The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Noonan in WSJ: Trump "Was, as They Say, Declaring That He Didn’t Want to Invade the World and Invite the World."
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Peggy Noonan writes in her column in the WSJ:

Imagine a Sane Donald Trump
You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?

By PEGGY NOONAN
Oct. 20, 2016 7:07 p.m. ET

Look, he’s a nut and you know he’s a nut. I go to battleground states and talk to anyone, everyone. They all know Donald Trump’s a nut. Some will vote for him anyway. Many are in madman-versus-criminal mode, living with (or making) their final decision. They got the blues. Everyone does. They’re worried about the whole edifice: If this is where we are, where are we going?

I get the Reagan fantasy—big guy with a nonstandard résumé comes in from the outside, cleans out the stables, saves the day. But it’s a fantasy and does not apply to this moment. I get the Jacksonian fantasy—crude, rude populist comes in from the hinterlands and upends a decadent establishment to the huzzahs of normal people with mud on their boots. But it’s a fantasy, and doesn’t apply.

Because he’s not a grizzled general who bears on his face the scars of a British sword, and not a shining citizen-patriot. He’s a screwball. Do you need examples? You do not, because you’re already thinking of them. For a year you’ve been observing the TV funhouse that is his brain.

Actually, Trump strikes me as remarkably psychologically stable under the decades of stressful situations he has thrust himself into. Compare Trump to poor Ross Perot who broke down in the summer of 1992 under the strain of running for President and disappeared for two months. Trump, in contrast, seems more like, say, George Steinbrenner, the combative owner of the New York Yankees from 1973-2010.

Mr. Trump’s great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party’s leaders didn’t know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn’t happening.

The party’s leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn’t want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he’d opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

The Republican Party will now begin the long process of redefining itself or continue its long national collapse. This is an epochal event. It happened because Donald Trump intuited where things were and are going.

Since I am more in accord with Mr. Trump’s stands than not, I am particularly sorry that as an individual human being he’s a nut.

Which gives rise to a question, for me a poignant one.

What if there had been a Sane Donald Trump?

Oh my God, Sane Trump would have won in a landslide.

Perhaps, but would Sane Trump have bothered to take on the world?

Sane Donald Trump, just to start, would look normal and happy, not grim and glowering. He would be able to hear and act on good advice. He would explain his positions with clarity and depth, not with the impatient half-grasping of a notion that marks real Donald Trump’s public persona.

Perhaps, but it could also be that Trump’s lack of verbal fluency contributes to his aversion to the conventional BS.

 
Hide 205 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. If Trump is “nuts,” obviously our Establishment is nuts, too. So what difference does it make? Well, Trump probably won’t give away our sovereignty or start a war with Russia. That’s reason enough to vote for him right there.

    • Agree: NickG
  2. As they say? Looks like some of Steve’s thinking has established itself in the establishment. Yikes!

    May this be only the bleeding edge.

    Or the tip of the wedge, perhaps.

    • Replies: @wren
    @wren

    Bravo Steve!

    This is Noonan, not Coulter!

    Break out the champagne!

    Or at least the Natty Light!

    , @Anonymous
    @wren


    As they say? Looks like some of Steve’s thinking has established itself in the establishment. Yikes!
     
    From Wikileaks email dump:

    >>Sailer is his name.

    >>>Can't we just drone him?

    >>We've tried. We've tried all kinds of drones to take him out.
    >>We even had a drone disguised as a predatory hawk.
    >>We tried to get him but only took out his rabbit.
    >>We've even used a predator drone to take him out
    >>when he brought out his garbage.
    >>It missed him and went into his garage causing a mess.

  3. A “sane Trump” would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Parsifal

    That's too gloomy, Europe and Australia have normal and sane restrictionist politicians.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Tim Howells, @Barnard, @ben tillman

    , @Chief Seattle
    @Parsifal


    A “sane Trump” would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone.
     
    Agree. A sane Trump is Rand Paul before he sold out to the Neocons. A sane Trump would have left us with Jeb Bush speaking Spanish on the stump and competing with Hillary for who would allow more Syrian refuges into the country.

    Replies: @ChaseBizzy

    , @e
    @Parsifal

    The boorishness, the hyperbole....all tools....he's not a "nut," that's where she's wrong. Noonan has been around long enough to know people who know how Trump behaves in non-public company. He not a nut.

  4. Glad to see your thinking finally hit the mainstream Steve, even if they don’t give you your props. I’ve always thought Invade the world, invite the world was one of your best memes. Maybe this is the reason for all the ddos attacks on the site lately?

    Off topic but still iSteve relevant: Christopher Nolan’s brother Jonathan has made a pretty good remake of Michael Crichton’s Westworld for HBO. It takes a lot of ideas from last year’s Ex Machina. It’s a bit slow but worth checking out.

    • Replies: @Bugg
    @Yep

    The Crichton/Yul Brenner original had many of the sam themes as did Crichton's "Jurrassic Park" and "The Andromeda Strain"-technology will at some point run amok.Unintended consequence is almost always a consequence. So far, Nolan's "Westworld" has a slightly different twist; man-made creation can spark something unexpected and very close to real life, the line between us and our creations is increasingly blurry and we proceed ignoring that at our peril. What happens when creation begets consciousness? Does that being have a soul? Is it a being at all? Now they could revert to a shoot'em up no different than the original (which was fun also) and there are snippets of that, but so far so good.

    Replies: @guest

    , @Neither-Spiculus-Nor-Nero
    @Yep

    Actually one of the reasons I'm looking forward to the election being over is so Steve can review movies and stuff on TV again. I hope he takes a look at Westworld.

    Per someone's suggestion, I'm cracking open a Natty Light right now!

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This is just the sort of thing I discuss with friends and family who either hate Trump or like Clinton.

    Trump has proven that quite a few people will vote for anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-immigration pro-us/anti-them type politicians. Other would-be politicians will copy him. Those others, at least some of them, are likely to be more eloquent, more nuanced, and more stable than Trump. Then whatcha gonna do?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    Then whatcha gonna do?
     
    Duh. Assassinate their character. Call them Nazis and racists. Dig up dirt about their sex lives. Have women come forward to make false accusations. Etc. Easy peasy. See Alinsky Rule #12.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    , @27 year old
    @Anonymous

    >Then whatcha gonna do?

    Not care because they will lose (at the national level) due to demographics

    , @No_0ne
    @Anonymous

    Will they be billionaires with close to 100% name recognition and a knack for trolling the legacy media? If not, they will quickly die of neglect. For a national campaign, if you can't access the megaphone, you're done.

    Replies: @NOTA

  6. @wren
    As they say? Looks like some of Steve's thinking has established itself in the establishment. Yikes!

    May this be only the bleeding edge.

    Or the tip of the wedge, perhaps.

    Replies: @wren, @Anonymous

    Bravo Steve!

    This is Noonan, not Coulter!

    Break out the champagne!

