RSS
From my column in Taki’s Magazine:
Border and Order in the Debate
by Steve Sailer
September 28, 2016One hour and one minute into the first presidential debate, Donald Trump finally mentioned, in passing, the word that had gotten him this far: “border.” …
Not surprisingly, Trump’s two opponents, Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt, didn’t bring up borders. …
Trump’s main hope in his remarkable long-shot crusade has been to lure Hillary into an overly frank dialogue, whether in a debate or on the campaign trail, over just whose side she is on: 300 million Americans or 7 billion non-Americans? …
The truth is that Trump isn’t really all that talented at what the professional wrestling business calls “mic work.” But as I pointed out a couple of months ago in my column “The Inarticulate Orator,” it’s precisely because he’s not terribly verbally facile that he’s been less likely to fall prey to the reigning bad ideas of our time the way Hillary has come increasingly under the sway of the Orwellian-Gladwellian conventional wisdom.
On the other hand, Trump’s huge challenge is that he’s trying to undermine, more or less single-handedly, the dominant mental bilge of our era. That’s not an easy task to accomplish in the off-the-cuff remarks Trump prefers. …
As this first debate showed, Trump can’t always rely on his sheer Trumposity to get his message across in sentence fragments.
Read the whole thing there.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
It’s the first time I recall seeing him debating while he was sick. We don’t know if it was a cold, or full blown flu. If it was the latter, you can get sick enough to feel dissociated from your surroundings enough that it will affect your performance. Also, if it was the latter, considering the pounding of Hillary regarding her health, he wouldn’t volunteer any information about his.
The major flaw in his performance is he was on defense, instead of always taking the initiative. His debate style is certainly like “Patton in the Field.” Patton never intentionally fell back, defended, or held ground. He kept moving forward, always taking initiative, which usually kept his opposition off-balance. That’s how Donald’s gotten away with so much, and literally changed the game.
If I were managing his debates, I’d make a list of every charge the opposition could make, and preload a response using a past Hillary incident related in theme, followed by committed indignation, and a demand for her to apologize and repent. Since Hillary has SO much material, debating her should be like shooting fish in a barrel. I’d also consider the debate host to be an agent for the opposition, and always keep it in mind, and dismiss “small” questions like Fat Dumb Pigwoman Rosie O’Donnell, while delineating the difference between an entertainment entrepreneur’s motivation, and a politician’s.
It could be he was just sick. It could be he was testing the media waters in this context before he starts leaning into her, while taking a conservative approach. Could have been both. In any case, as we’ve all noticed, it’s often a fool’s errand to second-guess Trump by conventional reasoning.
It's good work if you can get it. Donald Trump doesn't have attention span to go over those responses, so we're just stuck with whatever's in his head at a particular moment.Replies: @Alice, @Antonymous
I don’t think he was sick. I’ve noticed him breathing through his nose like that every time he speaks. What might have been different at the debate, suggested Rush Limbaugh, is the compression setting on the audio from Trump’s mic, which may have magnified the sound of his breathing.
Stephen Miller probably needs someone whose known Trump a lot longer to convince Trump to prep for the next debate. I don’t know who that person might be. It doesn’t look like it’s going to be Trump’s consigliere, Michael Cohen. I don’t know how much advice Trump takes from his sons. He would probably listen to his daughter Ivanka, but she’s friends with Chelsea and very nice.
The best bets might be Ivanka’s husband, or Ann Coulter, if she can get through.
https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/780781478024245248Replies: @AndrewR, @iSteveFan
The best bets might be Ivanka's husband, or Ann Coulter, if she can get through.
https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212/status/780748499705008128Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Anonymous
Ann Coulter did retweet this, which is a hopeful sign.
Most exciting moment of my Twatter career was Robert Zimmerman hearting my tweet. Granted, I have only tweeted about a hundred tweets ever.Replies: @Anonym
Can you really say he did not prepare? I admit he was not a polished debater, but the guy has been working his tail off on the campaign trail delivering his policy positions in various venues from large rallies to town halls to black Churches. I think he knows the subject matter, but he just isn't that good in the debate format. Would it have been better for him to stay off the campaign trail and become more like Ted Cruz? Perhaps. But I expect Trump to do better in the debates that are more like town hall meetings. Putting himself out there day after day is pretty good prep. I especially like how he seems fearless in going into places other guys wouldn't, like flying into Mexico City where he is routinely burned in effigy, and going into black Churches which are natural political ambush sites for the GOP nominee.Replies: @Desiderius
“If I were managing his debates, I’d make a list of every charge the opposition could make, and preload a response using a past Hillary incident related in theme, followed by committed indignation, and a demand for her to apologize and repent. Since Hillary has SO much material, debating her should be like shooting fish in a barrel.”
It’s good work if you can get it. Donald Trump doesn’t have attention span to go over those responses, so we’re just stuck with whatever’s in his head at a particular moment.
He won't do it. It takes sustained work in a manner he can't do. He has had the last 15 months to learn this stuff, but he didn't care, he didn't think he needed to, etc. He can't.
God help us.Replies: @Anonymous
Trump will get thrashed in the upcoming debates and on election night.
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to end
A similar type of reasoning prevailed in the Marxist takeover in Rhodesia. The Revolutionaries thought that if they could only wrest the land from whitey, then they, the oppressed people of color, would be free at last. And so the white land-owning farmers were dispossessed.
But, as we all know, things didn't turn out as planned. The new owners weren't interested in farming and so the fields were left fallow. Instead of farming, the owners strip mined the tangible assets, selling the irrigation pipes and copper wiring from the homes for scrap. Disaster followed as famine swept the land and many starved, creating an international crisis which is only ameliorated by aid intervention by countries in which farming is still carried out by whites.
So, one could say that the Marxists who carried out the revolution and land redistribution in Zimbabwe also fell into the "magic dirt" trap. They, like you Tiny Duck, believe that wealth derives from some thing; that it inheres in a commodity such as copper or aluminum or soil. But as any sensible person realizes, wealth is created by a process, a system that is the product of human genius and applied technique. As Lao Tzu would say, the "worth" of a pipe lies in the hole created in the middle and not in the bare scrap value of the material surrounding that hole.
It's interesting in this regard to note that Obama's father's graduate thesis while at Harvard touched on just this subject. Should we, he asked himself, once we have seized the farms from the evil white Kenyan landholders, redistribute it as small parcels to individual families or should we organize it into huge collective farms? And so he compared the likelihood of yields based upon calculations of relative efficiency. He simply takes it for granted that Kenyans would want to farm and would be good at it, assuming that the productive capacity somehow inheres in the redistributed soil and not in the native genius of the people.
This focus on material causes which ignores human capital could be called "the Marxist's fallacy" because it will be found at the center of every Marxist's thinking. Indeed, Marx boasted of it, believing that his theory in which the material conditions of productivity determine consciousness was literally a rightside-upping, earth-shaking contribution to understanding human nature.
So, Tiny Duck, even if you "people of color" succeed in overthrowing the white order, all you will be doing is consigning yourself to a more primitive state of existence while we whites will regroup, reorganize and rebuild elsewhere. It's in our genes.
Good Luck with your Magic Dirt, Tiny Duck!Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Lagertha
I tried to "Troll" this commenter, but the buttons aren't working (again).
Plugiera a dios que fuera asi. [Apologies in advance for not having immediate access to Spanish keyboard.]
A normal man does not hate women.
A normal woman does not hate men.
As for a man who seems to hate men, well that's another psychological and moral problem.
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to endReplies: @Olorin, @Johnny789, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @random observer, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter
Don’t you have a date with your bathroom mirror and cellphone?
Alfred Olongo is the latest victim if white supremacy.
It is time for the terrorism on POC to stop.
If POC kneel you complain
If POC protest you complain
They are getting sick of it and are not going to take it anymore
His big problem with the debate is the media spin afterwards
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to endReplies: @Olorin, @Johnny789, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @random observer, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter
White men possess their reign of terror proudly and unapologetically even if you failed to appropriately insert an apostrophe in the correct spot Mr. Smarty Pants.
