The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Trump's Busy Day
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I’ve got to run some errands, so comment away on Trump’s trip to Mexico and upcoming immigration speech.

Sounds like Trump dominated in Mexico. Carlos Slim’s NYT is livid:

Mexicans Accuse President of ‘Historic Error’ in Welcoming Donald Trump

By AZAM AHMED and ELISABETH MALKIN AUG. 31, 2016

MEXICO CITY — If President Enrique Peña Nieto invited Donald J. Trump to visit Mexico for a dialogue in the interest of democracy, the message has fallen on deaf ears.

Instead, the predominant feeling here in the Mexican capital is one of betrayal.

“It’s a historic error,” said Enrique Krauze, a well-known historian. “You confront tyrants, you don’t appease them.”

On Mexico’s most popular morning television show on Wednesday, a livid Mr. Krauze likened the president’s meeting with Mr. Trump to the decision by Neville Chamberlain, then the British prime minister, to sit down with Hitler in Munich in 1938.

“It isn’t brave to meet in private with somebody who has insulted and denigrated” Mexicans, Mr. Krauze said. “It isn’t dignified to simply have a dialogue.”

Yes, many Mexicans say, it was Mr. Trump who offended the people of Mexico with his disparaging comments about migrants and his promises to build a border wall paid for by Mexico.

But for many Mexicans, the surprising invitation from Mr. Peña Nieto — who has likened Mr. Trump’s language to that of Hitler and Mussolini in the past — is even worse.

Newspapers, television stations, social media and all manner of national communication were awash in vitriol at the idea of a meeting between the two men. …

Still, analysts on both sides of the border said they were mystified about why Mr. Peña Nieto received Mr. Trump.

There is “unanimity that this is a giant farce,” said Jesús Silva-Herzog Márquez, a professor and columnist for Reforma, a Mexico City newspaper.

Mr. Peña Nieto “compared Mr. Trump to Mussolini and Hitler,” he added, “and now we invite Mussolini, we are going to negotiate with Hitler when he hasn’t even won the election.”

After the two men met, in what Mr. Trump described as an “excellent” occasion, they appeared at a very civil news conference. Mr. Peña Nieto promised to work with whichever candidate was elected and spoke about the importance of the relationship with the United States.

“I shared with him the fact that there have been misunderstandings or affirmations that hurt and affected Mexicans in their perception of his candidacy,” Mr. Peña Nieto said he told Mr. Trump. “The Mexican people felt aggravated for comments that were formulated, but I am certain that he has a genuine interest in building a relationship that would lead us to provide better conditions for our people”

While Mr. Trump hardly offered Mexicans the sort of apology that many had hoped for, he was a far more chastened candidate than Mexicans have come to expect. He repeatedly lauded their hard work, and spoke of his “tremendous feeling” for Mexicans.

“They are amazing people,” he noted.

In the end, he called Mr. Peña Nieto a friend.

“I don’t see how that helped Peña Nieto,” said Shannon K. O’Neil, a Mexico expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “If the reason Peña was inviting Trump was to stand up to him and show his strength in front of somebody who has attacked Mexicans, then he failed.

Other critics were less kind.

“To put it mildly, I think it was the biggest humiliation a Mexican president has suffered on his own territory in the last 50 years,” said Esteban Illades, editor of Nexos, a magazine in Mexico. ”He not only managed to make Donald Trump look presidential, which is an incredibly hard thing to do, he managed to forgive Donald Trump even though he didn’t actually offer an apology in the first place.”

Keep in mind that Pena Nieto is, lately, the arch-enemy of the financial savior of the New York Times, Carlos Slim. The current president of Mexico finally pushed through anti-monopoly legislation that has knocked, last I checked, about $20 billion off Slim’s net worth.

Now Trump’s immigration speech is coming up. You can watch it live at 9pm Eastern time on CSPAN’s website. Or here. Rudy is warming up right now:

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
226 Comments to "Trump's Busy Day"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Looking like a winner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/trumps-busy-day/#comment-1550212
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anyone want to toss out some predictions on Trump’s policy prescription for the 11 million illegal aliens?

    My money’s on a repetitious amalgamation of amnesty lingo that contains more weasel words than Obama’s New York Times interviews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    Is the egghead in your name Evan McMullin?
    , @Paul Mendez
    Obviously, you didn't bother to read Trump's remarks in Mexico City before posting your snark.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Do you work for Soros? Or for the DNC? If the latter, way to go with Debbie Waterman-Constable! You elected a dishonest, self-serving, traitor back to the US Congress. Give yourself a gold star for the day and go to bed with a guilty conscience.
    , @Difference maker
    Relax. He's just making it palatable for the cucks and Mexicans

    Some of you don't understand diplomacy and lack a more devious imagination. I like to be frank myself
  3. Trump gave a great speech, and he looked like a great world statesman. Niño-Pendejo did pretty well, too.

    Read More
    • LOL: gruff, AndrewR
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Pendejo!!! I spewed my beer! Stop it -- My keyboard is not working w2!! anym0re
  4. So uh, why did Republican primary voters give up Supreme Court choices to get an awful candidate when Rubio was closer to Trump’s current position?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JimboHarambe
    Rubio's Gang of 8 bill was total amnesty/open borders. Absolutely nothing like Trump's plan. Stop lying.
    , @Paul Mendez
    Because everyone knew Little Marco would flip-flop as soon as he gained the nomination, and revert to the Schummer-approved Gang-of-Eight amnesty.
    , @Broski
    Rubio wasn't trustworthy. Would betray his voters in a second and all knew it. Rubio = amnesty. Trump? Maybe not.
    , @Das
    Trump has issues as a candidate, but I don't buy that Marco Rubio was a good candidate, at all. Too much of a lightweight. He couldn't handle simple debate questions without having a meltdown. Any halfway competent Democratic campaign would be able to torpedo him with attack ads.
    , @anon
    So your argument is that we should have chosen someone who we know has stabbed us in the back before over someone who might possibly stab us in the back in the future.

    It's logic like that that has made the GOP such a winner lately.
    , @Eric Novak
    No policy prescriptions necessary for no amnesty and enforcement, which will be the engine of self-deportation for most.
  5. Trump’s position has been clear and consistent all along:
    1. Build the wall.
    2. Enforce our laws.
    3. Immediate deportation of criminals and gang members.
    4. Mandate e-verify, punish employers who knowingly hire illegals.
    5. No welfare for illegals.

    Once this is all done, there will be no new supply of illegals and many who are already here will leave because the jobs and welfare will dry up. Trump will not send deportation squads around to round up illegals (bad optics-the media would have a field day with that), but he also will never support a broad amnesty for all. He might allow some limited amnesty for a small percentage of illegals. It’s a good program, exactly what we need.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Penguinchip
    It would be our salvation. It would also be enforcing the law instead of undermining it and patriotic instead of treasonous.


    And don't forget the Muslim thing - as important as all the rest. The first step toward the essential and ultimately inevitable step of muslim expulsion. Them, we will round up. After amending the establishment clause, of vourse, as follows: ", except Islam."
    , @Lagertha
    No Welfare for any new arrivals...no social benefits for anchor babies. And, all will be housed in sub-par, single sex dormitories, for a minimum of 7 years, far from a fun city or the coasts, but with TV and food - an American gulag.
  6. Trump’s remarks in Mexico City after his meeting with Nieto were superb! Clear, direct, calm and polite yet unapologetic and patriotic. Of course, the MSM will make sure the voters never see or hear them.

    If Trump can repeat this performance during the debates, he’s got a fighting chance.

    Read More
  7. @Spyder
    So uh, why did Republican primary voters give up Supreme Court choices to get an awful candidate when Rubio was closer to Trump's current position?

    Rubio’s Gang of 8 bill was total amnesty/open borders. Absolutely nothing like Trump’s plan. Stop lying.

    Read More
  8. That noise you’re hearing is the sound of SJW heads exploding across America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Among those whose heads are exploding may we include Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, George Will, and a few others, please?
  9. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Anyone want to toss out some predictions on Trump's policy prescription for the 11 million illegal aliens?

    My money's on a repetitious amalgamation of amnesty lingo that contains more weasel words than Obama's New York Times interviews.

    Is the egghead in your name Evan McMullin?

    Read More
  10. @Spyder
    So uh, why did Republican primary voters give up Supreme Court choices to get an awful candidate when Rubio was closer to Trump's current position?

    Because everyone knew Little Marco would flip-flop as soon as he gained the nomination, and revert to the Schummer-approved Gang-of-Eight amnesty.

    Read More
  11. Do any of the talk radio addicts here realize that Trump’s plan to “work with” the 11 million nonviolent illegals so they can stay and “pay taxes” means that they won’t be deported, employers won’t be punished for hiring the people already here, and that we’ll actually have to give them more money due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and assorted deductions, just like what happened after the Reagan amnesty? “No citizenship” is absolutely and completely meaningless if they get to stay here and their children become citizens. End of story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JimboHarambe
    Shut up, you are lying again. I hope your check from George Soros bounces and you have to get a real job.
    , @MarkinLA
    So the answer is to vote Hillary?

    Why is it that so many of you people who think they are so much smarter than the rest of us keep repeating the same stupid nonsense about Trump? Do you know how many people have come on here and told us how Trump was lying or Trump was this or that? However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Do any of the talk radio addicts here realize that....."

    Talk radio? .....the f**k is that? This here is the internet, fellah.

    You're still living in the 90s. Say hi to Vanilla Ice and Bjork for us.
  12. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Anyone want to toss out some predictions on Trump's policy prescription for the 11 million illegal aliens?

    My money's on a repetitious amalgamation of amnesty lingo that contains more weasel words than Obama's New York Times interviews.

    Obviously, you didn’t bother to read Trump’s remarks in Mexico City before posting your snark.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eggheadshadhisnumber
    From Trump earlier today:

    "There are many improvements that could be made that would make both Mexico and the United States stronger and keep industry in our hemisphere. We have tremendous competition from China and from all over the world. Keep it in our hemisphere. Workers in both of our countries need a pay raise, very desperately. In the United States, it's been 18 years, 18 years wages are going down. Improving pay standards and working conditions will create better results for all and all workers in particular. There's a lot of value that can be created for both countries by working beautifully together. And that I am sure will happen.

    Number five, keep manufacturing wealth in our hemisphere. When jobs leave Mexico, the U.S. or Central America and go over seas, it increases poverty and pressure on social services as well as pressures on cross border migration. Tremendous pressure. The bond between our two countries is deep and sincere. And both our nations benefit from a close and honest relationship between our two governments."

    Yes, that's a very nice message from Trump, very nice indeed. Nothing about Mexico draining manufacturing jobs from the United States, but lots about making sure Mexicans keep their manufacturing safe from the Chinese.

  13. Wiki: “Enrique Krauze Kleinbort was born in 1947 in Mexico City to parents of Polish Jewish descent.”

    Read More
  14. Wow, the flop sweat’s flying at the NYT! The tone of that article was barely-supressed hysteria: Betrayal! Neville Chamberlain!! Awash in vitriol!!!

    Read More
  15. @Paul Mendez
    Obviously, you didn't bother to read Trump's remarks in Mexico City before posting your snark.

    From Trump earlier today:

    “There are many improvements that could be made that would make both Mexico and the United States stronger and keep industry in our hemisphere. We have tremendous competition from China and from all over the world. Keep it in our hemisphere. Workers in both of our countries need a pay raise, very desperately. In the United States, it’s been 18 years, 18 years wages are going down. Improving pay standards and working conditions will create better results for all and all workers in particular. There’s a lot of value that can be created for both countries by working beautifully together. And that I am sure will happen.

    Number five, keep manufacturing wealth in our hemisphere. When jobs leave Mexico, the U.S. or Central America and go over seas, it increases poverty and pressure on social services as well as pressures on cross border migration. Tremendous pressure. The bond between our two countries is deep and sincere. And both our nations benefit from a close and honest relationship between our two governments.”

    Yes, that’s a very nice message from Trump, very nice indeed. Nothing about Mexico draining manufacturing jobs from the United States, but lots about making sure Mexicans keep their manufacturing safe from the Chinese.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Mendez
    Uhhhh, your Post #3 concerned Trump’s policy prescription for the 11 million illegal aliens. Not US jobs going to Mexico vs going to China.

    Nice try, though.

    (And if you had listened to Trump's remarks, you would have heard him say that NAFTA has benefited Mexico more than it has the US. )
    , @Anon7
    So, it doesn't occur to you that Trump is sending a back-channel message to every single Spanish-speaking illegal in the United States, telling them that a Trump administration will work to help create a strong Mexican economy?

    That's an important message to send, since Trump's planned policies of using E-verify with businesses on the one hand, and closing generous US benefits to illegals on the other, will mean that life in los Estados Unidos will soon become untenable and a return to Mexico will become necessary.
    , @TheJester
    And that is what happened. Under NAFTA, industry and jobs went to Mexico, and then from Mexico they migrated to China. Both the United States and Mexico lost out on the deal. Then, the race to China became a torrent.

    The real question is how the products of those industries and jobs that migrated to China can be sold in the United States without a punitive equalization tariff.

    BTW: For a good example of how globalization works, take a look at the latest Apple tax scam that has been in the news ... the art of turning profit into cost and paying no taxes.

    1. Cut a deal with Ireland for lower taxes on profit.
    2. Account all sales in the EU as if they occurred in Ireland.
    3. Take the profits and repatriate them to the United States as the cost of intellectual capital for the home company developing the iPhone and other products sold in the EU (I mean Ireland).
    4. Apple then takes the repatriated profits from Ireland and uses them to administratively pay for worldwide R&D for the next version of iPhones that will indeed be sold worldwide.
    5. Profits from other global ventures that cannot be repatriated as costs are then indefinitely banked overseas (hidden) in tax-friendly jurisdictions until a tax free repatriation scheme can be worked out.

    Notice that only nominal taxes are paid by Apple on billions in profit -- an estimated 0.005% tax rate in Ireland with no taxes paid on billions in repatriated "costs". This is actually an old game, invented by British businessmen at the turn of 20th Century: Sending profits from overseas ventures back to the home company as costs after migrating through and obscuring what is going on through multiple layers of subsidiaries.
  16. So far, this has been quite a brilliant political stroke for Trump.

    But it’s going to create general panic among the media, who have already seen his poll numbers rise before this event.

    They’re going to be lashing out every way they can to undermine its political effect. They’re going to behave like cornered animals.

    How much lying and distortion will we have to put up with?

    My guess is that it’s not going to do much to offset the immediate effect of the meeting itself. Trump met with his major foreign “adversary”, and had a respectful discussion with him. Given Trump’s image as a hot-head incapable of deliberate action and diplomatic speech, it’s hard to see how this meeting, and its character, won’t serve as a strong counterbalance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Mendez

    How much lying and distortion will we have to put up with?
     
    My gut feeling is that the elites miscalculated, and let Trump Hate peak too soon. They should have paced themselves, and saved something for October.
  17. So what headline are we at now?

    “Trump is sixty leagues from the capital”?

    Read More
  18. Trump’s remarks in Mexico City:

    The self-appointed intellectuals like to denigrate Trump’s “3rd Grade” vocabulary, but notice how memorable and persuasive it can be. You come away actually understanding and remembering what he said. No need for pundits to explain what you just heard.

    Also, notice he dared call illegal immigrants “illegal.” Not “undocumented.”

    Read More
  19. OT: An interesting book by a scholar on the topic:

    The End of White Christian America by Robert P. Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI)

    https://www.amazon.com/End-White-Christian-America/dp/1501122290/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

    Read More
  20. @candid_observer
    So far, this has been quite a brilliant political stroke for Trump.

    But it's going to create general panic among the media, who have already seen his poll numbers rise before this event.

    They're going to be lashing out every way they can to undermine its political effect. They're going to behave like cornered animals.

    How much lying and distortion will we have to put up with?

    My guess is that it's not going to do much to offset the immediate effect of the meeting itself. Trump met with his major foreign "adversary", and had a respectful discussion with him. Given Trump's image as a hot-head incapable of deliberate action and diplomatic speech, it's hard to see how this meeting, and its character, won't serve as a strong counterbalance.

    How much lying and distortion will we have to put up with?

    My gut feeling is that the elites miscalculated, and let Trump Hate peak too soon. They should have paced themselves, and saved something for October.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    They've basically been throwing it at him the whole time, and nothing works, because when you get down to it, the core message of what he preaches, curbing illegal immigration and Muslim immigration, and focusing on 'America first' are the things the majority of America agrees with.
    , @candid_observer
    My guess is that the media and the Democrats bought into the, well, conventional wisdom that if they could inflict major damage on Trump right after the conventions, he would never recover from the onslaught. This would explain the countless number of premature declarations of Trump's certain and landslide loss, depictions of downballot Republicans losing their seats because of Trump, and even breathless articles on Hillary's plans to staff and run her administration. All of this they expected to demoralize Trump's supporters, and put Trump in a hole from which he couldn't climb out.

    They seem to have forgotten about both the unprecedented distrust voters have for Hillary, and the resilience of Trump as a candidate.

    Now they've thrown the kitchen sink at Trump, and he's still standing.

    The only thing they can do now, I think, is throw even more journalistic principle and pride out the window, and stoop still lower.

    I'm guessing this will backfire. To be effective they have to possess some measure of credibility, and that's what they've already had to jettison.

    But it's going to get very ugly, I'm sure. And, even knowing in advance that incredible things are about to happen, our jaws will drop.

    , @Anon7
    I agree completely with @candid_observer that it's going to get ugly. I've been watching Presidential elections since 1968 and I've never seen anything like the media bias that has been shown in the last month. As far as "saving something for October", as Paul says, I think we haven't seen anything yet. The world's richest people bet heavily on Hillary in 2008, and then doubled down for Hillary in 2016, and they are pulling out all the stops.

    The media's behavior doesn't surprise me, but the behavior of Republicans astonishes me. I've never seen a major party repudiate its candidate before - have any of you?

    Why haven't Republicans who voted for Trump in the primaries told the party leadership to get in line and support Trump? Republican voters who support Trump need to start telling their Senators and congressmen up for reelection that they'd better start hearing some cheering for Trump, or in November they'll pull the lever for Trump and then go home.
  21. Why Trump’s Risky Trip to Mexico Paid Off

    Donald Trump went to Mexico Wednesday on a risky, last-minute trip in advance of his big policy speech on immigration. He had two goals: to provide a dramatic, newsy preview of his immigration policy speech on Wednesday night, and to look presidential.

    It worked.

    After meeting Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto, a sober and subdued Trump stood at a podium opposite his counterpart, listened patiently as Peña Nieto described their meeting, and then briefly offered his own impressions. Trump listed his 5 policy priorities with respect to Mexico, took a couple of questions and ended the 33-minute press event.

    Both men laid out their positions and acknowledged some areas of conflict. But there were no fireworks at the press conference, and Trump ended his remarks by calling Peña Nieto a “friend.” …

    But the significance of his visit to Mexico has less to do with immigration policy itself and more to do with broader perceptions of Trump as a man and as a potential president. Hillary Clinton began the general election portraying Trump as just another Republican who was likely to do nasty Republican things if he were elected president. She changed her approach at the Democratic convention, arguing instead that Trump was irrational and dangerous, unfit to serve as commander in chief. That effort culminated in her speech last week attempting to make Trump own the “alt-right” and its craziness. Trump, she argued, was unlike mainstream Republicans like Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz. He was a threat to the republic, an ignorant loudmouth who couldn’t unite the country at home and who would bungle the kinds of delicate diplomacy that she’d undertaken as secretary of state.

    On Wednesday, Trump made those concerns look overblown. He stood across from the president of a country whose citizens he has often cast as villains and calmly walked through policy differences in reasonable and rational manner. His angry rants about Mexicans as rapists and criminals, about Mexican-Americans’ views shaped by their heritage, were nowhere to be heard. Trump’s sharp edges were rounded, his hot rhetoric cooler. If voters are concerned that Trump is incapable of behaving like a statesman—and many of them are—Trump showed them that at least on this day, he could. He was, ever briefly, the kind of Trump many Republican elected officials have long hoped publicly that he could become.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-trumps-risky-trip-to-mexico-paid-off/article/2004094

    : )

    Read More
  22. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    From Trump earlier today:

    "There are many improvements that could be made that would make both Mexico and the United States stronger and keep industry in our hemisphere. We have tremendous competition from China and from all over the world. Keep it in our hemisphere. Workers in both of our countries need a pay raise, very desperately. In the United States, it's been 18 years, 18 years wages are going down. Improving pay standards and working conditions will create better results for all and all workers in particular. There's a lot of value that can be created for both countries by working beautifully together. And that I am sure will happen.

    Number five, keep manufacturing wealth in our hemisphere. When jobs leave Mexico, the U.S. or Central America and go over seas, it increases poverty and pressure on social services as well as pressures on cross border migration. Tremendous pressure. The bond between our two countries is deep and sincere. And both our nations benefit from a close and honest relationship between our two governments."

    Yes, that's a very nice message from Trump, very nice indeed. Nothing about Mexico draining manufacturing jobs from the United States, but lots about making sure Mexicans keep their manufacturing safe from the Chinese.

    Uhhhh, your Post #3 concerned Trump’s policy prescription for the 11 million illegal aliens. Not US jobs going to Mexico vs going to China.

    Nice try, though.

