RSS
The Republican National Convention just announced a new schedule: rather than speeches by important personages, Donald J. Trump will simply sit alone on stage each evening in a recliner with a TV remote control in his hand. The candidate will channel-surf world news networks for scenes of fresh carnage perpetrated by those whose sides President Obama and Secretary Clinton are on.
A source close to the GOP candidate said, “We figure it will be safe to just wing it. Granted, we don’t know exactly what atrocities the Right Side of History folks will cook up over the next four days for Mr. Trump to watch and comment upon. But we figure, knowing the proclivities of Muslims, BLM supporters, refugees, illegal aliens, and anti-Trump demonstrators, the odds are that there will be no shortage of compelling television over the coming week.”
Just so long as he doesn’t do in boxer shorts with hearts on them and a ribbed A-style undershirt, that’s all we ask …
Scott Baio (“Chachi” from Happy Days) will be speaking tonight.
Now if only Trump could get the “Fonz” to speak…………
RIP to Kenosha's own Al Molinaro
This would be more effective than having the duck dynasty dude speak.
Would be like a 2016 live action political Beavis and Butthead.
Scott Baio wants Donald in charge.
I think Steve once reviewed a book by Amy Chua with the great title “World on Fire”. Since WWII there’ve been two periods of global craziness: 1967-1968 and 1990-1994. Maybe this is another one of those? What if it’s something in the atmosphere?
And then Cuck Pence will waltz onto the stage and give the audience a big wink and say, “And of course we’re going to do something about it.”
And then Donald and all the donors and the cucks laugh.
And the Trump supporters realize that, with Cuck Pence, they’ve been had.
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
This sort of thing happens about once a generation, and if you were to interview a representative sample of today’s protesters, no doubt you’d find their parents and grandparents also participated in protests. Heck, they probably found their mates at a protest. Keep uniting gene lines like that and you’ll see very predicable results.
And then Donald and all the donors and the cucks laugh.
And the Trump supporters realize that, with Cuck Pence, they've been had.
Got your zipper mask on over there as you choke yourself?
Late last year as it looked as though Jeb! would actually have a legitimate shot at winning the GOP nomination, Steve made mention in a few posts that directly touched on Columba Bush’s lack of competent English. Some readers here inferred that her overall competency and basic intelligence was called into question, not to mention that the facts are still murky regarding how (if ever) she actually became a US citizen.
I wonder if Steve will contrast this with Melania Trump, who is going to speak at the GOP convention this week. Unlike Columba, Melania did take the time to learn basic English, and ironically, if an intelligence test were administered to both women, she would probably come out ahead (and fairly easily) as she did graduate from high school and was a fashion model of some repute for well over a decade.
In her own way, Melania recalls Jacqueline Kennedy, where the image of glamourous Camelot abounded during the early ’60′s. If she does become First Lady, its possible that she will follow in those footsteps as she was an art major in school and could aspire to add glamour, a touch of class, and overall classic splendor to the White House as opposed to the previous eight yrs.
But again, its good for consistency’s sake if Steve would make some mention as to Melania’s English. Its also good to note that she has played a fairly visible role front and center on Trump’s campaign to date, unlike Columba Bush who never did publicly campaign alongside Jeb!, even when she was first lady of Florida.
Have we reached peak Sailer?
To me, Stever Sailer is to our society what Batman is to Gotham’s. Without a superlative society of insanity, neither exist. Steve, like Batman, cannot save society from its worst elements – only we can. If society ever becomes “anti-woke,” what will Steve write about?
Perhaps the simulation ends at that point and the plug on our program we call “existence” is pulled.
Slightly OT – Is there anyone here from Wisconsin? Is Paul Ryan really in trouble?
The reason all this vaguely 70s-ish Nubian Power Movement stuff is coming back is to lay the groundwork for the DNC, where they’ll dig up Sister Souljah wherever she is now, or a dancing hologram if needed, and Clinton will re-denounce her for what she said like, 25 years ago. POLITICO is hawking tickets, it’s the greatest meta-event since Tipper Gore’s listening party for the new Prince album
Maybe, the Democrats will spend more time regulating and controlling their collation of the fringes…just kidding! They’ll just tell us how we have to do more to regulate hate speech and ban guns.
Here was a very powerful speech given by a woman whose son died in Benghazi, Libya.
Here was a very powerful speech given by a woman whose son died in Benghazi, Libya.
The roster of people who lost family to illegals was pretty powerful too.
You mean a fireside chat? What a pivot toward presidentialness!
I’m hoping that, inspired by recent events in Turkey, Donald Trump secretly arranged for Ted Cruz’s abortive convention coup in order to purge the party of Lyin’ Ted’s elements and to consolidate power Erdogan style.
I put it on your mom.
I am at a loss to make sense of your approval of a lowbrow, vulgar, puerile insult such as this one by "whorefinder". What could it possibly add to the discussion?
Jeff Sessions made a very good speech on the need to cut immigration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Fsuve_O8U
Now if only Trump could get the "Fonz" to speak............
The Fonz is too busy promoting reverse mortgages. And he’s fat now. Whoooa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Fsuve_O8U
Now if only Trump could get the "Fonz" to speak............
I know everyone is calling him Chachi because it is a more distinctive name, but to me he will always be Charles.
RIP to Kenosha’s own Al Molinaro
The other show I loved as a kid was The Brady Bunch. Another one too painful to watch now.
And then Donald and all the donors and the cucks laugh.
And the Trump supporters realize that, with Cuck Pence, they've been had.
Aren’t you a little ray of sunshine.
RIP to Kenosha's own Al Molinaro
A friend from Texas was visiting me in Santa Monica in the early 1980s. We were driving down Sunset Blvd., but there was a traffic jam. Eventually, we got to the accident in Dead Man’s Curve: a brand new exotic sports car with paper plates was wrapped around a telephone pole. Talking on a pre-cellular radio phone in an irate manner was an unhappy looking Scott Baio, star of “Joannie Loves Chachi.”
My friend went home to Texas feeling that his trip to Los Angeles had fulfilled his expectations.
https://youtu.be/ukunx21UHCA
They were only of by 4 days. If the RNC had been from Thursday night until today, they could’ve just watched Trump live tweet this weekend’s news.
The truth isn’t always pleasant or pleasing, but it cannot be ignored.
That’s nice. It’d mean something if some uncucked dude–like Sessions–were the VP.
Instead, we got Cuck Pence. So Sessions’s speech is nothing but a meaningless sop to the base.
Trump sold us out.
That you would rather have him over on Observatory Circle, casting his Senate vote only to break a tie, makes me more suspicious.
But I'm still trying to figure out whether the "whorefinder" is the pimp or the john.
Because I have had some connection to the world of modeling (set-design/art) I have to repeat what I said last year about Melania: she speaks 5 languages. She got “discovered” in the 90′s in Slovenia; moved to Italy (the epicenter of fashion during that time) to model; was offered an even better contract ($$$$) in NYC. I thought her speech was very good tonight. She is not a dummy….and believe me, every designer world-wide, and I mean EVERY designer wants to dress her while she is First Lady! Everybody makes money with her in the White House…gonna be yuge! This is also the year of the successful immigrant, hah! Melania already had mega-bucks before marriage to Donald. She actually, quit modeling after she married. I mean, her cheek bones and flesh & bones, in general, could still be working.
OT: I also liked the speech of the Latino woman who’s brother got killed by an illegal while he was going to work on his motorcycle…an illegal who had several convictions. She was good. There was, actually, no one that was bad. I listened while cleaning my garage…kid you not!!!
Five? You mean: Slovenic; English; Italian; French; and German? German would be the fifth no doubt.
So then that would tend to demonstrate that in a smarts test between her and Columba, Melania wins hands down.
Ironically, US voters probably at this stage know more basic things about Melania than they do about Columba. A candidate's spouse is supposed to be an asset, not a liability.
Melania was stunning tonight. She is an absolutely beautiful woman, and her speech was very good, even if it was a little too long for my taste (at least 5 minutes could have been chopped off without any harm). When it comes to First Spouses, I think Melania wins hands down compared to Bill Clinton, who looks like he has one step into his grave by now.
I prefer "First Ladies" and "First Laddies".
She was a model, which means she looks kind of like a space alien. Not that it matters. It shouldn't matter, because she shouldn't be speaking at the convention. I didn't vote for her; I voted for her husband.
Trump is already beginning to disappoint. The convention should not be a Trump family reunion. I don't want to see any of his relatives speaking. I didn't vote for them; I'm not voting for them. I don't like the personalization of these conventions. George W. Bush did it too, by having his wife and daughters speak. It's a bad trend.
The Republic is dead. All hail Caesar!
Haven’t heard this much truth and conviction since Reagan. DNC will seem like new Ghostbusters movie by comparison.
And then Donald and all the donors and the cucks laugh.
And the Trump supporters realize that, with Cuck Pence, they've been had.
I must say that selecting that Pence fellow as VP seems an *amazingly* stupid thing for Trump to have done. I’d only had a vague impression of Pence, but there was a big article about him in the NYT and he really seems like a “super-cuck.”