    Or at least the Natty Light!

  7. I enjoy watching Trump rallies because they are good-natured and full of happy energy, the man speaks common sense and people respond with a sigh of relief:

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @jim jones

    Yeah, Trump doesn't look "grim and glowering" there at all.

    It's Orwellian how Trump has been characterized by the mainstream media during this campaign, despite him having been in the public eye for four decades.

    They say Trump's got a scary temperament. Is there one example of Trump laying a hand on anyone in anger in the last 40 years? Or physically exhibiting anger in another way (throwing or breaking some object)? How about a phone recording of Trump cursing someone out?

    Replies: @johnnygeo

  8. As a big fan of “Pinky & the Brain”, I’m not really looking for someone sane to be a good president.

  9. “would Sane Trump have bothered to take on the world?”

    I think that’s right; many of Trump’s weaknesses are the direct result of his strengths. He’s reflexively combative. If he lacked that quality campaign consultants would have herded him into the usual mush and the losing propositions that the last several Republican candidates have espoused. But that combativeness also leads him to get into fights with the Gold Star family that the Clinton campaign dangled in front of him. He’s something the political classes haven’t seen much of, the tycoon from an industry other than finance, media, or software.

    I don’t think he’s glowering at all. He’s quite funny. The media clutches their pearls and portrays his jokes or sarcasm as serious proposals. He’s something the political classes haven’t seen much of, the tycoon from an industry other than finance, media, and software.

    • Replies: @No_0ne
    @Boomstick

    "He’s quite funny. The media clutches their pearls and portrays his jokes or sarcasm as serious proposals."

    Exactly. Who was it that said that the media takes him literally, but not seriously, and the people take him seriously, but not literally?

    I also think that Steve is onto something when he says that Trump's verbal style is a reflection of the same personality traits that allowed him to make this run. He has a knack for cutting to the core of issues, that doesn't always translate to smoothly crafted verbiage.

  10. She’s talking about Mike Pence.
    But, remember that Pence did not even have the confidence to go up against Jeb, Lyndsay and the others before Trump anointed him.
    And just recently Trump needed to school Pence out of his conditioned anti-Russian rhetoric.
    No, only Trump could have brought us to this point. Cometh the hour…

  11. “Sanity” and “eccentricity” are constructs foisted on us by the ruling elite via the media and entertainment industry, the same as “racism”, “hate speech”, etc. The media have decided the best way to beat Trump is to package him as a dangerous nut who might do anything if elected. This is the guy who opposes going to war with any other country and opening America’s borders to terrorists.

    • Agree: Questionator
    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Rob McX

    Trump isn't consistently against invade the world; my take is that he's just less gung-ho about it than Hillary or the neocons, and so comes off as dovish.

  12. @Parsifal
    A "sane Trump" would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone.

    Replies: @Lot, @Chief Seattle, @e

    That’s too gloomy, Europe and Australia have normal and sane restrictionist politicians.

    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    @Lot

    Australia has a large wall of water. There is not a lot of real talk about immigration. Restrictionists couch their talk in terms of procedural fairness (queue jumping - a classic cuck argument, especially if there is a bi-partisan policy of long, fast moving queues.) The fait accompli illegal is rarely expelled, but, because of geography, the numbers are sort of manageable for now.
    Europe is an indescribable mess. They have real Restrictionists, but all too little too late.

    , @Tim Howells
    @Lot

    I'm with Parsival. Trump has truly entered the belly of the beast. I'm astonished by his stability and endurance. Yes, others are fighting the good fight across the Western World, and it's never easy to say the least,


    But the central base of world political power is here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people.

    Their financial resources are unlimited. Their political resources are unlimited. Their media resources are unlimited. And, most importantly, the depths of their immorality is unlimited.
     

    Donald Trump, from the Palm Beach speech
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHsZxJlxHYw
    , @Barnard
    @Lot

    The restrictionists in Europe are running in Parliamentary systems where usually no party gets a majority of the vote. They are able to have some impact by getting 20-30% of the vote. That's impossible in the U.S.

    , @ben tillman
    @Lot


    That’s too gloomy, Europe and Australia have normal and sane restrictionist politicians.
     
    I don't know whether Pim Fortuyn qualified as normal or sane, but he certainly doesn't now, since he was assassinated.
  13. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Nut = Authentic

    In a mad world, real seems nutty. And are the mad media that see Russians everywhere really sane? Or all those ‘serious’ pundits who compare him with Hitler?

    “He would explain his positions with clarity and depth, not with the impatient half-grasping of a notion that marks real Donald Trump’s public persona.”

    He sounded confused at times because he was conflicted between what he really wanted to say and what he thought he should say to win over GOP stalwarts.
    But after the Billy Bush dirty trick, he dropped all pretenses and let it rip about the establishment and media. It couldn’t be any clearer.

    Yet Noonan is still displeased because she is part of the media establishment.

    • Agree: DCThrowback, TWS
  14. @Lot
    @Parsifal

    That's too gloomy, Europe and Australia have normal and sane restrictionist politicians.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Tim Howells, @Barnard, @ben tillman

    Australia has a large wall of water. There is not a lot of real talk about immigration. Restrictionists couch their talk in terms of procedural fairness (queue jumping – a classic cuck argument, especially if there is a bi-partisan policy of long, fast moving queues.) The fait accompli illegal is rarely expelled, but, because of geography, the numbers are sort of manageable for now.
    Europe is an indescribable mess. They have real Restrictionists, but all too little too late.

  15. nut…screwball…crude…rude…the TV funhouse that is his brain…

    Etc etc — with friends like that…

    Perhaps the worst part of her ridiculous screed:

    Mr. Trump’s great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party’s leaders didn’t know!

    Actually I think they knew — eg their switchboards lit up for every amnesty bill — they just didn’t fucking care — because they had become accustomed to serving the donor class, not listening to ordinary voters — Mr Trump has made this valid point emphatically (‘drain the swamp’).

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin, No_0ne
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @eah

    The party’s leaders didn’t know! Yeah, right. Noonan is either flat-out ignorant there or trying to be snide. Back in the 1980s I made some contributions to the GOP and for years afterward I got fund-raising letters, which often included a questionnaire on which issues were most important to me. In the 1990s, I noticed that the issues that were most important to me--immigration, racial preferences--had been dropped from the list of issues that I could weigh in on. Not that I was so foolish as to think anyone even looked at these responses, but that fact that certain hot-button issues had been dropped from the agenda was revealing.

    Noonan writes, "The Republican Party will now begin the long process of redefining itself or continue its long national collapse . . ." The party is going to have to choose whether it prefers to have big donors or voters. I think it's clear it prefers the former. But why should the former contribute without the latter? And why bother when the Democrats are going to give them everything they want anyway?

    At the same time, I have to admit that a little more focus and finesse on Trump's part might have made the difference between victory and defeat. We'll see.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @eah

    "Actually I think they knew — eg their switchboards lit up for every amnesty bill — they just didn’t fucking care — because they had become accustomed to serving the donor class, not listening to ordinary voters — Mr Trump has made this valid point emphatically (‘drain the swamp’)."