    (And if you had listened to Trump’s remarks, you would have heard him say that NAFTA has benefited Mexico more than it has the US. )

    Read More
    • Replies: @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Trump's opening act is still going, so anyone wondering about the immigration climax of Nelson Rockefeller 2: Electric Boogaloo should stick around to hear it straight from his lips.
  23. “…anti-monopoly legislation that has knocked, last I checked, about $20 billion off Slim’s net work.”

    think you meant “net worth”

    Read More
  24. The Mexican Presidente’s remarks were good too, hopefully Trump’s team gets them out into the meme-verse.

    Presidente said something like “I understand that some of the things Trump said have hurt the feelings of Mexicans, but I believe he is a reasonable, respectful man who will be a good neighbor and partner with Mexico”.

    I have yet to find a transcript so this is going off memory of hearing it live via the translator.

    Great stuff all around.

    Read More
  25. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Yahoo news predictably tried to twist it into a snub against Trump, simply posting that Nieto told him that Mexico won’t pay for a wall, trying to make it look like he was given a dressing down by the Mexican president.

    Read More
  26. @Paul Mendez
    Uhhhh, your Post #3 concerned Trump’s policy prescription for the 11 million illegal aliens. Not US jobs going to Mexico vs going to China.

    Nice try, though.

    (And if you had listened to Trump's remarks, you would have heard him say that NAFTA has benefited Mexico more than it has the US. )

    Trump’s opening act is still going, so anyone wondering about the immigration climax of Nelson Rockefeller 2: Electric Boogaloo should stick around to hear it straight from his lips.

    Read More
  27. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Do any of the talk radio addicts here realize that Trump's plan to "work with" the 11 million nonviolent illegals so they can stay and "pay taxes" means that they won't be deported, employers won't be punished for hiring the people already here, and that we'll actually have to give them more money due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and assorted deductions, just like what happened after the Reagan amnesty? "No citizenship" is absolutely and completely meaningless if they get to stay here and their children become citizens. End of story.

    Shut up, you are lying again. I hope your check from George Soros bounces and you have to get a real job.

    Read More
  28. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Paul Mendez

    How much lying and distortion will we have to put up with?
     
    My gut feeling is that the elites miscalculated, and let Trump Hate peak too soon. They should have paced themselves, and saved something for October.

    They’ve basically been throwing it at him the whole time, and nothing works, because when you get down to it, the core message of what he preaches, curbing illegal immigration and Muslim immigration, and focusing on ‘America first’ are the things the majority of America agrees with.

    Read More
  29. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Do any of the talk radio addicts here realize that Trump's plan to "work with" the 11 million nonviolent illegals so they can stay and "pay taxes" means that they won't be deported, employers won't be punished for hiring the people already here, and that we'll actually have to give them more money due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and assorted deductions, just like what happened after the Reagan amnesty? "No citizenship" is absolutely and completely meaningless if they get to stay here and their children become citizens. End of story.

    So the answer is to vote Hillary?

    Why is it that so many of you people who think they are so much smarter than the rest of us keep repeating the same stupid nonsense about Trump? Do you know how many people have come on here and told us how Trump was lying or Trump was this or that? However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iStevefan
    Thank you
    , @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Of course "we" are smarter than you. What's your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump's economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump's ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of "softening the position" on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don't want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.
    , @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Of course “we” are smarter than you. What’s your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump’s economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump’s ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of “softening the position” on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don’t want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.
     
    Don't vote: it merely encourages them.
  30. @JimboHarambe
    Trump's position has been clear and consistent all along:
    1. Build the wall.
    2. Enforce our laws.
    3. Immediate deportation of criminals and gang members.
    4. Mandate e-verify, punish employers who knowingly hire illegals.
    5. No welfare for illegals.

    Once this is all done, there will be no new supply of illegals and many who are already here will leave because the jobs and welfare will dry up. Trump will not send deportation squads around to round up illegals (bad optics-the media would have a field day with that), but he also will never support a broad amnesty for all. He might allow some limited amnesty for a small percentage of illegals. It's a good program, exactly what we need.

    It would be our salvation. It would also be enforcing the law instead of undermining it and patriotic instead of treasonous.

    And don’t forget the Muslim thing – as important as all the rest. The first step toward the essential and ultimately inevitable step of muslim expulsion. Them, we will round up. After amending the establishment clause, of vourse, as follows: “, except Islam.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @RonaldB
    "After amending the establishment clause, of vourse, as follows: “, except Islam.”

    I think a much better way is to go back to the clear words of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law..."

    This, to me, means that religions are protected from legal harassment or government support, but they are NOT given special privileges. In other words, the exceptions, exemptions, waivers, and privileges that are given to religions are unconstitutional. It is not constitutional to give them exemptions from taxes (except as regular non-profits), from educational standards, from zoning laws because they are religions. It seems to me laws or ordinances favoring religious observance are unconstitutional on their face.

    So, how does this affect Muslims? It is also unconstitutional to make laws or regulations against discriminating on the basis of religion. These laws clearly affect the establishment of religion.

    So, any employer or landlord should be able to decide on the basis of religion whether to hire or rent to someone. If you remove legal sanctions and the threat of fines or criminal actions, the problem with Muslims should clear up on its own. Who knows: they might even find themselves forced to act decently towards non-Muslims.

    I don't think my interpretation of the Constitution's words are far out. They seem plain to me. The lawyers like to use specialized definitions of common words, which is understandable, but clear intent is clear intent.

    I think realigning Constitutional interpretation in line with the clear statement of present wording is far easier to achieve than a proposed Constitutional amendment like the one you proposed, which enshrines all the extra-legal and unconstitutional laws giving religion special privilege.

    I'm not opposed to religion in any way, by the way. I think legitimate religions are far better off, like the rest of us, by following the Constitution.
  31. On Mexico’s most popular morning television show on Wednesday, a livid Mr. Krauze likened the president’s meeting with Mr. Trump to the decision by Neville Chamberlain, then the British prime minister, to sit down with Hitler in Munich in 1938.

    How many Mexicans care about that analogy? I’d bet dollars to pesos that the average Mexican doesn’t even know who Chamberlain was.

    Yes, many Mexicans say, it was Mr. Trump who offended the people of Mexico with his disparaging comments about migrants and his promises to build a border wall paid for by Mexico.

    What should be offensive to the people of Mexico is the fact that a large, resource-rich New World nation cannot provide for its people and that a significant portion of which have headed North. Nothing says failure like having 10 percent of your population picking up and leaving.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    20%
    , @Anonymous
    Well, the average American doesn't know who Chamberlain was.

    What should be offensive to the people of Mexico is the fact that a large, resource-rich New World nation cannot provide for its people and that a significant portion of which have headed North. Nothing says failure like having 10 percent of your population picking up and leaving.
     
    You could say the same thing about the US. If it was so successful, why did it have to annex Mexican territory? Why couldn't it provide with what it had, which was a significant landmass already?
  32. @MarkinLA
    So the answer is to vote Hillary?

    Why is it that so many of you people who think they are so much smarter than the rest of us keep repeating the same stupid nonsense about Trump? Do you know how many people have come on here and told us how Trump was lying or Trump was this or that? However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.

    Thank you

    Read More
  33. Wow, NYT went to Godwin’s Law or Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies in the fourth paragraph and then two more comparisons to Hitler et al., for a total of three. You’re right Steve Sailer, there pissed.

    Read More
  34. @Paul Mendez

    How much lying and distortion will we have to put up with?
     
    My gut feeling is that the elites miscalculated, and let Trump Hate peak too soon. They should have paced themselves, and saved something for October.

    My guess is that the media and the Democrats bought into the, well, conventional wisdom that if they could inflict major damage on Trump right after the conventions, he would never recover from the onslaught. This would explain the countless number of premature declarations of Trump’s certain and landslide loss, depictions of downballot Republicans losing their seats because of Trump, and even breathless articles on Hillary’s plans to staff and run her administration. All of this they expected to demoralize Trump’s supporters, and put Trump in a hole from which he couldn’t climb out.

    They seem to have forgotten about both the unprecedented distrust voters have for Hillary, and the resilience of Trump as a candidate.

    Now they’ve thrown the kitchen sink at Trump, and he’s still standing.

    The only thing they can do now, I think, is throw even more journalistic principle and pride out the window, and stoop still lower.

    I’m guessing this will backfire. To be effective they have to possess some measure of credibility, and that’s what they’ve already had to jettison.

    But it’s going to get very ugly, I’m sure. And, even knowing in advance that incredible things are about to happen, our jaws will drop.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    The only thing they can do now, I think, is throw even more journalistic principle and pride out the window, and stoop still lower.

    I don't think that's possible. We've already passed that point. I'm seriously concerned about Trump's physical safety.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I heard some speculation that Trump is keeping his powder dry until after labor day, when the swing voters start paying attention. Most people who are really paying attention during the summer already know who they're voting for and aren't likely to change their opinions.

    It's a theory anyway.

  35. 6 Reasons Why This Lateeeno Pan Blanco El Presidente Will Be Trump’s BFF:

    1.) While attending Panamerican University – a business school named like something Trump would be affiliated – Nieto managed to plagiarize nearly 30 percent of law degree thesis from lawyers, historians, and at least one president. Therefore, Nieto has the best words on the Mexican side of Rio Grande.

    2.) In 2011, at a book fair in Guadalajara, during a question and answer session Nieto was asked by an audience member to name three books that had influenced him.
    After some hesitance, he said he had read “parts of” the Bible.
    (Sounds like a classic Trump to me. Did I forget to mention that Panamaerican University is nominally a private Catholic institution of higher education?)
    Nieto then rambled on, confusing titles, forgetting the names of authors and sometimes mismatching them.
    “I have read a number of books, starting with novels, that I have liked,” he said. “I have had a hard time recalling the titles.” (This has a certain Palinesque value, but Trump could have said something to that effect )

    3.) Nieto is a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (very odd, almost a quantum-physics, word choice to name a political party. Sounds like an Old-Soviet meets New Oligarch space-time continuum)

    4.) Nieto was elected as a president with only 38% of votes (it is not a coincidence that Trump for months lingers in polls around that very same number )

    5.) There are more Mexican-Americans than Mexican-Mexicans that like Nieto. There are also more Mexican-Americans than Mexican-Mexicans that like Trump.

    6.) What kind of last name is Nieto, anyway. Isn’t that how Putin pronounces NATO !?

    The conclusion: President Trump will have a very,very,very tremendous relationship with a President Nieto. I only wish the rest of us would be able to claim the same.

    Why?
    Because this melanin deficient Mexican Patriot is also not a true Scotsman, and, just like his New York based wannabee-counterpart, has been successfully planted by the Russians.

    And where is Sam Haysom , when you need him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy

    6.) What kind of last name is Nieto, anyway. Isn’t that how Putin pronounces NATO !?
     
    These days, Putin probably says Nyet-o!
  36. Is it just me, or does it seem like the media has backed off of Trump over the last 36 hours or so? At least a little bit.

    Read More
  37. @MarkinLA
    So the answer is to vote Hillary?

    Why is it that so many of you people who think they are so much smarter than the rest of us keep repeating the same stupid nonsense about Trump? Do you know how many people have come on here and told us how Trump was lying or Trump was this or that? However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.

    Of course “we” are smarter than you. What’s your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump’s economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump’s ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of “softening the position” on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don’t want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    Trump will build the wall.
    , @Roman Frege
    Actually, most of his domestic policy is coming from Mercatus Institute you shill. Heritage is providing zero policy support. If we're talk radio addicts, you're a low-T manlet.
    , @Difference maker
    Nah you don't seem that smart
    , @Yak-15
    "What's your alma mater?" - the defining statement of intellectual bankruptcy.
    , @dr kill
    Oh my. I absolutely hate defending PSU, what with the bullshit about Paterno and Sandusky, but let me say that I have a BS from PSU and a graduate degree from Penn. The great unwashed are always confused by the two schools . Let me also say that I feel the education from my state school was degrees better than that which I received from my Ivy League school. And at the time I was a student , the cost was 4k v. 13 k for a semester.
  38. There is a drug and crime problem in Mexico? I’m sure what is needed is a well funded group to protest police injustice. I suggest it be called “Mexican Lives Matter” and begin immediately protesting the police when they shoot a suspect. I’m sure that will go over well with Mexicans. Meanwhile Hilary can’t be bothered to visit Mexico or talk about the obvious problems there. How much did the now much poorer Carlos Slim donate to CGI?

    Read More
  39. @Spyder
    So uh, why did Republican primary voters give up Supreme Court choices to get an awful candidate when Rubio was closer to Trump's current position?

    Rubio wasn’t trustworthy. Would betray his voters in a second and all knew it. Rubio = amnesty. Trump? Maybe not.

    Read More
  40. He got “deport” and “exile” confused. We want to exile Hillary, not deport her…

    Read More
  41. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Anyone want to toss out some predictions on Trump's policy prescription for the 11 million illegal aliens?

    My money's on a repetitious amalgamation of amnesty lingo that contains more weasel words than Obama's New York Times interviews.

    Do you work for Soros? Or for the DNC? If the latter, way to go with Debbie Waterman-Constable! You elected a dishonest, self-serving, traitor back to the US Congress. Give yourself a gold star for the day and go to bed with a guilty conscience.

    Read More
  42. @Not Raul
    Trump gave a great speech, and he looked like a great world statesman. Niño-Pendejo did pretty well, too.

    Pendejo!!! I spewed my beer! Stop it — My keyboard is not working w2!! anym0re

    Read More
  43. I’d rather learn Spanish and do the Stations of the Cross than have one Mosque in our country . And since the white man won’t defend his own culture maybe the Mestizos will . Anything is better than a Negro moving in next door . And f**k all you bitches that don’t live in a vibrant community as I have been forced to live in .

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    You faggots are no better than the SJW 'S you claim to despise . Safe in your white enclaves no need to defend yourselves except with great volumes of billowing wind .
  44. Never underestimate Trump. He’s a natural born politician. And he’s certainly got the goods on Hillary, so he doesn’t care what her media whores throw at him.
    Also, can you imagine a tv debate between Trump and Hillary? There’s no possible contest. With the possibility of her having a fit or a seizure live on tv.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Also, can you imagine a tv debate between Trump and Hillary? There’s no possible contest.

    Trump hasn't performed well in debates. I see it as his Achilles heel here in the final stretch.
  45. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Where is Tiny D*ck when you need him. I am expecting some Baghdad Bob levels of humor from him.

    Read More
  46. Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    Read More
    • Replies: @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Flip a coin twice and see if you can get the same side both times. That's Trump's chance of winning right now. The main obstacles are Trump's refusal to read up on the reasoning behind his stump issues, primarily trade and immigration, and the Etch A Sketch strategy being pushed by Kellyanne Conway, a former cocaine addict and current Trump campaign manager.
    , @candid_observer
    Follow the bouncing polls...
    , @SFG
    According to the markets, about 1 in 4. So yes.
    , @The most deplorable one
    Well, Hillary has been hiding from the press and the public for a long time, while Trump has been attending one or two rallies a day.

    And the funny thing is, today, an Indian (dot, not feather) coworker in Silly Valley, who is a citizen has indicated that he is thinking of voting for Trump.

    Make of these facts what you will.
    , @newrouter
    >Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?<

    sure if you overwhelm the fraud
    , @Trelane
    My general sense, looking at the national election and prevailing mood in 2016, is that what we have here is the begining of something, a turning of the tide and also, ominously, a gathering storm. The answer to your question is yes.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Trump is going to win in a blowout. And no, I'm not being a Pollyanna.

    There is literally no way that Hillary Clinton can form a governing coalition. She's far too corrupt, sickly, evil, and compromised to function. That will sink in with the American electorate before November 8th. Democrat turnout will be depressed and lifeless; Republican turnout will be through the roof, as will (more importantly) independent turnout, and the independents will be voting Trump.

    I remember how it felt in 2006, the midterm election of George W. Bush's second term. You could just feel it in the air that Americans were going to hand the Democrats a crushing victory because they were so sick and tired of Bushism. This feels just like 2006, only more so. All the signs are pointing to Trump.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it's a tight race.

    Julian Assange claims he has bombshell information on Hillary, which will be released before the November election. Assuming he's not exaggerating (he's been very credible in the past), that could sink her campaign.

    Also, Hillary has a lot of problems (BenGhazi cover up, setting up an illegal e-mail server, health issues, bribes from foreign donors to her foundation) that could sink her too.

    Honestly, though, I think Assange is the critical factor. If he has the right information, he could put Trump in the White House.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. If he can win those states, he's in the White House. Ohio and Pennsylvania are must-wins.
    , @SteveRogers42
    He will not only win, he will win in a landslide.
    , @middle aged vet
    22p22 - Not a Sailerite but - Trump will, on balance, not lose a single vote that he would not have otherwise lost solely because the mainstream media deems him "unacceptable", because Americans dislike their media almost as much as East Germans did. Anyway, turning to real-world factors, Trump will lose a few white voters that Romney got because of his perceived squishiness on abortion and his actual squishiness on Planned Parenthood (Romney was squishy too but people did not get it). He will make it up with non-Romney voters who are Evangelicals or Catholics who did not trust an uber-rich Mormon bishop and who hear Trump loud and clear when he says the Supreme Court has been anti-American for far too long. Trump will get more whites to the polls than Romney because Trump likes people who are white just as much as people who are not white - so did Romney, but the rich old fool was afraid to admit it. That being said, even if Trump only does exactly as well as Romney did with whites, percentage-wise (but he does need to do better turn-out wise), he can still win. African-Americans are not going to do it for him - they will vote for Hillary in approximately the same percentage, and with the same turnout, as they did for Obama, out of gratitude to her for being Obama's friend. It is a simple fact that Obama is way more popular with African-Americans than any white president has ever been with whites. That being said, Trump may do slightly (like one or two in a hundred) better with African-Americans, which might win him Florida or Virginia by a few thousand votes, but if that is what he needs to win , he will not win. But lots of Hispanic voters really like Sabado Gigante and Trump kills with the Sabado Gigante crowd (listen to his interviews with the American Sabado Gigante guy, Howard Stern - Sabado Gigante and Howard Stern being the south of the border and north of the border platonic ideals of the gluttony-loving and lechery-loving slob working class entertainment sector), so based on this alone Trump scores a few more points with the Sabado Gigante crowd (keeping places like Ohio and Arizona in play with less ad expenses). Plus he is going to get about half a million more gays, almost all of whom vote, than Romney did, which will help if some weird state like Wisconsin wins it for him (Paul Ryan owes him big, by the way). So Trump is, at current rates, guaranteed to do slightly better with confirmed voters than Romney, question is whether the turnout of usually non-voting low-information people who have been screwed over by the economy for the last 28 years of rich-kid presidents will show up in swing states and put Trump over the top. I think they will, but they might not - they are thought of as low-information for a reason - and another problem is that swing states are the most vulnerable to what is called "ground game", and Trump, like any other businessman, is not at his best on the first go-around of a product. And ground game is something that gets better for each party with every iteration, and the Democrats are ahead. So bottom line - forget the polls - with no big changes from today until Election Day, there is a one third chance Hillary wins with an honest vote, a one third chance that we will never know what the honest vote was, and a one third chance that Trump wins, but with almost all the the liberals saying he won in a crooked way. There can't be a Reagan-like landslide for Trump because the Democrats have a floor in the low to mid forties (42 to 45) now, whereas that floor was at 40 or 41 when Reagan was running. Republican floor is high 30s at best.
    , @frizzled
    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the '80s. Yes, something could change, but it's hard to see what.

    The fact you have a dozen quick replies denying this, shows that, much as I enjoy Steve's amusing takes on liberal reality denial, conservatives also have trouble with reality.

    , @anonguy
    Since forever, I've been saying Trump in a historic landslide. It is now all lining up so even the stupidest iSteve commenter can sense something is up.
  47. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    Flip a coin twice and see if you can get the same side both times. That’s Trump’s chance of winning right now. The main obstacles are Trump’s refusal to read up on the reasoning behind his stump issues, primarily trade and immigration, and the Etch A Sketch strategy being pushed by Kellyanne Conway, a former cocaine addict and current Trump campaign manager.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    If you are trying a 1-in-4 example, it has to be 2 heads or 2 tails BEFORE the flips, not after.
  48. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Times had a spectacular Goodwin’s Law moment.

    They compared Trump to Hitler 4 times (although since this was theoretically a news article, quoted someone using the Hitler analogy.)

    As if that wasn’t enough, we also got Mussolini, Neville Chamberlain and Munich.

    That’s jumping the shark. And if Hitler is their best argument, the Times has a problem.

    Read More
  49. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    Follow the bouncing polls…

    Read More
  50. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Please explain to me – why did the Mexican president invite Trump?

    Isn’t this bad for his approval ratings among Mexicans? Don’t they hate Trump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @scrivener3
    The leaders of more than half the nations on earth could not get a sit down with the President of the US. The US is the most powerful country in the world. To stand next to a (likely) President and exchange respectful pleasantries is a huge image intensifier to your own people.

    Barack never visited Mexico.
  51. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    According to the markets, about 1 in 4. So yes.

    Read More
  52. Looks like I was right, Trump can’t even bother to invent a position on the eleven million illegals, instead he just says that we “shouldn’t have a conversation on it now”.

    Read More
  53. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    Well, Hillary has been hiding from the press and the public for a long time, while Trump has been attending one or two rallies a day.

    And the funny thing is, today, an Indian (dot, not feather) coworker in Silly Valley, who is a citizen has indicated that he is thinking of voting for Trump.

    Make of these facts what you will.

    Read More
  54. @Spyder
    So uh, why did Republican primary voters give up Supreme Court choices to get an awful candidate when Rubio was closer to Trump's current position?