I don’t think there’s been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn’t some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn’t that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn’t all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don’t make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
At this point, Trump is either lying about his immigration/border/terrorism plans or is so stupid he doesn't see the sniper rifles now trained on him by the Establishment.
So take your pick: either Trump is lying or is stupid.
Either way, he lost my support.
My understanding is that Pence has a B+ from Numbers USA (what's your rating, Ron?), fought against the bank bailout, and Senator Jeff Sessions (a much more respected voice than "Prop 187 kiled the Republicans in Cali/Hispanics don't really commit THAT many crimes" Ron Unz and commenter "whorefinder") seems to be on board with the choice.
Maybe, guys, let it go.
Outside of Jeff Sessions, there were very slim “assassination insurance” pickings for Trump. Far better to take the lowliest of cucks like Pence and publicly convert him into a TPP-ravashing, Wall-building, Iraq-war-bashing nationalist strong man. This serves as an example for many other Republicans to get on board the nationalist Trump Train.
Trump has issued a sort of Edict of Milan to the GOP. Their cuck-paganism days are over. Trump will be screaming at them, “Have you made your decision for Christ (Nationalism)?”
So instead of cowering behind the only other nationalist Trump could find; far better to force a “Come to Jesus (nationalism) choice on the entire GOP. Not all will follow; but especially after Cuck Ryan loses his primary next month, many, many will see the writing on the Wall (!) and follow the example of Pense and have that political epiphany towards the Trump Train.
He's trying to come to terms with the "establishment". He's been trying for some time.
I have to echo what BB753 said. You seem to believe it would be a mistake to vote for Trump because of the possibility that Trump might be eliminated either as a result of impeachment or assassination and that "cuck Pence" might be elevated in his place. That assumes you were a strong Trump supporter to begin with and that a "more acceptable" running mate would have secured your vote and support for Trump. Exactly which positions of Trump do you support? Restrictions on immigration? I sincerely doubt it. Limitations on foreign entanglements? As I recall, you were a supporter of the Iraq War at the beginning, just like Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton. As publisher of TAC for several years (during a time when I subscribed to that publication before it was overrun by liberal commenters delighting to see Daniel Larison, the self-described "conservative," rake over the coals the leading Republican of the day--Larison's tactic du jour is to dwell on the "Republican platform" which demonstrates how neoconnish the Republican Party remains, which I predict will undoubtedly lead him to endorse Hillary before the election), at least three columnists/bloggers came on who had been active supporters of the Iraq War (Rod Dreher, Noah Millman, Scott Galupo), which is more than ironic since TAC was originally formed back in 2002 in opposition to that misguided war. (BTW, of the three, I am more convinced of Noah Millman's "conversion" because he seems to write with sincerity and conviction in opposition to other foreign entanglements whereas Rod Dreher seems to struggle to suppress his old leanings.)
I believe I am more aware than most here of your avowed liberal political leanings. That was brought home to me a few years back when you posted a piece on TAC announcing that you had become a "man-made global warming" skeptic. What I found most amusing was your admission that you had become a skeptic only after reading piece written by a liberal expressing some doubts about that "theory." Only then, you felt, could you feel comfortable expressing any doubts about the widely-accepted liberal dogma. That, to me, did not indicate a man with an open mind open to all points of view. I have been a global warming skeptic since I first started reading about it back, but I based my judgment on the facts I uncovered after reading pieces written by both conservative and liberal commentators.
Despite being aware of your very liberal leanings, I have read with admiration and agreement your pieces dealing with "American Pravda," John McCain, and Sydney Schanberg (whose landmark piece on American POWs in Vietnam was first published under your watch on TAC, as I recall).
BTW I think your speculation about Republicans joining with Democrats to impeach "President Trump" is totally off the wall. That would be a suicide pact for the Republican Party. The fact that you would even suggest such an outlandish thing indicates to me that you are not Donald Trump's strongest supporter, despite your efforts to give readers here that impression. I also think that Pence was the best choice of the three remaining candidates for reasons I have explained elsewhere, and I regret that his choices were so limited. I would have preferred someone slightly younger, like Kris Kobach of Kansas, who has impeccable academic credentials (summa cum laude from Harvard and law review at Yale Law) and a position on immigration much closer to Trump's, while recognizing that Trump, being the divisive figure he is, probably couldn't afford to make such a bold move at this point without blowing up the Republican Party. You seem to make no allowance for the remarkable balancing act Trump is forced to make to keep the Republican Party somewhat unified behind his clearly transformative policy positions. Unfortunately, such a balancing act is necessary if Trump is to have a chance at winning the Presidency, which I sincerely hopes he does. I have my doubts whether you sincerely feel that way.
“First Spouses”?
I prefer “First Ladies” and “First Laddies”.
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
Thank you, Ron, for backing me up.
At this point, Trump is either lying about his immigration/border/terrorism plans or is so stupid he doesn’t see the sniper rifles now trained on him by the Establishment.
So take your pick: either Trump is lying or is stupid.
Either way, he lost my support.
I'm happy to vote for the sane nationalist alternative to Trump; he just doesn't exist
As bad as you may expect Trump and/or Pence to be, would you expect either of them to be worse than the alternative, Hillary Rodham-Clinton?
“Melania was stunning tonight. She is an absolutely beautiful woman, and her speech was very good,…..”
She was a model, which means she looks kind of like a space alien. Not that it matters. It shouldn’t matter, because she shouldn’t be speaking at the convention. I didn’t vote for her; I voted for her husband.
Trump is already beginning to disappoint. The convention should not be a Trump family reunion. I don’t want to see any of his relatives speaking. I didn’t vote for them; I’m not voting for them. I don’t like the personalization of these conventions. George W. Bush did it too, by having his wife and daughters speak. It’s a bad trend.
The Republic is dead. All hail Caesar!
At this point, Trump is either lying about his immigration/border/terrorism plans or is so stupid he doesn't see the sniper rifles now trained on him by the Establishment.
So take your pick: either Trump is lying or is stupid.
Either way, he lost my support.
“So take your pick: either Trump is lying or is stupid.
Either way, he lost my support.”
Would you have preferred that Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio be the candidate? There was no particular reason to expect much from Trump in the first place. I didn’t. I voted for some of the things he said – for the platform, not the man. I’ll vote for him in November too. He probably can’t be worse than Hillary or any of the doctrinaire Conservative Inc. candidates would be.
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
Lmfao Cuck has jumped the shark when you have Ron Unz using it. It sounds like Mitt Romney trying to speak jive.
My understanding is that Pence has a B+ from Numbers USA (what’s your rating, Ron?), fought against the bank bailout, and Senator Jeff Sessions (a much more respected voice than “Prop 187 kiled the Republicans in Cali/Hispanics don’t really commit THAT many crimes” Ron Unz and commenter “whorefinder”) seems to be on board with the choice.
Maybe, guys, let it go.
She was a model, which means she looks kind of like a space alien. Not that it matters. It shouldn't matter, because she shouldn't be speaking at the convention. I didn't vote for her; I voted for her husband.
Trump is already beginning to disappoint. The convention should not be a Trump family reunion. I don't want to see any of his relatives speaking. I didn't vote for them; I'm not voting for them. I don't like the personalization of these conventions. George W. Bush did it too, by having his wife and daughters speak. It's a bad trend.
The Republic is dead. All hail Caesar!
Agreed. I don’t care about first ladies and don’t vote based on candidate spouses. Ann Romney may have been the most appalling of them with her unceasing Eleanor Shaw penchant for chasing cameras and getting flacks to plant insipid Redbook blurbs about how “the base really loves her.” The whole tradition reeks of Consultant Wisdom, i.e. treating the electorate as easily distracted children. Of course the fame-whoring of the spouses themselves can’t be discounted as a factor.
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
Yeah, Pence was a major buzzkill.
Now that you bring it up, I was worried about how/if a Trump RNC infomercial would go off from pretty much the first debate. The reason is its fundamental clash with the highly atypical campaign thus far. David Frum tried to compare it to William Jennings Bryan but that’s garbage. In truth Trump’s tack has been a sort of Bulworth/Don Rickles anti-campaign with, in the view of the great & good, Overton-busting policy positions that are considered too scandalous to rebut. Mark Sanford’s speechwriter was complaining that DJT lifts his leg to traditional American rhetoric, which is correct and it’s why he banks “inexplicable” Joe Isuzu charisma points with the politically jaded non-partisan masses. Pairing that with a multi-day logrolling/choreographyfest, which is so fake but the fine heritage of Joan Didion and Hunter S Thompson or wtf dictates we must ape these rituals to keep reporters busy, seems like a cop-out. Very smart folks say Trump needs to do more gravitas, be more presidential before the clock runs out. Well, yes, of course, but no. The solution to too much ad-libbing is not fluffy theatrics. Ironically throughout most of Trump’s career this dog & pony stuff, whether in pageants, movies, or TV, is the sort of showmanship he specializes at. However it would befit the democratic wave he’s riding not to spend so much time on art direction and that fairy business. When I heard “We’re gonna put athletes up there” it was not reassuring. Hopefully Trump will instead downsize conventions and the SOTU and correspondents dinners because that crap is getting old.