    True. The Republican party knew what their constituents wanted. They just dishonestly ignored it and pretended it wasn't so.

    , @Questionator
    @eah

    Actually I think they knew — eg their switchboards lit up for every amnesty bill — they just didn’t fucking care — because they had become accustomed to serving the donor class, not listening to ordinary voters

    More important than donors are media attitudes and coverage.

  16. Only a billionaire asshole could do this.

    Fuck “sanity”.

    • Agree: eah, Clyde
  17. @Lot
    @Parsifal

    That's too gloomy, Europe and Australia have normal and sane restrictionist politicians.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Tim Howells, @Barnard, @ben tillman

    I’m with Parsival. Trump has truly entered the belly of the beast. I’m astonished by his stability and endurance. Yes, others are fighting the good fight across the Western World, and it’s never easy to say the least,

    But the central base of world political power is here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people.

    Their financial resources are unlimited. Their political resources are unlimited. Their media resources are unlimited. And, most importantly, the depths of their immorality is unlimited.

    Donald Trump, from the Palm Beach speech

  18. Noonan:

    Sane Donald Trump would have looked at a dubious, anxious and therefore standoffish Republican establishment and not insulted them, diminished them, done tweetstorms against them.

    Nope. Whomping those losers was entirely needed. Part of the vindication of voting for Trump in the primary was seeing them go down in flames.

    It’s useless to “ponder counterfactuals” (to quote the Derb) and pine for some imaginary perfect candidate. Whatever happens, it’s the brashness of Trump that nationally kick-started popular resistance against the feckless, sellout establishment.

  19. Ordinary people also like Trump because he also has a sense of humor. He’s been willing to mock at and laugh at sacred cows, which greatly upsets the humorless media and political establishment. Thus, a lot of his “controversial” statements, such as his supposed support for the DNC’s hackers, are really just jokes or sarcastic remarks taken out of context. Trump has been willing to do what Samantha Bee and John Oliver have refused to do: have a politically incorrect sense of humor.

  20. @Parsifal
    A "sane Trump" would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone.

    Replies: @Lot, @Chief Seattle, @e

    A “sane Trump” would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone.

    Agree. A sane Trump is Rand Paul before he sold out to the Neocons. A sane Trump would have left us with Jeb Bush speaking Spanish on the stump and competing with Hillary for who would allow more Syrian refuges into the country.

    • Replies: @ChaseBizzy
    @Chief Seattle

    Jeb would outdo Hillary on all counts and still lose by a margin beyond Trump's worst dreams.

  21. I’m glad you brought up George Steinbrenner, Steve. I’ve noted for a little while that Trump shares similar qualities to Steinbrenner and Rudy Giuliani, two other successful New York-Republican types:

    -loud and garrulous
    -brash
    -politically incorrect
    -insulting to people that, previously, everyone was reverential to (e.g. Giuliani’s refusal to meet with Al Sharpton, Steinbrenner ripping on Dave Winfield for not trying hard enough)
    -beloved by those who work for him (truly beloved; Steinbrenner’s death brought tears to the eyes of almost every Yankee organization worker, and Trump’s workers have been nearly universal in praising him)
    -obsessed with improving the legacy and restoring the honor to a dilapidated organization/place (Steinbrenner restored the Yankees into the premier franchise after they;d become loser-cheapskates in a crap ballpark in a crap neighborhood , Giuliani restoring his city from “Escape from New York” back into “On the Town” by means of “You’ve Got Mail”)
    -self-made

    In short, all three men behave like benevolent rich men types from 1930s, 40s, and 50s movies: self-absorbed, combative, and loud mouthed but soft-hearted and willing to help out a truly in need person or an oppressed man who has the talent to succeed. They love themselves, but they love their fellow man as well. They see America as an opportunity, not something to be looted (the Left).

    • Replies: @Danindc
    @whorefinder

    Well said whorefinder. Now go find me some whores.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  22. While any thinking and decent person owes Trump a great deal of gratitude for the good things he’s done these past 16 months, I really don’t agree that a more polished, more thoughtful and less impulsive person could not have done what he’s done. Running for president is a very stressful job for anyone. A large majority of people would be unable to handle the stress and negativity. But many people much less volitile and cocky than Trump have done well campaigning for prez. You could make the argument that those people didn’t face the pressure Trump has but I think there is a certain amount of pressure at which anyone who can handle that pressure can handle any pressure.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @AndrewR

    Where was this person in 2012? In 2008? In 2004? In 2000?

    You are deluding yourself if you believe that the problem is that we simply haven't found the right person. The system is the problem. The system produces Republican candidates like Jeb and Mitt, and Democratic candidates like Barack and Hillary.

    The system smothers, absorbs, and/or destroys anyone who tries to fight against it. Sane, rational, milquetoast folks know that they cannot fight the system, so they don't even try.

    The only kind of man who would dare to fight the system is:

    * someone with enough balls to take on everyone who's anyone
    * someone with enough chutzpah to believe that he might win, even though everything is rigged against him
    * someone who is willing to put up with the kind of bullshit that Trump's had to put up with
    * someone with the resources to pay his own way

    That last bullet item is the toughest nut to crack, but all of them are deal-killers. Finding someone who combines all four qualities and who is intelligent and charismatic enough to be elected president is ... well-nigh impossible.

    So don't delude yourself into thinking that, "Oh, if we had gone with Ted Cruz, Hillary would be fifty points behind." Cruz showed the world how much of a weasel he was at the convention. And, even if he had somehow turned out to be a bona fide reformer, the media would have savaged him the way they've savaged Trump.

    The system is the problem. Don't forget that.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @AndrewR

  23. Steve Sailer for President
    According to Fromm, beiing totally sane in an insane society is neither necessary nor reasonable.
    The hipie colusion once was: Freak out! – Which made sense for – hippies… (which is, why Frank Zappa made fun of them: To make clear, that this is hippie-stuff, and that there is a gap between the “seperate reality” (Castaneda) and – reality itself, so to speak).

    To differentiate a little more: The term “lack of verbal fluency” could make you think of a person of holy simplicity – being unspoiled and clear.

    The problem at this point of the consideration might be to get back to Trump — in a world (the world of politics), that consists of words (for about -hm, hm: for at least – – 50%), it’s very hard to keep track without verbal fluency.

    I have no idea wether George Steinbrenner could bidge this gap, since I do know nothing about him except for the few lines written above. And those lines seem a tad smaller than the gap.

    And let me add: That politics consist of words is nothing wrong at all – it’s a fact.

    Final remark: Peggy Noonan’s sighed question: What, if there had been a sane Donald Trump? – looks a lot as if she had thought of Steve Sailer at the very least a little bit, while she wrote this question down. Therefor: Congratulations!