    Trump has issues as a candidate, but I don’t buy that Marco Rubio was a good candidate, at all. Too much of a lightweight. He couldn’t handle simple debate questions without having a meltdown. Any halfway competent Democratic campaign would be able to torpedo him with attack ads.

    Read More
  55. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    >Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?<

    sure if you overwhelm the fraud

    Read More
  56. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    My general sense, looking at the national election and prevailing mood in 2016, is that what we have here is the begining of something, a turning of the tide and also, ominously, a gathering storm. The answer to your question is yes.

    Read More
  57. @MarkinLA
    So the answer is to vote Hillary?

    Why is it that so many of you people who think they are so much smarter than the rest of us keep repeating the same stupid nonsense about Trump? Do you know how many people have come on here and told us how Trump was lying or Trump was this or that? However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.

    Of course “we” are smarter than you. What’s your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump’s economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump’s ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of “softening the position” on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don’t want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.

    Read More
  58. Lol… Donald Trump is fearless when prattling bullshit to an audience of yahoos but he can’t say it to a foreign leader’s face. I’m sure he’ll have the gumption to negotiate tough tough deals with the Chinese, though. Like maybe negotiating down the massive amount of debt the Chinese national bank holds over him.

    What a pussy. Just like his base of internet troll fans

    Read More
  59. @iStevefan

    On Mexico’s most popular morning television show on Wednesday, a livid Mr. Krauze likened the president’s meeting with Mr. Trump to the decision by Neville Chamberlain, then the British prime minister, to sit down with Hitler in Munich in 1938.
     
    How many Mexicans care about that analogy? I'd bet dollars to pesos that the average Mexican doesn't even know who Chamberlain was.

    Yes, many Mexicans say, it was Mr. Trump who offended the people of Mexico with his disparaging comments about migrants and his promises to build a border wall paid for by Mexico.
     
    What should be offensive to the people of Mexico is the fact that a large, resource-rich New World nation cannot provide for its people and that a significant portion of which have headed North. Nothing says failure like having 10 percent of your population picking up and leaving.

    20%

    Read More
  60. This is a really good speech. I think he hit a home run. but I am sure my phone app will tell me he just blew it.

    Trump could donate a kidney to save a kid and the headline would read “Trump trying to buy the vote of the parents of a sick kid.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Trump just said that the eleven million illegals won't even be discussed for the majority of his term, if at all. How's that a "home run"?
  61. Trump dominated with alpha male body language.

    Read More
  62. @donut
    I'd rather learn Spanish and do the Stations of the Cross than have one Mosque in our country . And since the white man won't defend his own culture maybe the Mestizos will . Anything is better than a Negro moving in next door . And f**k all you bitches that don't live in a vibrant community as I have been forced to live in .

    You faggots are no better than the SJW ‘S you claim to despise . Safe in your white enclaves no need to defend yourselves except with great volumes of billowing wind .

    Read More
  63. I saw this MSM headline: “Trump Defends Right to Build Huge Wall.” As if that were in doubt. And why “huge?” To make it sound expensive and undoable, or do they want you to hear “yuge” in your head?

    Read More
  64. @iStevefan
    This is a really good speech. I think he hit a home run. but I am sure my phone app will tell me he just blew it.

    Trump could donate a kidney to save a kid and the headline would read "Trump trying to buy the vote of the parents of a sick kid."

    Trump just said that the eleven million illegals won’t even be discussed for the majority of his term, if at all. How’s that a “home run”?

    Read More
  65. Trump’s Phoenix speech is FANTASTIC. He’s unreal. He hasn’t backed off an inch. It is well-delivered and substantive.

    Trump is knocking it out of the park today, and he’s 100% doubling down on ending illegal immigration and crime committed by illegals.

    The guys over at VDARE (and Ann Coulter) are going to be having multiple orgasms over this.

    It’s THAT good.

    (Of course, you should expect that every Jewish and Leftist -controlled media outlet and the Southern Poverty Law Center and Hillary Clinton will be calling Trump “Hitler” tomorrow morning…)

    Read More
  66. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    Trump is going to win in a blowout. And no, I’m not being a Pollyanna.

    There is literally no way that Hillary Clinton can form a governing coalition. She’s far too corrupt, sickly, evil, and compromised to function. That will sink in with the American electorate before November 8th. Democrat turnout will be depressed and lifeless; Republican turnout will be through the roof, as will (more importantly) independent turnout, and the independents will be voting Trump.

    I remember how it felt in 2006, the midterm election of George W. Bush’s second term. You could just feel it in the air that Americans were going to hand the Democrats a crushing victory because they were so sick and tired of Bushism. This feels just like 2006, only more so. All the signs are pointing to Trump.

    Read More
  67. Since the cartels could be thought of as paramilitary forces making incursions into US territory, why not hold Robin Sage in, say, southern Arizona … ? Might be throwing the students into the deep end, but at that point you’re either ready or you’re not.

    Read More
  68. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it’s a tight race.

    Julian Assange claims he has bombshell information on Hillary, which will be released before the November election. Assuming he’s not exaggerating (he’s been very credible in the past), that could sink her campaign.

    Also, Hillary has a lot of problems (BenGhazi cover up, setting up an illegal e-mail server, health issues, bribes from foreign donors to her foundation) that could sink her too.

    Honestly, though, I think Assange is the critical factor. If he has the right information, he could put Trump in the White House.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jimmyriddle
    Trump can claw his way back up, but can he then refrain from getting into a twitter spat with a terminally ill child, or some such stupidity? That's the question.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    I watch some of the Fox News roundtables. On a show hosted by Paul Gigot of the WSJ, Dorothy Rabinowitz was defending Hillary against accusations of corruption, talking about how there's only an appearance of impropriety, smoke but no fire. But where there's smoke you know there's a fire, whether or not you can locate it. And since it's the smoke that usually kills you, you need to escape the smoke whether or not you've located the fire. How can someone with any integrity defend Hillary on the basis that the charges against her can't be proven in court? We're not trying her, we're deciding whether or not to elect her president.

    Hillary was never convicted of taking a bribe from Tyson Foods when they channeled $100,000 to her through a cut-out. Could there be a more obvious bribe than that? Granted, it's not provable, but can anyone explain it otherwise?
    , @ATX Hipster
    I hope you're right. The Hillary supporters I've spoken with genuinely don't care or don't believe the overwhelming evidence of her corruption. As for people who are somehow on the fence, well I can't fathom their motivations. Who knows if further evidence of corruption/health problems/whatever will influence the opinion of somebody who can't decide between a nationalist and a globalist.
    , @candid_observer
    Yeah, I'd now place even greater weight than before on the possibility that if and when WikiLeaks releases something on Hillary, it will really undo her.

    Obviously, Trump has been rising in the polls over these last two weeks or so, and I don't think the major portion of the effect has had to do with Trump himself. He's delivered some good speeches, but the key thing is that he kept himself out of harm's way by sticking to the script.

    The really potent effect has been the corruption and lies of Hillary pointed to by the various emails and documents that have come up recently. These things obviously tap into something in the swing vote that is pretty decisive -- more so than I might have guessed previously.

    If Assange has a trove of emails and documents that are even more damning, and they are released at the proper time, they could easily take her down for the count.

    And it's remarkable to see how the media is trying to prepare for this event. In the NY Times, they are doing all they can to blame these leaks on the meddling, evil Russians. I'm sure that the angle they will take if and when these documents are released, is that we just can't allow those horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical Russians to interfere with our elections. (This must be left in the hands of the horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical American media.)

    , @Boethiuss
    "Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it’s a tight race."

    I wouldn't say it's a tight race but Mr Trump did have a great day. There's a lot of advantages for Mrs Clinton besides the horserace numbers. But for the first time in a while I could see a few for Mr Trump as well.
  69. Online polls are ~2% more favourable to Trump:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/live-polls-and-online-polls-tell-different-stories-about-the-election/

    Hillary is still well ahead, but it’s still interesting – the same phenomenon was seen in the Brexit polls, and the online polls were right.

    Read More
  70. Trump’s immigration speech was excellent. He mentioned cutting legal immigration and bringing the foreign-born percentage within historical norms.

    Sounds like he’s serious.

    He also mentioned a deportation force, which contradicted his earlier statement on “softening” his position.

    Read More
  71. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. If he can win those states, he’s in the White House. Ohio and Pennsylvania are must-wins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @newrouter
    >The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. <

    pa and oh ain't the "rustbelt" no mo. we be the methane producing regions: see marcellus/utica shale plays
    , @newrouter
    >The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key<

    pa oh & wva are now methane energy producers.
    , @AnotherDad

    The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. If he can win those states, he’s in the White House. Ohio and Pennsylvania are must-wins.
     
    This election is not complicated in the electoral college sense.

    Trump must win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania--all three. If he does, he wins.

    There are of course alternative paths--Bush II didn't win PA. But Trump is unlikely to win in Colorado or Virginia unless he wins big. With those out, if Trump is going to win without PA, he has to win *all* the other small swingers--Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and Nebraska's Omaha congressional district--just to get to 269 and throw it into the House. Realistically ... Trump must win Pennsylvania.

    There's your election--if it's at all close with the candidates winning their parties usual states--it's Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Trump must win them all.
  72. @MarkinLA
    So the answer is to vote Hillary?

    Why is it that so many of you people who think they are so much smarter than the rest of us keep repeating the same stupid nonsense about Trump? Do you know how many people have come on here and told us how Trump was lying or Trump was this or that? However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.

    However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.

    Don’t vote: it merely encourages them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Don’t vote: it merely encourages them.

    That would be appropriate if the candidate were Jeb Bush. It's not now. If Hillary wins this election, politics won't matter anymore.
    , @Paul Mendez

    Don’t vote: it merely encourages them.
     
    Yeah, that's what my dumb-fuck, 85-year-old, loser, leftist father keeps telling me.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I did that in 2008 and 2012 - voted for 3rd party candidates. And my position was much the same as yours - it didn't really matter much between the two parties. Then again, McCain was virtually guaranteed to lose (Romney almost as much so), and I live in a solidly Republican state. My vote decided nothing anyway.

    However, this time is different. Trump is better than McCain or Romney. He has shifted political discourse in this country, or at least, been the vehicle for such a shift. And he seems to have a better understanding of what us kind of Americans want than either McCain or Romney. And Hillary may well be much worse than Obama - yes, even worse than Obama. Obama at least didn't seem to be fully on board with the "invade the world" part of ITW^2. I don't sense that Hillary will have any such qualms.

    Consider that Hillary's first order of business - day one in the White House - will be filling a vacant Supreme Court seat. Imagine who we might get. Cass Sunnstein? Even Barack Obama himself (although that would preclude him from cashing in with his own foundation, so I don't see that happening right away). Whoever it is, it will certainly be someone who doesn't actually agree with the Constitution, let alone someone who will feel themselves bound by it.

    I am definitely not sitting this one out.

  73. @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it's a tight race.

    Julian Assange claims he has bombshell information on Hillary, which will be released before the November election. Assuming he's not exaggerating (he's been very credible in the past), that could sink her campaign.

    Also, Hillary has a lot of problems (BenGhazi cover up, setting up an illegal e-mail server, health issues, bribes from foreign donors to her foundation) that could sink her too.

    Honestly, though, I think Assange is the critical factor. If he has the right information, he could put Trump in the White House.

    Trump can claw his way back up, but can he then refrain from getting into a twitter spat with a terminally ill child, or some such stupidity? That’s the question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    You mean a terminally ill child of Muslim parents who died for America or something?

    The real question is: Can you avoid saying stupid things on iSteve?
  74. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Spyder
    So uh, why did Republican primary voters give up Supreme Court choices to get an awful candidate when Rubio was closer to Trump's current position?

    So your argument is that we should have chosen someone who we know has stabbed us in the back before over someone who might possibly stab us in the back in the future.

    It’s logic like that that has made the GOP such a winner lately.

    Read More
  75. There is no alternative to Trump. Vote Trump or lose your country. Simple as that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @415 reasons
    Vote trump and still lose the country is also looking like an option that's very much in play
  76. Read More
  77. “To put it mildly, I think it was the biggest humiliation a Mexican president has suffered on his own territory in the last 50 years.”

    Tit for tat. George W. Bush humiliated himself and our country kowtowing to the arrogant, imperious Vicente Fox during his presidency.

    Read More
  78. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iStevefan

    On Mexico’s most popular morning television show on Wednesday, a livid Mr. Krauze likened the president’s meeting with Mr. Trump to the decision by Neville Chamberlain, then the British prime minister, to sit down with Hitler in Munich in 1938.
     
    How many Mexicans care about that analogy? I'd bet dollars to pesos that the average Mexican doesn't even know who Chamberlain was.

    Yes, many Mexicans say, it was Mr. Trump who offended the people of Mexico with his disparaging comments about migrants and his promises to build a border wall paid for by Mexico.
     
    What should be offensive to the people of Mexico is the fact that a large, resource-rich New World nation cannot provide for its people and that a significant portion of which have headed North. Nothing says failure like having 10 percent of your population picking up and leaving.

    Well, the average American doesn’t know who Chamberlain was.

    What should be offensive to the people of Mexico is the fact that a large, resource-rich New World nation cannot provide for its people and that a significant portion of which have headed North. Nothing says failure like having 10 percent of your population picking up and leaving.

    You could say the same thing about the US. If it was so successful, why did it have to annex Mexican territory? Why couldn’t it provide with what it had, which was a significant landmass already?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    You could say the same thing about the US.
     
    No, you couldn't.
    , @ScarletNumber

    Well, the average American doesn’t know who Chamberlain was.
     
    He fucked 20,000 women.
    , @Eric Novak
    Manifest Destiny, the expansion of America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which was blocked by Mexican states in del Norte.
  79. @HI
    That noise you're hearing is the sound of SJW heads exploding across America.

    Among those whose heads are exploding may we include Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, George Will, and a few others, please?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Jonah Goldberg is, believe it or not, defending Trump against Jennifer Rubin now:
    https://twitter.com/JonahNRO/status/771179582217072641
  80. @JohnnyWalker123
    The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. If he can win those states, he's in the White House. Ohio and Pennsylvania are must-wins.

    >The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. <

    pa and oh ain't the "rustbelt" no mo. we be the methane producing regions: see marcellus/utica shale plays

    Read More
  81. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Anyone want to toss out some predictions on Trump's policy prescription for the 11 million illegal aliens?

    My money's on a repetitious amalgamation of amnesty lingo that contains more weasel words than Obama's New York Times interviews.

    Relax. He’s just making it palatable for the cucks and Mexicans

    Some of you don’t understand diplomacy and lack a more devious imagination. I like to be frank myself

    Read More
  82. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    From Trump earlier today:

    "There are many improvements that could be made that would make both Mexico and the United States stronger and keep industry in our hemisphere. We have tremendous competition from China and from all over the world. Keep it in our hemisphere. Workers in both of our countries need a pay raise, very desperately. In the United States, it's been 18 years, 18 years wages are going down. Improving pay standards and working conditions will create better results for all and all workers in particular. There's a lot of value that can be created for both countries by working beautifully together. And that I am sure will happen.

    Number five, keep manufacturing wealth in our hemisphere. When jobs leave Mexico, the U.S. or Central America and go over seas, it increases poverty and pressure on social services as well as pressures on cross border migration. Tremendous pressure. The bond between our two countries is deep and sincere. And both our nations benefit from a close and honest relationship between our two governments."

    Yes, that's a very nice message from Trump, very nice indeed. Nothing about Mexico draining manufacturing jobs from the United States, but lots about making sure Mexicans keep their manufacturing safe from the Chinese.

    So, it doesn’t occur to you that Trump is sending a back-channel message to every single Spanish-speaking illegal in the United States, telling them that a Trump administration will work to help create a strong Mexican economy?

    That’s an important message to send, since Trump’s planned policies of using E-verify with businesses on the one hand, and closing generous US benefits to illegals on the other, will mean that life in los Estados Unidos will soon become untenable and a return to Mexico will become necessary.

    Read More
  83. Incredible speech in AZ by the Donald tonight. He nailed it. Even talked about a timeout (my word) akin to 1924.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EriK
    That call for a timeout (sounds like a great idea to me) didn't go over well with everyone. A tweet I noticed last night:
    Ira Stoll ‏@IraStoll
    the door-closings after previous waves didn't work out so good. Caused Great Depression, also huge deaths in Holocaust, Cultural Revolution
  84. @candid_observer
    My guess is that the media and the Democrats bought into the, well, conventional wisdom that if they could inflict major damage on Trump right after the conventions, he would never recover from the onslaught. This would explain the countless number of premature declarations of Trump's certain and landslide loss, depictions of downballot Republicans losing their seats because of Trump, and even breathless articles on Hillary's plans to staff and run her administration. All of this they expected to demoralize Trump's supporters, and put Trump in a hole from which he couldn't climb out.

    They seem to have forgotten about both the unprecedented distrust voters have for Hillary, and the resilience of Trump as a candidate.

    Now they've thrown the kitchen sink at Trump, and he's still standing.

    The only thing they can do now, I think, is throw even more journalistic principle and pride out the window, and stoop still lower.

    I'm guessing this will backfire. To be effective they have to possess some measure of credibility, and that's what they've already had to jettison.

    But it's going to get very ugly, I'm sure. And, even knowing in advance that incredible things are about to happen, our jaws will drop.

    The only thing they can do now, I think, is throw even more journalistic principle and pride out the window, and stoop still lower.

    I don’t think that’s possible. We’ve already passed that point. I’m seriously concerned about Trump’s physical safety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon7
    "I’m seriously concerned about Trump’s physical safety."

    Yes, especially since the violent demonstrations at Trump rallies were starting to work against the Democrats, and are no longer organized or supported. That anger is underground now.

    The deaths of policemen and other recent events show that, when the powerful (like the President and other Democratic leaders) support radical violent elements like Black Lives Matter and deride and devalue authority, volatile individuals feel empowered to act.

    Maybe we're part of the problem, by emphasizing an individual, Donald Trump, rather than telling every candidate for national office that they'd better get on board with the policies that Trump has outlined, or they won't get elected (and if elected, will be the subject of a recall campaign). This is a movement that is too important to depend on one man.
    , @Paul Mendez

    I’m seriously concerned about Trump’s physical safety.
     
    Yes, Trump has voluntarily taken on more personal risk of death or maiming than any 21st Century soldier or police officer. Not to mention the risk to his family.

    Would any Marine in Iraq during the height of the Surge be willing to trade places with him?
  85. @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it's a tight race.

    Julian Assange claims he has bombshell information on Hillary, which will be released before the November election. Assuming he's not exaggerating (he's been very credible in the past), that could sink her campaign.

    Also, Hillary has a lot of problems (BenGhazi cover up, setting up an illegal e-mail server, health issues, bribes from foreign donors to her foundation) that could sink her too.

    Honestly, though, I think Assange is the critical factor. If he has the right information, he could put Trump in the White House.

    I watch some of the Fox News roundtables. On a show hosted by Paul Gigot of the WSJ, Dorothy Rabinowitz was defending Hillary against accusations of corruption, talking about how there’s only an appearance of impropriety, smoke but no fire. But where there’s smoke you know there’s a fire, whether or not you can locate it. And since it’s the smoke that usually kills you, you need to escape the smoke whether or not you’ve located the fire. How can someone with any integrity defend Hillary on the basis that the charges against her can’t be proven in court? We’re not trying her, we’re deciding whether or not to elect her president.

    Hillary was never convicted of taking a bribe from Tyson Foods when they channeled $100,000 to her through a cut-out. Could there be a more obvious bribe than that? Granted, it’s not provable, but can anyone explain it otherwise?

    Read More
  86. @JohnnyWalker123
    There is no alternative to Trump. Vote Trump or lose your country. Simple as that.

    Vote trump and still lose the country is also looking like an option that’s very much in play

    Read More
  87. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    He will not only win, he will win in a landslide.

    Read More
  88. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “To put it mildly, I think it was the biggest humiliation a Mexican president has suffered on his own territory in the last 50 years,” said Esteban Illades, editor of Nexos, a magazine in Mexico.

    Man. Imagine living in a country where drug cartels have basically taken over entire areas, and having this speech be your main concern.

    I think that, if I was the president of Mexico, I’d be a lot more humiliated by the fact that so many of my citizens were so desperate to flee my country that they make a guy who doesn’t want them to into some kind of villain.

    I mean. Does it occur to them that the only problem Mexicans really have with Trump is that he doesn’t want them to leave Mexico? That’s not really a ringing endorsement of your leadership.

    Read More
  89. @Stephen R. Diamond

    However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.
     
    Don't vote: it merely encourages them.

    Don’t vote: it merely encourages them.

    That would be appropriate if the candidate were Jeb Bush. It’s not now. If Hillary wins this election, politics won’t matter anymore.

    Read More
  90. @Paul Mendez

    How much lying and distortion will we have to put up with?
     
    My gut feeling is that the elites miscalculated, and let Trump Hate peak too soon. They should have paced themselves, and saved something for October.

    I agree completely with that it’s going to get ugly. I’ve been watching Presidential elections since 1968 and I’ve never seen anything like the media bias that has been shown in the last month. As far as “saving something for October”, as Paul says, I think we haven’t seen anything yet. The world’s richest people bet heavily on Hillary in 2008, and then doubled down for Hillary in 2016, and they are pulling out all the stops.

    The media’s behavior doesn’t surprise me, but the behavior of Republicans astonishes me. I’ve never seen a major party repudiate its candidate before – have any of you?