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
Trump felt that he needed to placate the establishment in order to ensure a smooth convention (see how quickly NeverTrump petered out today) and for later financial assistance and manpower.
Yeah, makes zero sense.Trump battling the Establishment at the convention itself would have bumped him ten points--he'd be solidifying, on national TV, his outsider-anti-Establishment cred. Every angry Bernie Bros (and fuck those commies) would have realized where true rebellion lied---and voted for Trump.NeverTrump never had any momentum; it was DC-insider hastag with no support. Don't be a maroon. It's the equivalent of the Coffee Party.Um, the Establishment will oppose any deportation/border wall/closing of borders no matter what. That's what Soros, Koch, Zuckerberg, et al. pay for.
Trump as president would have had all the manpower he needed in the military and DHS.
And he didn't need money to crush seventeen well-funded opponents; he wouldn't need it on Hildabeast.
So there are but two possible conclusions: Trump sold out, or Trump has an idiotic death wish.
Cuck Pence. No vote.
And then Donald and all the donors and the cucks laugh.
And the Trump supporters realize that, with Cuck Pence, they've been had.
The world is full of spinsters waiting for Mr. Perfect. You have only two realistic choices.
RIP to Kenosha's own Al Molinaro
I’m not sure you realize how insanely popular HAPPY DAYS was in the 70s. It hasn’t aged particularly well, but it was one of the most popular shows ever.
The other show I loved as a kid was The Brady Bunch. Another one too painful to watch now.
At this point, Trump is either lying about his immigration/border/terrorism plans or is so stupid he doesn't see the sniper rifles now trained on him by the Establishment.
So take your pick: either Trump is lying or is stupid.
Either way, he lost my support.
What’s your alternative, though? May as well vote Trump; if he lied to us he’s no worse than any other cuck the GOP would’ve run (better, in fact: at least he makes leftists apoplectic in a way I haven’t seen before). If he’s stupid and gets offed and we end up with President Cuck, Trump can be our martyr.
I’m happy to vote for the sane nationalist alternative to Trump; he just doesn’t exist
http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/siriusxm-suspends-glenn-beck-after-guest-hints-at-donald-trump-assassination/
Jesse Ventura really seems sharper than Trump about these sorts of things:
http://www.unz.com/article/neocon-schizophrenia/#comment-1498050
Mr. Sailer:
I am at a loss to make sense of your approval of a lowbrow, vulgar, puerile insult such as this one by “whorefinder”. What could it possibly add to the discussion?
This was indeed Steve’s best post ever.
Trump is bullet proof.
And, whorefinder, just look in the mirror, brah.
So it’s all about looks, then, eh?
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
Leaders create followers. Leaders force conversions. Leaders take a milquetoast globalist cuck and turn him into a steely nationalist stud before a live national television audience.
Outside of Jeff Sessions, there were very slim “assassination insurance” pickings for Trump. Far better to take the lowliest of cucks like Pence and publicly convert him into a TPP-ravashing, Wall-building, Iraq-war-bashing nationalist strong man. This serves as an example for many other Republicans to get on board the nationalist Trump Train.
Trump has issued a sort of Edict of Milan to the GOP. Their cuck-paganism days are over. Trump will be screaming at them, “Have you made your decision for Christ (Nationalism)?”
So instead of cowering behind the only other nationalist Trump could find; far better to force a “Come to Jesus (nationalism) choice on the entire GOP. Not all will follow; but especially after Cuck Ryan loses his primary next month, many, many will see the writing on the Wall (!) and follow the example of Pense and have that political epiphany towards the Trump Train.
But the reality is probably that he was hampered and hemmed in in his choices. Or he sold us out, but I kind of don't think so.
At this point, Trump is either lying about his immigration/border/terrorism plans or is so stupid he doesn't see the sniper rifles now trained on him by the Establishment.
So take your pick: either Trump is lying or is stupid.
Either way, he lost my support.
I certainly appreciate your point ( that is actually an understatement; I never thought there was ever good reason to believe any of Trump’s promises) but…
As bad as you may expect Trump and/or Pence to be, would you expect either of them to be worse than the alternative, Hillary Rodham-Clinton?
To me, Stever Sailer is to our society what Batman is to Gotham's. Without a superlative society of insanity, neither exist. Steve, like Batman, cannot save society from its worst elements - only we can. If society ever becomes "anti-woke," what will Steve write about?
Perhaps the simulation ends at that point and the plug on our program we call "existence" is pulled.
Golf architecture, garage organization, and human biodiversity in Biology’s Century. You know, back to the basics.
Come they told me
Pa Trump pum pum pum
A new born king to see
Pa Trump pum pum pum
Our finest gifts we bring
Pa Trump pum pum pum
To lay before the king
Pa Trump pum pum pum,
Trump pum pum pum,
Trump pum pum pum
So to honor him
Pa Trump pum pum pum
When we come
Pum pum pum pum
Pa Trump pum pum
Pum pum pum pum
Pa Trump pum pum
Pum pum pum pum
Pa Trump pum pum
Pum pum pum pum pa Trump
Hey Ladies
Pa Trump pum pum pum
I am a poor boy too
Pa Trump pum pum pum
I have no gift to bring
Pa Trump pum pum pum
That’s fit to give our king
Pa Trump pum pum pum,
Trump pum pum pum,
Trump pum pum pum
Shall I play for you
Pa Trump pum pum pum
Pa Trump pum pum
Pum pum pum pum
Mary nodded
Pa Trump pum pum pum
The ox and lamb kept time
Pa Trump pum pum pum
More like a surfside chat.
Pa Trump pum pum pum
A new born king to see
Pa Trump pum pum pum
Our finest gifts we bring
Pa Trump pum pum pum
To lay before the king
Pa Trump pum pum pum,
Trump pum pum pum,
Trump pum pum pum
So to honor him
Pa Trump pum pum pum
When we come
Pum pum pum pum
Pa Trump pum pum
Pum pum pum pum
Pa Trump pum pum
Pum pum pum pum
Pa Trump pum pum
Pum pum pum pum pa Trump
Hey Ladies
Pa Trump pum pum pum
I am a poor boy too
Pa Trump pum pum pum
I have no gift to bring
Pa Trump pum pum pum
That's fit to give our king
Pa Trump pum pum pum,
Trump pum pum pum,
Trump pum pum pum
Shall I play for you
Pa Trump pum pum pum
Pa Trump pum pum
Pum pum pum pum
Mary nodded
Pa Trump pum pum pum
The ox and lamb kept time
Pa Trump pum pum pum
Surely not one for poetry, nor parody. Find some other endeavor.
Sessions is in the Senate, which, if you read the Constitution carefully, is part of Congress, which in turn enacts immigration law.
That you would rather have him over on Observatory Circle, casting his Senate vote only to break a tie, makes me more suspicious.
But I’m still trying to figure out whether the “whorefinder” is the pimp or the john.
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
Hey, Mr Unz, didn’t you use to support Bernie Sanders? I thought you didn’t care at all for Trump..
she speaks 5 languages.
Five? You mean: Slovenic; English; Italian; French; and German? German would be the fifth no doubt.
So then that would tend to demonstrate that in a smarts test between her and Columba, Melania wins hands down.
Ironically, US voters probably at this stage know more basic things about Melania than they do about Columba. A candidate’s spouse is supposed to be an asset, not a liability.
She was a model, which means she looks kind of like a space alien. Not that it matters. It shouldn't matter, because she shouldn't be speaking at the convention. I didn't vote for her; I voted for her husband.
Trump is already beginning to disappoint. The convention should not be a Trump family reunion. I don't want to see any of his relatives speaking. I didn't vote for them; I'm not voting for them. I don't like the personalization of these conventions. George W. Bush did it too, by having his wife and daughters speak. It's a bad trend.
The Republic is dead. All hail Caesar!
I guess you weren’t paying attention when party conventions turned into political infomercials. Unfortunately, many people are affected by such matters. In fact, I was on the fence about voting for Hillary or Trump until I was persuaded by Melania’s speech.
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
Why may he have done it?
He’s trying to come to terms with the “establishment”. He’s been trying for some time.
Great thread here, lots of pointing and spluttering. “It’s the current year!”
There is only me and a couple of righteous individuals there, if anyone feels like joining in. . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/rep-steve-king-wonders-what-sub-groups-besides-whites-made-contributions-to-civilization/#comments
I prefer "First Ladies" and "First Laddies".
After posting and before reading your response, I thought I should have used “First Ladies,” but that would have unnecessarily complicated the dialogue by introducing the subject of transgenderism and unleashing an avalanche of Caitlyn Jenner posts. Besides, if it came down to a choice of “First Ladies,” there wouldn’t be any contest between Melania and Bill Clinton, would there?
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
“I must say that selecting that Pence fellow as VP seems an *amazingly* stupid thing for Trump to have done. I’d only had a vague impression of Pence, but there was a big article about him in the NYT and he really seems like a “super-cuck.”. . .Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don’t make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.”