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Dieter Kief

    "looks a lot as if she had thought of Steve Sailer at the very least a little bit, while she wrote this question down."

    Didn't Ilana Mercer come up with 'invade/invite'?

    Btw, I think calling Trump 'nuts' is extreme, indeed nutty.

    I'd agree with Noonan that Trump should have been more sensible, balanced, and judicious at times. And he overplayed the Mexican and Muslim card. That came close to demagoguery, but why is the d-label only applied to the 'right'?
    I mean BLM, 'rape culture' hysteria, anti-Trump violence at rallies, anti-white vitriol, Trump-is-Hitler lunacy, and etc we hear so often from Democrats and media are far more demagogic. As for Trump-as-Siberian-Candidate(according to Paul Krugman), well well, look who is peddling conspiracy theories.

    Noonan could have made a good case that Trump has been too crude and rough. But nuts? That is establishment talking points. Supposedly, anyone who notices the power of the ruling elite must be crazy. Right, it's nuts to see collusion between media and government, but it's totally within bounds of sane discourse to say Putin is the puppetmaster behind Trump.

    Replies: @Questionator, @Dieter Kief

  24. It’s a little like the question of why all the insiders supported the Iraq War. I didn’t know much of anything about Iraq, but I read a little bit in 2002 and it all said very clearly that the Bush Administration was lying and/or stupid and that there was no reason to go to war and lots of reasons not to. But everyone practically whose job was to make that determination came to the reverse conclusion- the internal incentives to being an insider were so strong that they affected liberals nearly as much as conservatives in all lining up to support the war.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Spotted Toad

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @SPMoore8, @Detective Club, @anonn, @Busby, @ben tillman

  25. I used to think Trump was a buffoon but I don’t think so. He reminds me more of a scene from Patton.

    It is during the Battle of the Bulge and Patton is yelling at his staff that they will continue to attack until they succeed or let no man come back alive. His aide comes up to him afterwards and tell him that sometimes people don’t know when he is serious or when he is being dramatic. Slyly he replies that only he needs to know.

    Trump might sound ignorant and stupid to all of the people who spend their lives trying to turn a witty phrase. If you look at what he has done though, he is a sharp guy. The man met with the Mexican president, looked presidential, and dominated the meeting. That kind of thing impresses people more than verbal gymnastics. Also, most people don’t care if he slaps a couple of soldiers along the way.

  26. @Spotted Toad
    It's a little like the question of why all the insiders supported the Iraq War. I didn't know much of anything about Iraq, but I read a little bit in 2002 and it all said very clearly that the Bush Administration was lying and/or stupid and that there was no reason to go to war and lots of reasons not to. But everyone practically whose job was to make that determination came to the reverse conclusion- the internal incentives to being an insider were so strong that they affected liberals nearly as much as conservatives in all lining up to support the war.

    Replies: @SFG

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @SFG

    Because it was thought to be in the best interests of Israel and it satisfied the Jacobin and Cromwellian side of their nature. They love smiting and uplifting others against their will. Pol Pot style "tough love" is one of their defining characteristics. They get a thrill out of punishing other people. Just look at that strange little gay man in the recent Project Veritas videos for an example. To be Aristotelian about it, this is the vice that corresponds with a healthy love of justice.

    , @SPMoore8
    @SFG

    Most people were sold on the Iraq war because (1) it was going to be easy (remember Shock 'n' Awe?). (2) It was a liberation war, and there would be no anomie, guerilla war, or civil war, nor regional de-stabilization. (3) It would advance world peace because it would deprive Iraq of the NBC weapons we knew Saddam had, except, he didn't. (4) It was a socially progressive war, e.g., women's rights, with purple fingers from voting. (5) It would prevent further terrorism because Saddam was a terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 (he wasn't.)

    I think Noonan makes some good points. The main positive of Trump's campaign is that it has thrown open the Overton window on issues like the downside of the global economy, the risks and dangers associated with promiscuous immigration, the polarization of the nation along special interest lines, etc. Those issues, long occluded by the media, are now front and center and part of the national conversation. We'll see what happens next.

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @ben tillman

    , @Detective Club
    @SFG

    We were told by W. that if we didn't fight them over there we would have to fight them over here, but a Nigerian cab driver told me it was because W. got a passionate phone call from the Prime Minister of Israel.

    W. hatever . . .

    The March, 2003 fun-time invasion of Iraq didn't turn out to be the amusing kill video game it was supposed to be - - - now did it!

    These days you can't tell your run-of-the-mill terrorist/refugee without a CIA scorecard. Let's go rebels! Let's not go rebels! Let's go rebels! Etc., Rinse and Repeat, when necessary - - - which is frequently.

    , @anonn
    @SFG

    The replies above remember the era pretty poorly. The nation was driven insane by 9/11. The Dems largely went along because they were too scared to vote against the foolish bloodlust. You had to be a Serious Person in order to have a shot, and Seriousness in the time was defined by one's unquestioning fealty to the Pentagon and Israel.

    The liberals of the era were also scared into thinking there was a permanent conservative majority that would prevent them from ever winning the White House again. (For those of you too young, this really happened.) The thinking was that the Republicans' real homophobia and largely imagined racism were majority positions with the American people. While the Ds overplayed their hand on the racism, the Rs failed to see that their position on gay rights and weed is rapidly dying off. The gay marriage bans that helped win them the election in 2004 are nothing but an albatross now.

    Replies: @NOTA, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    , @Busby
    @SFG

    They like their jobs. In 1990, many Democrats did not vote for Gulf War 1. That turned out to be a bad decision for them. Gulf War 2 looked like the same outcome. Result, the band wagon was over subscribed.
    Fast forward to 2005 and suddenly all the rats are looking for a way off the ship. So much so that by 2007, a Senator from New York had the stones to call the commander of US forces in Iraq, a liar. In public, in the US Senate. Demonstrating once again that timing is everything, this was shortly before said general's forces crushed the insurgency.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    , @ben tillman
    @SFG


    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?
     
    Same reason that Republicans supported it: The mass media put that opinion into their heads.
  27. Noonan has a good writing style but she proves herself to be as vacuous and hypocritical as the next globalist “conservative.” The only thing that they want to conserve is globalist power and its agenda.

    Globalist conservatives such as Noonan lambasted Trump for being light on specifics when he announced. What specifics he had were, of course, horrendous and neanderthal to the globalists. He has steadily fleshed out the specifics of his proposals and they, in turn, have increasingly focused on style over substance. The reason they focus on the style is that they will never support someone who wants to (or even might) destroy the globalist cabal that controls both parties.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @TheBoom

    Noonan ridiculed McCain picking Palin in 2008 and then voted for Obama. She is hardly a conservative.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @TheBoom

  28. @Chief Seattle
    @Parsifal


    A “sane Trump” would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone.
     
    Agree. A sane Trump is Rand Paul before he sold out to the Neocons. A sane Trump would have left us with Jeb Bush speaking Spanish on the stump and competing with Hillary for who would allow more Syrian refuges into the country.