    Why haven’t Republicans who voted for Trump in the primaries told the party leadership to get in line and support Trump? Republican voters who support Trump need to start telling their Senators and congressmen up for reelection that they’d better start hearing some cheering for Trump, or in November they’ll pull the lever for Trump and then go home.

    Read More
  91. So the Mexicans are a bit like the Americans, the French, the Canadians and the others : they have ((( Krauzes ))) and Herzogs (echoes?) telling them who they are, who they were and who they should become.

    Read More
  92. @JohnnyWalker123
    The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. If he can win those states, he's in the White House. Ohio and Pennsylvania are must-wins.

    >The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key<

    pa oh & wva are now methane energy producers.

    Read More
  93. Hillary may be in trouble. While she was too busy partying with Paul McCartney and Bon Jovi, Trump held his ground against the Mexican government and gave a very good speech about how immigration should benefit normal Americans.

    Read More
  94. @Harry Baldwin
    The only thing they can do now, I think, is throw even more journalistic principle and pride out the window, and stoop still lower.

    I don't think that's possible. We've already passed that point. I'm seriously concerned about Trump's physical safety.

    “I’m seriously concerned about Trump’s physical safety.”

    Yes, especially since the violent demonstrations at Trump rallies were starting to work against the Democrats, and are no longer organized or supported. That anger is underground now.

    The deaths of policemen and other recent events show that, when the powerful (like the President and other Democratic leaders) support radical violent elements like Black Lives Matter and deride and devalue authority, volatile individuals feel empowered to act.

    Maybe we’re part of the problem, by emphasizing an individual, Donald Trump, rather than telling every candidate for national office that they’d better get on board with the policies that Trump has outlined, or they won’t get elected (and if elected, will be the subject of a recall campaign). This is a movement that is too important to depend on one man.

    Read More
  95. Great speech by Trump – probably the best since he won the nomination. Too bad pajama boys like Rich Lowry hated it. Trump will get a lot of Democrats with speeches like this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Lowry was actually pretty complimentery. I think of all the Never Trumpers the guys at NR are the mostly likely to get on the bandwagon.
  96. @Harry Baldwin
    Among those whose heads are exploding may we include Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, George Will, and a few others, please?

    Jonah Goldberg is, believe it or not, defending Trump against Jennifer Rubin now:

    Read More
  97. “Mr. Peña Nieto “compared Mr. Trump to Mussolini and Hitler,”.
    He forgot to mention Pinochet.

    Read More
  98. @Stephen R. Diamond

    However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.
     
    Don't vote: it merely encourages them.

    Don’t vote: it merely encourages them.

    Yeah, that’s what my dumb-fuck, 85-year-old, loser, leftist father keeps telling me.

    Read More
  99. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Do any of the talk radio addicts here realize that Trump's plan to "work with" the 11 million nonviolent illegals so they can stay and "pay taxes" means that they won't be deported, employers won't be punished for hiring the people already here, and that we'll actually have to give them more money due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and assorted deductions, just like what happened after the Reagan amnesty? "No citizenship" is absolutely and completely meaningless if they get to stay here and their children become citizens. End of story.

    “Do any of the talk radio addicts here realize that…..”

    Talk radio? …..the f**k is that? This here is the internet, fellah.

    You’re still living in the 90s. Say hi to Vanilla Ice and Bjork for us.

    Read More
  100. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    22p22 – Not a Sailerite but – Trump will, on balance, not lose a single vote that he would not have otherwise lost solely because the mainstream media deems him “unacceptable”, because Americans dislike their media almost as much as East Germans did. Anyway, turning to real-world factors, Trump will lose a few white voters that Romney got because of his perceived squishiness on abortion and his actual squishiness on Planned Parenthood (Romney was squishy too but people did not get it). He will make it up with non-Romney voters who are Evangelicals or Catholics who did not trust an uber-rich Mormon bishop and who hear Trump loud and clear when he says the Supreme Court has been anti-American for far too long. Trump will get more whites to the polls than Romney because Trump likes people who are white just as much as people who are not white – so did Romney, but the rich old fool was afraid to admit it. That being said, even if Trump only does exactly as well as Romney did with whites, percentage-wise (but he does need to do better turn-out wise), he can still win. African-Americans are not going to do it for him – they will vote for Hillary in approximately the same percentage, and with the same turnout, as they did for Obama, out of gratitude to her for being Obama’s friend. It is a simple fact that Obama is way more popular with African-Americans than any white president has ever been with whites. That being said, Trump may do slightly (like one or two in a hundred) better with African-Americans, which might win him Florida or Virginia by a few thousand votes, but if that is what he needs to win , he will not win. But lots of Hispanic voters really like Sabado Gigante and Trump kills with the Sabado Gigante crowd (listen to his interviews with the American Sabado Gigante guy, Howard Stern – Sabado Gigante and Howard Stern being the south of the border and north of the border platonic ideals of the gluttony-loving and lechery-loving slob working class entertainment sector), so based on this alone Trump scores a few more points with the Sabado Gigante crowd (keeping places like Ohio and Arizona in play with less ad expenses). Plus he is going to get about half a million more gays, almost all of whom vote, than Romney did, which will help if some weird state like Wisconsin wins it for him (Paul Ryan owes him big, by the way). So Trump is, at current rates, guaranteed to do slightly better with confirmed voters than Romney, question is whether the turnout of usually non-voting low-information people who have been screwed over by the economy for the last 28 years of rich-kid presidents will show up in swing states and put Trump over the top. I think they will, but they might not – they are thought of as low-information for a reason – and another problem is that swing states are the most vulnerable to what is called “ground game”, and Trump, like any other businessman, is not at his best on the first go-around of a product. And ground game is something that gets better for each party with every iteration, and the Democrats are ahead. So bottom line – forget the polls – with no big changes from today until Election Day, there is a one third chance Hillary wins with an honest vote, a one third chance that we will never know what the honest vote was, and a one third chance that Trump wins, but with almost all the the liberals saying he won in a crooked way. There can’t be a Reagan-like landslide for Trump because the Democrats have a floor in the low to mid forties (42 to 45) now, whereas that floor was at 40 or 41 when Reagan was running. Republican floor is high 30s at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @middle aged vet
    22pp22 - there were about five, at least, places in that comment where I totally pastiched Steve Sailer - if you read much of him, you will recognize them - the most obvious is "they are thought of as low-information for a reason", in reference to the question which nobody knows - what will be the turnout of the economic losers of the last 10 to 30 years.
    , @Anonym
    Paragraphs are advisable for achieving dialogue with the internet. Not the SJW version of dialogue either.
    , @22pp22
    Thank you for taking the time to write out that reply. Very interesting.

    On this side of the pond, the Bremaniacs are screaming and shouting like a bunch of demented teenagers. It's a pleasure to watch.
  101. @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it's a tight race.

    Julian Assange claims he has bombshell information on Hillary, which will be released before the November election. Assuming he's not exaggerating (he's been very credible in the past), that could sink her campaign.

    Also, Hillary has a lot of problems (BenGhazi cover up, setting up an illegal e-mail server, health issues, bribes from foreign donors to her foundation) that could sink her too.

    Honestly, though, I think Assange is the critical factor. If he has the right information, he could put Trump in the White House.

    I hope you’re right. The Hillary supporters I’ve spoken with genuinely don’t care or don’t believe the overwhelming evidence of her corruption. As for people who are somehow on the fence, well I can’t fathom their motivations. Who knows if further evidence of corruption/health problems/whatever will influence the opinion of somebody who can’t decide between a nationalist and a globalist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    People on the fence at this point are self-indulgent mental midgets. There's no other way to describe them.
  102. @Harry Baldwin
    The only thing they can do now, I think, is throw even more journalistic principle and pride out the window, and stoop still lower.

    I don't think that's possible. We've already passed that point. I'm seriously concerned about Trump's physical safety.

    I’m seriously concerned about Trump’s physical safety.

    Yes, Trump has voluntarily taken on more personal risk of death or maiming than any 21st Century soldier or police officer. Not to mention the risk to his family.

    Would any Marine in Iraq during the height of the Surge be willing to trade places with him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Roman Frege
    This is hyperbole, of course, but there are Marines in Iraq who had less than two live fire encounters. Trump has had two public attempts on his life and perhaps countless averted ones.
    , @iSteveFan

    Would any Marine in Iraq during the height of the Surge be willing to trade places with him?
     
    Don't many people fear public speaking more than death?
  103. @Stephen R. Diamond

    However, none of you ever provide a viable alternative to Trump.
     
    Don't vote: it merely encourages them.

    I did that in 2008 and 2012 – voted for 3rd party candidates. And my position was much the same as yours – it didn’t really matter much between the two parties. Then again, McCain was virtually guaranteed to lose (Romney almost as much so), and I live in a solidly Republican state. My vote decided nothing anyway.

    However, this time is different. Trump is better than McCain or Romney. He has shifted political discourse in this country, or at least, been the vehicle for such a shift. And he seems to have a better understanding of what us kind of Americans want than either McCain or Romney. And Hillary may well be much worse than Obama – yes, even worse than Obama. Obama at least didn’t seem to be fully on board with the “invade the world” part of ITW^2. I don’t sense that Hillary will have any such qualms.

    Consider that Hillary’s first order of business – day one in the White House – will be filling a vacant Supreme Court seat. Imagine who we might get. Cass Sunnstein? Even Barack Obama himself (although that would preclude him from cashing in with his own foundation, so I don’t see that happening right away). Whoever it is, it will certainly be someone who doesn’t actually agree with the Constitution, let alone someone who will feel themselves bound by it.

    I am definitely not sitting this one out.

    Read More
  104. What a glorious speech. We’re either going to win or we’re going to go down in a blaze of glory. You can’t ask for anything more.

    Trump 2016.

    Read More
  105. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Wait. Hillary’s linking of the Alt-Right and the godfather of Extreme Nationalism to Trump has not stopped Trump dead in his tracks.

    Her repeating Milo’s or Allum’s headline “Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield” has not stopped Trump.

    Nor have all these epithets she has been hurling at Trump stopped at least one leader of another country taking him seriously!

    Wake up sheeple, don’t you know Trump is worse than Hitler and he looks like a large green frog called Pepe?

    I think we are just going to have to get the DHS to manage this election so it ends up the way it should. The people need the sort of leader they deserve!

    Read More
  106. @candid_observer
    My guess is that the media and the Democrats bought into the, well, conventional wisdom that if they could inflict major damage on Trump right after the conventions, he would never recover from the onslaught. This would explain the countless number of premature declarations of Trump's certain and landslide loss, depictions of downballot Republicans losing their seats because of Trump, and even breathless articles on Hillary's plans to staff and run her administration. All of this they expected to demoralize Trump's supporters, and put Trump in a hole from which he couldn't climb out.

    They seem to have forgotten about both the unprecedented distrust voters have for Hillary, and the resilience of Trump as a candidate.

    Now they've thrown the kitchen sink at Trump, and he's still standing.

    The only thing they can do now, I think, is throw even more journalistic principle and pride out the window, and stoop still lower.

    I'm guessing this will backfire. To be effective they have to possess some measure of credibility, and that's what they've already had to jettison.

    But it's going to get very ugly, I'm sure. And, even knowing in advance that incredible things are about to happen, our jaws will drop.

    I heard some speculation that Trump is keeping his powder dry until after labor day, when the swing voters start paying attention. Most people who are really paying attention during the summer already know who they’re voting for and aren’t likely to change their opinions.

    It’s a theory anyway.

    Read More
  107. @middle aged vet
    22p22 - Not a Sailerite but - Trump will, on balance, not lose a single vote that he would not have otherwise lost solely because the mainstream media deems him "unacceptable", because Americans dislike their media almost as much as East Germans did. Anyway, turning to real-world factors, Trump will lose a few white voters that Romney got because of his perceived squishiness on abortion and his actual squishiness on Planned Parenthood (Romney was squishy too but people did not get it). He will make it up with non-Romney voters who are Evangelicals or Catholics who did not trust an uber-rich Mormon bishop and who hear Trump loud and clear when he says the Supreme Court has been anti-American for far too long. Trump will get more whites to the polls than Romney because Trump likes people who are white just as much as people who are not white - so did Romney, but the rich old fool was afraid to admit it. That being said, even if Trump only does exactly as well as Romney did with whites, percentage-wise (but he does need to do better turn-out wise), he can still win. African-Americans are not going to do it for him - they will vote for Hillary in approximately the same percentage, and with the same turnout, as they did for Obama, out of gratitude to her for being Obama's friend. It is a simple fact that Obama is way more popular with African-Americans than any white president has ever been with whites. That being said, Trump may do slightly (like one or two in a hundred) better with African-Americans, which might win him Florida or Virginia by a few thousand votes, but if that is what he needs to win , he will not win. But lots of Hispanic voters really like Sabado Gigante and Trump kills with the Sabado Gigante crowd (listen to his interviews with the American Sabado Gigante guy, Howard Stern - Sabado Gigante and Howard Stern being the south of the border and north of the border platonic ideals of the gluttony-loving and lechery-loving slob working class entertainment sector), so based on this alone Trump scores a few more points with the Sabado Gigante crowd (keeping places like Ohio and Arizona in play with less ad expenses). Plus he is going to get about half a million more gays, almost all of whom vote, than Romney did, which will help if some weird state like Wisconsin wins it for him (Paul Ryan owes him big, by the way). So Trump is, at current rates, guaranteed to do slightly better with confirmed voters than Romney, question is whether the turnout of usually non-voting low-information people who have been screwed over by the economy for the last 28 years of rich-kid presidents will show up in swing states and put Trump over the top. I think they will, but they might not - they are thought of as low-information for a reason - and another problem is that swing states are the most vulnerable to what is called "ground game", and Trump, like any other businessman, is not at his best on the first go-around of a product. And ground game is something that gets better for each party with every iteration, and the Democrats are ahead. So bottom line - forget the polls - with no big changes from today until Election Day, there is a one third chance Hillary wins with an honest vote, a one third chance that we will never know what the honest vote was, and a one third chance that Trump wins, but with almost all the the liberals saying he won in a crooked way. There can't be a Reagan-like landslide for Trump because the Democrats have a floor in the low to mid forties (42 to 45) now, whereas that floor was at 40 or 41 when Reagan was running. Republican floor is high 30s at best.

    22pp22 – there were about five, at least, places in that comment where I totally pastiched Steve Sailer – if you read much of him, you will recognize them – the most obvious is “they are thought of as low-information for a reason”, in reference to the question which nobody knows – what will be the turnout of the economic losers of the last 10 to 30 years.

    Read More
  108. Maybe Trump’s visit to Mexico is intended as a voter suppression tactic: to convince Mexicans in America that he’s already cut a deal with the Caudillos in the old country, so they needn’t bother being overly exercised about the election – that the fix is in. Que sera, sera,…………but in spanish.

    Read More
  109. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    On Mexico’s most popular morning television show on Wednesday, a livid Mr. Krauze likened the president’s meeting with Mr. Trump to the decision by Neville Chamberlain, then the British prime minister, to sit down with Hitler in Munich in 1938.

    It’s always either 1933 or 1938 for Kraus.

    Many people aren’t aware how very significant jews’ presence is in Mexican media, the intelligentsia, top government ministry positions, and business. It wouldn’t be a total stretch to call it dominant.

    It makes one wonder how representative of the general Mexican population these pundits are. But it also makes one worry how much influence they have in molding the perceptions of the general Mexican population to serve the ethnocentric agenda of this transnational ruling class.

    Read More
  110. Recently Hannity had Trump on and he sat him right down with three mothers whose children were killed by illegal immigrants, I think who even all had priors. It was bold and perhaps brave, and Trump handled himself as good as he could have. But it seemed to me just too severe, less the optics, which yet were a historical first I suppose, but the sound of these mothers saying the worst thing a mother could ever say, the details of how their innocent children were massacred, just massacred, and saying it in anger more than sorrow, in a “cool” not “hot” setting by McLuhan’s sights. I think it might be true that you just don’t let them do that, not on a TV station that tells us it sells us news as entertainment. I don’t know.Maybe McLuhan did not forsee Fox News.

    In a better world those stories are exactly whats fit to print first of all and finally. I wonder, did the New York Times report on that show of Hannity? I bet it did not, and I guess that’s why it needed to be what it was if it did.

    Anyways, what I really wanted someone to say, after the story about the son who was killed by the fashion of a real serial killer, what Trump really should and could explain in a soundbite is this: these central american gangsters, they worship the devil; that is their code; these folks are not like the Italian mafia, not like the Italian mafia at its worst.

    Read More
  111. Does anyone here read Daniel Larison? Has anyone else noticed what a colossal asshole he’s been acting in regards to Trump? It’s as though he’s insulted than Trump had the gall to run at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    I read Daniel Larison. He was right that Obama would win the election when Republicans thought that Romney would win. His writings should be taken seriously.
    , @Sam Haysom
    Daniel Larison like every other writer at TAC since Buchanan left exists to concern troll the Republican Party. If the neo-cons were Democrats then Larison wouldn't say a peep about them. TAC is a small island in the archipelago of "controlled opposition" that Soros et al have spent millions creating.

    Hillary could order the invasion of Iran and Larison would mention it only in aside about how terrible it was that Reagan bombed Libya that time.
  112. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @jimmyriddle
    Trump can claw his way back up, but can he then refrain from getting into a twitter spat with a terminally ill child, or some such stupidity? That's the question.

    You mean a terminally ill child of Muslim parents who died for America or something?

    The real question is: Can you avoid saying stupid things on iSteve?

    Read More
  113. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @BB753
    Never underestimate Trump. He's a natural born politician. And he's certainly got the goods on Hillary, so he doesn't care what her media whores throw at him.
    Also, can you imagine a tv debate between Trump and Hillary? There's no possible contest. With the possibility of her having a fit or a seizure live on tv.

    Also, can you imagine a tv debate between Trump and Hillary? There’s no possible contest.

    Trump hasn’t performed well in debates. I see it as his Achilles heel here in the final stretch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My personal opinion is Trump does better when Stephen Miller writes his speech out for him rather than when Trump wings it, but I'm biased.
    , @Anonym
    Trump hasn't performed well in debates? Ask Jeb about that one.
    , @BB753
    No matter how bad he performs, cameras love Trump. He's a former tv star after all. While cameras positively loathe Hillary. (Don't we all?)
    And let's not forget she's physically ad mentally challenged, to put it mildly. She can't stay on topic and focused for more than 15 minutes. Will she need that black medic by her side to give her shots of diazepam every 10 minutes so she doesn't freak out? She's finished.
  114. When you stop and realize that these Mexicans hate Trump and are complaining because Americans are sick and tired of giving free health care and welfare to a bunch of foreigners, then you see it for what it is. I’d like to see some Americans run over their border and steal free stuff from a bunch of Mexicans……oh, but that would be wrong huh…………..

    Read More
  115. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Of course "we" are smarter than you. What's your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump's economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump's ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of "softening the position" on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don't want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.

    Trump will build the wall.

    Read More
  116. @Anonymous
    Well, the average American doesn't know who Chamberlain was.

    What should be offensive to the people of Mexico is the fact that a large, resource-rich New World nation cannot provide for its people and that a significant portion of which have headed North. Nothing says failure like having 10 percent of your population picking up and leaving.
     
    You could say the same thing about the US. If it was so successful, why did it have to annex Mexican territory? Why couldn't it provide with what it had, which was a significant landmass already?

    You could say the same thing about the US.

    No, you couldn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It was a large, resource-rich New World nation that could not provide enough for its people, which is why its people moved west and annexed parts of Mexico.
  117. @Tiny Duck
    Lol... Donald Trump is fearless when prattling bullshit to an audience of yahoos but he can't say it to a foreign leader's face. I'm sure he'll have the gumption to negotiate tough tough deals with the Chinese, though. Like maybe negotiating down the massive amount of debt the Chinese national bank holds over him.

    What a pussy. Just like his base of internet troll fans

    Oooh…..bad day huh?

    Read More
  118. @Bert
    Does anyone here read Daniel Larison? Has anyone else noticed what a colossal asshole he's been acting in regards to Trump? It's as though he's insulted than Trump had the gall to run at all.

    I read Daniel Larison. He was right that Obama would win the election when Republicans thought that Romney would win. His writings should be taken seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    No one except the GOPe thought he was going to win.

    Shills gonna shill.
  119. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Of course "we" are smarter than you. What's your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump's economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump's ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of "softening the position" on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don't want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.

    Actually, most of his domestic policy is coming from Mercatus Institute you shill. Heritage is providing zero policy support. If we’re talk radio addicts, you’re a low-T manlet.

    Read More
  120. OK, the Mexico trip was absolutely perfect for Trump.

    He showed that he can handle himself while visiting foreign leaders and that he’s not a genocidal racist KKK member, while still sticking to his guns on immigration issues.

    Read More
  121. @Paul Mendez

    I’m seriously concerned about Trump’s physical safety.
     
    Yes, Trump has voluntarily taken on more personal risk of death or maiming than any 21st Century soldier or police officer. Not to mention the risk to his family.

    Would any Marine in Iraq during the height of the Surge be willing to trade places with him?

    This is hyperbole, of course, but there are Marines in Iraq who had less than two live fire encounters. Trump has had two public attempts on his life and perhaps countless averted ones.

    Read More
  122. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iSteveFan

    You could say the same thing about the US.
     
    No, you couldn't.