I have to echo what BB753 said. You seem to believe it would be a mistake to vote for Trump because of the possibility that Trump might be eliminated either as a result of impeachment or assassination and that “cuck Pence” might be elevated in his place. That assumes you were a strong Trump supporter to begin with and that a “more acceptable” running mate would have secured your vote and support for Trump. Exactly which positions of Trump do you support? Restrictions on immigration? I sincerely doubt it. Limitations on foreign entanglements? As I recall, you were a supporter of the Iraq War at the beginning, just like Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton. As publisher of TAC for several years (during a time when I subscribed to that publication before it was overrun by liberal commenters delighting to see Daniel Larison, the self-described “conservative,” rake over the coals the leading Republican of the day–Larison’s tactic du jour is to dwell on the “Republican platform” which demonstrates how neoconnish the Republican Party remains, which I predict will undoubtedly lead him to endorse Hillary before the election), at least three columnists/bloggers came on who had been active supporters of the Iraq War (Rod Dreher, Noah Millman, Scott Galupo), which is more than ironic since TAC was originally formed back in 2002 in opposition to that misguided war. (BTW, of the three, I am more convinced of Noah Millman’s “conversion” because he seems to write with sincerity and conviction in opposition to other foreign entanglements whereas Rod Dreher seems to struggle to suppress his old leanings.)
I believe I am more aware than most here of your avowed liberal political leanings. That was brought home to me a few years back when you posted a piece on TAC announcing that you had become a “man-made global warming” skeptic. What I found most amusing was your admission that you had become a skeptic only after reading piece written by a liberal expressing some doubts about that “theory.” Only then, you felt, could you feel comfortable expressing any doubts about the widely-accepted liberal dogma. That, to me, did not indicate a man with an open mind open to all points of view. I have been a global warming skeptic since I first started reading about it back, but I based my judgment on the facts I uncovered after reading pieces written by both conservative and liberal commentators.
Despite being aware of your very liberal leanings, I have read with admiration and agreement your pieces dealing with “American Pravda,” John McCain, and Sydney Schanberg (whose landmark piece on American POWs in Vietnam was first published under your watch on TAC, as I recall).
BTW I think your speculation about Republicans joining with Democrats to impeach “President Trump” is totally off the wall. That would be a suicide pact for the Republican Party. The fact that you would even suggest such an outlandish thing indicates to me that you are not Donald Trump’s strongest supporter, despite your efforts to give readers here that impression. I also think that Pence was the best choice of the three remaining candidates for reasons I have explained elsewhere, and I regret that his choices were so limited. I would have preferred someone slightly younger, like Kris Kobach of Kansas, who has impeccable academic credentials (summa cum laude from Harvard and law review at Yale Law) and a position on immigration much closer to Trump’s, while recognizing that Trump, being the divisive figure he is, probably couldn’t afford to make such a bold move at this point without blowing up the Republican Party. You seem to make no allowance for the remarkable balancing act Trump is forced to make to keep the Republican Party somewhat unified behind his clearly transformative policy positions. Unfortunately, such a balancing act is necessary if Trump is to have a chance at winning the Presidency, which I sincerely hopes he does. I have my doubts whether you sincerely feel that way.
"I had to give up my positions to save them."
Utter nonsense and double talk to cover up the sell out.
I replied that the American political spectrum, as established and enforced by the MSM, was something like -3 to +3, with e.g. mainstream liberals going from -2 to +1 or something like that, and conservatives vice-versa.
Based on my examination of things, my impression is that factual reality actually ranges from -100 to +100. But that was a few years ago, and based on my further investigation, I'd probably say more like -150 to +150.
One reason that Trump has been so wildly unpopular among all the elites and wildly popular among everyone else is that his range is more like -5 to +5, though probably more due to his status as an ignorant loose cannon than due to any detailed research on his part.
I am from WI and live in his district. I have no idea what his chances are of losing the primary… I do know I will be voting for Mr Paul Nehlen on 8/9. I look forward to that even more than possibly voting for DJT on 11/8.
Then if Ryan happens to be on the ballot on 11/8, I will vote for his Democrat rival (probably).
Good idea. That's a case where voting for the Democrat makes a lot of sense. If Ryan's democratic challenger wins, it won't significantly effect the Republican's majority in the House, but it will have the effect of removing Ryan as speaker. If Ryan manages to squeak out of the primary, everyone who voted for Nehlen should do as you plan on doing. It would be good for the country.
A rarity in American politics is a memorable political convention and even rarer is the convention that is honest about its agenda so why the freak out about Trump?
He knows show business and what appeals to America and his choices, while not impeccable, exhibit a sound sense of what his voters want to hear.
Is Trump believable and will he follow through with all or even a majority of his major promises?
Lord have mercy, men, he is a politician not a Saviour. He is a politician which means he is whoring for votes.
Yeah, but what happens when it comes to the First Spouses debate between Melania and Slick Willy? Oh yeah, there isn’t one… phew!
Outside of Jeff Sessions, there were very slim “assassination insurance” pickings for Trump. Far better to take the lowliest of cucks like Pence and publicly convert him into a TPP-ravashing, Wall-building, Iraq-war-bashing nationalist strong man. This serves as an example for many other Republicans to get on board the nationalist Trump Train.
Trump has issued a sort of Edict of Milan to the GOP. Their cuck-paganism days are over. Trump will be screaming at them, “Have you made your decision for Christ (Nationalism)?”
So instead of cowering behind the only other nationalist Trump could find; far better to force a “Come to Jesus (nationalism) choice on the entire GOP. Not all will follow; but especially after Cuck Ryan loses his primary next month, many, many will see the writing on the Wall (!) and follow the example of Pense and have that political epiphany towards the Trump Train.
It’s a nice but unrealistic idea. I had briefly considered also that Trump picked Pence as insurance–if he had to have s GOPe man, best to have one with no chance of getting elected on his own. That way, no one will gun him down in late October.
But the reality is probably that he was hampered and hemmed in in his choices. Or he sold us out, but I kind of don’t think so.
Well, at work, everyone was talking about the plagiarism issue. No doubt some writer is responsible for it. It kind of looks like sabotage.
“Dago-tees” (I can say that; I’m a dago), or “wife-beaters”, are s-s-s-s-exy! And boxers over briefs always. He could skip the hearts, though
“I guess you weren’t paying attention when party conventions turned into political infomercials.”
I was paying attention. I don’t like it.
“Unfortunately, many people are affected by such matters.”
Yes, shallow, stupid people.
“In fact, I was on the fence about voting for Hillary or Trump until I was persuaded by Melania’s speech.”
And you admit this? So you are part of the “unfortunately” you describe above? Well, given that you were willing to vote for Hillary, I already don’t much care about your opinion.
And you admit this? So you are part of the “unfortunately” you describe above? Well, given that you were willing to vote for Hillary, I already don’t much care about your opinion.""
I assume your humorlessness is a product of your stupidity.
“Then if Ryan happens to be on the ballot on 11/8, I will vote for his Democrat rival (probably).”
Good idea. That’s a case where voting for the Democrat makes a lot of sense. If Ryan’s democratic challenger wins, it won’t significantly effect the Republican’s majority in the House, but it will have the effect of removing Ryan as speaker. If Ryan manages to squeak out of the primary, everyone who voted for Nehlen should do as you plan on doing. It would be good for the country.
That would be between Melania and Huma Abedin, to be fair. Willy and Hillary probably haven’t been intimate with each other for 3 or 4 decades.
She was a model, which means she looks kind of like a space alien. Not that it matters. It shouldn't matter, because she shouldn't be speaking at the convention. I didn't vote for her; I voted for her husband.
Trump is already beginning to disappoint. The convention should not be a Trump family reunion. I don't want to see any of his relatives speaking. I didn't vote for them; I'm not voting for them. I don't like the personalization of these conventions. George W. Bush did it too, by having his wife and daughters speak. It's a bad trend.
The Republic is dead. All hail Caesar!
I only respect people’s sentiment toward their family if their family itself is impressive. If the family doesn’t impress me, I don’t care about them. For example I view the bush/Obama method of having the media fawn over their ugly talentless wives and daughters, I view that as shallow.
No they arent
That you would rather have him over on Observatory Circle, casting his Senate vote only to break a tie, makes me more suspicious.
But I'm still trying to figure out whether the "whorefinder" is the pimp or the john.
Law means nothing without enforcement. As Obama has shown, he can literally change the law simply by how he does (and does not ) enforce it.
It was more important that Trump get a VP who ensured his promised policies. Sessions was just one of a group that could have done that. Cuck Pence is not.
That the Establishment would murder/impeach Trump and replace him with a cuck VP?
It’s for your mom, cuck.
That's why I have a wife, but you have to find whores.
“In fact, I was on the fence about voting for Hillary or Trump until I was persuaded by Melania’s speech.”
And you admit this? So you are part of the “unfortunately” you describe above? Well, given that you were willing to vote for Hillary, I already don’t much care about your opinion.””
I assume your humorlessness is a product of your stupidity.
Steve, approve my comments you woman. If your patron is going to say stupid shit he should be called out.