Use commas to set off names, nicknames, titles of a person directly addressed.
Oh wait, it's white and Asian people who have to avoid entire cities and neighborhoods in order to avoid rape, torture, and murder at the hands of those poor oppressed Africans.
Facts are so inconvenient, Tiny Dick.
Donald Trump is on the record as saying he has never had the ‘flu. This is quite plausible, as many people have never had actual influenza. However, almost everyone has had a bad cold, sometimes accompanied by a fever.
Trump looks like he has a bad cold. There is one picture in particular, a headshot, off him at his morning-after giant rally in Florida. He was looking distinctly drippy. He has a cold.
The picture, unsurprisingly, has disappeared from the Washington Post’s website.
I don’t think the debate was as disastrous for him as people are saying but he really does need to stop explaining everything that Hillary dredges up. He’s a surprisingly terrible debater.
Well, you have to l e a r n how to debate somehow. Could be there was not much need for Trump to learn how to debate in his past. Genes alone don't do it.
The online-daily Japantoday had it this way on may, 10th:"So what explains Trump’s astonishing political success? The best explanation was given in October by, of all people, the legendary rock star Alice Cooper, who said, “I know Donald, and I know he’s a ‘doer.’ He’s not a ‘sayer.’”Replies: @RamonaQ
It stopped being spin a while ago. It’s pure propaganda now. From the below linked Washington Post article this morning.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/27/no-matter-how-garbage-the-poll-if-it-shows-that-donald-trump-won-the-debate-hell-endorse-it/
“He’s a spurisingly terrible debater.”
Well, you have to l e a r n how to debate somehow. Could be there was not much need for Trump to learn how to debate in his past. Genes alone don’t do it.
The online-daily Japantoday had it this way on may, 10th:”So what explains Trump’s astonishing political success? The best explanation was given in October by, of all people, the legendary rock star Alice Cooper, who said, “I know Donald, and I know he’s a ‘doer.’ He’s not a ‘sayer.’”
Trump seems to operate wholly on the basis of his reflexive common sense.
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to endReplies: @Olorin, @Johnny789, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @random observer, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter
People of color can’t be the future. They’ve had their shot and they came up failures time and time again. That’s why they’re here mooching off the white man and culturally appropriating his every social and technological invention. Unfortunately for them, they bear the curse of their deficient DNA with them wherever they go. Their best hope is to cross breed with a white European and inject some intelligence and virtue into their bloodlines viz. Ashkenazi Jews. But since people like you alienate whites that is becoming less and less likely.
And if Hillary and her former East-European Communist Neo Lib/Con pirates rule for eight more years then a study of history would suggest that the reign of terror is about to begin which will deplete even further the stock of beneficial white genes. You guys are facing a conundrum. The more you win, the less there is to win. The prize is disappearing as fast as you advance. You’re carrying water in a sieve.
In terms of non-whites having a shot at civilization here in North America, I'd add only that there is a rapidly growing class of Americans who are half white, half Asian -- like our children. Most commonly in California where we are, no doubt, but we see it everywhere.
From a small population base, this phenomenon is growing at a fast clip.
With their higher average intelligence, superior work ethic, and intact family support -- when compared to Africans and mestizo Mexicans -- this group has a chance to prosper, lead, and rule much of the USA notwithstanding the numerical advantage that Mexicans will have in many parts of the country. Especially if whites, Asians, and mixed white/Asian people are wise enough to get together and favor each other over competing groups in the coming intensifying struggle for jobs, WATER, political power, and simply survival.
I have mixed feelings about Trump’s performance. I tend to side with Scott Adams who wrote that Hillary won the debate. Trump won the election.
Reason being that the people who are still sway-able are not going to be swayed by detailed policy analysis. Trump mainly needs to portray himself as someone who is not frightening like he is portrayed and someone they can imagine being president. I think he accomplished that. Most people make decisions at the brand not the feat level. However, I do think Trump needs to talk more about immigration and let people feel that he isn’t hateful. This is especially true for women. They need to think that his stance on immigration is based on what is best for the country, not because of being a mean person. He also needs to continue talking with conviction about eloping the average person.
Trump needs to talk constantly about average U.S. citizens losing jobs that are going instead to illegal aliens off the books, especially in the restaurant, construction / handyman, and child-care sectors.
Job loss, crime, pollution, and the erosion of our societal trust and community, all from illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.
Trump should repeat and repeat a call for employers who hire illegal aliens over Americans to go to prison. Not a fine, PRISON.
Well, that’s one part of it, the other part of it is that her statement translates as:
“If you agree with me, you’re higher status than those who don’t, even if they’re cops, lawyers, or even judges and law-makers.”
Well, you have to l e a r n how to debate somehow. Could be there was not much need for Trump to learn how to debate in his past. Genes alone don't do it.
The online-daily Japantoday had it this way on may, 10th:"So what explains Trump’s astonishing political success? The best explanation was given in October by, of all people, the legendary rock star Alice Cooper, who said, “I know Donald, and I know he’s a ‘doer.’ He’s not a ‘sayer.’”Replies: @RamonaQ
Yes debate is a very niche skill. Obviously verbally gifted people are better at it but I don’t see much evidence that it translates to better sense or Ted Cruz wouldn’t be botching his political career so badly this year.
Trump seems to operate wholly on the basis of his reflexive common sense.
https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/780781478024245248Replies: @AndrewR, @iSteveFan
A Coulter RT? That’s big league stuff!
Most exciting moment of my Twatter career was Robert Zimmerman hearting my tweet. Granted, I have only tweeted about a hundred tweets ever.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/28/ann-coulter-avoid-immigration-terrorism-health-care-90-minutes/
She would be a good addition to the Unz review. She might be beyond the budget though.
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to endReplies: @Olorin, @Johnny789, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @random observer, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter
Steve’s concept of Magic Dirt is more useful than I at first grasped. Initially, my understanding of it was in the context of Chetty’s demographic work that demonstrated how certain zip codes in America showed the greatest likelihood for a person’s wealth increasing over the course of their lives. So, Chetty reasoned, if all of America’s poor people just pulled up stakes and moved to these zip codes, then they would become fabulously wealthy.
A similar type of reasoning prevailed in the Marxist takeover in Rhodesia. The Revolutionaries thought that if they could only wrest the land from whitey, then they, the oppressed people of color, would be free at last. And so the white land-owning farmers were dispossessed.
But, as we all know, things didn’t turn out as planned. The new owners weren’t interested in farming and so the fields were left fallow. Instead of farming, the owners strip mined the tangible assets, selling the irrigation pipes and copper wiring from the homes for scrap. Disaster followed as famine swept the land and many starved, creating an international crisis which is only ameliorated by aid intervention by countries in which farming is still carried out by whites.
So, one could say that the Marxists who carried out the revolution and land redistribution in Zimbabwe also fell into the “magic dirt” trap. They, like you Tiny Duck, believe that wealth derives from some thing; that it inheres in a commodity such as copper or aluminum or soil. But as any sensible person realizes, wealth is created by a process, a system that is the product of human genius and applied technique. As Lao Tzu would say, the “worth” of a pipe lies in the hole created in the middle and not in the bare scrap value of the material surrounding that hole.
It’s interesting in this regard to note that Obama’s father’s graduate thesis while at Harvard touched on just this subject. Should we, he asked himself, once we have seized the farms from the evil white Kenyan landholders, redistribute it as small parcels to individual families or should we organize it into huge collective farms? And so he compared the likelihood of yields based upon calculations of relative efficiency. He simply takes it for granted that Kenyans would want to farm and would be good at it, assuming that the productive capacity somehow inheres in the redistributed soil and not in the native genius of the people.