    It was a large, resource-rich New World nation that could not provide enough for its people, which is why its people moved west and annexed parts of Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    No, it was a large, resource-rich nation that was fast approaching being one of the major economies of the world. It saw empty land and filled it. It's actions were a sign of strength and vibrancy, not weakness or incompetence.
    , @Brutusale
    Somebody went to one of those "schools" where history wasn't a requirement.

    People went west for opportunity, the same reason their ancestors came to America in the first place.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_West,_young_man
  123. @Anonymous
    Also, can you imagine a tv debate between Trump and Hillary? There’s no possible contest.

    Trump hasn't performed well in debates. I see it as his Achilles heel here in the final stretch.

    My personal opinion is Trump does better when Stephen Miller writes his speech out for him rather than when Trump wings it, but I’m biased.

    Read More
    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My concern, based on the debate fragments I saw, is that neither comes out. Trump is good winging it on the stump. I really like Miller, too, although I was underwhelmed by Trump's long, rambling convention speech.

    The Trump I saw in those debate fragments was defensive, rattled, interrupting, lacking in both substance and rhetoric. I'd definitely prefer he just be a mouthpiece for Miller and basically pretend that Hillary isn't even on the stage other than to remember when to pause in speaking.
    , @Anonymous
    The content is better when he reads the speech. But he's not that great at giving speeches. He has this kind of shouting and bad delivery. He's more relaxed and better at delivery when winging it, but the content is kind of bad when he does, aside from the jokes and amusing bits.
    , @Same Anonymous
    In regard to channeling Miller, Trump won't have a Teleprompter at the debates, right?

    I worry.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Aren't debates by the principals kind of stupid? We're essentially judging 70-year olds on their ability to memorize and extemporize, when we're electing them for their judgment and policy preferences. Wouldn't it be more informative to have Stephen Miller debate one of Hillary's top advisors?
  124. @Anonymous
    It was a large, resource-rich New World nation that could not provide enough for its people, which is why its people moved west and annexed parts of Mexico.

    No, it was a large, resource-rich nation that was fast approaching being one of the major economies of the world. It saw empty land and filled it. It’s actions were a sign of strength and vibrancy, not weakness or incompetence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Much of that land is still "empty" today. Which is why there are economists today that promote migration and population growth.

    It was a large, resource-rich nation that couldn't satisfy its people's economic needs and desires. If they had been satisfied, they would not have moved. Furthermore, the US had large waves of immigration after it annexed Mexican territory, and many of these immigrants, who were immigrants because they hadn't been provided for and economically satisfied elsewhere, went west.
    , @AndrewR
    Anon is right. Mexico is doing today what the US did in the 19th century: Expanding and ethnic cleansing.
  125. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the ’80s. Yes, something could change, but it’s hard to see what.

    The fact you have a dozen quick replies denying this, shows that, much as I enjoy Steve’s amusing takes on liberal reality denial, conservatives also have trouble with reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Das
    People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election.
    , @AnotherDad

    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the ’80s. Yes, something could change, but it’s hard to see what.
     
    Probably true. Though Dole never looked to be in the '96 election at all.

    But ... it's not over. The debates haven't happened yet. That's usually the chance for the candidate behind to make up ground. And particularly the case for a candidate who has been vilified by the press as an extremist. It's the chance for people to take their own measure. (Reagan in 1980.)

    But i think the big thing in this election is simply that Hillary has very high negatives and is unable to seal the deal. It's not that Hillary is blowing Trump away, with clear majorities that want to vote for her. Rather it's that people don't--as yet--want to vote for Trump. Hillary has trouble just getting to 45. That doesn't convey to me that it's over. It conveys to me that Hillary--the known known known quantity--is weak. But Trump--more unknown--is weaker. The difference is Trump can move the perception. Hillary's pie is long baked.

    When i see a poll that says something like Hillary 42, Trump 39, Johnson 7, Stein 3, i don't think "Trump can't get any traction, he's toast". Rather i think, Hillary just can not get to 50. She's known and people do not like her. But they haven't been convinced to vote for Trump. I don't believe Gary Johnson is going to get anywhere near 7 points. Or Stein 3--though that's more likely. So where are those people--dissatisfied with "the system"--going to go on election day?

    I'd say, as of now ... we just don't know. But it's not implausible that Trump can convince a bunch of those voters that he's actually credible and offers a better alternative to what the system--Hillary is "the system"--is offering.

    That's why the betting line gives Trump a 25% chance. Because Hillary is weak--corrupt, tedious, incompetent--and known and locked down. Trump is weak and ... still able to alter people's perceptions.
    , @5371
    Are you stupid or insane? Go to Wikipedia, average national polls in the last ten days. No, do it yourself, don't copy someone else's average. Even at face value, Trump is down by a smaller margin than that of Romney's loss.
    , @Thea
    I've been concerned about this. In the primary he was always the front runner after last June. He does well in that position.

    Now it is reversed.

    I think he needs to goad Hillary into bad reactions or no reactions. Her reply today focusing of slowness in building relationships made her sound tired & a step behind... Hopefully.
    , @Boethiuss
    "Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the ’80s. Yes, something could change, but it’s hard to see what."

    That's been my interpretation for at least a month. That said, I like where he is today over any place he's been since the conventions.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Yeah selective geographical polling and Dem oversampling will do that.

    Which sock puppet are you an alt of declaring yet again how we are doomed?
  126. @Paul Mendez

    I’m seriously concerned about Trump’s physical safety.
     
    Yes, Trump has voluntarily taken on more personal risk of death or maiming than any 21st Century soldier or police officer. Not to mention the risk to his family.

    Would any Marine in Iraq during the height of the Surge be willing to trade places with him?

    Would any Marine in Iraq during the height of the Surge be willing to trade places with him?

    Don’t many people fear public speaking more than death?

    Read More
  127. @frizzled
    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the '80s. Yes, something could change, but it's hard to see what.

    The fact you have a dozen quick replies denying this, shows that, much as I enjoy Steve's amusing takes on liberal reality denial, conservatives also have trouble with reality.

    People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Those YUGE authorities, people betting money on it, thought Brexit had less chance than that - while the votes were already being counted!
    , @The Alarmist

    "People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election."
     
    Ladbrokes gave me 8 to 1 just before Brexit … can't wait to see what they give me for Trump.
  128. @middle aged vet
    22p22 - Not a Sailerite but - Trump will, on balance, not lose a single vote that he would not have otherwise lost solely because the mainstream media deems him "unacceptable", because Americans dislike their media almost as much as East Germans did. Anyway, turning to real-world factors, Trump will lose a few white voters that Romney got because of his perceived squishiness on abortion and his actual squishiness on Planned Parenthood (Romney was squishy too but people did not get it). He will make it up with non-Romney voters who are Evangelicals or Catholics who did not trust an uber-rich Mormon bishop and who hear Trump loud and clear when he says the Supreme Court has been anti-American for far too long. Trump will get more whites to the polls than Romney because Trump likes people who are white just as much as people who are not white - so did Romney, but the rich old fool was afraid to admit it. That being said, even if Trump only does exactly as well as Romney did with whites, percentage-wise (but he does need to do better turn-out wise), he can still win. African-Americans are not going to do it for him - they will vote for Hillary in approximately the same percentage, and with the same turnout, as they did for Obama, out of gratitude to her for being Obama's friend. It is a simple fact that Obama is way more popular with African-Americans than any white president has ever been with whites. That being said, Trump may do slightly (like one or two in a hundred) better with African-Americans, which might win him Florida or Virginia by a few thousand votes, but if that is what he needs to win , he will not win. But lots of Hispanic voters really like Sabado Gigante and Trump kills with the Sabado Gigante crowd (listen to his interviews with the American Sabado Gigante guy, Howard Stern - Sabado Gigante and Howard Stern being the south of the border and north of the border platonic ideals of the gluttony-loving and lechery-loving slob working class entertainment sector), so based on this alone Trump scores a few more points with the Sabado Gigante crowd (keeping places like Ohio and Arizona in play with less ad expenses). Plus he is going to get about half a million more gays, almost all of whom vote, than Romney did, which will help if some weird state like Wisconsin wins it for him (Paul Ryan owes him big, by the way). So Trump is, at current rates, guaranteed to do slightly better with confirmed voters than Romney, question is whether the turnout of usually non-voting low-information people who have been screwed over by the economy for the last 28 years of rich-kid presidents will show up in swing states and put Trump over the top. I think they will, but they might not - they are thought of as low-information for a reason - and another problem is that swing states are the most vulnerable to what is called "ground game", and Trump, like any other businessman, is not at his best on the first go-around of a product. And ground game is something that gets better for each party with every iteration, and the Democrats are ahead. So bottom line - forget the polls - with no big changes from today until Election Day, there is a one third chance Hillary wins with an honest vote, a one third chance that we will never know what the honest vote was, and a one third chance that Trump wins, but with almost all the the liberals saying he won in a crooked way. There can't be a Reagan-like landslide for Trump because the Democrats have a floor in the low to mid forties (42 to 45) now, whereas that floor was at 40 or 41 when Reagan was running. Republican floor is high 30s at best.

    Paragraphs are advisable for achieving dialogue with the internet. Not the SJW version of dialogue either.

    Read More
  129. @Anonymous
    Also, can you imagine a tv debate between Trump and Hillary? There’s no possible contest.

    Trump hasn't performed well in debates. I see it as his Achilles heel here in the final stretch.

    Trump hasn’t performed well in debates? Ask Jeb about that one.

    Read More
  130. @Bubba
    Great speech by Trump - probably the best since he won the nomination. Too bad pajama boys like Rich Lowry hated it. Trump will get a lot of Democrats with speeches like this.

    Lowry was actually pretty complimentery. I think of all the Never Trumpers the guys at NR are the mostly likely to get on the bandwagon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Because they don't have any actual principles? They'd have a lot of humble pie to eat after their anti-Trump special issue that moved the needle not one micron.
  131. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    My personal opinion is Trump does better when Stephen Miller writes his speech out for him rather than when Trump wings it, but I'm biased.

    My concern, based on the debate fragments I saw, is that neither comes out. Trump is good winging it on the stump. I really like Miller, too, although I was underwhelmed by Trump’s long, rambling convention speech.

    The Trump I saw in those debate fragments was defensive, rattled, interrupting, lacking in both substance and rhetoric. I’d definitely prefer he just be a mouthpiece for Miller and basically pretend that Hillary isn’t even on the stage other than to remember when to pause in speaking.

    Read More
  132. @Bert
    Does anyone here read Daniel Larison? Has anyone else noticed what a colossal asshole he's been acting in regards to Trump? It's as though he's insulted than Trump had the gall to run at all.

    Daniel Larison like every other writer at TAC since Buchanan left exists to concern troll the Republican Party. If the neo-cons were Democrats then Larison wouldn’t say a peep about them. TAC is a small island in the archipelago of “controlled opposition” that Soros et al have spent millions creating.

    Hillary could order the invasion of Iran and Larison would mention it only in aside about how terrible it was that Reagan bombed Libya that time.

    Read More
  133. @middle aged vet
    22p22 - Not a Sailerite but - Trump will, on balance, not lose a single vote that he would not have otherwise lost solely because the mainstream media deems him "unacceptable", because Americans dislike their media almost as much as East Germans did. Anyway, turning to real-world factors, Trump will lose a few white voters that Romney got because of his perceived squishiness on abortion and his actual squishiness on Planned Parenthood (Romney was squishy too but people did not get it). He will make it up with non-Romney voters who are Evangelicals or Catholics who did not trust an uber-rich Mormon bishop and who hear Trump loud and clear when he says the Supreme Court has been anti-American for far too long. Trump will get more whites to the polls than Romney because Trump likes people who are white just as much as people who are not white - so did Romney, but the rich old fool was afraid to admit it. That being said, even if Trump only does exactly as well as Romney did with whites, percentage-wise (but he does need to do better turn-out wise), he can still win. African-Americans are not going to do it for him - they will vote for Hillary in approximately the same percentage, and with the same turnout, as they did for Obama, out of gratitude to her for being Obama's friend. It is a simple fact that Obama is way more popular with African-Americans than any white president has ever been with whites. That being said, Trump may do slightly (like one or two in a hundred) better with African-Americans, which might win him Florida or Virginia by a few thousand votes, but if that is what he needs to win , he will not win. But lots of Hispanic voters really like Sabado Gigante and Trump kills with the Sabado Gigante crowd (listen to his interviews with the American Sabado Gigante guy, Howard Stern - Sabado Gigante and Howard Stern being the south of the border and north of the border platonic ideals of the gluttony-loving and lechery-loving slob working class entertainment sector), so based on this alone Trump scores a few more points with the Sabado Gigante crowd (keeping places like Ohio and Arizona in play with less ad expenses). Plus he is going to get about half a million more gays, almost all of whom vote, than Romney did, which will help if some weird state like Wisconsin wins it for him (Paul Ryan owes him big, by the way). So Trump is, at current rates, guaranteed to do slightly better with confirmed voters than Romney, question is whether the turnout of usually non-voting low-information people who have been screwed over by the economy for the last 28 years of rich-kid presidents will show up in swing states and put Trump over the top. I think they will, but they might not - they are thought of as low-information for a reason - and another problem is that swing states are the most vulnerable to what is called "ground game", and Trump, like any other businessman, is not at his best on the first go-around of a product. And ground game is something that gets better for each party with every iteration, and the Democrats are ahead. So bottom line - forget the polls - with no big changes from today until Election Day, there is a one third chance Hillary wins with an honest vote, a one third chance that we will never know what the honest vote was, and a one third chance that Trump wins, but with almost all the the liberals saying he won in a crooked way. There can't be a Reagan-like landslide for Trump because the Democrats have a floor in the low to mid forties (42 to 45) now, whereas that floor was at 40 or 41 when Reagan was running. Republican floor is high 30s at best.

    Thank you for taking the time to write out that reply. Very interesting.

    On this side of the pond, the Bremaniacs are screaming and shouting like a bunch of demented teenagers. It’s a pleasure to watch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @middle aged vet
    You are welcome. I never get compliments from Europeans. I miss Auberon Waugh, although he was silly and rude about Ukrainians. His take on Brexit would have been fun. I stopped following English politics when he died. I spent like 600 bucks in the 80s and early 90s subscribing to the London Spectator. And I am not rich!!! Of course I made a few hundred bucks - maybe almost a thousand - on stock tips from their banking columnist Christopher Fildes, so I came out ahead. Rich people in the US can be funny in person, but they are almost never funny on paper. Big difference from Northern Europe, I think.
  134. @22pp22
    Question to American Sailerites from a non-American?

    Does Trump have a realistic chance of becoming president?

    Since forever, I’ve been saying Trump in a historic landslide. It is now all lining up so even the stupidest iSteve commenter can sense something is up.

    Read More
  135. Read the speech, it will calm down a lot of fears here. Parts of it reads like well, the guy this blog belongs to.

    Read More
  136. @JohnnyWalker123
    The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. If he can win those states, he's in the White House. Ohio and Pennsylvania are must-wins.

    The rustbelt (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) is the key. If he can win those states, he’s in the White House. Ohio and Pennsylvania are must-wins.

    This election is not complicated in the electoral college sense.

    Trump must win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania–all three. If he does, he wins.

    There are of course alternative paths–Bush II didn’t win PA. But Trump is unlikely to win in Colorado or Virginia unless he wins big. With those out, if Trump is going to win without PA, he has to win *all* the other small swingers–Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and Nebraska’s Omaha congressional district–just to get to 269 and throw it into the House. Realistically … Trump must win Pennsylvania.

    There’s your election–if it’s at all close with the candidates winning their parties usual states–it’s Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Trump must win them all.

    Read More
  137. @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it's a tight race.

    Julian Assange claims he has bombshell information on Hillary, which will be released before the November election. Assuming he's not exaggerating (he's been very credible in the past), that could sink her campaign.

    Also, Hillary has a lot of problems (BenGhazi cover up, setting up an illegal e-mail server, health issues, bribes from foreign donors to her foundation) that could sink her too.

    Honestly, though, I think Assange is the critical factor. If he has the right information, he could put Trump in the White House.

    Yeah, I’d now place even greater weight than before on the possibility that if and when WikiLeaks releases something on Hillary, it will really undo her.

    Obviously, Trump has been rising in the polls over these last two weeks or so, and I don’t think the major portion of the effect has had to do with Trump himself. He’s delivered some good speeches, but the key thing is that he kept himself out of harm’s way by sticking to the script.

    The really potent effect has been the corruption and lies of Hillary pointed to by the various emails and documents that have come up recently. These things obviously tap into something in the swing vote that is pretty decisive — more so than I might have guessed previously.

    If Assange has a trove of emails and documents that are even more damning, and they are released at the proper time, they could easily take her down for the count.

    And it’s remarkable to see how the media is trying to prepare for this event. In the NY Times, they are doing all they can to blame these leaks on the meddling, evil Russians. I’m sure that the angle they will take if and when these documents are released, is that we just can’t allow those horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical Russians to interfere with our elections. (This must be left in the hands of the horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical American media.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    Has there been another major candidate in recent times who has campaigned less than Hillary? All she seems to do is attend fund raisers and a couple of staged speeches in front of 200 people. She seems to avoid the public eye a lot.
    , @candid_observer
    I have to say, I find it just depressing to think that our "journalists" are so willing to give up even the appearance of integrity -- forget about its reality -- that they are openly trying to vilify major leaks on governmental corruption and lies.

    How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves journalists?
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Love your last paragraph there. LOL.
  138. @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it's a tight race.

    Julian Assange claims he has bombshell information on Hillary, which will be released before the November election. Assuming he's not exaggerating (he's been very credible in the past), that could sink her campaign.

    Also, Hillary has a lot of problems (BenGhazi cover up, setting up an illegal e-mail server, health issues, bribes from foreign donors to her foundation) that could sink her too.

    Honestly, though, I think Assange is the critical factor. If he has the right information, he could put Trump in the White House.

    “Yes. Hillary is ahead by only about 4% now in the national polls. So it’s a tight race.”

    I wouldn’t say it’s a tight race but Mr Trump did have a great day. There’s a lot of advantages for Mrs Clinton besides the horserace numbers. But for the first time in a while I could see a few for Mr Trump as well.

    Read More
  139. Mr. Trump left out just one imminvasion evil: anchor babies – birthright citizenship, birth tourism.

    Yet his visit to Mexico was a triumph, and his Phoenix speech was his second Grand Slam out-of-the-park shot of this memorable day.

    Be of good hope, my friends. Be of good hope.

    Read More
  140. @candid_observer
    Yeah, I'd now place even greater weight than before on the possibility that if and when WikiLeaks releases something on Hillary, it will really undo her.

    Obviously, Trump has been rising in the polls over these last two weeks or so, and I don't think the major portion of the effect has had to do with Trump himself. He's delivered some good speeches, but the key thing is that he kept himself out of harm's way by sticking to the script.

    The really potent effect has been the corruption and lies of Hillary pointed to by the various emails and documents that have come up recently. These things obviously tap into something in the swing vote that is pretty decisive -- more so than I might have guessed previously.

    If Assange has a trove of emails and documents that are even more damning, and they are released at the proper time, they could easily take her down for the count.

    And it's remarkable to see how the media is trying to prepare for this event. In the NY Times, they are doing all they can to blame these leaks on the meddling, evil Russians. I'm sure that the angle they will take if and when these documents are released, is that we just can't allow those horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical Russians to interfere with our elections. (This must be left in the hands of the horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical American media.)

    Has there been another major candidate in recent times who has campaigned less than Hillary? All she seems to do is attend fund raisers and a couple of staged speeches in front of 200 people. She seems to avoid the public eye a lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Here's the thing I just don't get about Hillary.

    What is her obsession with money?

    I mean, how much does she need to finance a good campaign? What is the point of this? How many fundraisers does she need to attend?

    And, of course, it's not just the fundraisers. It's the 100s of millions she and Bill got paid since Bill left the Presidency. It's the God only knows how much they've brought into the Clinton Foundation.

    They aren't businesspeople, for God's sake. They don't need to bring in the money because that's the only thing they've done in life that might make them famous or important. They're supposed to be people who have dedicated their lives to public service. They don't need 100s of million dollars to finance a good life.

    So what's all the goddamn money about?

    You don't see the Bushes going after money like that. You sure don't see Jimmy Carter going after money like that. We haven't seen any ex-President go shamelessly after money like that, or anything close to like that.

    These two are a disgrace.
    , @ScarletNumber
    She is trying her best to run out the clock.
  141. @candid_observer
    Yeah, I'd now place even greater weight than before on the possibility that if and when WikiLeaks releases something on Hillary, it will really undo her.

    Obviously, Trump has been rising in the polls over these last two weeks or so, and I don't think the major portion of the effect has had to do with Trump himself. He's delivered some good speeches, but the key thing is that he kept himself out of harm's way by sticking to the script.

    The really potent effect has been the corruption and lies of Hillary pointed to by the various emails and documents that have come up recently. These things obviously tap into something in the swing vote that is pretty decisive -- more so than I might have guessed previously.

    If Assange has a trove of emails and documents that are even more damning, and they are released at the proper time, they could easily take her down for the count.

    And it's remarkable to see how the media is trying to prepare for this event. In the NY Times, they are doing all they can to blame these leaks on the meddling, evil Russians. I'm sure that the angle they will take if and when these documents are released, is that we just can't allow those horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical Russians to interfere with our elections. (This must be left in the hands of the horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical American media.)