I have to echo what BB753 said. You seem to believe it would be a mistake to vote for Trump because of the possibility that Trump might be eliminated either as a result of impeachment or assassination and that "cuck Pence" might be elevated in his place. That assumes you were a strong Trump supporter to begin with and that a "more acceptable" running mate would have secured your vote and support for Trump. Exactly which positions of Trump do you support? Restrictions on immigration? I sincerely doubt it. Limitations on foreign entanglements? As I recall, you were a supporter of the Iraq War at the beginning, just like Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton. As publisher of TAC for several years (during a time when I subscribed to that publication before it was overrun by liberal commenters delighting to see Daniel Larison, the self-described "conservative," rake over the coals the leading Republican of the day--Larison's tactic du jour is to dwell on the "Republican platform" which demonstrates how neoconnish the Republican Party remains, which I predict will undoubtedly lead him to endorse Hillary before the election), at least three columnists/bloggers came on who had been active supporters of the Iraq War (Rod Dreher, Noah Millman, Scott Galupo), which is more than ironic since TAC was originally formed back in 2002 in opposition to that misguided war. (BTW, of the three, I am more convinced of Noah Millman's "conversion" because he seems to write with sincerity and conviction in opposition to other foreign entanglements whereas Rod Dreher seems to struggle to suppress his old leanings.)
I believe I am more aware than most here of your avowed liberal political leanings. That was brought home to me a few years back when you posted a piece on TAC announcing that you had become a "man-made global warming" skeptic. What I found most amusing was your admission that you had become a skeptic only after reading piece written by a liberal expressing some doubts about that "theory." Only then, you felt, could you feel comfortable expressing any doubts about the widely-accepted liberal dogma. That, to me, did not indicate a man with an open mind open to all points of view. I have been a global warming skeptic since I first started reading about it back, but I based my judgment on the facts I uncovered after reading pieces written by both conservative and liberal commentators.
Despite being aware of your very liberal leanings, I have read with admiration and agreement your pieces dealing with "American Pravda," John McCain, and Sydney Schanberg (whose landmark piece on American POWs in Vietnam was first published under your watch on TAC, as I recall).
BTW I think your speculation about Republicans joining with Democrats to impeach "President Trump" is totally off the wall. That would be a suicide pact for the Republican Party. The fact that you would even suggest such an outlandish thing indicates to me that you are not Donald Trump's strongest supporter, despite your efforts to give readers here that impression. I also think that Pence was the best choice of the three remaining candidates for reasons I have explained elsewhere, and I regret that his choices were so limited. I would have preferred someone slightly younger, like Kris Kobach of Kansas, who has impeccable academic credentials (summa cum laude from Harvard and law review at Yale Law) and a position on immigration much closer to Trump's, while recognizing that Trump, being the divisive figure he is, probably couldn't afford to make such a bold move at this point without blowing up the Republican Party. You seem to make no allowance for the remarkable balancing act Trump is forced to make to keep the Republican Party somewhat unified behind his clearly transformative policy positions. Unfortunately, such a balancing act is necessary if Trump is to have a chance at winning the Presidency, which I sincerely hopes he does. I have my doubts whether you sincerely feel that way.
Ah, the best of consultant wisdom:
“I had to give up my positions to save them.”
Utter nonsense and double talk to cover up the sell out.
Trump runs an entire campaign that is anti-Establishment, steals their convention and nomination, and all of a sudden he feels threatened by them?
Yeah, makes zero sense.
Trump battling the Establishment at the convention itself would have bumped him ten points–he’d be solidifying, on national TV, his outsider-anti-Establishment cred. Every angry Bernie Bros (and fuck those commies) would have realized where true rebellion lied—and voted for Trump.
NeverTrump never had any momentum; it was DC-insider hastag with no support. Don’t be a maroon. It’s the equivalent of the Coffee Party.
Um, the Establishment will oppose any deportation/border wall/closing of borders no matter what. That’s what Soros, Koch, Zuckerberg, et al. pay for.
Trump as president would have had all the manpower he needed in the military and DHS.
And he didn’t need money to crush seventeen well-funded opponents; he wouldn’t need it on Hildabeast.
So there are but two possible conclusions: Trump sold out, or Trump has an idiotic death wish.
Cuck Pence. No vote.
Basically, they persuade Trump to bring one guy on board. He then brings a couple of others, and starts squeezing out some of the early Trump people. They say they really need money for the campaign, and since Trump can't easily write a $500 million check, they bring in some donor-wranglers. Probably the Trump family members want the MSM to say nicer things about them, and start putting pressure on him. His Kushner son-in-law becomes more and more influential.
I still think Trump all along was really just a loose-cannon loudmouth, so it's not that strong an ideological backbone and can resist all that nibbling away pressure.
But since something like 99% of the elites in DC and the MSM would rather see Pence in the White House rather than Trump, I think his goose is pretty much cooked.
World events, BLM, etc.. are the reason Trump is in a virtual tie with Hillary, despite Hillary spending $45 million since June verse just $3 million spent by Trump and his supporters.
In addition to Clinton spending heavily attacking Trump, the Media is almost 100% against Trump, and the GOP establishment rags like the National Review continue to be against Trump.
But reality and big news events continue to support the Trump agenda. If events like the past 6 months continue occur, Trump will have a huge advantage in November. Another muslim terrorist attack, more cops being targeted, more immigrants invading our borders will keep helping the Trump campaign.
In the late 60s the UK satirical magazine Private Eye had a front cover featuring Richard Nixon – his speech bubble said: “No one’s going to shoot me with Spiro T Agnew next in line”.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-181
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PRIVATE-EYE-1968-22-November-No-181-Richard-Nixon-Spiro-Agnew-Ralph-Steadman-/162121889031?hash=item25bf37b507:g:tDwAAOSwepZXSyKn
Before the Convention, Trump had two options :
1) pick up a non-cucked VP and destroy the GOP. And compromise both his nomination and the election. .
2) Appease the party by choosing Mike “Cucky” Pence as his running mate and secure both the nomination and the election, which is is a done deal by now. Because Hillary is finished. She’s a born looser.
Personally, I would have gone for #1. It was a gamble, but Trump could have both destroyed the party from within (and do Americans a favor) AND won the presidential elections. Alas Trump wanted to win without spending a single penny of his own. Stingy Scotsman! Either that, or he’s broke.. again..
I have to echo what BB753 said. You seem to believe it would be a mistake to vote for Trump because of the possibility that Trump might be eliminated either as a result of impeachment or assassination and that "cuck Pence" might be elevated in his place. That assumes you were a strong Trump supporter to begin with and that a "more acceptable" running mate would have secured your vote and support for Trump. Exactly which positions of Trump do you support? Restrictions on immigration? I sincerely doubt it. Limitations on foreign entanglements? As I recall, you were a supporter of the Iraq War at the beginning, just like Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton. As publisher of TAC for several years (during a time when I subscribed to that publication before it was overrun by liberal commenters delighting to see Daniel Larison, the self-described "conservative," rake over the coals the leading Republican of the day--Larison's tactic du jour is to dwell on the "Republican platform" which demonstrates how neoconnish the Republican Party remains, which I predict will undoubtedly lead him to endorse Hillary before the election), at least three columnists/bloggers came on who had been active supporters of the Iraq War (Rod Dreher, Noah Millman, Scott Galupo), which is more than ironic since TAC was originally formed back in 2002 in opposition to that misguided war. (BTW, of the three, I am more convinced of Noah Millman's "conversion" because he seems to write with sincerity and conviction in opposition to other foreign entanglements whereas Rod Dreher seems to struggle to suppress his old leanings.)
I believe I am more aware than most here of your avowed liberal political leanings. That was brought home to me a few years back when you posted a piece on TAC announcing that you had become a "man-made global warming" skeptic. What I found most amusing was your admission that you had become a skeptic only after reading piece written by a liberal expressing some doubts about that "theory." Only then, you felt, could you feel comfortable expressing any doubts about the widely-accepted liberal dogma. That, to me, did not indicate a man with an open mind open to all points of view. I have been a global warming skeptic since I first started reading about it back, but I based my judgment on the facts I uncovered after reading pieces written by both conservative and liberal commentators.
Despite being aware of your very liberal leanings, I have read with admiration and agreement your pieces dealing with "American Pravda," John McCain, and Sydney Schanberg (whose landmark piece on American POWs in Vietnam was first published under your watch on TAC, as I recall).
BTW I think your speculation about Republicans joining with Democrats to impeach "President Trump" is totally off the wall. That would be a suicide pact for the Republican Party. The fact that you would even suggest such an outlandish thing indicates to me that you are not Donald Trump's strongest supporter, despite your efforts to give readers here that impression. I also think that Pence was the best choice of the three remaining candidates for reasons I have explained elsewhere, and I regret that his choices were so limited. I would have preferred someone slightly younger, like Kris Kobach of Kansas, who has impeccable academic credentials (summa cum laude from Harvard and law review at Yale Law) and a position on immigration much closer to Trump's, while recognizing that Trump, being the divisive figure he is, probably couldn't afford to make such a bold move at this point without blowing up the Republican Party. You seem to make no allowance for the remarkable balancing act Trump is forced to make to keep the Republican Party somewhat unified behind his clearly transformative policy positions. Unfortunately, such a balancing act is necessary if Trump is to have a chance at winning the Presidency, which I sincerely hopes he does. I have my doubts whether you sincerely feel that way.