    Replies: @ChaseBizzy

    Jeb would outdo Hillary on all counts and still lose by a margin beyond Trump’s worst dreams.

  29. Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he’d opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

    I don’t know about that part. If you look at polling data (“want to go to war with X”), Republicans still get pretty excited about bombing Arabs. Even fictional ones, like the poll that showed 30% would bomb Agrabah.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Hepp

    It would have been interesting to substitute Washington DC for Agrabah and observe the result.

  30. Whenever possible in my comments in the New York Times I have been making the exact same point that Noonan is making (Sane Trump wins big!), in the hope that maybe some current or prospective Republican politician might read my comment, and it might suddenly dawn on him that Donald Trump’s positions are extraordinary popular with the American people — certainly on the Right, and to some degree even on the Left — and that the only thing standing between Donald Trump and a historic landslide victory is his sorry personality. I encourage everyone to push this narrative, because I think it’s the best way forward, and because the other side will be pushing a counter-narrative that says that Trump’s positions are losers, and he only got as far as he did because his supporters are terrible people who liked Trump because of his terribleness, not in spite of it.

    While I am going to vote for Trump, I have to acknowledge that he is one of the least qualified candidates ever. In fact I wonder if perhaps the best outcome would be that Trump loses an extremely tight race, making it impossible to deny the popularity of his positions, and inciting a takeover of the Republican party be Trumpist insurgents, and a better Trumpist candidate in 2020. Probably a pipe dream of course. What I do know is that if Trump wins I will be simultaneously ecstatic and terrified.

    • Replies: @newyorker
    @jb

    Trump starts the revolution; now someone is needed to finish it. Who can play the earnest pragmatic Brigham Young to Trump's charismatic and undisciplined Joseph Smith, or Paul the apostle to Jesus Christ?

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @jb

    Terrified of what? That he'll grab Her Majesty, Queen of the UK, by the pussy? Doubtful. We already had a sexual predator in the Whitehouse, and things were pretty stable.

    You actually think Trump would start a nuclear war or attack China or something? If so, you're falling for the media hype. It's unlikely.

    When people say they're afraid of a Trump presidency, they usually mean one of two things:

    (1) They're all talk on immigration restriction and are actually afraid of seeing newspaper photos of illegals being evicted and loaded into vans to be deported. This shouldn't be terrifying, though. It's not cattle cars, it's just enforcing the law. Personally, I want to see it. If we don't see some Mexican tears, we can't be sure we're not overlooking people.

    (2) They're concerned about their reputation with the non-deplorable leaders of the world like Merkel. Who cares if the Davos set doesn't like Trump? The US is still the world's daddy, and nobody stops trading with or listening to daddy even if they're angry at him.

    I really can't fathom being scared of a Trump presidency. It just sounds like imbibed MSM koolaid.

    Replies: @jb

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @jb


    While I am going to vote for Trump, I have to acknowledge that he is one of the least qualified candidates ever.
     
    Yes, compared to the miraculous, messianic, luminous Nobel-peace-prize winning community organizer we have in office now.

    Come on, LBJ was qualified or over-qualified and the same with Nixon. Both were disasters. Ford and Carter would also be considered qualified and both were worse than policy choices based on a random walk. Clinton's only redeeming quality was that he spent most of his time thinking about his next 'servicing' and Bush 43's leftist impulses drained the treasury and reduced the capital the Republican brand had almost to zero.

    Trump does not need those qualifications to do what needs to be done.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

  31. As others have pointed out already, “Sane Trump” would not have made it this far. Notice how people like Noonan are suddenly calling for a renaissance of civility now that decades of taunting White men in flyover country is coming back to bite them on the ass?

    Meanwhile, in another tab in my browser, Donald Trump is tweeting his latest thoughts to me and the rest of the world. Talk about disintermediation. Remind me again why I need to carry on this abusive relationship with the media?

  32. Trump is a nut. He’s a known germaphobe who doesn’t like to push elevator buttons or shake hands. So how does a guy that nutty about germs end up groping so many strange women, including a porn star? Something is not adding up here.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Thirdtwin

    Their hands were not the part that he was interested in shaking.

    Howard Hughes was also a billionaire germophobe with a long list of female conquests.

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds - humans don't always behave according to "rules".

    Sex is a strong motivator and can overcome a lot of qualms. Think of all the species where the critter actually is willing to die for sex. Catching a cold is a small price to pay for some nooky with a hot cookie.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Charles Erwin Wilson

  33. @SFG
    @Spotted Toad

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @SPMoore8, @Detective Club, @anonn, @Busby, @ben tillman

    Because it was thought to be in the best interests of Israel and it satisfied the Jacobin and Cromwellian side of their nature. They love smiting and uplifting others against their will. Pol Pot style “tough love” is one of their defining characteristics. They get a thrill out of punishing other people. Just look at that strange little gay man in the recent Project Veritas videos for an example. To be Aristotelian about it, this is the vice that corresponds with a healthy love of justice.

  34. One of Trump’s virtues is that he never thinks of anything in intensely ideological terms.

    BTW, Peggy Noonan hates white people.

    • Replies: @Danindc
    @countenance

    Nah - she has a good heart but wants to stay in the good graces of the establishment. She is definitely not the enemy.

    , @David In TN
    @countenance

    "BTW, Peggy Noonan hates white people."

    She's pretty much a four-square cuck. Years ago she wrote in the WSJ something like: "Immigrants are basically conservative."

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @snorlax

  35. The meme that Trump is “insane” is itself insane.

    Trump is a) heterosexual, b) opposes stupid foreign wars, c) wants to balance the budget, d) opposes the offshoring of blue-collar jobs and mass unemployment in the white working class, e) opposes blacks rioting in the streets and murdering each other and the cops, and f) opposes open borders in which any Third World illiterate or terrorist can come and get American welfare.

    He is opposed by homosexuals, shrill harridans, fops, dandies, “artists,” and America-haters who believe in open borders the myth of the Noble Third World Savage.

    Trump is perfectly sane. What these people don’t like about Trump is his mannerisms and his lack of respect for the social conventions of the Ivy League, Acela-corridor cocktail party elites.

  36. For the growing tens of millions who support Trump, his manner of speaking is probably part of his appeal. At any rate, it’s been no obstacle to his meteoric, astonishing rise: only weeks before the election, he leads his opponent in some major polls, and has pulled neck and neck with her in others. His view of the world, his analysis of our country’s problems, and his proposals for solving them–all of this he has made, despite being “inarticulate,” crystal clear.

    In a storm of criticism and abuse that no other public could endure, he has stood firm and unwavering.

    Whatever his shortcomings, Trump is a great man, probably the greatest living American.

    If President Trump does nothing else but build the wall, stop the invasion of immigrants legal & illegal, and reestablish the country’s sovereignty on its borders, he’ll deserve a place on Mt. Rushmore as a savior of our country and the gratitude of all who love her.