This focus on material causes which ignores human capital could be called “the Marxist’s fallacy” because it will be found at the center of every Marxist’s thinking. Indeed, Marx boasted of it, believing that his theory in which the material conditions of productivity determine consciousness was literally a rightside-upping, earth-shaking contribution to understanding human nature.
So, Tiny Duck, even if you “people of color” succeed in overthrowing the white order, all you will be doing is consigning yourself to a more primitive state of existence while we whites will regroup, reorganize and rebuild elsewhere. It’s in our genes.
Good Luck with your Magic Dirt, Tiny Duck!
It's good work if you can get it. Donald Trump doesn't have attention span to go over those responses, so we're just stuck with whatever's in his head at a particular moment.Replies: @Alice, @Antonymous
Exactly. Do you really think Kelly Anne Conway didn’t know what debate prep is supposed to be done? Please. It wasn’t because no one near him understood how you prepare for a debate.
He won’t do it. It takes sustained work in a manner he can’t do. He has had the last 15 months to learn this stuff, but he didn’t care, he didn’t think he needed to, etc. He can’t.
God help us.
Trump needs to explicitly direct his immigration reduction message to women. Trump has to repetitively pound home the message that mass immigration and illegal immigration are harming the United States. Trump must say that he will protect and defend the United States from danger.
Trump might say: “The United States is suffering under the strain of mass immigration. The current US immigration policy of allowing well over a million legal immigrants into the country every year is pushing the United States to the breaking point. I use the term mass immigration because that is what is going on — one million plus immigrants a year is too much. The United States must reduce legal mass immigration and stop illegal immigration cold.”
Trump might say: “Mass immigration is damaging the United States. Mass immigration swamps schools, overwhelms hospitals, lowers wages and harms the environment. Mass immigration brings radical Islamic terrorism to the United States. Mass immigration brings infectious diseases such as TB and Ebola to the United States. Mass immigration destroys cultural cohesion. Mass immigration makes it harder for young people to affordably form their own new families. We must defend and protect the United States by bringing the era of mass immigration to an end.”
…correct spot, Mr. Smarty Pants.
Use commas to set off names, nicknames, titles of a person directly addressed.
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to endReplies: @Olorin, @Johnny789, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @random observer, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter
Unz,
I tried to “Troll” this commenter, but the buttons aren’t working (again).
I watched Frontline last night. This is OT but out of the many things I noticed was that they went on at length about Trump’s divorces and Bill Clinton’s affairs but they did not talk directly about or frame it in terms of Hillary’s sexuality. Trump is running against Hillary, not Bill and we already know what he did. Of course, this is the media’s way of protecting her and women in general but the more I reflect on it the weirder it becomes. They did not connect the dots regarding Hillary’s position on birth control and her lack of progeny and how is can effect marriage or her 2nd wave ambivalence to marriage and the lack of comfort her husband seemed to find in it. They also completely ignored her attacks on the women her husband had affairs with. Frontline referred to Monica’s blue dress as a “souvenir” rather than as evidence which is why it was kept. Trump and Bill are actors, Hillary is acted on; except when it is for cool tank girl stuff.
Same thing with the debates. When the debates focused on sex, it was framed it in terms of the crude things Trump has said about women. For once, I would have much rather have heard what both of them have done for men and what they planned to do if elected President (after all they are only 48% of the population). Instead what we heard about was snark about how some chubby over the hill Latina was getting a big ass. Frontline also whined about the Donald’s pre-nups which I thought was revealing. The bigger picture is this, if the media will only frame this in a way that ignores women’s bad behavior and only focuses on men (the same for race) don’t be surprised when the male candidate only plays defense. The best he can hope for is a draw.
- it's racist to suggest black men could increase their odds of surviving police encounters by being less confrontational.
- it's racist to expect Muslims to resist Sudden Jihad Syndrome when they see a cartoon mocking their prophet
- it's racist to think Africans might benefit from having fewer children
- it's sexist to think the skewed male-female ratio in STEM fields is a result of anything but systematic bias
- etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum
The mere fact that she's trying to convince us she should be the most powerful person in the world doesn't seem like reasonable grounds to think Hillary may, in fact, have agency.
Angelo Codevilla (spelling?) wrote that the elite’s hatred of the ordinary Working Class has been a long time coming, since the 1950s, and has been enthusiastically embraced by many ordinary people siding with the elite against the people.
There is little Trump can do; the problem is not his performance in the debates but the fracturing of White society. This fracturing is not a Jewish conspiracy but the real and profound differences between elites and ordinary people and men and women.
Elites form a hereditary, semi-feudal class controlling politics, aping the Chinese Communist Party. One doesn’t get rich to be powerful — one gets powerful like Clinton to be rich. Hillary and Obama, both non-entities in accomplishment, wield more power than even Mark Zuckerberg. And they wield the power because they are an aging harpy feminist, and an anti-White Black man respectively.
Which taps into the secret weapon of elites — the bitter resentment of White women particularly the Professional Class over their male peers. Not only are too many White men nerdy/unsexy, they create social and technological chaos by rapid technological change that improves lives and makes settled aristocracy difficult.
Look at the Gates Dynasty. With any “sense” White women would have been happy to see a Gates Dynasty rule the world, the profoundly unsexy Bill replaced with Nice White Lady Melinda, and various snotty daughters and such leading to various kids becoming a semi-royal family. Now all sorts of Android and cloud computing disruption makes the Windows/Office monopoly far less valuable.
There is little Trump can do other than diminish Black turnout for Hillary, by assuaging their concerns over jobs/income, and women’s turnout for Hillary by offering competing goodies. But his core task is not debating but White Male Turnout; he has to get massive turnout among White men and that requires spending on people and tech which he remains unwilling to do.
Anything close Hillary will just cheat.
Scott Adams was right: Trump came out with one goal—seem less scary/more presidential—and he succeeded at it.
Hillary had a number of goals: make Trump scary; not fall down; offer a message that will excite voters; make herself appear trustworthy; make herself seem presidential.
She failed on all of those points but one: she didn’t fall down or show signs of her Parkinson’s—at least obvious signs.
Trump has been trumpeting his restraint at the debate, which is the right way to go. He’s emphasizing his demeanor as presidential, which is what your mom and your milqutoast democrat male relatives want to see. He’s already got those of us who want a bruiser; now he’s just showing he knows when to be a bruiser and when to be gentler. (BTW, this was probably difficult for him to do in public, because he’s used to showing his bruiser side as his public side and then going gentler behind closed doors. Trump’s a skillful business man, and he never likes giving away too much of his game up front, so he’s not used to displaying his restraint in front of an audience).
Meanwhile, Hillary made a number of own-goal statements that may come back to haunt her. She kept saying things that create triggers that lead the public back to her faults. Some statements included:
-“special prosecutor”–not only bringing up her husband’s scandals, but also the idea floating that she needs a special prosecutor for her actions, as the FBI/Justice department is too close to her
-“Russia”-she caused the current bad-relations with Russia.
-“Saudi Arabia”- bringing up your biggest donors? Not a good plan.
-“tax returns”–Trump skillfully tied this to her email hiding. By trying to make Trump seem sneaky, she made her own sneakiness front and center. But it also brought up the Clinton Foundation’s money-laundering operation.
-“Solar power”-Trump brought up Solyndra, although he failed to recall the name, which would have been better.
I was surprised she didn’t accidentally bring up immigration and her health herself, the way she was going. Part of Trump’s restraint may have been not interrupting your opponent while they’re making a mistake.
Hillary was best when talking about Trump’s insults “to women.” It currently offers no pushback on her. Trump needs to tie it to a HIllary negative, so every time the public hears about it, it triggers a bad thing about Hillary. Difficult, because Trump’s best link—Bill’s raping—would make him seem crass, the opposite of presidential. He needs to anchor her women-Trump attacks to something else.
The best bets might be Ivanka's husband, or Ann Coulter, if she can get through.
https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212/status/780748499705008128Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Anonymous
Trump will only listen to guys he thinks are his equals and he has worked closely with. That would be Carl Icahn, Steve Wynn, Tom Barrack, Elie Hirschfeld, etc.