Well, I remember a few years back someone near the top at NR read one of my articles and asked me with shock whether I was really a “liberal.”
I replied that the American political spectrum, as established and enforced by the MSM, was something like -3 to +3, with e.g. mainstream liberals going from -2 to +1 or something like that, and conservatives vice-versa.
Based on my examination of things, my impression is that factual reality actually ranges from -100 to +100. But that was a few years ago, and based on my further investigation, I’d probably say more like -150 to +150.
One reason that Trump has been so wildly unpopular among all the elites and wildly popular among everyone else is that his range is more like -5 to +5, though probably more due to his status as an ignorant loose cannon than due to any detailed research on his part.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/two-cheers-for-heresy-on-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-465342
And my response to it:
"tbraton says:
September 24, 2012 at 5:33 am
“But as the years went by and more and more mainstream voices endorsed global warming, I began to assume it must be true because “everyone said so,” or at least everyone not subsidized by Exxon Mobil. For similar reasons, I later assumed that Saddam must have WMDs—at least of the chemical or biological variety—given the absolutely uniform proclamations of our mainstream media commentariat.”
Well, I opposed the impending war with Iraq from the time I heard George Bush’s “Axis of Evil” State of the Union speech in early 2002. I remarked to a friend after hearing that speech that “uh, oh, he’s planning to take us to war with Iraq.” Everything I subsequently read (my regular daily reading consisted of the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal—I didn’t hear of or begin to read TAC until sometime in 2009) and watched on TV led me to conclude that the Bush Administration was hyping up the case for war against Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to 9/11, no connection to Al Qaeda, and had not attacked or threatened to attack the U.S. or one of our allies. All that was necessary was to read the MSM carefully and with a skeptical attitude. As far as I was concerned, it was a no-brainer decision to oppose the war with Iraq, and I clearly stated my opposition on the day the war started on a Yahoo finance message board (and got a lot of flack), where I had started to post in early 2003. (I likewise attacked the Greenspan Fed’s “insane” lowering of the federal funds rate to 1% in 2003 and warned of the housing bubble, thanks to regular reading of Barron’s and its longtime columnist Alan Abelson.)
In a like manner, I have always been skeptical of AGW. All one needs to know is that the Earth’s climate has fluctuated greatly during its 3-1/2 billion year history [correction: that should be 4-1/2 billion years], long before man became a significant factor on this planet. One has to stop and ask what caused those earlier periods of both global warming and global cooling that man clearly had nothing to do with. There are clearly major forces at play which cause such great periodic climate change. The one that comes immediately to mind is the Sun. You only cite activities back in the 1930’s. What about the massive ice sheet that was up to a mile thick and covered much of the upper mid-west of the U.S. and large parts of Canada as recently as 10,000 years ago? What caused that to melt and disappear? I wonder if there were any humans back then warning about global warming and the melting of the ice sheet, the way we have today warning about the possible melting of the Arctic ice cap. We know that is roughly the time that American Indians began migrating to the American continent from Asia, so their numbers were relatively small.
I also find very revealing your passing reference, in connection with global warming, “to everyone not subsidized by Exxon Mobil.” Thus, your mindset makes certain basic assumptions concerning political issues that appear to run in one direction. Thus, you innately assumed that global warming skeptics must be influenced by Exxon Mobil, but you never stopped to ask yourself about the possible economic or other motivation of the global warming advocates. That is most clearly revealed by Al Gore’s admission in recent years that his support for the boondoggle ethanol was wrong and was influenced by his need to secure votes first from farmers in his home state of Tennessee and later, when he was running for President, from the farmers in Iowa. An honest but damning admission from the most prominent advocate of global warming, who has profited handsomely through his investments from his strong advocacy of a green agenda. Of course, there is also an entire army of global warming advocates who also profit handsomely from government grants to “study” and push their global warming agenda. The recent Climategate email scandal is deeply revealing about the basic dishonesty of the global warming advocates.
In a like manner, you apparently failed to appreciate the fact that the neoconservatives were the ones pushing for war against Iraq. In fact, the first issue of the Weekly Standard edited by leading neoconservative Bill Kristol back in 1997 carried a cover story advocating war against Saddam Hussein. The very same forces are also strongly pushing for war against Iran today, just like Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel.
I think you just need to think a little more skeptically about things, Mr. Unz, not just AGW."
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/two-cheers-for-heresy-on-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-465342
I leave to the readers of this blog to judge the merits of your original article and my response to it. I would merely note that I was struck by the failure of your article to even mention the email scandals of the global warming proponents. If their intellectual case is that strong, why did they go to such lengths to alter the records and deny the skeptics a voice? I hate to draw an analogy, but their approach to man-made global warming (or should that be "climate change"?) bears a striking resemblance to the GWB Administration's approach to anyone expressing skepticism of the Iraq War.
"Based on my examination of things, my impression is that factual reality actually ranges from -100 to +100. But that was a few years ago, and based on my further investigation, I’d probably say more like -150 to +150.
One reason that Trump has been so wildly unpopular among all the elites and wildly popular among everyone else is that his range is more like -5 to +5, though probably more due to his status as an ignorant loose cannon than due to any detailed research on his part."
Well, I would have to conclude from the relatively low score you give to Donald Trump compared to the much wider spread you give to factual reality that you are not especially enamored of Mr. Trump and are unlikely to vote for him. (Since you live in California, I would have to say your vote will have little bearing on the election.) I wonder how you score Hillary Clinton on her range.
Outside of Jeff Sessions, there were very slim “assassination insurance” pickings for Trump. Far better to take the lowliest of cucks like Pence and publicly convert him into a TPP-ravashing, Wall-building, Iraq-war-bashing nationalist strong man. This serves as an example for many other Republicans to get on board the nationalist Trump Train.
Trump has issued a sort of Edict of Milan to the GOP. Their cuck-paganism days are over. Trump will be screaming at them, “Have you made your decision for Christ (Nationalism)?”
So instead of cowering behind the only other nationalist Trump could find; far better to force a “Come to Jesus (nationalism) choice on the entire GOP. Not all will follow; but especially after Cuck Ryan loses his primary next month, many, many will see the writing on the Wall (!) and follow the example of Pense and have that political epiphany towards the Trump Train.
Man, I hope you are right about Ryan losing. That would be great. Cantor going down didn’t seem to faze them; maybe Ryan will.
I replied that the American political spectrum, as established and enforced by the MSM, was something like -3 to +3, with e.g. mainstream liberals going from -2 to +1 or something like that, and conservatives vice-versa.
Based on my examination of things, my impression is that factual reality actually ranges from -100 to +100. But that was a few years ago, and based on my further investigation, I'd probably say more like -150 to +150.
One reason that Trump has been so wildly unpopular among all the elites and wildly popular among everyone else is that his range is more like -5 to +5, though probably more due to his status as an ignorant loose cannon than due to any detailed research on his part.
Well, I went to the trouble of digging out your September 24, 2012 piece in TAC entitled “Two Cheers of Heresy on Global Warming.”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/two-cheers-for-heresy-on-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-465342
And my response to it:
“tbraton says:
September 24, 2012 at 5:33 am
“But as the years went by and more and more mainstream voices endorsed global warming, I began to assume it must be true because “everyone said so,” or at least everyone not subsidized by Exxon Mobil. For similar reasons, I later assumed that Saddam must have WMDs—at least of the chemical or biological variety—given the absolutely uniform proclamations of our mainstream media commentariat.”
Well, I opposed the impending war with Iraq from the time I heard George Bush’s “Axis of Evil” State of the Union speech in early 2002. I remarked to a friend after hearing that speech that “uh, oh, he’s planning to take us to war with Iraq.” Everything I subsequently read (my regular daily reading consisted of the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal—I didn’t hear of or begin to read TAC until sometime in 2009) and watched on TV led me to conclude that the Bush Administration was hyping up the case for war against Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to 9/11, no connection to Al Qaeda, and had not attacked or threatened to attack the U.S. or one of our allies. All that was necessary was to read the MSM carefully and with a skeptical attitude. As far as I was concerned, it was a no-brainer decision to oppose the war with Iraq, and I clearly stated my opposition on the day the war started on a Yahoo finance message board (and got a lot of flack), where I had started to post in early 2003. (I likewise attacked the Greenspan Fed’s “insane” lowering of the federal funds rate to 1% in 2003 and warned of the housing bubble, thanks to regular reading of Barron’s and its longtime columnist Alan Abelson.)
In a like manner, I have always been skeptical of AGW. All one needs to know is that the Earth’s climate has fluctuated greatly during its 3-1/2 billion year history [correction: that should be 4-1/2 billion years], long before man became a significant factor on this planet. One has to stop and ask what caused those earlier periods of both global warming and global cooling that man clearly had nothing to do with. There are clearly major forces at play which cause such great periodic climate change. The one that comes immediately to mind is the Sun. You only cite activities back in the 1930’s. What about the massive ice sheet that was up to a mile thick and covered much of the upper mid-west of the U.S. and large parts of Canada as recently as 10,000 years ago? What caused that to melt and disappear? I wonder if there were any humans back then warning about global warming and the melting of the ice sheet, the way we have today warning about the possible melting of the Arctic ice cap. We know that is roughly the time that American Indians began migrating to the American continent from Asia, so their numbers were relatively small.