    I have to say, I find it just depressing to think that our “journalists” are so willing to give up even the appearance of integrity — forget about its reality — that they are openly trying to vilify major leaks on governmental corruption and lies.

    How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves journalists?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves journalists?

    What wouldn't be justifiable in order to prevent another Holocaust?

    Or, at least subconsciously, in order to once and for all drive a stake through the heart of Whites as a people?
    , @Anonymous
    How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves journalists?

    What wouldn't be justifiable in order to prevent another Holocaust?
  142. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Of course "we" are smarter than you. What's your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump's economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump's ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of "softening the position" on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don't want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.

    Nah you don’t seem that smart

    Read More
  143. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iSteveFan
    No, it was a large, resource-rich nation that was fast approaching being one of the major economies of the world. It saw empty land and filled it. It's actions were a sign of strength and vibrancy, not weakness or incompetence.

    Much of that land is still “empty” today. Which is why there are economists today that promote migration and population growth.

    It was a large, resource-rich nation that couldn’t satisfy its people’s economic needs and desires. If they had been satisfied, they would not have moved. Furthermore, the US had large waves of immigration after it annexed Mexican territory, and many of these immigrants, who were immigrants because they hadn’t been provided for and economically satisfied elsewhere, went west.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    So what. Much of Mexico is still empty today. Are these economists of which you write promoting immigration and population growth into Mexico? These economists are constantly promoting immigration into the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe because that is the message that the people who pay them want promoted.

    If they had been satisfied, they would not have moved.
     
    They filled a vacuum. No enterprising people would leave such a vast, adjacent, resource-rich amount of land uninhabited. And lucky for the world this vacuum was filled by Americans and not Mexicans. Today Mexicans are able to flee their failed nation and head for greener pastures up North from California to Maine. Had Mexico successfully held onto its land gains from Spain, much of the present day western US would be like Mexico. Then where would Mexicans have to flee?

    It is not an accident that the British New World nations of Canada, USA, OZ and NZ are better places than the Latin new world nations. Does anyone doubt that if the British had settled Mexico it would be a much more desirable nation today?

  144. @frizzled
    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the '80s. Yes, something could change, but it's hard to see what.

    The fact you have a dozen quick replies denying this, shows that, much as I enjoy Steve's amusing takes on liberal reality denial, conservatives also have trouble with reality.

    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the ’80s. Yes, something could change, but it’s hard to see what.

    Probably true. Though Dole never looked to be in the ’96 election at all.

    But … it’s not over. The debates haven’t happened yet. That’s usually the chance for the candidate behind to make up ground. And particularly the case for a candidate who has been vilified by the press as an extremist. It’s the chance for people to take their own measure. (Reagan in 1980.)

    But i think the big thing in this election is simply that Hillary has very high negatives and is unable to seal the deal. It’s not that Hillary is blowing Trump away, with clear majorities that want to vote for her. Rather it’s that people don’t–as yet–want to vote for Trump. Hillary has trouble just getting to 45. That doesn’t convey to me that it’s over. It conveys to me that Hillary–the known known known quantity–is weak. But Trump–more unknown–is weaker. The difference is Trump can move the perception. Hillary’s pie is long baked.

    When i see a poll that says something like Hillary 42, Trump 39, Johnson 7, Stein 3, i don’t think “Trump can’t get any traction, he’s toast”. Rather i think, Hillary just can not get to 50. She’s known and people do not like her. But they haven’t been convinced to vote for Trump. I don’t believe Gary Johnson is going to get anywhere near 7 points. Or Stein 3–though that’s more likely. So where are those people–dissatisfied with “the system”–going to go on election day?

    I’d say, as of now … we just don’t know. But it’s not implausible that Trump can convince a bunch of those voters that he’s actually credible and offers a better alternative to what the system–Hillary is “the system”–is offering.

    That’s why the betting line gives Trump a 25% chance. Because Hillary is weak–corrupt, tedious, incompetent–and known and locked down. Trump is weak and … still able to alter people’s perceptions.

    Read More
  145. @iSteveFan
    Has there been another major candidate in recent times who has campaigned less than Hillary? All she seems to do is attend fund raisers and a couple of staged speeches in front of 200 people. She seems to avoid the public eye a lot.

    Here’s the thing I just don’t get about Hillary.

    What is her obsession with money?

    I mean, how much does she need to finance a good campaign? What is the point of this? How many fundraisers does she need to attend?

    And, of course, it’s not just the fundraisers. It’s the 100s of millions she and Bill got paid since Bill left the Presidency. It’s the God only knows how much they’ve brought into the Clinton Foundation.

    They aren’t businesspeople, for God’s sake. They don’t need to bring in the money because that’s the only thing they’ve done in life that might make them famous or important. They’re supposed to be people who have dedicated their lives to public service. They don’t need 100s of million dollars to finance a good life.

    So what’s all the goddamn money about?

    You don’t see the Bushes going after money like that. You sure don’t see Jimmy Carter going after money like that. We haven’t seen any ex-President go shamelessly after money like that, or anything close to like that.

    These two are a disgrace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    It would have been cheaper for the USA just to cut the Clintons a check for $200M and be done with it. No doubt billions if not trillions of dollars have been wasted for them to get their small cut.
    , @Desiderius

    What is the point of this?
     
    She knows people who just don't care as much as she does who makes more money than she does.

    It's just not fair.
    , @Forbes
    Pay-to-play. Crony capitalism. Influence. Access. Accommodation. Earmarks. Logrolling. Subsidies. Exemptions. Exceptions. Favors. Power. And money is power to do all those things when the system is corrupt to those effects.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Hillary is very money oriented. It's a very normal thing to worry about money, she's just at one end of the distribution.
  146. @JimboHarambe
    Trump's position has been clear and consistent all along:
    1. Build the wall.
    2. Enforce our laws.
    3. Immediate deportation of criminals and gang members.
    4. Mandate e-verify, punish employers who knowingly hire illegals.
    5. No welfare for illegals.

    Once this is all done, there will be no new supply of illegals and many who are already here will leave because the jobs and welfare will dry up. Trump will not send deportation squads around to round up illegals (bad optics-the media would have a field day with that), but he also will never support a broad amnesty for all. He might allow some limited amnesty for a small percentage of illegals. It's a good program, exactly what we need.

    No Welfare for any new arrivals…no social benefits for anchor babies. And, all will be housed in sub-par, single sex dormitories, for a minimum of 7 years, far from a fun city or the coasts, but with TV and food – an American gulag.

    Read More
  147. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Steve, if you get the time, you should read and perhaps post about Tom Wolfe’s new book critiquing Darwin and the theory of evolution.

    Read More
  148. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Flip a coin twice and see if you can get the same side both times. That's Trump's chance of winning right now. The main obstacles are Trump's refusal to read up on the reasoning behind his stump issues, primarily trade and immigration, and the Etch A Sketch strategy being pushed by Kellyanne Conway, a former cocaine addict and current Trump campaign manager.

    If you are trying a 1-in-4 example, it has to be 2 heads or 2 tails BEFORE the flips, not after.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eggheadshadhisnumber
    The chance of him getting the same side consecutively in two coin flips is equivalent to Trump's current electoral odds, judging from assorted polling aggregators.
  149. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    My personal opinion is Trump does better when Stephen Miller writes his speech out for him rather than when Trump wings it, but I'm biased.

    The content is better when he reads the speech. But he’s not that great at giving speeches. He has this kind of shouting and bad delivery. He’s more relaxed and better at delivery when winging it, but the content is kind of bad when he does, aside from the jokes and amusing bits.

    Read More
  150. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @candid_observer
    I have to say, I find it just depressing to think that our "journalists" are so willing to give up even the appearance of integrity -- forget about its reality -- that they are openly trying to vilify major leaks on governmental corruption and lies.

    How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves journalists?

    How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves journalists?

    What wouldn’t be justifiable in order to prevent another Holocaust?

    Or, at least subconsciously, in order to once and for all drive a stake through the heart of Whites as a people?

    Read More
  151. @Anonymous
    Well, the average American doesn't know who Chamberlain was.

    What should be offensive to the people of Mexico is the fact that a large, resource-rich New World nation cannot provide for its people and that a significant portion of which have headed North. Nothing says failure like having 10 percent of your population picking up and leaving.
     
    You could say the same thing about the US. If it was so successful, why did it have to annex Mexican territory? Why couldn't it provide with what it had, which was a significant landmass already?

    Well, the average American doesn’t know who Chamberlain was.

    He fucked 20,000 women.

    Read More
  152. @Spyder
    So uh, why did Republican primary voters give up Supreme Court choices to get an awful candidate when Rubio was closer to Trump's current position?

    No policy prescriptions necessary for no amnesty and enforcement, which will be the engine of self-deportation for most.

    Read More
  153. Personably, I am finding it much easier to publicly voice support for Trump.

    Each day that Trump goes out there and says something reasonable, combined with each day that Hillary gets on her jet to fly 20 miles to dine with the rothschilds makes it that much easier.

    It will not be easy to argue with what he said in Mexico or even more so, Phoenix.

    It is easy to argue that Hillary is having a tougher and tougher time keeping track of her corruption and lies.

    “Talking points” are getting harder and harder for Clinton fans by the day.

    This may be key.

    Read More
    • Replies: @wren
    Personally, it must be easier to promote Trump and remain personable...
  154. @iSteveFan
    Has there been another major candidate in recent times who has campaigned less than Hillary? All she seems to do is attend fund raisers and a couple of staged speeches in front of 200 people. She seems to avoid the public eye a lot.

    She is trying her best to run out the clock.

    Read More
  155. @Das
    People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election.

    Those YUGE authorities, people betting money on it, thought Brexit had less chance than that – while the votes were already being counted!

    Read More
  156. @Anonymous
    Well, the average American doesn't know who Chamberlain was.

    What should be offensive to the people of Mexico is the fact that a large, resource-rich New World nation cannot provide for its people and that a significant portion of which have headed North. Nothing says failure like having 10 percent of your population picking up and leaving.
     
    You could say the same thing about the US. If it was so successful, why did it have to annex Mexican territory? Why couldn't it provide with what it had, which was a significant landmass already?

    Manifest Destiny, the expansion of America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which was blocked by Mexican states in del Norte.

    Read More
  157. @frizzled
    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the '80s. Yes, something could change, but it's hard to see what.

    The fact you have a dozen quick replies denying this, shows that, much as I enjoy Steve's amusing takes on liberal reality denial, conservatives also have trouble with reality.

    Are you stupid or insane? Go to Wikipedia, average national polls in the last ten days. No, do it yourself, don’t copy someone else’s average. Even at face value, Trump is down by a smaller margin than that of Romney’s loss.

    Read More
  158. @wren
    Personably, I am finding it much easier to publicly voice support for Trump.

    Each day that Trump goes out there and says something reasonable, combined with each day that Hillary gets on her jet to fly 20 miles to dine with the rothschilds makes it that much easier.

    It will not be easy to argue with what he said in Mexico or even more so, Phoenix.

    It is easy to argue that Hillary is having a tougher and tougher time keeping track of her corruption and lies.

    "Talking points" are getting harder and harder for Clinton fans by the day.

    This may be key.

    Personally, it must be easier to promote Trump and remain personable…

    Read More
  159. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @candid_observer
    I have to say, I find it just depressing to think that our "journalists" are so willing to give up even the appearance of integrity -- forget about its reality -- that they are openly trying to vilify major leaks on governmental corruption and lies.

    How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves journalists?

    How do these people look themselves in the mirror and call themselves journalists?

    What wouldn’t be justifiable in order to prevent another Holocaust?

    Read More
  160. @candid_observer
    Here's the thing I just don't get about Hillary.

    What is her obsession with money?

    I mean, how much does she need to finance a good campaign? What is the point of this? How many fundraisers does she need to attend?

    And, of course, it's not just the fundraisers. It's the 100s of millions she and Bill got paid since Bill left the Presidency. It's the God only knows how much they've brought into the Clinton Foundation.

    They aren't businesspeople, for God's sake. They don't need to bring in the money because that's the only thing they've done in life that might make them famous or important. They're supposed to be people who have dedicated their lives to public service. They don't need 100s of million dollars to finance a good life.

    So what's all the goddamn money about?

    You don't see the Bushes going after money like that. You sure don't see Jimmy Carter going after money like that. We haven't seen any ex-President go shamelessly after money like that, or anything close to like that.

    These two are a disgrace.

    It would have been cheaper for the USA just to cut the Clintons a check for $200M and be done with it. No doubt billions if not trillions of dollars have been wasted for them to get their small cut.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think that's the case with the vast majority of corrupt politicians, their countries would be better off if simply their salaries were raised 2000-fold, but no corrupt deals.

    In general I think one of the problems of governments is that they just don't usually pay well, not enough to attract quality people, and the ones it does attract often end up grabbing the money for themselves anyway, but at a much worse price to society. Or they simply do very low quality work, like most government employees in most countries in the world.
  161. @frizzled
    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the '80s. Yes, something could change, but it's hard to see what.

    The fact you have a dozen quick replies denying this, shows that, much as I enjoy Steve's amusing takes on liberal reality denial, conservatives also have trouble with reality.

    I’ve been concerned about this. In the primary he was always the front runner after last June. He does well in that position.

    Now it is reversed.

    I think he needs to goad Hillary into bad reactions or no reactions. Her reply today focusing of slowness in building relationships made her sound tired & a step behind… Hopefully.

    Read More
  162. @Superman
    Wiki: "Enrique Krauze Kleinbort was born in 1947 in Mexico City to parents of Polish Jewish descent."

    Every. Time.

    Read More
  163. @Anonymous
    Also, can you imagine a tv debate between Trump and Hillary? There’s no possible contest.

    Trump hasn't performed well in debates. I see it as his Achilles heel here in the final stretch.

    No matter how bad he performs, cameras love Trump. He’s a former tv star after all. While cameras positively loathe Hillary. (Don’t we all?)
    And let’s not forget she’s physically ad mentally challenged, to put it mildly. She can’t stay on topic and focused for more than 15 minutes. Will she need that black medic by her side to give her shots of diazepam every 10 minutes so she doesn’t freak out? She’s finished.

    Read More
  164. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    From Trump earlier today:

    "There are many improvements that could be made that would make both Mexico and the United States stronger and keep industry in our hemisphere. We have tremendous competition from China and from all over the world. Keep it in our hemisphere. Workers in both of our countries need a pay raise, very desperately. In the United States, it's been 18 years, 18 years wages are going down. Improving pay standards and working conditions will create better results for all and all workers in particular. There's a lot of value that can be created for both countries by working beautifully together. And that I am sure will happen.

    Number five, keep manufacturing wealth in our hemisphere. When jobs leave Mexico, the U.S. or Central America and go over seas, it increases poverty and pressure on social services as well as pressures on cross border migration. Tremendous pressure. The bond between our two countries is deep and sincere. And both our nations benefit from a close and honest relationship between our two governments."

    Yes, that's a very nice message from Trump, very nice indeed. Nothing about Mexico draining manufacturing jobs from the United States, but lots about making sure Mexicans keep their manufacturing safe from the Chinese.

    And that is what happened. Under NAFTA, industry and jobs went to Mexico, and then from Mexico they migrated to China. Both the United States and Mexico lost out on the deal. Then, the race to China became a torrent.

    The real question is how the products of those industries and jobs that migrated to China can be sold in the United States without a punitive equalization tariff.

    BTW: For a good example of how globalization works, take a look at the latest Apple tax scam that has been in the news … the art of turning profit into cost and paying no taxes.

    1. Cut a deal with Ireland for lower taxes on profit.
    2. Account all sales in the EU as if they occurred in Ireland.
    3. Take the profits and repatriate them to the United States as the cost of intellectual capital for the home company developing the iPhone and other products sold in the EU (I mean Ireland).
    4. Apple then takes the repatriated profits from Ireland and uses them to administratively pay for worldwide R&D for the next version of iPhones that will indeed be sold worldwide.
    5. Profits from other global ventures that cannot be repatriated as costs are then indefinitely banked overseas (hidden) in tax-friendly jurisdictions until a tax free repatriation scheme can be worked out.

    Notice that only nominal taxes are paid by Apple on billions in profit — an estimated 0.005% tax rate in Ireland with no taxes paid on billions in repatriated “costs”. This is actually an old game, invented by British businessmen at the turn of 20th Century: Sending profits from overseas ventures back to the home company as costs after migrating through and obscuring what is going on through multiple layers of subsidiaries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Here's my 2011 post on how Microsoft is, for tax purposes, an industrial giant in Ireland, Puerto Rico, and Singapore, while operating a giant but money-losing R&D division in Redmond, WA:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-microsoft-does-it.html

  165. @iSteveFan
    No, it was a large, resource-rich nation that was fast approaching being one of the major economies of the world. It saw empty land and filled it. It's actions were a sign of strength and vibrancy, not weakness or incompetence.

    Anon is right. Mexico is doing today what the US did in the 19th century: Expanding and ethnic cleansing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    Yes, a few countries are expanding in modern times like the old ones did in the past. However, in the past it was usually the militarily and economically superior nation that encroached upon its weaker neighbors as the US did to Mexico.

    Today it seems that weaker nations like Mexico and Albania are able to expand their influence, and possibly expand their territory, into neighboring nations that are both militarily and economically stronger.

    Ditto for the Islamic expansion into Europe.
  166. @TheJester
    And that is what happened. Under NAFTA, industry and jobs went to Mexico, and then from Mexico they migrated to China. Both the United States and Mexico lost out on the deal. Then, the race to China became a torrent.

    The real question is how the products of those industries and jobs that migrated to China can be sold in the United States without a punitive equalization tariff.

    BTW: For a good example of how globalization works, take a look at the latest Apple tax scam that has been in the news ... the art of turning profit into cost and paying no taxes.

    1. Cut a deal with Ireland for lower taxes on profit.
    2. Account all sales in the EU as if they occurred in Ireland.
    3. Take the profits and repatriate them to the United States as the cost of intellectual capital for the home company developing the iPhone and other products sold in the EU (I mean Ireland).
    4. Apple then takes the repatriated profits from Ireland and uses them to administratively pay for worldwide R&D for the next version of iPhones that will indeed be sold worldwide.
    5. Profits from other global ventures that cannot be repatriated as costs are then indefinitely banked overseas (hidden) in tax-friendly jurisdictions until a tax free repatriation scheme can be worked out.

    Notice that only nominal taxes are paid by Apple on billions in profit -- an estimated 0.005% tax rate in Ireland with no taxes paid on billions in repatriated "costs". This is actually an old game, invented by British businessmen at the turn of 20th Century: Sending profits from overseas ventures back to the home company as costs after migrating through and obscuring what is going on through multiple layers of subsidiaries.

    Here’s my 2011 post on how Microsoft is, for tax purposes, an industrial giant in Ireland, Puerto Rico, and Singapore, while operating a giant but money-losing R&D division in Redmond, WA:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-microsoft-does-it.html

    Read More
  167. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Incredible speech in AZ by the Donald tonight. He nailed it. Even talked about a timeout (my word) akin to 1924.

    That call for a timeout (sounds like a great idea to me) didn’t go over well with everyone. A tweet I noticed last night:
    Ira Stoll ‏@IraStoll
    the door-closings after previous waves didn’t work out so good. Caused Great Depression, also huge deaths in Holocaust, Cultural Revolution

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Immigration restriction caused the Great Depression?
    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    This Ira is who and cares about my children how? Like, the Iras of the world are going to be voting for Trump anyways. Ira can go to hell.
  168. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Of course "we" are smarter than you. What's your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump's economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump's ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of "softening the position" on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don't want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.

    “What’s your alma mater?” – the defining statement of intellectual bankruptcy.

    Read More
  169. @Steve Sailer
    My personal opinion is Trump does better when Stephen Miller writes his speech out for him rather than when Trump wings it, but I'm biased.

    In regard to channeling Miller, Trump won’t have a Teleprompter at the debates, right?

    I worry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Don't worry, he'll be facing a very sick and senile Hillary. She needs at leasts 50 differents drugs and frequent shots of diazepam just to look half-way there.
    , @Forbes
    The debates are small format Q&A--2 min answer, 30 sec reply/rebuttal. Basically sound bites, talking points, where Trump should be fine. It's his off the cuff, stream of consciousness stump speeches where he gets mangled.
  170. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @EriK
    That call for a timeout (sounds like a great idea to me) didn't go over well with everyone. A tweet I noticed last night:
    Ira Stoll ‏@IraStoll
    the door-closings after previous waves didn't work out so good. Caused Great Depression, also huge deaths in Holocaust, Cultural Revolution

    Immigration restriction caused the Great Depression?

    Read More
  171. The comparison of “Trump Goes to Mexico” to “Chamberlain Goes to Munich” is retarded. It suggests that Mexico and the US are peers in the sense that the UK and Germany are peers. Mexico is more like Czechoslovakia — an insignificant bump that the US could roll over without a second thought if it wanted to. If Trump was really Hitler, he wouldn’t be talking with the Mexican president or building a wall, he’d be gearing up to roll panzer divisions into Mexico City and screw world opinion.

    Read More
  172. @EriK
    That call for a timeout (sounds like a great idea to me) didn't go over well with everyone. A tweet I noticed last night:
    Ira Stoll ‏@IraStoll
    the door-closings after previous waves didn't work out so good. Caused Great Depression, also huge deaths in Holocaust, Cultural Revolution

    This Ira is who and cares about my children how? Like, the Iras of the world are going to be voting for Trump anyways. Ira can go to hell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    (((Ira Stoll))) grew up and went to school in Massachusetts, and seems to be suffering from some sort of bizarre Semitic schizophrenia. He's a Jewish journalist/blogger in every sense of the words, but seems to be consumed with the Christian roots of his home, having written books about JFK and Samuel Adams.

