better to take the good where one finds it, without prejudice, than to go through the world wearing blinkers.”

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                Lot of times there are women and girls who are more strongly attracted to foreigners than natives. I recall anecdotes about commonwealth and american naval ships in American and commonwealth ports.

                • Yes, that was suggested in the discussion thread that accompanied the post…It was also suggested that the Brits were better-dressed and cleaner….and that because of Britain’s prominence on the world stage, they carried themselves very confidently and authoritatively…sort of a derived Alpha status.

                  https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/25053.html

                  Given Goethe’s comments about the overbearing cops, I wonder if he ever discussed the matter with his ace buddy Karl August, the Grand Duke and pretty much that absolute ruler of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach?

                  • William Shire noted the inverse in his “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”. The Germans were fit and tanned from participation in the Hitler Youth, while the Brits were stunted and pale.

              • I thought the Kaiser’s comments were very interesting, but he would have had plenty of opportunity to address these issues when he was reigning, and did not. Indeed, his pardon of the Captain of Koepenick (the story is hilarious–the guy stole a train by pretending to be a military officer and no one dared to challenge him) because the incident showed the authority and feelings of reverence that his military obviously commanded in the general population…this reinforced the submissiveness to The System of which he would later complain.

                • Kaiser Willy was a rather mixed up and muddled person. While he admired the English character and strength, he also really really enjoyed the idea that he was a Teutonic warlord and absolute monarch of the Fredrick the Great school. While he wasn’t the first German to simultaneously complain of being unloved while demanding fear and respect, he was one of the more vocal.

            • Kipling describes it well:

              “An Imperial Rescript
              Now this is the tale of the Council the German Kaiser decreed,
              To ease the strong of their burden, to help the weak in their need,
              He sent a word to the peoples, who struggle, and pant, and sweat,
              That the straw might be counted fairly and the tally of bricks be set.

              The Lords of Their Hands assembled; from the East and the West they drew —
              Baltimore, Lille, and Essen, Brummagem, Clyde, and Crewe.
              And some were black from the furnace, and some were brown from the soil,
              And some were blue from the dye-vat; but all were wearied of toil.

              And the young King said: — “I have found it, the road to the rest ye seek:
              The strong shall wait for the weary, the hale shall halt for the weak:
              With the even tramp of an army where no man breaks from the line,
              Ye shall march to peace and plenty in the bond of brotherhood — sign!””

              Wilhelm and Bismark most certainly thought that way.

  22. Theory I’ve had for a while-

    Trump really has only two things that makes him happy-
    1)Making money, and
    2)Getting revenge on people that keep him from making money.

    Trump has worked in real estate primarily in the New York and Atlantic City areas, and who pretty much runs those locations? Democrats, especially machine Democrat politicians. Which he had to “contribute” to if he wanted to get anything done. And, they still treated him like an oink with shit on his shoes, because he wasn’t One Of Them. And, this still cost him more money than he wanted to spend to make money.

    Remember what Trump’s second motivation is.

    I’m not sure how much of what he says he believes, but he knows how to market, he knows when there’s a weak brand that he can jump in and take over, and that’s what he saw with the 2016 Republican Party candidates. He also saw that the Democratic Party was running a weak candidate that was being propped up by the media and the party itself. So, he marketed, he released his brand, and he got the sale.

    Now, he is doing things that will drive Democrats, especially machine Democrat politicians, nuts and make them go insane. Because he knows just how hollow they are if somebody hits them right. And, boy, is he hitting them right…

    • There was a fascinating article I read by some Dem lamenting that s/he (I don’t remember) might be partly responsible for his decision to run because of having made mock of the idea a few years before.

      By the time I had finished it, I was not notably more enchanted with Trump as a candidate, nor did I have a more optimistic expectation of his policies or character; in fact, with some reservations because of the source, I was forming an idea of somewhat petty vengefulness… but dear heavens, had I developed sympathy for the desire for petty revenge against the bunch of twerps that author was describing!

    • Trump also values loyalty. And so far, the Republican base (as opposed to the establishment) has been very loyal to Trump.

      • That gets into the “making money” bit-he can’t do it all, so he has to delegate. And, these are six, seven, eight figure things that have to be dealt with, and Trump has to trust them, or they’ll steal from him. So, loyalty has to be an absolute to him.

        • If Trump’s personal investments are doing as well as mine, he may double his net worth before he leaves office. And not to be too premature, but another 4 years on top of these would be wonderful.

          • Only can hope. And that he isn’t attacked incessantly by the following administrations and bureaucracies (why I am pretty confident there is nothing actually untoward or illegal in tax returns;irs would habe leaked). Already seeing extensive kangaroo courts. Just wait until they are backed in full by elected branches.