Trump needs a MOTU rabbi. Or two. Someone needs to send in Carl Icahn and Elie Hirschfeld and have them spend a day with Trump alone. Not in Trump Tower or any other Trump property where Trump feels comfortable.
I would really like to see Trump start tying in his policies and presenting them as a system. Most of the voters left on the table are the type to prefer a neat and tidy package that clearly fits together and makes sense. Trump has a great opportunity to do this with his tax platform, border security, Education, and immigration slowdown.
He seemed to take a bit of a hit on Tax plans during the debate, mainly because he focused on why lower corporate taxes are good. He needs to package that up with border security and immigration and make it clear that company’s that have a tax incentive to stay in the U.S. will expand. And with secure borders and common sense immigration there will be more jobs available and a more reasonable number of people competing for those jobs, hence raising wages. Most voters can grasp that if explained in basic terms.
Same thing with education. Hillary is essentially pushing supply side economics – cheaper, lower debt college. Let Trump remind everyone that education doesn’t mean squat without a job, that the problem isn’t student debt, but no jobs that let people repay it.
Using some variation of this strategy would give him a lot of options to grow any attacks on his immigration stance, tax plan, education into a comprehensive attack on the core of Hillary’s platform.
Alas, “Rowdy” Roddy Piper is deceased.
What’s the big deal? It’s one debate. Isn’t he still tied in the polls?
The picture at the top of that article looks like the Ace and Gary cartoons from SNL.
education is propaganda…..that is what I believe to be the most important idea in the modern world.
when you read stuff a lot, some of that stuff takes up residence in your mind.
That is how the slanted, biased, anti-white, pro-nonwhite, pro-immigration educational curriculum has changed our culture.
Trump has never been a big reader. So he is not particularly articulate. But by not being a big reader, he has avoided being brainwashed by the ideas that corp/gov/media has put into our culture.
If Trump can’t stop himself responding to the gender-baiting crap, he should at least have the presence of mind to bring up Hillary’s husband and her Huma, who like Hillary only seems to be bothered by her husband’s creepiness because he was indiscreet.
Huma’s father: http://freebeacon.com/issues/weiner-father-law-exposed/
The possible Muslim Brotherhood connection seems worth bringing up to.
Hillary has lived most of her life believing herself to be above the law so she hasn’t been all that careful to cover her tracks. If she wants to take Trump down the road of dredging up each others’ past, it should be a golden opportunity for him, if he bothers to do some serious prep for the next debate.
Trump seemed to have a cold. Or maybe allergies due to August-October (before 1st frost) from ragweed, decaying leaves mold spores. This is the worst time of the year for me: congestion, sniffles, nose hurts…foul mood, exhaustion, check :).
He got “through.” Next time, the audience doesn’t have to listen to all the other stuff like gender & race again. We get dragged back to the rapey, depraved, violent, nihilistic Middle East. Immigration and creepy migrants will become the issue again. The country must become selective over quantity/quality of immigrants. Unfettered immigration is not sustainable (USA middle class can’t afford it) since it will be diametrically opposed to the environment and habitat loss, as well. The strain on taxpayers will be substantial. Young peoples’ job prospects will get ominous with wage labor as well as competition from H1B.
Immigrants will degrade and deprive our wage workers with intense competition for low-skilled service jobs or stoop labor jobs. There will be blood. Also, the LEP “unaccompanied minors”, the 60,000 or so, and growing, is busting the education budgets of states like North Carolina – look it up; it’s frightening.
Walls work. Israel, a few European countries have walls; the French are building one in Calais, to protect the Chunnel truckers of all things, from creepy migrants smashing windows and jumping on the trucks like werewolves. And of course, who doesn’t know about the Great Wall of China. Borders must be established. The Migrant crisis is continuous in Europe, and Merkel has admitted she was wrong. Winter is coming, as are holidays when young people are out on the streets and squares of Europe. Brexit happened.
And, this silly Venezuelan nobody story? I mean, this is a sketchy woman who comes from a failed state. Every time I hear Venezuela I think about the utter failure of socialism and people living like pathetic rats there today. Sean Penn, ridiculous with his infatuation with the late Chavez and that corrupt, epic-fail, Banana Republic, must be cringing now. The pundits that are such lame-asses are inadvertently turning this into a sh*t show which will make Americans realize, “Venezuela sucks and this woman is creepy. These are not the immigrants we want.” Blow-back again, for MSM hubris to pursue tarty stories with the unintended result of people not wanting more Latinos here. The MSM just can’t get over themselves. It’s cringe-worthy, but I’m enjoying them getting into a “sticky situation,” then spanked.
Well, Trump needs to not get pulled into any Bimbo eruptions anymore. Leave that to Clinton and Weiner.
Trump will be fine he just needs to get back on: Immigration, Immigration, Immigration & no nuclear war with Russia…no more wars no more body bags of “Everyday” Americans. Wars have lead to immigration/migrant crisis. We can’t solve the squabbles of corrupt and uncivilized nations. We should be focusing on our country for our citizens since we established the greatest system of govt in the world, evah. Now, we just have to get the corrupt people out of our govt. BTW, Finland deported all its communists when the fledgling nation was established – they didn’t want the corruption and infection of the communists. But, we need borders first.
And, Americans want to go shopping or walking somewhere, and not fear that Jihadis are going to come at them & their children with knives, meat cleavers, guns, bombs. American security is more important than the “feelings” of any new immigrants. Open Borders is epic-fail.
When Clinton said to Lauer, that she would try to learn from the mistakes that were made with Iraq, it was staggering. All those politicians, who voted for the war, or have been complicit in war profiteering, will take this shame with them to their graves, They are responsible for stuffing those American young soldiers’ bodies into bags. War and War Profiteering must be halted in DC. We can not solve the problems of failed/corrupt/ states, and we don’t want their vengeful and hostile people in our midst.
I'll concede that all civilized people -- of all racial backgrounds -- would be better off with both no Muslims and no Africans in this country.
Hillary staying with Bill will always be seen as a cynical move by her…adds to the idea that “no real woman” would do that; adds to her shadyness. No one, no one believes they have a marriage like Melania & Trump’s. When Trump brings up that enormous brood of beautiful young people on stage, it is a wow factor.
He must take the tack now that the American people do not want to hear anymore about his personal life, and, that the Middle East/wars/immigration-migration/American economy is the most important subject. If a moderator insists on “the tawdry,” then he can call them out on their shallowness and Jerry Springerness. If she persists, hit her with how she defended Clinton’s infidelities and threw those victims of his under the bus.
I don't think Trump's marriage is much of an asset. It's obvious that trump broke the "half your age plus seven" rule. It looks too transactional and reminds us of Anna Nicole Smith and the oil Barron. As with Clinton's marriage, it doesn't look like what people imagine true love looks like.Replies: @scrivener3, @Lagertha
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to endReplies: @Olorin, @Johnny789, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @random observer, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter
“White man’s reign of terror”? [Punctuation corrected for possessive.]
Plugiera a dios que fuera asi. [Apologies in advance for not having immediate access to Spanish keyboard.]
https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/780781478024245248Replies: @AndrewR, @iSteveFan
Dave,
Can you really say he did not prepare? I admit he was not a polished debater, but the guy has been working his tail off on the campaign trail delivering his policy positions in various venues from large rallies to town halls to black Churches. I think he knows the subject matter, but he just isn’t that good in the debate format. Would it have been better for him to stay off the campaign trail and become more like Ted Cruz? Perhaps. But I expect Trump to do better in the debates that are more like town hall meetings. Putting himself out there day after day is pretty good prep. I especially like how he seems fearless in going into places other guys wouldn’t, like flying into Mexico City where he is routinely burned in effigy, and going into black Churches which are natural political ambush sites for the GOP nominee.
It's like FDR's fireside chats.