    He can be ignored with intent.

  173. Googling the Mexicans quoted in the article is pretty funny. Conquistadors all!

    Read More
  174. @candid_observer
    Here's the thing I just don't get about Hillary.

    What is her obsession with money?

    I mean, how much does she need to finance a good campaign? What is the point of this? How many fundraisers does she need to attend?

    And, of course, it's not just the fundraisers. It's the 100s of millions she and Bill got paid since Bill left the Presidency. It's the God only knows how much they've brought into the Clinton Foundation.

    They aren't businesspeople, for God's sake. They don't need to bring in the money because that's the only thing they've done in life that might make them famous or important. They're supposed to be people who have dedicated their lives to public service. They don't need 100s of million dollars to finance a good life.

    So what's all the goddamn money about?

    You don't see the Bushes going after money like that. You sure don't see Jimmy Carter going after money like that. We haven't seen any ex-President go shamelessly after money like that, or anything close to like that.

    These two are a disgrace.

    What is the point of this?

    She knows people who just don’t care as much as she does who makes more money than she does.

    It’s just not fair.

    Read More
  175. @ScarletNumber

    Well, the average American doesn’t know who Chamberlain was.
     
    He fucked 20,000 women.

    “Wilt the Stilt”

    Read More
  176. Yeah. NYT goes to Mexico, finds a Jew to quote about Nieto as Chamberlin, Trump as Hitler, and 2016 as 1938. News at 11.

    P.S., I wrote that before checking g**gle to confirm my solely-based-on-name-and-circumstances Jewdar reading.

    P.P.S.: I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you.

    It’s almost as if Jews in the American media and Jews in the Mexican academy have more in common with each other than with Americans or Mexicans. Like the man said, dual loyalty would be an improvement.

    Read More
  177. the door-closings after previous waves didn’t work out so good, from my un-patriotic (to America), Wandering Jew perspective.

    FIFH.

    Seriously, what did any of that have to do with America? Other than the Great Depression, which doesn’t deserve a response.

    This Ira is who and cares about my children how?

    Exactly. Even if one accepts the nonsense about the GD, that still means 2/3s of his concerns were openly for foreign countries and peoples, and against American interests.

    Dual loyalty would be an improvement.

    Read More
  178. @Anonym
    It would have been cheaper for the USA just to cut the Clintons a check for $200M and be done with it. No doubt billions if not trillions of dollars have been wasted for them to get their small cut.

    I think that’s the case with the vast majority of corrupt politicians, their countries would be better off if simply their salaries were raised 2000-fold, but no corrupt deals.

    In general I think one of the problems of governments is that they just don’t usually pay well, not enough to attract quality people, and the ones it does attract often end up grabbing the money for themselves anyway, but at a much worse price to society. Or they simply do very low quality work, like most government employees in most countries in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    You have a point about compensation especially for those at the top of the totem pole.

    As far as government employees, there are a lot of good ones out there, just not in the DMV frontline staff. Competent people tend to do their best whoever the employer. It's what they do.
    , @Forbes
    US gov't employees total compensation (pay, health benefits, retirement) is substantially better than the private sector--it's not even close. They retire after 30 years, at ~60% of final pay. It's a permanent, lifetime employment scheme--no turnover, and no terminations.

    And that would not be an issue if the gov't did very few things, and did them well. The problem is the gov't does far too many things, and nothing particularly well.

    And the pay for elected politicians is fundamentally too high--they never put their hand in their own pocket to pay for anything. Senators, like Harry Reid, retire from office as multi-millionaires--before their pensions are counted.

    As to a check on corruption, the voters are supposed to fill that role. Media, except regarding Reps, has given up on that scrutiny.
    , @Rob McX
    If you paid off one politician, there'd be twenty others just as crooked ready to jump into his place. Anyway, they're not always motivated by money. There's a good chance Bill Clinton went into politics for the enhanced sexual opportunities that it promised. Vanity is another common motive (as Gore Vidal said, politics is showbusiness for ugly people), and that's a trait that can be easily manipulated by the ruling elite in government and the media. And when you see what they're doing with mass immigration, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that some of them are motivated by nothing more than pure hatred for the countries they're destroying.
  179. @Das
    People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election.

    “People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election.”

    Ladbrokes gave me 8 to 1 just before Brexit … can’t wait to see what they give me for Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Ladbrokes currently has Trump at 5/2… Hillary is only 3/10. Bernie is still in there at 66/1 and Biden at 100/1. These might be fun wagers to make in case the Hildabeast can't go the distance on life support.
    , @Forbes
    The betting experience (Ladbrokes) for Brexit explains a bit about wagers in elections/referendums, that is substantially different than, say, a sporting event.

    First of all (for those not current on wagering), the bookmaker--whether Ladbrokes, or at the local racetrack--simply matches the money wagered on each side of the bet. The bookmaker's take or vigorish comes out of the middle of the transaction.

    In the case of Brexit, the 8 to 1 odds were based on the amount of money--the so-called 'smart money'--that was wagered on Remain. The curious bit was that the number of bets placed were roughly 2 to 1 in favor of Brexit. What distorted the betting odds in favor of Remain was the size of the bets. The Remain bets averaged 550 pounds, while the Brexit bets were 50 pounds. (Don't tell me the math is wrong, as the odds reported by TA, and my memory about the wagering was from a report at the time of Brexit, are two different sources.)

    So the betting public 'voted' for Brexit, while the 'smart money' wagered on Remain.

    Unlike sports wagering, where the betting action shouldn't have an effect on the outcome, election wagering can show a distinct bias--as in Brexit--where the money bet is incongruous with the voting sentiment--and can be used to influence the outcome. You can wager more money, but the voter only has one vote.
    , @Brutusale
    Any wager with no past performance to steady the odds is a wild-assed guess. Given the amount of supposition, myth and outright lying involved in this election, how can anyone be confident in the odds?

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-gambling-brady-20150802-story.html

    A simple thing like a four-game suspension for the starting quarterback for the team leading in projections to win the Super Bowl has Vegas bookmakers throwing Faberian little-known codicils into the mix for Patriots bettors. Last year there was an estimated $4.2 billion bet on the Super Bowl, so a bookie can't be too careful!

  180. @reiner Tor
    I think that's the case with the vast majority of corrupt politicians, their countries would be better off if simply their salaries were raised 2000-fold, but no corrupt deals.

    In general I think one of the problems of governments is that they just don't usually pay well, not enough to attract quality people, and the ones it does attract often end up grabbing the money for themselves anyway, but at a much worse price to society. Or they simply do very low quality work, like most government employees in most countries in the world.

    You have a point about compensation especially for those at the top of the totem pole.

    As far as government employees, there are a lot of good ones out there, just not in the DMV frontline staff. Competent people tend to do their best whoever the employer. It’s what they do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Competent people tend to do their best whoever the employer. It’s what they do.
     
    Competent people avoid government service because of the low salaries. Those who can thrive in the private sector rarely want to sacrifice their incomes just work for the government, even if they were more interested in government work.
  181. @The Alarmist

    "People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election."
     
    Ladbrokes gave me 8 to 1 just before Brexit … can't wait to see what they give me for Trump.

    Ladbrokes currently has Trump at 5/2… Hillary is only 3/10. Bernie is still in there at 66/1 and Biden at 100/1. These might be fun wagers to make in case the Hildabeast can’t go the distance on life support.

    Read More
  182. @ScarletNumber
    If you are trying a 1-in-4 example, it has to be 2 heads or 2 tails BEFORE the flips, not after.

    The chance of him getting the same side consecutively in two coin flips is equivalent to Trump’s current electoral odds, judging from assorted polling aggregators.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    Then just say 50/50, dipshit.
    , @Forbes
    It's an incredibly silly analogy that argues the election is merely the random outcome of two independent coin tosses, given assorted polling aggregators. Elections aren't repeatable random trials despite repeated polling exercises. All that can be said is polling is a cost effective way to generate a 'news story' about opinions. Opinions are like elbows...

    The current experience "judging" regarding Trump chances over the past 14 months polling has been pretty pathetic. But go ahead and hang your hat on it.
  183. @AndrewR
    Anon is right. Mexico is doing today what the US did in the 19th century: Expanding and ethnic cleansing.

    Yes, a few countries are expanding in modern times like the old ones did in the past. However, in the past it was usually the militarily and economically superior nation that encroached upon its weaker neighbors as the US did to Mexico.

    Today it seems that weaker nations like Mexico and Albania are able to expand their influence, and possibly expand their territory, into neighboring nations that are both militarily and economically stronger.

    Ditto for the Islamic expansion into Europe.

    Read More
  184. @anon
    Please explain to me - why did the Mexican president invite Trump?

    Isn't this bad for his approval ratings among Mexicans? Don't they hate Trump?

    The leaders of more than half the nations on earth could not get a sit down with the President of the US. The US is the most powerful country in the world. To stand next to a (likely) President and exchange respectful pleasantries is a huge image intensifier to your own people.

    Barack never visited Mexico.

    Read More
  185. @Penguinchip
    It would be our salvation. It would also be enforcing the law instead of undermining it and patriotic instead of treasonous.


    And don't forget the Muslim thing - as important as all the rest. The first step toward the essential and ultimately inevitable step of muslim expulsion. Them, we will round up. After amending the establishment clause, of vourse, as follows: ", except Islam."

    “After amending the establishment clause, of vourse, as follows: “, except Islam.”

    I think a much better way is to go back to the clear words of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law…”

    This, to me, means that religions are protected from legal harassment or government support, but they are NOT given special privileges. In other words, the exceptions, exemptions, waivers, and privileges that are given to religions are unconstitutional. It is not constitutional to give them exemptions from taxes (except as regular non-profits), from educational standards, from zoning laws because they are religions. It seems to me laws or ordinances favoring religious observance are unconstitutional on their face.

    So, how does this affect Muslims? It is also unconstitutional to make laws or regulations against discriminating on the basis of religion. These laws clearly affect the establishment of religion.

    So, any employer or landlord should be able to decide on the basis of religion whether to hire or rent to someone. If you remove legal sanctions and the threat of fines or criminal actions, the problem with Muslims should clear up on its own. Who knows: they might even find themselves forced to act decently towards non-Muslims.

    I don’t think my interpretation of the Constitution’s words are far out. They seem plain to me. The lawyers like to use specialized definitions of common words, which is understandable, but clear intent is clear intent.

    I think realigning Constitutional interpretation in line with the clear statement of present wording is far easier to achieve than a proposed Constitutional amendment like the one you proposed, which enshrines all the extra-legal and unconstitutional laws giving religion special privilege.

    I’m not opposed to religion in any way, by the way. I think legitimate religions are far better off, like the rest of us, by following the Constitution.

    Read More
  186. @Anonymous
    Much of that land is still "empty" today. Which is why there are economists today that promote migration and population growth.

    It was a large, resource-rich nation that couldn't satisfy its people's economic needs and desires. If they had been satisfied, they would not have moved. Furthermore, the US had large waves of immigration after it annexed Mexican territory, and many of these immigrants, who were immigrants because they hadn't been provided for and economically satisfied elsewhere, went west.

    So what. Much of Mexico is still empty today. Are these economists of which you write promoting immigration and population growth into Mexico? These economists are constantly promoting immigration into the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe because that is the message that the people who pay them want promoted.

    If they had been satisfied, they would not have moved.

    They filled a vacuum. No enterprising people would leave such a vast, adjacent, resource-rich amount of land uninhabited. And lucky for the world this vacuum was filled by Americans and not Mexicans. Today Mexicans are able to flee their failed nation and head for greener pastures up North from California to Maine. Had Mexico successfully held onto its land gains from Spain, much of the present day western US would be like Mexico. Then where would Mexicans have to flee?

    It is not an accident that the British New World nations of Canada, USA, OZ and NZ are better places than the Latin new world nations. Does anyone doubt that if the British had settled Mexico it would be a much more desirable nation today?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, they filled a vacuum because the large, resource-rich nation they had been inhabiting could not provide for them and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Even long after annexation, the even larger, even more resource-rich nation could not provide for its inhabitants, which is why Okies were living in shacks and near starvation conditions during the Dust Bowl.

    By your standard, British expansion is a history of repeated failures, resolved by grabbing more territory. The failures have largely stopped because there's been a dramatic crash in fertility in the British world.
  187. @frizzled
    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the '80s. Yes, something could change, but it's hard to see what.

    The fact you have a dozen quick replies denying this, shows that, much as I enjoy Steve's amusing takes on liberal reality denial, conservatives also have trouble with reality.

    “Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the ’80s. Yes, something could change, but it’s hard to see what.”

    That’s been my interpretation for at least a month. That said, I like where he is today over any place he’s been since the conventions.

    Read More
  188. @Anonymous
    Immigration restriction caused the Great Depression?

    First time I’ve heard of that one myself.

    Read More
  189. @Anonym
    You have a point about compensation especially for those at the top of the totem pole.

    As far as government employees, there are a lot of good ones out there, just not in the DMV frontline staff. Competent people tend to do their best whoever the employer. It's what they do.

    Competent people tend to do their best whoever the employer. It’s what they do.

    Competent people avoid government service because of the low salaries. Those who can thrive in the private sector rarely want to sacrifice their incomes just work for the government, even if they were more interested in government work.

    Read More
  190. @Same Anonymous
    In regard to channeling Miller, Trump won't have a Teleprompter at the debates, right?

    I worry.

    Don’t worry, he’ll be facing a very sick and senile Hillary. She needs at leasts 50 differents drugs and frequent shots of diazepam just to look half-way there.

    Read More
  191. @candid_observer
    Here's the thing I just don't get about Hillary.

    What is her obsession with money?

    I mean, how much does she need to finance a good campaign? What is the point of this? How many fundraisers does she need to attend?

    And, of course, it's not just the fundraisers. It's the 100s of millions she and Bill got paid since Bill left the Presidency. It's the God only knows how much they've brought into the Clinton Foundation.

    They aren't businesspeople, for God's sake. They don't need to bring in the money because that's the only thing they've done in life that might make them famous or important. They're supposed to be people who have dedicated their lives to public service. They don't need 100s of million dollars to finance a good life.

    So what's all the goddamn money about?

    You don't see the Bushes going after money like that. You sure don't see Jimmy Carter going after money like that. We haven't seen any ex-President go shamelessly after money like that, or anything close to like that.

    These two are a disgrace.

    Pay-to-play. Crony capitalism. Influence. Access. Accommodation. Earmarks. Logrolling. Subsidies. Exemptions. Exceptions. Favors. Power. And money is power to do all those things when the system is corrupt to those effects.

    Read More
  192. @ATX Hipster
    I hope you're right. The Hillary supporters I've spoken with genuinely don't care or don't believe the overwhelming evidence of her corruption. As for people who are somehow on the fence, well I can't fathom their motivations. Who knows if further evidence of corruption/health problems/whatever will influence the opinion of somebody who can't decide between a nationalist and a globalist.

    People on the fence at this point are self-indulgent mental midgets. There’s no other way to describe them.

    Read More
  193. @Same Anonymous
    In regard to channeling Miller, Trump won't have a Teleprompter at the debates, right?

    I worry.

    The debates are small format Q&A–2 min answer, 30 sec reply/rebuttal. Basically sound bites, talking points, where Trump should be fine. It’s his off the cuff, stream of consciousness stump speeches where he gets mangled.

    Read More
  194. @reiner Tor
    I think that's the case with the vast majority of corrupt politicians, their countries would be better off if simply their salaries were raised 2000-fold, but no corrupt deals.

    In general I think one of the problems of governments is that they just don't usually pay well, not enough to attract quality people, and the ones it does attract often end up grabbing the money for themselves anyway, but at a much worse price to society. Or they simply do very low quality work, like most government employees in most countries in the world.

    US gov’t employees total compensation (pay, health benefits, retirement) is substantially better than the private sector–it’s not even close. They retire after 30 years, at ~60% of final pay. It’s a permanent, lifetime employment scheme–no turnover, and no terminations.

    And that would not be an issue if the gov’t did very few things, and did them well. The problem is the gov’t does far too many things, and nothing particularly well.

    And the pay for elected politicians is fundamentally too high–they never put their hand in their own pocket to pay for anything. Senators, like Harry Reid, retire from office as multi-millionaires–before their pensions are counted.

    As to a check on corruption, the voters are supposed to fill that role. Media, except regarding Reps, has given up on that scrutiny.

    Read More
  195. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    The chance of him getting the same side consecutively in two coin flips is equivalent to Trump's current electoral odds, judging from assorted polling aggregators.

    Then just say 50/50, dipshit.

    Read More
  196. @The Alarmist

    "People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election."
     
    Ladbrokes gave me 8 to 1 just before Brexit … can't wait to see what they give me for Trump.

    The betting experience (Ladbrokes) for Brexit explains a bit about wagers in elections/referendums, that is substantially different than, say, a sporting event.

    First of all (for those not current on wagering), the bookmaker–whether Ladbrokes, or at the local racetrack–simply matches the money wagered on each side of the bet. The bookmaker’s take or vigorish comes out of the middle of the transaction.

    In the case of Brexit, the 8 to 1 odds were based on the amount of money–the so-called ‘smart money’–that was wagered on Remain. The curious bit was that the number of bets placed were roughly 2 to 1 in favor of Brexit. What distorted the betting odds in favor of Remain was the size of the bets. The Remain bets averaged 550 pounds, while the Brexit bets were 50 pounds. (Don’t tell me the math is wrong, as the odds reported by TA, and my memory about the wagering was from a report at the time of Brexit, are two different sources.)

    So the betting public ‘voted’ for Brexit, while the ‘smart money’ wagered on Remain.

    Unlike sports wagering, where the betting action shouldn’t have an effect on the outcome, election wagering can show a distinct bias–as in Brexit–where the money bet is incongruous with the voting sentiment–and can be used to influence the outcome. You can wager more money, but the voter only has one vote.

    Read More
  197. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    The chance of him getting the same side consecutively in two coin flips is equivalent to Trump's current electoral odds, judging from assorted polling aggregators.

    It’s an incredibly silly analogy that argues the election is merely the random outcome of two independent coin tosses, given assorted polling aggregators. Elections aren’t repeatable random trials despite repeated polling exercises. All that can be said is polling is a cost effective way to generate a ‘news story’ about opinions. Opinions are like elbows…

    The current experience “judging” regarding Trump chances over the past 14 months polling has been pretty pathetic. But go ahead and hang your hat on it.

    Read More
  198. @Steve Sailer
    My personal opinion is Trump does better when Stephen Miller writes his speech out for him rather than when Trump wings it, but I'm biased.

    Aren’t debates by the principals kind of stupid? We’re essentially judging 70-year olds on their ability to memorize and extemporize, when we’re electing them for their judgment and policy preferences. Wouldn’t it be more informative to have Stephen Miller debate one of Hillary’s top advisors?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I think debates are very useful. For one, you get to see the candidate not favored by the MSM attacked where it hurts. And so people can learn things. If the 70 year olds in question do not have the ability to memorize and extemporize, I would argue they are unsuited to the role of president. It's part of the job.

    Having a quick witted president who can quickly size up strengths and weaknesses, knowing how to attack and defend verbally, and having the wisdom and strategic thinking to have chosen good policy in the first place - is important. Negotiation is kind of a better-tempered cousin to debate, and a president will be doing plenty of that.
    , @BB753
    There's a difference between a policy wonk and a politician. And between a speech writer and a statesman.
    , @Broski
    Humans matter. While any human can memorize sound bites, other humans are great at perceiving the speaker regardless of the soundbites. Thus, the debates are useful for those who actually watch them.
  199. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iSteveFan
    So what. Much of Mexico is still empty today. Are these economists of which you write promoting immigration and population growth into Mexico? These economists are constantly promoting immigration into the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe because that is the message that the people who pay them want promoted.

    If they had been satisfied, they would not have moved.
     
    They filled a vacuum. No enterprising people would leave such a vast, adjacent, resource-rich amount of land uninhabited. And lucky for the world this vacuum was filled by Americans and not Mexicans. Today Mexicans are able to flee their failed nation and head for greener pastures up North from California to Maine. Had Mexico successfully held onto its land gains from Spain, much of the present day western US would be like Mexico. Then where would Mexicans have to flee?

    It is not an accident that the British New World nations of Canada, USA, OZ and NZ are better places than the Latin new world nations. Does anyone doubt that if the British had settled Mexico it would be a much more desirable nation today?

    Yes, they filled a vacuum because the large, resource-rich nation they had been inhabiting could not provide for them and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Even long after annexation, the even larger, even more resource-rich nation could not provide for its inhabitants, which is why Okies were living in shacks and near starvation conditions during the Dust Bowl.

    By your standard, British expansion is a history of repeated failures, resolved by grabbing more territory. The failures have largely stopped because there’s been a dramatic crash in fertility in the British world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    The British and later the Americans were colonialist, settlers and pioneers who carved out a civilization from the wilderness. Where they went there was nothing. They cleared the land to make farms, towns and cities.

    The Mexicans today are not coming to the empty spaces of the USA to stake a claim on their 40 acres, build a cabin and plant their crop. In fact they are avoiding the empty spaces altogether and heading for the built-up places in the USA. Why? Because they are not coming to create a civilization. They are coming to get the benefits of the one created by the British and Americans.