I also find very revealing your passing reference, in connection with global warming, “to everyone not subsidized by Exxon Mobil.” Thus, your mindset makes certain basic assumptions concerning political issues that appear to run in one direction. Thus, you innately assumed that global warming skeptics must be influenced by Exxon Mobil, but you never stopped to ask yourself about the possible economic or other motivation of the global warming advocates. That is most clearly revealed by Al Gore’s admission in recent years that his support for the boondoggle ethanol was wrong and was influenced by his need to secure votes first from farmers in his home state of Tennessee and later, when he was running for President, from the farmers in Iowa. An honest but damning admission from the most prominent advocate of global warming, who has profited handsomely through his investments from his strong advocacy of a green agenda. Of course, there is also an entire army of global warming advocates who also profit handsomely from government grants to “study” and push their global warming agenda. The recent Climategate email scandal is deeply revealing about the basic dishonesty of the global warming advocates.
In a like manner, you apparently failed to appreciate the fact that the neoconservatives were the ones pushing for war against Iraq. In fact, the first issue of the Weekly Standard edited by leading neoconservative Bill Kristol back in 1997 carried a cover story advocating war against Saddam Hussein. The very same forces are also strongly pushing for war against Iran today, just like Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel.
I think you just need to think a little more skeptically about things, Mr. Unz, not just AGW.”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/two-cheers-for-heresy-on-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-465342
I leave to the readers of this blog to judge the merits of your original article and my response to it. I would merely note that I was struck by the failure of your article to even mention the email scandals of the global warming proponents. If their intellectual case is that strong, why did they go to such lengths to alter the records and deny the skeptics a voice? I hate to draw an analogy, but their approach to man-made global warming (or should that be “climate change”?) bears a striking resemblance to the GWB Administration’s approach to anyone expressing skepticism of the Iraq War.
“Based on my examination of things, my impression is that factual reality actually ranges from -100 to +100. But that was a few years ago, and based on my further investigation, I’d probably say more like -150 to +150.
One reason that Trump has been so wildly unpopular among all the elites and wildly popular among everyone else is that his range is more like -5 to +5, though probably more due to his status as an ignorant loose cannon than due to any detailed research on his part.”
Well, I would have to conclude from the relatively low score you give to Donald Trump compared to the much wider spread you give to factual reality that you are not especially enamored of Mr. Trump and are unlikely to vote for him. (Since you live in California, I would have to say your vote will have little bearing on the election.) I wonder how you score Hillary Clinton on her range.
Apparently he never listened to Jan and Dean; or maybe he did and thought he would be the exception…
There is only me and a couple of righteous individuals there, if anyone feels like joining in. . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/rep-steve-king-wonders-what-sub-groups-besides-whites-made-contributions-to-civilization/#comments
Wow! 2649 comments on the WaPo article as of 2pm EDT. Hitler was mentioned at #7. In the top 20 were Arabs invented the zero, blacks were Egyptians, I am ashamed to be an R, etc. I was so overwhelmed by the knowledge and wit and elegance of argument that I had to go lie down for a bit.
It would be easier to assassinate a candidate than a sitting president, and Hillary is far more Establishment than Pence. She’s already been President!
We just buried her. So everything we need to know about you is encapsulated in that one statement.
That’s why I have a wife, but you have to find whores.
That's not a very nice thing to say, even if his name is "whorefinder."
Sorry to hear about the burial of your mom. I hope she was dead when you buried her.
If you stop and actually think about Pence, he’s actually insurance for President Trump because Pence’ being pro-life, pro-traditional marriage together put him, on social issues, well to the right of the GOP Cuckstablishment whose genuine cucks have done nothing to end baby murder or to have prevented gay marriage.
Also, take into account that Mr. Trump has consistently said he will “make good deals for America.” In picking Pence Mr. Trump has lived up to – he has walked the walk of – his “good deals” talk. Yes, life’s choices are never all one-sided, life’s choices always consist of trade-offs, and Mr. Trump has in this respect done very well indeed.
The wisdom of Mr. Trump’s Pence pick is summed up quite pithily: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try, you get what you need.”
Do you not grasp that President Trump will carry through his main agenda of trade protectionism, of immigration law enforcement and bans on Moslem immigrants, of much less Invade The World/Invite The World – while he lets Vice President Pence distract the Left with Pence’s railing against liberals’ social policies. Can you not see how solid a tag team Mr. Trump has created?
Anti-Pence pounders seem to be as closed-mindedly rabid as liberals in that they want to have their cake and eat it. So you can’t always get what you want: then try, just try, to get what you need.
In picking Pence, Mr. Trump threw the GOP Cuckstablishment a bone, because Mr. Trump knows very well that voters do not predicate their vote on veep candidates, because Mr. Trump grasps that voters vote for one, or the other, the two big Top Slot candidates. Further, Mr. Trump is wise to the fact that Pence brings along deeply disaffected Evangelicals who, for their decades of support for the GOP, have suffered nothing but lip-service from the GOP Cuckstablishment. Yet now so many of you moan that “All Is Lost!” as you rend your garments and go about in sackcloth and ashes as you mimic liberals’ “The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!”?
Grow. Up.
Allow me to draw out a specific point a bit further. Pence actually makes Trump less likely to be replaced—at least with the assistance of the Democratic Party.
If you are a conventional liberal and the Supreme Court has been your super legislature for the last 25 or 60 years, are you more afraid of Donald Trump's likely nominees or Mike Pence's? Now imagine it's not just Scalia's seat, but a liberal's seat on the line. My guess is that a Court filled with Pence's nominees would actually scare Democrats more because of how many touchstone culture wars cases might wind up in the crosshairs: Obergefell, Fisher, Windsor, Lawrence, Casey (or whatever the case this term was), and who knows what others. I don't think Democrats want any part of that.
That's why I have a wife, but you have to find whores.
“That’s why I have a wife, but you have to find whores.”
That’s not a very nice thing to say, even if his name is “whorefinder.”
Sorry to hear about the burial of your mom. I hope she was dead when you buried her.
I prefer "First Ladies" and "First Laddies".
Bill Clinton was First Penis, but in all the wrong places.
Steve is edgy until it comes time to point out that Open Borders Ron Unz has no leg to call anyone a cuck, then it’s time to shut down the commentariat.
More for me
I don't think there's been any credible presidential candidate in the last 100 years so utterly, totally hated by all the political and media elites, including nearly all the top figures in his own party.
And all that angry rhetoric has an impact. Didn't some crazy British guy already plan to try to shoot Trump at a rally? And didn't that rightwing Glenn Beck fellow already get into trouble for strongly suggesting that Trump might need to be assassinated to protect the Constitution? And wouldn't all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress be *extremely* eager to find the slightest excuse to have Trump impeached, with the MSM cheering every step of the way?
Basically, by picking some bland mainstream-conservative like Pence, Trump painted a huge bulls-eye on this back. And since VPs don't make a huge political difference, he could have just gone with someone the establishment also hates. Nixon was much smarter by picking Agnew, whom they needed to get rid of first.
Numbers USA grades Pence B+ to A- … much better than all presidential candidates this year except Santorum. So getting rid of Trump probably won’t slow progress on that most important front.
I have been as critical of GWB as anyone, but Laura Bush is a pretty impressive woman and her twin daughters are a lot better looking, imo, than Chelsea Clinton. As far as talent goes, I’m not sure that the two Bush daughters measure up to the $600,000 a year journalistic talent of Chelsea.
Wasn’t Baio also the star of “Charles in Charge”?
Or maybe that was Tony Danza.
I replied that the American political spectrum, as established and enforced by the MSM, was something like -3 to +3, with e.g. mainstream liberals going from -2 to +1 or something like that, and conservatives vice-versa.
Based on my examination of things, my impression is that factual reality actually ranges from -100 to +100. But that was a few years ago, and based on my further investigation, I'd probably say more like -150 to +150.
One reason that Trump has been so wildly unpopular among all the elites and wildly popular among everyone else is that his range is more like -5 to +5, though probably more due to his status as an ignorant loose cannon than due to any detailed research on his part.
“though probably more due to his status as an ignorant loose cannon than due to any detailed research on his part.”
Perhaps a more accurate word would be to switch out “status” and substitute in “image”. In the political realm, as with a lot of life in general, the way things appear or how a person is perceived tends to make the difference. (e.g. “perception is reality” or “image is everything”).
And you admit this? So you are part of the “unfortunately” you describe above? Well, given that you were willing to vote for Hillary, I already don’t much care about your opinion.""
I assume your humorlessness is a product of your stupidity.