One aspect everyone seems to have missed is that Ivanka’s friendship with Chelsea dulled Trump’s aggressiveness. Trump eliptically admitted the same.
Why do folks on both sides think it’s possible to be friends with the enemy? In reality, the capitalist class is united against the working class.
Trump is in a tough spot debate wise, any debate will be rigged against him and the topics he’d like to be discussed will not be brought up.
It doesn’t matter how good he is, he’s gonna get hammered. He can and should though go on the offensive as much as possible next time around.
Still Hillary’s supposed victory hasn’t done squat for her rally turn outs. Her last one she had 300-500 people all told. With about half being paid staffers and flunkies. That leaves maybe 200 real people. That’s just pathetic.
No one wants to see the witch.
That said, one group Trump has done poorly with are college educated whites and urban professionals who have allied themselves with the elites in terms of policies. They never went for him in the primaries and won’t do it now. Candidate wise they prefer people like Romney or Hillary.
The thing is Trump needs them to keep Hillary from cheating on election day. But it’s very doubtful he’ll get them. It probably explains his reachout to AA’s because he knows white yuppies are solidly in Hillary’s camp.
College-educated WOMEN, yes, very much for Clinton, the brainwashed herd-traveling fools.
College-educated women who have never had children, whether young or old, HUGELY in Clinton's favor. Tells us more about them, their lack of a critical and uniquely rewarding / challenging / transformative life experience, and their related inadequacies and resentments than it does about Clinton and Trump's actual ideas and policy prescriptions and how they are likely to affect women.Replies: @Brutusale
It's good work if you can get it. Donald Trump doesn't have attention span to go over those responses, so we're just stuck with whatever's in his head at a particular moment.Replies: @Alice, @Antonymous
He’s an associative thinker, and usually completes the thought (after several digressions) on the stump. The debate format though, needs pithy coherent responses, and Trump’s digressions were interrupted midway. He’d clearly do well to memorize key points. But this “we’re just stuck with whatever’s in his head at a particular moment” is too fatalistic.
If that's the case then there has to be some idea that we or people we are sympathetic to have some means of motivation or leverage over Trump to get him to do what he probably ought to be doing anyway.
And at least in the comment section here, there is strong resistance against that, presumably on the idea that we don't want our guy to be criticized or constrained.
I think Scott Adams and Judgy Bitch got it right. No one can watch a man slug a woman without revulsion. If Trump shredded her in the debates, maybe leaving her muttering or staggering or simply at a loss for coherent words, everyone would have hated him for doing it to her.
Hundreds of millions of years of evolution have imprinted on us that women are more valuable reproductively. A fight among men for status or money is fine. The looser had his shot. one less man in the game is no great loss. Men are dispensable. A fight between a man and woman for something that leaves her devastated is unbearable.
You can do mild spanking, condensention, smirking, but an all out shot that leaves a mark makes you the looser on a gut level.
All references to violence against women in this post are metaphorical.
Can you really say he did not prepare? I admit he was not a polished debater, but the guy has been working his tail off on the campaign trail delivering his policy positions in various venues from large rallies to town halls to black Churches. I think he knows the subject matter, but he just isn't that good in the debate format. Would it have been better for him to stay off the campaign trail and become more like Ted Cruz? Perhaps. But I expect Trump to do better in the debates that are more like town hall meetings. Putting himself out there day after day is pretty good prep. I especially like how he seems fearless in going into places other guys wouldn't, like flying into Mexico City where he is routinely burned in effigy, and going into black Churches which are natural political ambush sites for the GOP nominee.Replies: @Desiderius
It’s more than just good prep, it’s his principal advantage over Hillary.
It’s like FDR’s fireside chats.
It is time for the terrorism on POC to stop.
If POC kneel you complain
If POC protest you complain
They are getting sick of it and are not going to take it anymoreReplies: @Hunsdon
I liked Dee Snider’s version more, tbh.
Great commentary as always, Mr. Sailer. I thought Trump missed numerous opportunities to make good points, ones that Hillary would not have had any comback for. Just one example: the very first question – and Trump went first, goldarnit! He was asked about jobs…and all he had to do was to make the obvious link with immigration and underemployment of Americans…what could she possibly have said in response?
It was an open door, and Trump walked right past it. Meanwhile, Hillary bulked up her smirking credentials, made several rather personal attacks, and kept the focus on Trumpism rather than any substantiative policy issues. As many other have said, I hope he has some kind of advisor who can get through to him with basic solid common sense: Trump has all the advantage on policy; he just needs to lay it out where the people can hear it, unfiltered by the lying media.
A similar type of reasoning prevailed in the Marxist takeover in Rhodesia. The Revolutionaries thought that if they could only wrest the land from whitey, then they, the oppressed people of color, would be free at last. And so the white land-owning farmers were dispossessed.
But, as we all know, things didn't turn out as planned. The new owners weren't interested in farming and so the fields were left fallow. Instead of farming, the owners strip mined the tangible assets, selling the irrigation pipes and copper wiring from the homes for scrap. Disaster followed as famine swept the land and many starved, creating an international crisis which is only ameliorated by aid intervention by countries in which farming is still carried out by whites.
So, one could say that the Marxists who carried out the revolution and land redistribution in Zimbabwe also fell into the "magic dirt" trap. They, like you Tiny Duck, believe that wealth derives from some thing; that it inheres in a commodity such as copper or aluminum or soil. But as any sensible person realizes, wealth is created by a process, a system that is the product of human genius and applied technique. As Lao Tzu would say, the "worth" of a pipe lies in the hole created in the middle and not in the bare scrap value of the material surrounding that hole.
It's interesting in this regard to note that Obama's father's graduate thesis while at Harvard touched on just this subject. Should we, he asked himself, once we have seized the farms from the evil white Kenyan landholders, redistribute it as small parcels to individual families or should we organize it into huge collective farms? And so he compared the likelihood of yields based upon calculations of relative efficiency. He simply takes it for granted that Kenyans would want to farm and would be good at it, assuming that the productive capacity somehow inheres in the redistributed soil and not in the native genius of the people.
This focus on material causes which ignores human capital could be called "the Marxist's fallacy" because it will be found at the center of every Marxist's thinking. Indeed, Marx boasted of it, believing that his theory in which the material conditions of productivity determine consciousness was literally a rightside-upping, earth-shaking contribution to understanding human nature.
So, Tiny Duck, even if you "people of color" succeed in overthrowing the white order, all you will be doing is consigning yourself to a more primitive state of existence while we whites will regroup, reorganize and rebuild elsewhere. It's in our genes.
Good Luck with your Magic Dirt, Tiny Duck!Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Lagertha
This reminds me of something that happened to Walter Mischels Marshmellow-Test-findings. Clever social psychologists or somesuch in a middle american country thought: If it does so good for a kid to sit and wait before eating a marshmellow – lets practise this stuff with our kids in order to make them better siuted for life.
As it turned out, it made no sense to specialise in this kind of social magic – there is no social magic hidden in Mischels test-situation at all. The Marshmellow-Test just allowed to understand which kids had more self-discipline – and overall confidence: a) in human interactions, b) in situations, in which they had to be on their own, c) in (verblized) conditions to turn out to be reliable – and in d) the unknown person in the lab – – – and so on… Mischels test allowed to find kids quite easily, which were well educated and already performed well in erveryday-life. It did not at all allow to educate kids easily or help them perform well in erveryday-life if they were trained to perform well in the Marshmellow-Test.
By the way – the Marxist Fallacy is interesting – but it’s not true for ervery Marxist; not for the Freudo-Marxists especially.
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to endReplies: @Olorin, @Johnny789, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @random observer, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter
As is proper punctuation, apparently.
People of Color and women hate Trump and they are the future.
The white mans reign of terror is about to endReplies: @Olorin, @Johnny789, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Chrisnonymous, @random observer, @RadicalCenter, @RadicalCenter
As for women being the future, you may wish to revisit Biology 101 to remind yourself that both a man and a woman are needed to conceive a child — otherwise known as “the people who will be alive in the FUTURE when Tiny Dick and I have shuffled off this mortal coil.”