    That's why the Mexicans come here looking to get hired by gringos, for the ones willing to work, or looking to get free health care and other welfare unavailable to them in Mexico.

    The comparison of the failure of Mexico today with its exodus is not remotely comparable to the British founding colonies throughout the New World. If you want to compare the British colonizers to anyone, compare them to their contemporaries from Spain and Portugal.

    Mexico is a failure period. In the past 36 years almost 10 percent of their population has left the country. This in modern times where a New World nation like Mexico has had centuries to build itself up.

    You erroneously compare modern Mexico to frontier America when the latter was living by standards reflected in pre-industrial revolution conditions, yet was still far ahead of most other places at that time.

    The trouble with your defense of Mexico is that you are essentially defending a modern nation with plenty of resources and over a century and a half of industrialization around the globe to serve as a model for how to develop one's nation. And yet they still need to shed population because they can't provide for their people.

    And if you insist that the Mexicans of today are comparable to the British/Americans of yesterday, then Mexico is essentially at war with us and needs to be repelled. There is no doubt Britain and later America established colonies and sent out settlers and pioneers to clear the land and expand territory for the mother nation. The Indians were right to try to oppose it, but were too weak. If Mexico is doing the same, then they are at war with us and need to be repelled.

  200. @Dave Pinsen
    Aren't debates by the principals kind of stupid? We're essentially judging 70-year olds on their ability to memorize and extemporize, when we're electing them for their judgment and policy preferences. Wouldn't it be more informative to have Stephen Miller debate one of Hillary's top advisors?

    I think debates are very useful. For one, you get to see the candidate not favored by the MSM attacked where it hurts. And so people can learn things. If the 70 year olds in question do not have the ability to memorize and extemporize, I would argue they are unsuited to the role of president. It’s part of the job.

    Having a quick witted president who can quickly size up strengths and weaknesses, knowing how to attack and defend verbally, and having the wisdom and strategic thinking to have chosen good policy in the first place – is important. Negotiation is kind of a better-tempered cousin to debate, and a president will be doing plenty of that.

    Read More
  201. @eggheadshadhisnumber
    Of course "we" are smarter than you. What's your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump's economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump's ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011. He already declared the importance of "softening the position" on H-1B visas and Green Card stapling a couple months ago and now this fickle imbecile is flip-flopping on the most important issues again. I, and all other serious people, don't want some worthless wall, we want the deportation of all illegal immigrants, the elimination of the H-1B program, the termination of NAFTA/KORUS FTA/CTPA, and a proper adjustment of existing legal immigration policies.

    Oh my. I absolutely hate defending PSU, what with the bullshit about Paterno and Sandusky, but let me say that I have a BS from PSU and a graduate degree from Penn. The great unwashed are always confused by the two schools . Let me also say that I feel the education from my state school was degrees better than that which I received from my Ivy League school. And at the time I was a student , the cost was 4k v. 13 k for a semester.

    Read More
  202. @MEH 0910
    I read Daniel Larison. He was right that Obama would win the election when Republicans thought that Romney would win. His writings should be taken seriously.

    No one except the GOPe thought he was going to win.

    Shills gonna shill.

    Read More
  203. @frizzled
    Quite simply, no. Trump has been consistently, solidly behind Hillary both in general polls and the states he needs to win. He has been performing much worse than the second-runner in any election since the '80s. Yes, something could change, but it's hard to see what.

    The fact you have a dozen quick replies denying this, shows that, much as I enjoy Steve's amusing takes on liberal reality denial, conservatives also have trouble with reality.

    Yeah selective geographical polling and Dem oversampling will do that.

    Which sock puppet are you an alt of declaring yet again how we are doomed?

    Read More
  204. @Dave Pinsen
    Aren't debates by the principals kind of stupid? We're essentially judging 70-year olds on their ability to memorize and extemporize, when we're electing them for their judgment and policy preferences. Wouldn't it be more informative to have Stephen Miller debate one of Hillary's top advisors?

    There’s a difference between a policy wonk and a politician. And between a speech writer and a statesman.

    Read More
  205. @bored identity
    6 Reasons Why This Lateeeno Pan Blanco El Presidente Will Be Trump’s BFF:

    1.) While attending Panamerican University – a business school named like something Trump would be affiliated – Nieto managed to plagiarize nearly 30 percent of law degree thesis from lawyers, historians, and at least one president. Therefore, Nieto has the best words on the Mexican side of Rio Grande.

     


    2.) In 2011, at a book fair in Guadalajara, during a question and answer session Nieto was asked by an audience member to name three books that had influenced him.
    After some hesitance, he said he had read “parts of” the Bible.
    (Sounds like a classic Trump to me. Did I forget to mention that Panamaerican University is nominally a private Catholic institution of higher education?)
    Nieto then rambled on, confusing titles, forgetting the names of authors and sometimes mismatching them.
    “I have read a number of books, starting with novels, that I have liked,” he said. “I have had a hard time recalling the titles.” (This has a certain Palinesque value, but Trump could have said something to that effect )

     


    3.) Nieto is a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (very odd, almost a quantum-physics, word choice to name a political party. Sounds like an Old-Soviet meets New Oligarch space-time continuum)
     

    4.) Nieto was elected as a president with only 38% of votes (it is not a coincidence that Trump for months lingers in polls around that very same number )
     

    5.) There are more Mexican-Americans than Mexican-Mexicans that like Nieto. There are also more Mexican-Americans than Mexican-Mexicans that like Trump.

     


    6.) What kind of last name is Nieto, anyway. Isn’t that how Putin pronounces NATO !?
     
    The conclusion: President Trump will have a very,very,very tremendous relationship with a President Nieto. I only wish the rest of us would be able to claim the same.

    Why?
    Because this melanin deficient Mexican Patriot is also not a true Scotsman, and, just like his New York based wannabee-counterpart, has been successfully planted by the Russians.

    And where is Sam Haysom , when you need him?

    6.) What kind of last name is Nieto, anyway. Isn’t that how Putin pronounces NATO !?

    These days, Putin probably says Nyet-o!

    Read More
  206. @Anonymous
    Yes, they filled a vacuum because the large, resource-rich nation they had been inhabiting could not provide for them and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Even long after annexation, the even larger, even more resource-rich nation could not provide for its inhabitants, which is why Okies were living in shacks and near starvation conditions during the Dust Bowl.

    By your standard, British expansion is a history of repeated failures, resolved by grabbing more territory. The failures have largely stopped because there's been a dramatic crash in fertility in the British world.

    The British and later the Americans were colonialist, settlers and pioneers who carved out a civilization from the wilderness. Where they went there was nothing. They cleared the land to make farms, towns and cities.

    The Mexicans today are not coming to the empty spaces of the USA to stake a claim on their 40 acres, build a cabin and plant their crop. In fact they are avoiding the empty spaces altogether and heading for the built-up places in the USA. Why? Because they are not coming to create a civilization. They are coming to get the benefits of the one created by the British and Americans.

    That’s why the Mexicans come here looking to get hired by gringos, for the ones willing to work, or looking to get free health care and other welfare unavailable to them in Mexico.

    The comparison of the failure of Mexico today with its exodus is not remotely comparable to the British founding colonies throughout the New World. If you want to compare the British colonizers to anyone, compare them to their contemporaries from Spain and Portugal.

    Mexico is a failure period. In the past 36 years almost 10 percent of their population has left the country. This in modern times where a New World nation like Mexico has had centuries to build itself up.

    You erroneously compare modern Mexico to frontier America when the latter was living by standards reflected in pre-industrial revolution conditions, yet was still far ahead of most other places at that time.

    The trouble with your defense of Mexico is that you are essentially defending a modern nation with plenty of resources and over a century and a half of industrialization around the globe to serve as a model for how to develop one’s nation. And yet they still need to shed population because they can’t provide for their people.

    And if you insist that the Mexicans of today are comparable to the British/Americans of yesterday, then Mexico is essentially at war with us and needs to be repelled. There is no doubt Britain and later America established colonies and sent out settlers and pioneers to clear the land and expand territory for the mother nation. The Indians were right to try to oppose it, but were too weak. If Mexico is doing the same, then they are at war with us and need to be repelled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Before the annexation of Mexican territory, the US was a large, resource-rich New World nation that could not provide for all of its inhabitants and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Long after the annexation, the US remained such a nation. As I already mentioned for example, the Okies lived in grinding poverty and in near starvation conditions not long ago, which is why they moved west to territory that had been acquired by annexation. Do you dispute this? Was everybody in the US living like a king? Were the Okies faking it?

    American and British expansion was driven by the fact that they could not provide for all their inhabitants and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Religious dissenters and the like were ultimately a very small proportion.
  207. Of course “we” are smarter than you. What’s your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump’s economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump’s ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011.

    Guess no review of reign vs. rein at ur alma mater then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Nah, our boy is one of those that thinks Trump will be some sort of autocrat, so it'll always be reign, even when it's reigning cats and dogs.
  208. @Sam Haysom
    Lowry was actually pretty complimentery. I think of all the Never Trumpers the guys at NR are the mostly likely to get on the bandwagon.

    Because they don’t have any actual principles? They’d have a lot of humble pie to eat after their anti-Trump special issue that moved the needle not one micron.

    Read More
  209. @candid_observer
    Yeah, I'd now place even greater weight than before on the possibility that if and when WikiLeaks releases something on Hillary, it will really undo her.

    Obviously, Trump has been rising in the polls over these last two weeks or so, and I don't think the major portion of the effect has had to do with Trump himself. He's delivered some good speeches, but the key thing is that he kept himself out of harm's way by sticking to the script.

    The really potent effect has been the corruption and lies of Hillary pointed to by the various emails and documents that have come up recently. These things obviously tap into something in the swing vote that is pretty decisive -- more so than I might have guessed previously.

    If Assange has a trove of emails and documents that are even more damning, and they are released at the proper time, they could easily take her down for the count.

    And it's remarkable to see how the media is trying to prepare for this event. In the NY Times, they are doing all they can to blame these leaks on the meddling, evil Russians. I'm sure that the angle they will take if and when these documents are released, is that we just can't allow those horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical Russians to interfere with our elections. (This must be left in the hands of the horrible, evil, manipulative, cynical American media.)

    Love your last paragraph there. LOL.

    Read More
  210. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iSteveFan
    The British and later the Americans were colonialist, settlers and pioneers who carved out a civilization from the wilderness. Where they went there was nothing. They cleared the land to make farms, towns and cities.

    The Mexicans today are not coming to the empty spaces of the USA to stake a claim on their 40 acres, build a cabin and plant their crop. In fact they are avoiding the empty spaces altogether and heading for the built-up places in the USA. Why? Because they are not coming to create a civilization. They are coming to get the benefits of the one created by the British and Americans.

    That's why the Mexicans come here looking to get hired by gringos, for the ones willing to work, or looking to get free health care and other welfare unavailable to them in Mexico.

    The comparison of the failure of Mexico today with its exodus is not remotely comparable to the British founding colonies throughout the New World. If you want to compare the British colonizers to anyone, compare them to their contemporaries from Spain and Portugal.

    Mexico is a failure period. In the past 36 years almost 10 percent of their population has left the country. This in modern times where a New World nation like Mexico has had centuries to build itself up.

    You erroneously compare modern Mexico to frontier America when the latter was living by standards reflected in pre-industrial revolution conditions, yet was still far ahead of most other places at that time.

    The trouble with your defense of Mexico is that you are essentially defending a modern nation with plenty of resources and over a century and a half of industrialization around the globe to serve as a model for how to develop one's nation. And yet they still need to shed population because they can't provide for their people.

    And if you insist that the Mexicans of today are comparable to the British/Americans of yesterday, then Mexico is essentially at war with us and needs to be repelled. There is no doubt Britain and later America established colonies and sent out settlers and pioneers to clear the land and expand territory for the mother nation. The Indians were right to try to oppose it, but were too weak. If Mexico is doing the same, then they are at war with us and need to be repelled.

    Before the annexation of Mexican territory, the US was a large, resource-rich New World nation that could not provide for all of its inhabitants and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Long after the annexation, the US remained such a nation. As I already mentioned for example, the Okies lived in grinding poverty and in near starvation conditions not long ago, which is why they moved west to territory that had been acquired by annexation. Do you dispute this? Was everybody in the US living like a king? Were the Okies faking it?

    American and British expansion was driven by the fact that they could not provide for all their inhabitants and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Religious dissenters and the like were ultimately a very small proportion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    American and British expansion was driven by the fact that they could not provide for all their inhabitants and satisfy their economic needs and desires.
     
    Mexico is a failure, period. You cannot compare Mexico of 2016 with Britain of the 1700s or the USA of the 1800s. The British and Americans found unoccupied territory and simply moved in and recreated their civilizations.

    It was a once in a lifetime opportunity for nations at that time. Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, the Dutch and even the Russians all tried to get a piece of this new real estate in the New World. I bet dollars to pesos the Chinese, Japanese and various muslim nations all wish they had had the opportunity to take such vast, resource-rich lands for themselves. But for whatever reasons they were not in a position to try.

    You argue the British were some failed state like modern Mexico unable to take care of their people. Though I am sure there were plenty of poor, the reality is Britain was able to take those lands because they were strong. They had to sail halfway around the world on rinky dink ships with crude navigational instruments. They had to fight and out compete the French, Dutch and others listed above to take and hold their new territories. That is not the actions of a weak actor. That is the actions of a strong player.

    Later it was the Americans who pushed aside the plains Indians and the Mexicans, who really just stole land claims from the Spanish. They later built a transcontinental railway and the Panama Canal to better link their new territories together.

    At the time the Brits took these lands, and for many years thereafter, they were a central player in world affairs. They pioneered the industrial revolution, parliamentary democracy and other things that influenced the world. The USA has also been a central player on the world stage.

    How can you compare those giants taking land to Mexico sending its surplus population North for handouts? Mexico is insignificant to the world. Could it even construct a Panama Canal? It contributes next to nothing culturally save for the taco. It contributes next to nothing scientifically. Its actions of the past thirty years are in no way comparable to the Brits and Americans civilizing the New World.

  211. @22pp22
    Thank you for taking the time to write out that reply. Very interesting.

    On this side of the pond, the Bremaniacs are screaming and shouting like a bunch of demented teenagers. It's a pleasure to watch.

    You are welcome. I never get compliments from Europeans. I miss Auberon Waugh, although he was silly and rude about Ukrainians. His take on Brexit would have been fun. I stopped following English politics when he died. I spent like 600 bucks in the 80s and early 90s subscribing to the London Spectator. And I am not rich!!! Of course I made a few hundred bucks – maybe almost a thousand – on stock tips from their banking columnist Christopher Fildes, so I came out ahead. Rich people in the US can be funny in person, but they are almost never funny on paper. Big difference from Northern Europe, I think.

    Read More
  212. @candid_observer
    Here's the thing I just don't get about Hillary.

    What is her obsession with money?

    I mean, how much does she need to finance a good campaign? What is the point of this? How many fundraisers does she need to attend?

    And, of course, it's not just the fundraisers. It's the 100s of millions she and Bill got paid since Bill left the Presidency. It's the God only knows how much they've brought into the Clinton Foundation.

    They aren't businesspeople, for God's sake. They don't need to bring in the money because that's the only thing they've done in life that might make them famous or important. They're supposed to be people who have dedicated their lives to public service. They don't need 100s of million dollars to finance a good life.

    So what's all the goddamn money about?

    You don't see the Bushes going after money like that. You sure don't see Jimmy Carter going after money like that. We haven't seen any ex-President go shamelessly after money like that, or anything close to like that.

    These two are a disgrace.

    Hillary is very money oriented. It’s a very normal thing to worry about money, she’s just at one end of the distribution.

    Read More
  213. @Dave Pinsen
    Aren't debates by the principals kind of stupid? We're essentially judging 70-year olds on their ability to memorize and extemporize, when we're electing them for their judgment and policy preferences. Wouldn't it be more informative to have Stephen Miller debate one of Hillary's top advisors?

    Humans matter. While any human can memorize sound bites, other humans are great at perceiving the speaker regardless of the soundbites. Thus, the debates are useful for those who actually watch them.

    Read More
  214. @Anonymous
    Before the annexation of Mexican territory, the US was a large, resource-rich New World nation that could not provide for all of its inhabitants and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Long after the annexation, the US remained such a nation. As I already mentioned for example, the Okies lived in grinding poverty and in near starvation conditions not long ago, which is why they moved west to territory that had been acquired by annexation. Do you dispute this? Was everybody in the US living like a king? Were the Okies faking it?

    American and British expansion was driven by the fact that they could not provide for all their inhabitants and satisfy their economic needs and desires. Religious dissenters and the like were ultimately a very small proportion.

    American and British expansion was driven by the fact that they could not provide for all their inhabitants and satisfy their economic needs and desires.

    Mexico is a failure, period. You cannot compare Mexico of 2016 with Britain of the 1700s or the USA of the 1800s. The British and Americans found unoccupied territory and simply moved in and recreated their civilizations.

    It was a once in a lifetime opportunity for nations at that time. Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, the Dutch and even the Russians all tried to get a piece of this new real estate in the New World. I bet dollars to pesos the Chinese, Japanese and various muslim nations all wish they had had the opportunity to take such vast, resource-rich lands for themselves. But for whatever reasons they were not in a position to try.

    You argue the British were some failed state like modern Mexico unable to take care of their people. Though I am sure there were plenty of poor, the reality is Britain was able to take those lands because they were strong. They had to sail halfway around the world on rinky dink ships with crude navigational instruments. They had to fight and out compete the French, Dutch and others listed above to take and hold their new territories. That is not the actions of a weak actor. That is the actions of a strong player.

    Later it was the Americans who pushed aside the plains Indians and the Mexicans, who really just stole land claims from the Spanish. They later built a transcontinental railway and the Panama Canal to better link their new territories together.

    At the time the Brits took these lands, and for many years thereafter, they were a central player in world affairs. They pioneered the industrial revolution, parliamentary democracy and other things that influenced the world. The USA has also been a central player on the world stage.

    How can you compare those giants taking land to Mexico sending its surplus population North for handouts? Mexico is insignificant to the world. Could it even construct a Panama Canal? It contributes next to nothing culturally save for the taco. It contributes next to nothing scientifically. Its actions of the past thirty years are in no way comparable to the Brits and Americans civilizing the New World.

    Read More
  215. @reiner Tor
    I think that's the case with the vast majority of corrupt politicians, their countries would be better off if simply their salaries were raised 2000-fold, but no corrupt deals.

    In general I think one of the problems of governments is that they just don't usually pay well, not enough to attract quality people, and the ones it does attract often end up grabbing the money for themselves anyway, but at a much worse price to society. Or they simply do very low quality work, like most government employees in most countries in the world.

    If you paid off one politician, there’d be twenty others just as crooked ready to jump into his place. Anyway, they’re not always motivated by money. There’s a good chance Bill Clinton went into politics for the enhanced sexual opportunities that it promised. Vanity is another common motive (as Gore Vidal said, politics is showbusiness for ugly people), and that’s a trait that can be easily manipulated by the ruling elite in government and the media. And when you see what they’re doing with mass immigration, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that some of them are motivated by nothing more than pure hatred for the countries they’re destroying.

    Read More
  216. @Superman
    Wiki: "Enrique Krauze Kleinbort was born in 1947 in Mexico City to parents of Polish Jewish descent."

    I liked “…a well-known historian.”

    Read More
  217. @Anonymous
    It was a large, resource-rich New World nation that could not provide enough for its people, which is why its people moved west and annexed parts of Mexico.

    Somebody went to one of those “schools” where history wasn’t a requirement.

    People went west for opportunity, the same reason their ancestors came to America in the first place.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_West,_young_man

    Read More
  218. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    This Ira is who and cares about my children how? Like, the Iras of the world are going to be voting for Trump anyways. Ira can go to hell.

    (((Ira Stoll))) grew up and went to school in Massachusetts, and seems to be suffering from some sort of bizarre Semitic schizophrenia. He’s a Jewish journalist/blogger in every sense of the words, but seems to be consumed with the Christian roots of his home, having written books about JFK and Samuel Adams.

    He can be ignored with intent.

    Read More
  219. @The Alarmist

    "People betting money on it say that Trump has roughly a 25% chance of winning the election."
     
    Ladbrokes gave me 8 to 1 just before Brexit … can't wait to see what they give me for Trump.

    Any wager with no past performance to steady the odds is a wild-assed guess. Given the amount of supposition, myth and outright lying involved in this election, how can anyone be confident in the odds?

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-gambling-brady-20150802-story.html

    A simple thing like a four-game suspension for the starting quarterback for the team leading in projections to win the Super Bowl has Vegas bookmakers throwing Faberian little-known codicils into the mix for Patriots bettors. Last year there was an estimated $4.2 billion bet on the Super Bowl, so a bookie can’t be too careful!

    Read More
  220. @Svigor

    Of course “we” are smarter than you. What’s your alma mater? Penn State? Rutgers? CUNY? UCLA? All those hours of listening to Limbaugh and company have rattled your brain, friend. Trump is half New York Democrat, half Rockefeller Republican, and two-thirds talk radio populist. The Heritage Foundation goons scrawl out the details of Trump’s economic policy and nobody should have any faith in Trump’s ability to reign in the Deep State once it gets going, judging by his reaction to Libya in 2011.
     
    Guess no review of reign vs. rein at ur alma mater then.

    Nah, our boy is one of those that thinks Trump will be some sort of autocrat, so it’ll always be reign, even when it’s reigning cats and dogs.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?