    • heard somewhere that he registered MAGA right after 0bama insulted him at the dinner. 0bama is a petty person, and decided to get his goat . . . oops

    • Indeed.
      I was influenced by several things: not just admitting but almost boasting that he paid politicians because that’s what you had to do (recognized corruption but didn’t necessarily support Dem ideology); his blunt observations about the (ultimately accepted) UN renovation bid being overly expensive (and citing chapter and verse), then offering to build it cheaper without taking a personal cut; hearing commentary from Real Americans about the absurdity of the Hollywood tapes (see especially Ammo Grrrl on PowerLine at the time).
      And of course the treatment the Left gave Romney by pushing absurdly trivial actions as massive moral failures.
      Give me a break.
      Or this hat:
      “Make Orwell Fiction Again”

      • Trump doesn’t quite live in the isolated, Versailles-bubble that most of our politicians and media-types live in. People in DC and the state capitals and New York and Hollywood are living in ever-fractal levels of the signaling of virtue and personal power gathering, while people that are peasants (which is what they think of them, even if they don’t call them that) are doing horribly.

        Our political and media class don’t quite understand what is going on, and what is changing. Which might be a good thing…it might be the only thing that keeps them from being put up against the wall and shot.

        • Versailles-bubble is a good description. I’m convinced that one of the reasons for the fall of the French Monarchy is that the Sun King forced the nobility to move in and spend money on wealth and flash.
          Short term it made sense, as they were too busy and too broke to engage in the old bits of armed empire building that characterized the old nobility.
          But it also meant that the nobles lost touch with their own lands and people, except to send demands for more money and more taxes- that new outfit isn’t going to pay for itself!

  23. Wealthy playboy billionaire playboys around and then pays women off not to talk about it using wealth!
    ——————–

    They knew early on that this would lead nowhere. That’s no doubt why one of the first things that happened when Avanetti became Daniels lawyer was that we started to hear about how a thuggish individual approached Daniels late one night to convince her to sign the NDA that Trump was offering (through Cohen).

    And speaking of Avanetti…

    Early on, I suspected that Trump did indeed sleep with Daniels. But then Avanetti started opening his yap. And I got a very distinct impression that there was nothing to the claim, just from listening to Avanetti.

    • Same here.

      Started to “feel” like blackmail where the accusation was the threat, but the target was smart enough to get an NDA for the payoff.

  24. Christopher M Chupik

    I see the slanted coverage every morning in my newsfeed. The desperation on display is hysterical. “Maybe if we offer Trump immunity, he’ll resign and we can annul the whole presidency and bring in Hillary!”

  25. If you follow drawandstrike on twitter- (I do using threadreaderapp) he’s a leading proponent of the idea that almost everything you’re seeing is a distraction. That the administration will start dropping indictments in October, and there are going to be a lot of familiar names in those indictments. The canary traps have already caught a few Democrat staffers. Expect the politicians they worked for to get caught up in it. Some of them anyway. Leaking classified information is a crime- no matter your position in government.

    • drawandstrike- darn, is there any way to edit in this?

    • One can hope. There’s plenty of reason to believe that Trump is up to something.

      On the other hand, it’s also wise not to get our hopes up until we’ve got some fairly solid evidence that hammers are about to start dropping.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        My lessons learned from years of mistakes. 1. Don’t let my heart get set on political outcomes. 2. Find something to invest in emotionally that isn’t political. 3. Given the leftist tendency to coopt things of this world, the emotional investment probably shouldn’t be worldly.

    • Eh, these are the same ones that said the IG report was gonna be a blockbuster, that there would be more punishments than just early retirement, etc. Sadly Sessions has become a hostage to his institutions so he doesn’t want to admit that the fibs and DOJ are closer to the Stasi (or Hoover era) than the superheroes that they are portrayed as in the media.

      I will admit to surprise in this assesment at USSS & to a lesser amount, ICE. USSS has seemed much more professional or at least less publicly incompetent than 2014-2016. ICE has been hammered over the fear of fewer illegal aliens to remake the populace coming from the ruling class but seem to have not fallen to the “Ferguson effect”.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        FBI media coverage being hagiography obtained through FBI influence is an artifact of the Hoover era.

  26. Sun Tzu’s most famous dictum is that if you know your opponent, and know yourself, you can’t lose. If you don’t know either, you can’t win.
    How often have we noticed that the Left doesn’t understand us or our motives, while we have a fairly good grasp of their reasons and positions?

  27. “…you almost elected the most corrupt politician maybe ever to hold office, if it hadn’t been for that meddling Trump and his little voters too.”

    And, She’d gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those stupid kids and that darned dog…

  28. I think my sanity check bounced.