A normal man does not hate women.
A normal woman does not hate men.
As for a man who seems to hate men, well that’s another psychological and moral problem.
Agreed, the substance of your comments is far worse than the spelling and punctuation.
Yes, “our” reign of terror. Which is why it is so deadly for a black or Mexican man to walk down the street in an all-white neighborhood at night.
Oh wait, it’s white and Asian people who have to avoid entire cities and neighborhoods in order to avoid rape, torture, and murder at the hands of those poor oppressed Africans.
Facts are so inconvenient, Tiny Dick.
Brilliant comment.
In terms of non-whites having a shot at civilization here in North America, I’d add only that there is a rapidly growing class of Americans who are half white, half Asian — like our children. Most commonly in California where we are, no doubt, but we see it everywhere.
From a small population base, this phenomenon is growing at a fast clip.
With their higher average intelligence, superior work ethic, and intact family support — when compared to Africans and mestizo Mexicans — this group has a chance to prosper, lead, and rule much of the USA notwithstanding the numerical advantage that Mexicans will have in many parts of the country. Especially if whites, Asians, and mixed white/Asian people are wise enough to get together and favor each other over competing groups in the coming intensifying struggle for jobs, WATER, political power, and simply survival.
Reason being that the people who are still sway-able are not going to be swayed by detailed policy analysis. Trump mainly needs to portray himself as someone who is not frightening like he is portrayed and someone they can imagine being president. I think he accomplished that. Most people make decisions at the brand not the feat level. However, I do think Trump needs to talk more about immigration and let people feel that he isn't hateful. This is especially true for women. They need to think that his stance on immigration is based on what is best for the country, not because of being a mean person. He also needs to continue talking with conviction about eloping the average person.Replies: @RadicalCenter
YES, YES, AND YES. Trump needs to talk about “the average American citizen of any background and every background” and how we are getting screwed and impoverished by outsourcing, lousy managed-trade “free trade” deals, illegal immigration, and excessive legal immigration.
Trump needs to talk constantly about average U.S. citizens losing jobs that are going instead to illegal aliens off the books, especially in the restaurant, construction / handyman, and child-care sectors.
Job loss, crime, pollution, and the erosion of our societal trust and community, all from illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.
Trump should repeat and repeat a call for employers who hire illegal aliens over Americans to go to prison. Not a fine, PRISON.
Superb comment. I’d add only that most Americans are rightly more afraid, day to day, of us and our children being attacked by African-“Americans” than of being attacked by terrorists.
I’ll concede that all civilized people — of all racial backgrounds — would be better off with both no Muslims and no Africans in this country.
He won't do it. It takes sustained work in a manner he can't do. He has had the last 15 months to learn this stuff, but he didn't care, he didn't think he needed to, etc. He can't.
God help us.Replies: @Anonymous
And what’s worse, he might actually believe he won the debate, so no need to improve.
It doesn't matter how good he is, he's gonna get hammered. He can and should though go on the offensive as much as possible next time around.
Still Hillary's supposed victory hasn't done squat for her rally turn outs. Her last one she had 300-500 people all told. With about half being paid staffers and flunkies. That leaves maybe 200 real people. That's just pathetic.
No one wants to see the witch.
That said, one group Trump has done poorly with are college educated whites and urban professionals who have allied themselves with the elites in terms of policies. They never went for him in the primaries and won't do it now. Candidate wise they prefer people like Romney or Hillary.
The thing is Trump needs them to keep Hillary from cheating on election day. But it's very doubtful he'll get them. It probably explains his reachout to AA's because he knows white yuppies are solidly in Hillary's camp.Replies: @RadicalCenter
I greatly doubt that college-educated white men, like me, are solidly in Clinton’s camp. Probably about evenly divided at most.
College-educated WOMEN, yes, very much for Clinton, the brainwashed herd-traveling fools.
College-educated women who have never had children, whether young or old, HUGELY in Clinton’s favor. Tells us more about them, their lack of a critical and uniquely rewarding / challenging / transformative life experience, and their related inadequacies and resentments than it does about Clinton and Trump’s actual ideas and policy prescriptions and how they are likely to affect women.
One of the core (but unspoken) principles of current leftist ideology is that only men, specifically heterosexual white men, have agency. I’d even go so far as to say this may be the most important principle defining leftist thought right now. This principle is the reason:
– it’s racist to suggest black men could increase their odds of surviving police encounters by being less confrontational.
– it’s racist to expect Muslims to resist Sudden Jihad Syndrome when they see a cartoon mocking their prophet
– it’s racist to think Africans might benefit from having fewer children
– it’s sexist to think the skewed male-female ratio in STEM fields is a result of anything but systematic bias
– etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum
The mere fact that she’s trying to convince us she should be the most powerful person in the world doesn’t seem like reasonable grounds to think Hillary may, in fact, have agency.
> No one, no one believes they have a marriage like Melania & Trump’s.
I don’t think Trump’s marriage is much of an asset. It’s obvious that trump broke the “half your age plus seven” rule. It looks too transactional and reminds us of Anna Nicole Smith and the oil Barron. As with Clinton’s marriage, it doesn’t look like what people imagine true love looks like.
Now there are some marriages of a young beautiful woman with a very rich decrepit oldster on an oxy tank - that I would say is transactional because no amount of money can make up for mental or physical feebleness in the attraction department, but Trump is neither mentally nor physically feeble.
Look at european heads of state, many have younger more attractive wives, power in a man is big boobs and a narrow waist in a woman. Thus spak Heartiste.Replies: @NOTA
Even if Trump does win, it’s not like Americans are going to suddenly rediscover common sense. Silly season only gets sillier and sillier, year after year. America’s future is Brazil with worse weather. But at least there are some nice places in Brazil.
Just how much debating does the POTUS do? With all the money we spend on advisers and staff you’d think the job was more about good judgment rather than facile banter.
“But this “we’re just stuck with whatever’s in his head at a particular moment” is too fatalistic.”
If that’s the case then there has to be some idea that we or people we are sympathetic to have some means of motivation or leverage over Trump to get him to do what he probably ought to be doing anyway.
And at least in the comment section here, there is strong resistance against that, presumably on the idea that we don’t want our guy to be criticized or constrained.
The problem with Trump is that he doesn’t want to sit his ass down and study…He can’t fathom that Americans could be so stupid…and part of him is like ‘Well if they ARE That Stupid…F— ‘Em’…That’s the problem.
Trump…You have to buckle down and save the people who don’t deserve being saved. That’s what a hero is in this era….it sucks…but it’s true.
Seriously, Americans do not deserve to be saved…but you have to hold your nose and do it anyways.
Be honest, Gents, Camacho made a complete FOOL of himself and his party.
I don't think Trump's marriage is much of an asset. It's obvious that trump broke the "half your age plus seven" rule. It looks too transactional and reminds us of Anna Nicole Smith and the oil Barron. As with Clinton's marriage, it doesn't look like what people imagine true love looks like.Replies: @scrivener3, @Lagertha
Transactional? Women genuinely like money power and fame in a spouse. Just as men like youth, thin and attractive. Its not transactional if you have a youthful, thin attractive wife, it is what you like.
Now there are some marriages of a young beautiful woman with a very rich decrepit oldster on an oxy tank – that I would say is transactional because no amount of money can make up for mental or physical feebleness in the attraction department, but Trump is neither mentally nor physically feeble.
Look at european heads of state, many have younger more attractive wives, power in a man is big boobs and a narrow waist in a woman. Thus spak Heartiste.
I’m getting rather displeased at many of the media personalities supposedly on “our side” and their censorious Monday morning quarterbacking of Donald Trump, so I’d like to take this opportunity to put a few things back into perspective.