    • Agree: Questionator
  37. So only half the GOP base cares about Trump’s issues which means it will be relatively easy to squish with corporate money and the wright of the disapproving suburban white woman shame.

    That’s depressing.

  38. @Lot
    @Parsifal

    That's too gloomy, Europe and Australia have normal and sane restrictionist politicians.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Tim Howells, @Barnard, @ben tillman

    The restrictionists in Europe are running in Parliamentary systems where usually no party gets a majority of the vote. They are able to have some impact by getting 20-30% of the vote. That’s impossible in the U.S.

  39. @SFG
    @Spotted Toad

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @SPMoore8, @Detective Club, @anonn, @Busby, @ben tillman

    Most people were sold on the Iraq war because (1) it was going to be easy (remember Shock ‘n’ Awe?). (2) It was a liberation war, and there would be no anomie, guerilla war, or civil war, nor regional de-stabilization. (3) It would advance world peace because it would deprive Iraq of the NBC weapons we knew Saddam had, except, he didn’t. (4) It was a socially progressive war, e.g., women’s rights, with purple fingers from voting. (5) It would prevent further terrorism because Saddam was a terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 (he wasn’t.)

    I think Noonan makes some good points. The main positive of Trump’s campaign is that it has thrown open the Overton window on issues like the downside of the global economy, the risks and dangers associated with promiscuous immigration, the polarization of the nation along special interest lines, etc. Those issues, long occluded by the media, are now front and center and part of the national conversation. We’ll see what happens next.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    @SPMoore8

    "We’ll see what happens next."

    I believe the phrase is "Woe to the conquered!". Those issues "front and center and part of the national conversation" will be squished flatter than a highway squirrel.

    Keep fighting the good fight as long as you can, and remember the Brexiters were reported as 4 points adrift when the voting booths closed in the UK.

    , @ben tillman
    @SPMoore8


    Most people were sold on the Iraq war because (1) it was going to be easy (remember Shock ‘n’ Awe?). (2) It was a liberation war, and there would be no anomie, guerilla war, or civil war, nor regional de-stabilization. (3) It would advance world peace because it would deprive Iraq of the NBC weapons we knew Saddam had, except, he didn’t. (4) It was a socially progressive war, e.g., women’s rights, with purple fingers from voting. (5) It would prevent further terrorism because Saddam was a terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 (he wasn’t.)
     
    Nos. 2 and 4 were post-hoc rationalizations. The invasion was sold beforehand by convincing Americans that Saddam was behind 9-11 and by convincing Americans that Saddam had WMD, basically your (3) and (5).

    Replies: @SPMoore8

  40. @eah
    nut...screwball...crude...rude...the TV funhouse that is his brain...

    Etc etc -- with friends like that...

    Perhaps the worst part of her ridiculous screed:

    Mr. Trump’s great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party’s leaders didn’t know!

    Actually I think they knew -- eg their switchboards lit up for every amnesty bill -- they just didn't fucking care -- because they had become accustomed to serving the donor class, not listening to ordinary voters -- Mr Trump has made this valid point emphatically ('drain the swamp').

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @Mr. Anon, @Questionator

    The party’s leaders didn’t know! Yeah, right. Noonan is either flat-out ignorant there or trying to be snide. Back in the 1980s I made some contributions to the GOP and for years afterward I got fund-raising letters, which often included a questionnaire on which issues were most important to me. In the 1990s, I noticed that the issues that were most important to me–immigration, racial preferences–had been dropped from the list of issues that I could weigh in on. Not that I was so foolish as to think anyone even looked at these responses, but that fact that certain hot-button issues had been dropped from the agenda was revealing.

    Noonan writes, “The Republican Party will now begin the long process of redefining itself or continue its long national collapse . . .” The party is going to have to choose whether it prefers to have big donors or voters. I think it’s clear it prefers the former. But why should the former contribute without the latter? And why bother when the Democrats are going to give them everything they want anyway?

    At the same time, I have to admit that a little more focus and finesse on Trump’s part might have made the difference between victory and defeat. We’ll see.

  41. This is similar to the argument the left makes. “An ‘honest non-corrupt’ Democrat would have won in a landslide.” Joe Biden gets thrown around a lot. But of course that was never going to happen.

    Maybe we should ask why the only candidates who can make it through the process are incredibly connected, image-conscious career politicians beholden to special interests. Trump is the exception, but the exception who proves the rule. Be sure the GOP establishment won’t let that happen again.

  42. “Sane Donald Trump, just to start, would look normal and happy, not grim and glowering.”

    This is a common idea among Republicans. Oh, you can’t seem mean and divisive. You have to be cheerful, optimistic, and avuncular. Nonsense. Have they ever seen Democrats speak? They are not nice. They are not optimistic. When has Hillary Clinton ever said anything remotely nice? Ever heard Al Franken speak? He acts like a total dick. They scowl and all but claim that the other side wants to institute slavery and child sacrifice.

    If you predict dire consequences if the other side is elected, but then act as if you don’t really care about the outcome, why should anyone take you seriously? Republicans need to get mean if they want to win.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Mr. Anon

    Right. As bad as Hillary is, Elizabeth Warren is even worse. She sounds hysterical and upset, as if she is about to burst into tears, as she shrieks out her speeches. She sounds like a crazy, out-of-control woman. Not at all someone you'd want to invest with authority.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  43. Hm, I wonder? Does lack of verbal fluency work as an inoculation against byzantine thinking?

    OT (save some byzantine thinking on my part):

    I think I understand why Hillary is so popular with much of the media (i.e., “big money”) and it’s not (only) that she can be bought. The power the media has over her is that they can use the Benghazi 9/11 to destroy her at the drop of a hat. She will do anything to keep that story simmering on the back-burner.

    Didn’t she call Trump a puppet at their last debate?

    Can anyone say projection?

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Coemgen

    Ignore the "lack of verbal fluency" link. I'm well aware that "lack of verbal fluency" in no way, shape, or manner indicates a limited vocabulary (and the converse).

  44. @eah
    nut...screwball...crude...rude...the TV funhouse that is his brain...

    Etc etc -- with friends like that...

    Perhaps the worst part of her ridiculous screed:

    Mr. Trump’s great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party’s leaders didn’t know!

    Actually I think they knew -- eg their switchboards lit up for every amnesty bill -- they just didn't fucking care -- because they had become accustomed to serving the donor class, not listening to ordinary voters -- Mr Trump has made this valid point emphatically ('drain the swamp').

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @Mr. Anon, @Questionator

    “Actually I think they knew — eg their switchboards lit up for every amnesty bill — they just didn’t fucking care — because they had become accustomed to serving the donor class, not listening to ordinary voters — Mr Trump has made this valid point emphatically (‘drain the swamp’).”

    True. The Republican party knew what their constituents wanted. They just dishonestly ignored it and pretended it wasn’t so.