Aren’t you the poster who a few months ago was vs. Trump from the start in favor of Cruz? And that several decades ago various campaigns that you recall, particularly the 1960 and that your friends met JFK in the WV primary? For instance, Melania is heads and shoulders say, above Columba Jeb! As First Lady she’d probably do no better nor worse than the standard run of the mill, with of course the caveat that she wouldn’t take an active role in crafting and developing policy a la Hillary in the ’90s, Rosalyn Carter in the ’70s, etc.
BTW I believe it was your West Virginia grandmother who smoked all that home-grown hemp and told you about all the campaigning Jackie Kennedy did in West Virginia in 1960. I never said a word in my life about having friends who met JFK in the West Virginia primary. You are either on booze/drugs or making things up.
That's why I have a wife, but you have to find whores.
You say that as though being married in 21st century America is a status to be envied or deferred to.
One irony of the growing impoverished state of Fishtown, USA is that Murray fails to observe that policies such as free trade; unlimited immigration; outsourcing are part of the problem as to why Fishtown finds itself in its sorry state.
Unfortunately, some if not most of Charles Murray's public statements on immigration isn't very encouraging for the likes of Peter Brimelow. And of course he isn't a Trump supporter, who would tend to be Fishtown's champion in the '16 election.
A trivial matter blown all out of proportion, but yes, I thought of sabotage too. Some GOP geek on Trump’s payroll has just ensured himself the gratitude of the party bigwigs.
I'm happy to vote for the sane nationalist alternative to Trump; he just doesn't exist
Well, maybe Trump will get lucky and they’ll just decide to impeach him instead. William Henry Harrison only lasted a month in office, and perhaps Paul Ryan and the Congressional Republicans will help Trump beat that record. On the other hand, maybe he’ll get unlucky and one of Glenn Beck’s rightwing listeners will intervene:
http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/siriusxm-suspends-glenn-beck-after-guest-hints-at-donald-trump-assassination/
Jesse Ventura really seems sharper than Trump about these sorts of things:
http://www.unz.com/article/neocon-schizophrenia/#comment-1498050
I think your West Virginia roots are showing. I was on the Trump bandwagon from early last August 2015 on. If you doubt me, go back and review my August 2015 messages because I’m not going to waste any time helping a doofus like you. I was never a Ted Cruz fan. You are obviously confusing me with someone else. That might explain your pick of the Carolina Panthers over the Denver Broncos in this year’s SB by 70-9 or something like that while I picked Denver in an upset by 24-21.
BTW I believe it was your West Virginia grandmother who smoked all that home-grown hemp and told you about all the campaigning Jackie Kennedy did in West Virginia in 1960. I never said a word in my life about having friends who met JFK in the West Virginia primary. You are either on booze/drugs or making things up.
Also, if all it took was one speech from Melania to dissuade you from voting Trump I don't know what more needs to be said. Can't believe that anyone is really watching the convention. The only relevant part is the Donald's acceptance speech.
?
Actually it is becoming so more and more. One section in Charles Murray’s 2011 book on White America from 1960-2010 makes mention that based on combined household income one can tell if a couple is merely cohabiting or actually married. Household income is either 50k or around 70k, the larger point being of course that the price of marriage in going up all the time. In other words there’s more married couples in Belmont than in Fishtown, at least for the most part.
One irony of the growing impoverished state of Fishtown, USA is that Murray fails to observe that policies such as free trade; unlimited immigration; outsourcing are part of the problem as to why Fishtown finds itself in its sorry state.
Unfortunately, some if not most of Charles Murray’s public statements on immigration isn’t very encouraging for the likes of Peter Brimelow. And of course he isn’t a Trump supporter, who would tend to be Fishtown’s champion in the ’16 election.
BTW I believe it was your West Virginia grandmother who smoked all that home-grown hemp and told you about all the campaigning Jackie Kennedy did in West Virginia in 1960. I never said a word in my life about having friends who met JFK in the West Virginia primary. You are either on booze/drugs or making things up.
Apparently basic reading comprehension is past your job description. I pointedly asked at the beginning the question WERE you the poster.
Also, if all it took was one speech from Melania to dissuade you from voting Trump I don’t know what more needs to be said. Can’t believe that anyone is really watching the convention. The only relevant part is the Donald’s acceptance speech.
http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/siriusxm-suspends-glenn-beck-after-guest-hints-at-donald-trump-assassination/
Jesse Ventura really seems sharper than Trump about these sorts of things:
http://www.unz.com/article/neocon-schizophrenia/#comment-1498050
Oh, honestly.
For one thing, William Henry Harrison died of pneumonia which he caught during his inaugural speech in March 1841. It wasn’t completely unheard of, death via pneumonia in the 19th century an era before advanced medicines a la antibiotics. And of course “Old Tippacanoe” was in his 69th year. Hence the monniker “Old”.
Aside from that, are otherwise clear thinkers honestly entertaining quasi-conspiratorial theories along the lines of impeachment, etc?
Really? Seriously? I mean, there is such as thing as the Secret Service and 24/7/365 round the clock protection for world leaders.
Real world reality is seldom that clear cut, except in the realm of fantasy/fictionland.
One step at a time. First wait until Trump is elected.
One irony of the growing impoverished state of Fishtown, USA is that Murray fails to observe that policies such as free trade; unlimited immigration; outsourcing are part of the problem as to why Fishtown finds itself in its sorry state.
Unfortunately, some if not most of Charles Murray's public statements on immigration isn't very encouraging for the likes of Peter Brimelow. And of course he isn't a Trump supporter, who would tend to be Fishtown's champion in the '16 election.
That says nothing about marriage being, in itself, something enviable or that married men should be deferred to.
Yeah, makes zero sense.Trump battling the Establishment at the convention itself would have bumped him ten points--he'd be solidifying, on national TV, his outsider-anti-Establishment cred. Every angry Bernie Bros (and fuck those commies) would have realized where true rebellion lied---and voted for Trump.NeverTrump never had any momentum; it was DC-insider hastag with no support. Don't be a maroon. It's the equivalent of the Coffee Party.Um, the Establishment will oppose any deportation/border wall/closing of borders no matter what. That's what Soros, Koch, Zuckerberg, et al. pay for.
Trump as president would have had all the manpower he needed in the military and DHS.
And he didn't need money to crush seventeen well-funded opponents; he wouldn't need it on Hildabeast.
So there are but two possible conclusions: Trump sold out, or Trump has an idiotic death wish.
Cuck Pence. No vote.
My guess is that it’s the “layered political defense” of the Establishment against outsiders…
Basically, they persuade Trump to bring one guy on board. He then brings a couple of others, and starts squeezing out some of the early Trump people. They say they really need money for the campaign, and since Trump can’t easily write a $500 million check, they bring in some donor-wranglers. Probably the Trump family members want the MSM to say nicer things about them, and start putting pressure on him. His Kushner son-in-law becomes more and more influential.
I still think Trump all along was really just a loose-cannon loudmouth, so it’s not that strong an ideological backbone and can resist all that nibbling away pressure.
But since something like 99% of the elites in DC and the MSM would rather see Pence in the White House rather than Trump, I think his goose is pretty much cooked.
Also, take into account that Mr. Trump has consistently said he will "make good deals for America." In picking Pence Mr. Trump has lived up to - he has walked the walk of - his "good deals" talk. Yes, life's choices are never all one-sided, life's choices always consist of trade-offs, and Mr. Trump has in this respect done very well indeed.
The wisdom of Mr. Trump's Pence pick is summed up quite pithily: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try, you get what you need."
Do you not grasp that President Trump will carry through his main agenda of trade protectionism, of immigration law enforcement and bans on Moslem immigrants, of much less Invade The World/Invite The World - while he lets Vice President Pence distract the Left with Pence's railing against liberals' social policies. Can you not see how solid a tag team Mr. Trump has created?
Anti-Pence pounders seem to be as closed-mindedly rabid as liberals in that they want to have their cake and eat it. So you can't always get what you want: then try, just try, to get what you need.
In picking Pence, Mr. Trump threw the GOP Cuckstablishment a bone, because Mr. Trump knows very well that voters do not predicate their vote on veep candidates, because Mr. Trump grasps that voters vote for one, or the other, the two big Top Slot candidates. Further, Mr. Trump is wise to the fact that Pence brings along deeply disaffected Evangelicals who, for their decades of support for the GOP, have suffered nothing but lip-service from the GOP Cuckstablishment. Yet now so many of you moan that "All Is Lost!" as you rend your garments and go about in sackcloth and ashes as you mimic liberals' "The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!"?
Grow. Up.
Well said.
Allow me to draw out a specific point a bit further. Pence actually makes Trump less likely to be replaced—at least with the assistance of the Democratic Party.
If you are a conventional liberal and the Supreme Court has been your super legislature for the last 25 or 60 years, are you more afraid of Donald Trump’s likely nominees or Mike Pence’s? Now imagine it’s not just Scalia’s seat, but a liberal’s seat on the line. My guess is that a Court filled with Pence’s nominees would actually scare Democrats more because of how many touchstone culture wars cases might wind up in the crosshairs: Obergefell, Fisher, Windsor, Lawrence, Casey (or whatever the case this term was), and who knows what others. I don’t think Democrats want any part of that.
See post 21
Why is the man trying to shut Jack up?