In the days and even the weeks leading up to this first debate, Trump was treated to a Spector-like Wall of Sound of unsolicited advice from every quarter telling him that he had better be “presidential” or he was done for. So Trump correspondingly toned it down, and now those very same voices are demanding to know why he didn’t go right for the jugular and KO Hillary with everything but the kitchen sink. “Why didn’t he hit her on that,” is the common refrain issuing from every region of the conservative commentariat. “She left herself so wide open and Trump just whiffed it.”
What a spastic set of conflicting demands! How is Trump supposed to please these people? He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. The media, as usual, think that they occupy the Emperor’s box at the Flavian Amphitheater and that these debates are a spectacle that exists solely for their sake, to give them something to criticize and dissect. But Trump isn’t interested in performing for the media; he’s interested in helping the country and he speaks with that end in mind, in a style modulated to communicate with other doers and clear-sighted people like himself who do not need to obscure the facts for political purposes. The media feel slighted by this. Their whole reason for existing is rendered null and void by Trump’s appeal to common sense. Quite tellingly, quite predictably, quite appropriately, the timbre of the criticism that has emerged from the media talking heads is Trump’s “poor debate preparation”—by which they mean, “He didn’t give us the kind of show that WE wanted!”
Any Trump supporter who follows the media’s lead in this sort of jeering is being tremendously disloyal. Let us remember that Trump is the candidate; he is the one exposing himself to all the risk, taking all the punches, and spending a great deal of his own money simply because he wants to fight for us, so he deserves our support not our complaining and ridicule. Furthermore, I do not take seriously this notion that Trump literally did not prepare for the debate. Of course he prepared for the debate, he just did not treat it like a spectacle.
Concerning the other point, viz. that Trump left a lot of zingers on the table that he could have clobbered Hillary with, I think it is necessary to go a bit meta in order to explain why it doesn’t matter. We all know what Trump could have said. We all know that he could have brought up the email server, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton knows it too. But since we all already know these things, is it really necessary for Trump to actually do it? What would that accomplish other than allowing the red-meat Republican base to engage in some vicarious venting while making Trump look petty and vituperative? If there is one thing we know about Hillary Clinton, it’s that she doesn’t care that she did these things or that everyone knows about it. She’s the one who looked like an insouciant, spaced-out robot on the debate stage. She’s cut from the same cloth as Obama, who just issued a resounding FU to the American people in the form of the Saudi Arabian veto and was soundly rebuffed by Congress for it. That debate was truly surrealistic for the sheer amount of lying Hillary did. It wasn’t deception; it was open, outright lying about things that everyone already knows aren’t true. It was completely insane.
There is nothing Trump can do to penetrate that sort of arrogant obliviousness. What he can do however is reveal it for what it is, and I think he did so masterfully. To me, the whole debate and the whole election came down to just one line. When Trump tarred Hillary with the fact that she never went to Louisiana to visit the flood victims, she smirked back, “No, I was too busy preparing to be president.”
That right there was her “Let them eat cake” moment. It encapsulated her whole entitled, elitist personality. Many people seem not to have noticed it, but it will gain traction as the debate is replayed and will eventually go down in history as the decisive point in the campaign. Trump stood with the American people in their hour of need. Hillary is all about Hillary. The contrast is clear. It’s all over but the voting.
I commend Trump for having the courage to say that which others won't say, but he needs the discipline to stay on-message and focus on winning themes in the style of Ronald Reagan. Endless talk of his business successes is getting long in the tooth; like the Clinton scandals we've heard it all before. I was glad he hit the law-and-order theme, though he needs to come up with a catch-phrase or two that are a little less hackneyed. He needs to stick with the overarching theme of the American government serving Americans, and he'll have his best shot.
OT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/28/this-new-york-times-review-of-a-hitler-book-sure-looked-like-a-thinly-veiled-trump-hitler-comparison/
No, really, we mean it this time.
Now there are some marriages of a young beautiful woman with a very rich decrepit oldster on an oxy tank - that I would say is transactional because no amount of money can make up for mental or physical feebleness in the attraction department, but Trump is neither mentally nor physically feeble.
Look at european heads of state, many have younger more attractive wives, power in a man is big boobs and a narrow waist in a woman. Thus spak Heartiste.Replies: @NOTA
There must be something less relevant to the question of who should be president than whether Trump’s third trophy wife is more offensive to family values than Clinton’s marriage of convenience and turning a blind eye to her husband’s affairs. But off the top, I can’t think of anything.
Age is secondary and only important if it approaches decrepitude.
A Dr friend said one can marry a woman as many years younger than you equal to the number of millions you have. If you are worth ten million dollars and you are sixty, you can marry a fifty year old widow or single woman. Of course what follows, if you are sixty and have 20 million dollars you can date a 40 year old woman.
My experience seems to confirm.Replies: @Anonym, @RadicalCenter
I dont think it is relevant to his campaign, I was responding to a post that said he violated the half your age plus seven years rule. Women want a powerful, famous, confident man.
Age is secondary and only important if it approaches decrepitude.
A Dr friend said one can marry a woman as many years younger than you equal to the number of millions you have. If you are worth ten million dollars and you are sixty, you can marry a fifty year old widow or single woman. Of course what follows, if you are sixty and have 20 million dollars you can date a 40 year old woman.
My experience seems to confirm.
Trump has so much money though, using the age-millions formula he could date a woman of any age. So could Bill Clinton. Hey, no jokes about Epstein at the back!
Twenty years younger, though, yeah that would usually take some serious bucks ;)
There is little Trump can do; the problem is not his performance in the debates but the fracturing of White society. This fracturing is not a Jewish conspiracy but the real and profound differences between elites and ordinary people and men and women.
Elites form a hereditary, semi-feudal class controlling politics, aping the Chinese Communist Party. One doesn't get rich to be powerful -- one gets powerful like Clinton to be rich. Hillary and Obama, both non-entities in accomplishment, wield more power than even Mark Zuckerberg. And they wield the power because they are an aging harpy feminist, and an anti-White Black man respectively.
Which taps into the secret weapon of elites -- the bitter resentment of White women particularly the Professional Class over their male peers. Not only are too many White men nerdy/unsexy, they create social and technological chaos by rapid technological change that improves lives and makes settled aristocracy difficult.
Look at the Gates Dynasty. With any "sense" White women would have been happy to see a Gates Dynasty rule the world, the profoundly unsexy Bill replaced with Nice White Lady Melinda, and various snotty daughters and such leading to various kids becoming a semi-royal family. Now all sorts of Android and cloud computing disruption makes the Windows/Office monopoly far less valuable.
There is little Trump can do other than diminish Black turnout for Hillary, by assuaging their concerns over jobs/income, and women's turnout for Hillary by offering competing goodies. But his core task is not debating but White Male Turnout; he has to get massive turnout among White men and that requires spending on people and tech which he remains unwilling to do.
Anything close Hillary will just cheat.Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
Codevilla is excellent on the big-picture crisis facing the USA and indeed most of the West. See his latest here.
Most exciting moment of my Twatter career was Robert Zimmerman hearting my tweet. Granted, I have only tweeted about a hundred tweets ever.Replies: @Anonym
Coulter has a good piece of her own on the debate:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/28/ann-coulter-avoid-immigration-terrorism-health-care-90-minutes/
She would be a good addition to the Unz review. She might be beyond the budget though.
Age is secondary and only important if it approaches decrepitude.
A Dr friend said one can marry a woman as many years younger than you equal to the number of millions you have. If you are worth ten million dollars and you are sixty, you can marry a fifty year old widow or single woman. Of course what follows, if you are sixty and have 20 million dollars you can date a 40 year old woman.
My experience seems to confirm.Replies: @Anonym, @RadicalCenter
Looks play a part too. Women prefer looks and money to just money.
Trump has so much money though, using the age-millions formula he could date a woman of any age. So could Bill Clinton. Hey, no jokes about Epstein at the back!
Age is secondary and only important if it approaches decrepitude.