  45. Exactly. This analysis was spot on. She even alludes to the problem with her own argument here:

    Sane Donald Trump, just to start, would look normal and happy, not grim and glowering. He would be able to hear and act on good advice.

    But of course running against the Republican party establishment as an anti-immigration, anti-establishment, anti-NAFTA, anti-TPP, anti-European Union, anti-George W Bush, anti-Bush family in general, anti-Iraq War therefore anti-Cheney, anti-Syrian Refugee, anti-Koch Brothers, anti-Nation Building, anti-Overthrow Assad, anti-Putin-is-the-new-Hitler, anti-WWIII… republican candidate would have in point of fact been against all of the advice any of the usual Republican advisors or strategists would’ve given him had he sought it out. Therefore he didn’t.

    And notice no one ever questions the sanity of the Republican Party establishment’s policy objectives in terms of the actual results achieved. Trump only appears insane because everything he has said was so out of lock step with the rest of the political establishment. But on closer examination it should be apparent to everyone that his policies are more firmly grounded in reality than the media at first noticed.

  46. @Coemgen
    Hm, I wonder? Does lack of verbal fluency work as an inoculation against byzantine thinking?

    OT (save some byzantine thinking on my part):

    I think I understand why Hillary is so popular with much of the media (i.e., "big money") and it's not (only) that she can be bought. The power the media has over her is that they can use the Benghazi 9/11 to destroy her at the drop of a hat. She will do anything to keep that story simmering on the back-burner.

    Didn't she call Trump a puppet at their last debate?

    Can anyone say projection?

    Replies: @Coemgen

    Ignore the “lack of verbal fluency” link. I’m well aware that “lack of verbal fluency” in no way, shape, or manner indicates a limited vocabulary (and the converse).

  47. “He was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world.”

    As they say?

    Now, say my name………….

    …………………………….Sailer.

    You’re God damned right

  48. @Anonymous
    This is just the sort of thing I discuss with friends and family who either hate Trump or like Clinton.

    Trump has proven that quite a few people will vote for anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-immigration pro-us/anti-them type politicians. Other would-be politicians will copy him. Those others, at least some of them, are likely to be more eloquent, more nuanced, and more stable than Trump. Then whatcha gonna do?

    Replies: @Jack D, @27 year old, @No_0ne

    Then whatcha gonna do?

    Duh. Assassinate their character. Call them Nazis and racists. Dig up dirt about their sex lives. Have women come forward to make false accusations. Etc. Easy peasy. See Alinsky Rule #12.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Jack D


    Duh. Assassinate their character. Call them Nazis and racists. Dig up dirt about their sex lives. Have women come forward to make false accusations. Etc. Easy peasy. See Alinsky Rule #12.
     
    And if that doesn't work, there's always the trump card: the Long/Wallace treatment.
  49. Yeah, Trump’s the crazy one. But dismantling our industrial base, importing tens of millions of third worlders, destroying the middle class, inciting black mobs to riot and kill police, destroying the Fourth Estate and fighting endless losing wars in the Middle East, not to mention “safe spaces”, trigger warnings, microaggressions and custom made pronouns – THAT’S NOT CRAZY.

    I’ll take Trump’s brand of crazy any day over that.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  50. Comparing Clinton’s public words and deeds with Trump’s I have no trouble concluding Trump is sane and Clinton is not. And Clinton’s public insanity is apocalypticaly terrifying.

    The private side of Clinton, which has by now been revealed in a consistent manner by dozens of exposes, suggests that the creature is far more demented than her public persona reveals.

    Noonan has gone full out cuckservative establishment at this point. Her next job will probably be Soros’s social secretary.

  51. “It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn’t want to, not right now!”

    I agree with this somewhat. You can rein in social security, but dont dare do it while you’re telling me that we need to spend $700 billion on defense and send $3 billion a year to Israel.

    • Replies: @CAL
    @Wilkey

    It's not that. It's the cutting entitlement spending while adding people to the entitlement roles via refugees and illegals.

  52. @Wilkey
    "It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn’t want to, not right now!"

    I agree with this somewhat. You can rein in social security, but dont dare do it while you're telling me that we need to spend $700 billion on defense and send $3 billion a year to Israel.

    Replies: @CAL

    It’s not that. It’s the cutting entitlement spending while adding people to the entitlement roles via refugees and illegals.

  53. @SFG
    @Spotted Toad

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @SPMoore8, @Detective Club, @anonn, @Busby, @ben tillman

    We were told by W. that if we didn’t fight them over there we would have to fight them over here, but a Nigerian cab driver told me it was because W. got a passionate phone call from the Prime Minister of Israel.

    W. hatever . . .

    The March, 2003 fun-time invasion of Iraq didn’t turn out to be the amusing kill video game it was supposed to be – – – now did it!

    These days you can’t tell your run-of-the-mill terrorist/refugee without a CIA scorecard. Let’s go rebels! Let’s not go rebels! Let’s go rebels! Etc., Rinse and Repeat, when necessary – – – which is frequently.

  54. @eah
    nut...screwball...crude...rude...the TV funhouse that is his brain...

    Etc etc -- with friends like that...

    Perhaps the worst part of her ridiculous screed:

    Mr. Trump’s great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party’s leaders didn’t know!

    Actually I think they knew -- eg their switchboards lit up for every amnesty bill -- they just didn't fucking care -- because they had become accustomed to serving the donor class, not listening to ordinary voters -- Mr Trump has made this valid point emphatically ('drain the swamp').

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @Mr. Anon, @Questionator

    Actually I think they knew — eg their switchboards lit up for every amnesty bill — they just didn’t fucking care — because they had become accustomed to serving the donor class, not listening to ordinary voters

    More important than donors are media attitudes and coverage.

  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @wren
    As they say? Looks like some of Steve's thinking has established itself in the establishment. Yikes!

    May this be only the bleeding edge.

    Or the tip of the wedge, perhaps.

    Replies: @wren, @Anonymous

    As they say? Looks like some of Steve’s thinking has established itself in the establishment. Yikes!

    From Wikileaks email dump:

    >>Sailer is his name.

    >>>Can’t we just drone him?

    >>We’ve tried. We’ve tried all kinds of drones to take him out.
    >>We even had a drone disguised as a predatory hawk.
    >>We tried to get him but only took out his rabbit.
    >>We’ve even used a predator drone to take him out
    >>when he brought out his garbage.
    >>It missed him and went into his garage causing a mess.

    • LOL: Danindc
  56. “A ‘sane Trump’ would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone.”

    There are two possibilities here. One is that politicians will look at Donald Trump and assume that his political positions and his cookiness go hand-in-hand. The other is that insane Trump may have opened up a space for a sane version of Trump – someone who understands the dire situation we are in and voices it without seeming unhinged.