A Dr friend said one can marry a woman as many years younger than you equal to the number of millions you have. If you are worth ten million dollars and you are sixty, you can marry a fifty year old widow or single woman. Of course what follows, if you are sixty and have 20 million dollars you can date a 40 year old woman.
My experience seems to confirm.Replies: @Anonym, @RadicalCenter
I hit the jackpot with my wife, who is 13 years younger. And my net worth isn’t even close to ten million dollars. So I don’t think that a decent-looking guy with a good job needs a ton of money to land a substantially younger wife.
Twenty years younger, though, yeah that would usually take some serious bucks 😉
In the days and even the weeks leading up to this first debate, Trump was treated to a Spector-like Wall of Sound of unsolicited advice from every quarter telling him that he had better be "presidential" or he was done for. So Trump correspondingly toned it down, and now those very same voices are demanding to know why he didn't go right for the jugular and KO Hillary with everything but the kitchen sink. "Why didn't he hit her on that," is the common refrain issuing from every region of the conservative commentariat. "She left herself so wide open and Trump just whiffed it."
What a spastic set of conflicting demands! How is Trump supposed to please these people? He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. The media, as usual, think that they occupy the Emperor's box at the Flavian Amphitheater and that these debates are a spectacle that exists solely for their sake, to give them something to criticize and dissect. But Trump isn't interested in performing for the media; he's interested in helping the country and he speaks with that end in mind, in a style modulated to communicate with other doers and clear-sighted people like himself who do not need to obscure the facts for political purposes. The media feel slighted by this. Their whole reason for existing is rendered null and void by Trump's appeal to common sense. Quite tellingly, quite predictably, quite appropriately, the timbre of the criticism that has emerged from the media talking heads is Trump's "poor debate preparation"---by which they mean, "He didn't give us the kind of show that WE wanted!"
Any Trump supporter who follows the media's lead in this sort of jeering is being tremendously disloyal. Let us remember that Trump is the candidate; he is the one exposing himself to all the risk, taking all the punches, and spending a great deal of his own money simply because he wants to fight for us, so he deserves our support not our complaining and ridicule. Furthermore, I do not take seriously this notion that Trump literally did not prepare for the debate. Of course he prepared for the debate, he just did not treat it like a spectacle.
Concerning the other point, viz. that Trump left a lot of zingers on the table that he could have clobbered Hillary with, I think it is necessary to go a bit meta in order to explain why it doesn't matter. We all know what Trump could have said. We all know that he could have brought up the email server, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton knows it too. But since we all already know these things, is it really necessary for Trump to actually do it? What would that accomplish other than allowing the red-meat Republican base to engage in some vicarious venting while making Trump look petty and vituperative? If there is one thing we know about Hillary Clinton, it's that she doesn't care that she did these things or that everyone knows about it. She's the one who looked like an insouciant, spaced-out robot on the debate stage. She's cut from the same cloth as Obama, who just issued a resounding FU to the American people in the form of the Saudi Arabian veto and was soundly rebuffed by Congress for it. That debate was truly surrealistic for the sheer amount of lying Hillary did. It wasn't deception; it was open, outright lying about things that everyone already knows aren't true. It was completely insane.
There is nothing Trump can do to penetrate that sort of arrogant obliviousness. What he can do however is reveal it for what it is, and I think he did so masterfully. To me, the whole debate and the whole election came down to just one line. When Trump tarred Hillary with the fact that she never went to Louisiana to visit the flood victims, she smirked back, "No, I was too busy preparing to be president."
That right there was her "Let them eat cake" moment. It encapsulated her whole entitled, elitist personality. Many people seem not to have noticed it, but it will gain traction as the debate is replayed and will eventually go down in history as the decisive point in the campaign. Trump stood with the American people in their hour of need. Hillary is all about Hillary. The contrast is clear. It's all over but the voting.Replies: @Walthamolian
The problem is not that Trump didn’t attack Hillary sufficiently – as you correctly state, those attacks have been well-aired already. The problem is that he didn’t play to HIS OWN STRENGTHS. Where was a single, solid, statement of the pro-American position on immigration? As I mentioned above, he had an excellent spot right at the start to talk about immigration and jobs, and he passed it right by. And this is his very best issue, the thing that’s got him this far!
I commend Trump for having the courage to say that which others won’t say, but he needs the discipline to stay on-message and focus on winning themes in the style of Ronald Reagan. Endless talk of his business successes is getting long in the tooth; like the Clinton scandals we’ve heard it all before. I was glad he hit the law-and-order theme, though he needs to come up with a catch-phrase or two that are a little less hackneyed. He needs to stick with the overarching theme of the American government serving Americans, and he’ll have his best shot.
I don't think Trump's marriage is much of an asset. It's obvious that trump broke the "half your age plus seven" rule. It looks too transactional and reminds us of Anna Nicole Smith and the oil Barron. As with Clinton's marriage, it doesn't look like what people imagine true love looks like.Replies: @scrivener3, @Lagertha
not everything comes down to trophies. Most of life is full on nuances.
A similar type of reasoning prevailed in the Marxist takeover in Rhodesia. The Revolutionaries thought that if they could only wrest the land from whitey, then they, the oppressed people of color, would be free at last. And so the white land-owning farmers were dispossessed.
But, as we all know, things didn't turn out as planned. The new owners weren't interested in farming and so the fields were left fallow. Instead of farming, the owners strip mined the tangible assets, selling the irrigation pipes and copper wiring from the homes for scrap. Disaster followed as famine swept the land and many starved, creating an international crisis which is only ameliorated by aid intervention by countries in which farming is still carried out by whites.
So, one could say that the Marxists who carried out the revolution and land redistribution in Zimbabwe also fell into the "magic dirt" trap. They, like you Tiny Duck, believe that wealth derives from some thing; that it inheres in a commodity such as copper or aluminum or soil. But as any sensible person realizes, wealth is created by a process, a system that is the product of human genius and applied technique. As Lao Tzu would say, the "worth" of a pipe lies in the hole created in the middle and not in the bare scrap value of the material surrounding that hole.
It's interesting in this regard to note that Obama's father's graduate thesis while at Harvard touched on just this subject. Should we, he asked himself, once we have seized the farms from the evil white Kenyan landholders, redistribute it as small parcels to individual families or should we organize it into huge collective farms? And so he compared the likelihood of yields based upon calculations of relative efficiency. He simply takes it for granted that Kenyans would want to farm and would be good at it, assuming that the productive capacity somehow inheres in the redistributed soil and not in the native genius of the people.
This focus on material causes which ignores human capital could be called "the Marxist's fallacy" because it will be found at the center of every Marxist's thinking. Indeed, Marx boasted of it, believing that his theory in which the material conditions of productivity determine consciousness was literally a rightside-upping, earth-shaking contribution to understanding human nature.
So, Tiny Duck, even if you "people of color" succeed in overthrowing the white order, all you will be doing is consigning yourself to a more primitive state of existence while we whites will regroup, reorganize and rebuild elsewhere. It's in our genes.
Good Luck with your Magic Dirt, Tiny Duck!Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Lagertha
Love this. Ignore Tiny Duck, btw; he is a “Puck” like character. Your analysis made me sort of sad about the past. But carry on, and do post in the future. I want to hear more thoughts from you. I think we all do. The more the merrier. ok, all you geniuses out there; who said: Where there is light there is hope? Oh, I was not such a good Luther Leaguer, so if it was Jesus, then, I am truly lost.
College-educated WOMEN, yes, very much for Clinton, the brainwashed herd-traveling fools.
College-educated women who have never had children, whether young or old, HUGELY in Clinton's favor. Tells us more about them, their lack of a critical and uniquely rewarding / challenging / transformative life experience, and their related inadequacies and resentments than it does about Clinton and Trump's actual ideas and policy prescriptions and how they are likely to affect women.Replies: @Brutusale
There are no “men” in the Clinton camp. Humans that happen to have penises, but no men.