    It blows my mind that the Republican Party still fails to realize how angry and frustrated the Republican voters are. That disgust has been obvious since at least 2010, but leaders prefer to ignore it and extinguish it rather than address it. Here in Utah we tossed out the late, unlamented establishment buttboy Senator Bennett back in 2010. The response of the Republican establishment was essentially to kill the traditional caucus/primary system so that no incumbent ever faced that kind of a threat again.

    Bennett supported the policies that gave us mass immigration, 15 million illegals, the Iraq War, and the 2008 economic meltdown. Did he apologize for any of that while he was on his deathbed? No. Instead, he allegedly apologized for the way this country treats Muslims. But the Republican delegates at the 2010 state convention were supposed the crazy ones for kicking that incompetent old geezer to the curb.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @Wilkey

    It blows my mind that the Republican Party still fails to realize how angry and frustrated the Republican voters are

    The party cannot take up for them because it would be crucified by the media.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

  57. I agree with Peggy Noonan’s essay.

    Donald Trump spends all his time on television interviews and on mass audiences.

    It seems to me that he doesn’t spend any significant time or energy in mastering the major issues. He doesn’t read much about them, and he doesn’t discuss them much with experts.

    His understanding of the major issues is about the same as it was two years ago. He is intellectually lazy and superficial. He really does not have the temperament to be the US President.

    I favored him in the autumn of 2015, but I expected that he would master the issues and improve his demeanor. When it became obvious to me that he never would do so, I switched my support to Ted Cruz.

    Trump is a scatter-brain buffoon, but I will vote for him anyway, because of the immigration issue.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Mike Sylwester

    I've listened to his immigration and foreign policy speeches. How much detail is a chief executive supposed to master? America First. Build the Wall. No more Muslims. He will have the services of thousands of underlings to call upon to work out the details.

    St. Ronald was no Master Of The Major Issues. He had a handful of deeply felt principles and hired smart people. He won the Cold War and overhauled the ridiculous pre-TEFRA tax code.

    As for temperament, I want him mad. Our enemies are ruthless and have zero empathy for us.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    , @Questionator
    @Mike Sylwester

    But he has chosen Sessions and Stephen Miller.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

  58. @Thirdtwin
    Trump is a nut. He's a known germaphobe who doesn't like to push elevator buttons or shake hands. So how does a guy that nutty about germs end up groping so many strange women, including a porn star? Something is not adding up here.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Their hands were not the part that he was interested in shaking.

    Howard Hughes was also a billionaire germophobe with a long list of female conquests.

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds – humans don’t always behave according to “rules”.

    Sex is a strong motivator and can overcome a lot of qualms. Think of all the species where the critter actually is willing to die for sex. Catching a cold is a small price to pay for some nooky with a hot cookie.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Jack D

    If Trump was a serial groper there would be video of this such as there is for Joe Biden:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6IL5u5U39Qo

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Jack D


    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds
     
    Because inconsistency is such a helpful trait, wonderfully suited to analysis, mathematics and especially computing. And Emerson was the founder of "American religion" and so propagating Emersonian nonsense (poetic license, after all) is just what the body politic needs - especially now.

    the critter actually is willing to die for sex
     
    Jack, it looks like you got the cold shoulder from the head cheerleader - but would you really have died for nooky with a hot cookie?

    Replies: @guest

  59. @Rob McX
    "Sanity" and "eccentricity" are constructs foisted on us by the ruling elite via the media and entertainment industry, the same as "racism", "hate speech", etc. The media have decided the best way to beat Trump is to package him as a dangerous nut who might do anything if elected. This is the guy who opposes going to war with any other country and opening America's borders to terrorists.

    Replies: @NOTA

    Trump isn’t consistently against invade the world; my take is that he’s just less gung-ho about it than Hillary or the neocons, and so comes off as dovish.

  60. @TheBoom
    Noonan has a good writing style but she proves herself to be as vacuous and hypocritical as the next globalist "conservative." The only thing that they want to conserve is globalist power and its agenda.

    Globalist conservatives such as Noonan lambasted Trump for being light on specifics when he announced. What specifics he had were, of course, horrendous and neanderthal to the globalists. He has steadily fleshed out the specifics of his proposals and they, in turn, have increasingly focused on style over substance. The reason they focus on the style is that they will never support someone who wants to (or even might) destroy the globalist cabal that controls both parties.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Noonan ridiculed McCain picking Palin in 2008 and then voted for Obama. She is hardly a conservative.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Jim Don Bob


    Noonan ridiculed McCain picking Palin in 2008 and then voted for Obama. She is hardly a conservative.
     
    Noonan prostituted herself so she could hang out with the Kool Kids in NYC. (Not realizing that prostitutes are always on the outside.) But her desire to be in the clique has been checked by her conscience. Even so, she still wants to preserve her status and position - whoring be damned - and ought to be read in that light.
    , @TheBoom
    @Jim Don Bob

    She poses though as a conservative and is representative of the globalist ilk.

  61. @Parsifal
    A "sane Trump" would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone.

    Replies: @Lot, @Chief Seattle, @e

    The boorishness, the hyperbole….all tools….he’s not a “nut,” that’s where she’s wrong. Noonan has been around long enough to know people who know how Trump behaves in non-public company. He not a nut.

  62. His unpolished rhetoric is a large part of his appeal. He may be an a-hole but he’s our a-hole type of thinking.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @Thea

    He isn't an a-hole.

  63. “It’s not that. It’s the cutting entitlement spending while adding people to the entitlement roles via refugees and illegals.”

    Well frankly it’s both.

    I think the problem we have with entitlement spending is the assumption that elderly adults should live on their own rather than with their grown children. So many of our policies are based on the assumption that Americans should be as atomized as possible, and all of the added expenses that creates.

    Young working Americans are being taxed to death to support an atomized society we simply cannot afford.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    In an ideal world, each American family would take care of its own elderly and each elderly person, not wishing to be a burden to his or her family (mostly her - the men die first) would take measures to amass enough savings during their working years so as not to be dependent.

    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven't helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck before they can get their hand on them, many elderly would live in extreme poverty. Ideally there would be some kind of forced 401(k) program where you at least got to decide where to invest your own money, but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government (which doesn't "invest" your ss taxes at all - they spend that money and more the minute they get it and hope that they can tax people in the future).

    But under a Hillary administration, the only solution will be more and more taxes on the "rich". That's really her only plan for anything.

    Taxes on the "rich" have a way of turning out to be taxes on the middle class. The truly rich have legions of lawyers and accountants (as Trump did) to figure out ways to avoid taxes.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Stan Adams

    , @27 year old
    @Wilkey

    > the assumption that elderly adults should live on their own rather than with their grown children

    Allow the grown children to bill Medicare?

    , @Joe Schmoe
    @Wilkey




    I think the problem we have with entitlement spending is the assumption that elderly adults should live on their own rather than with their grown children. So many of our policies are based on the assumption that Americans should be as atomized as possible, and all of the added expenses that creates.
     
    I know so many 70+ aged women who live alone in four bedroom houses. Meanwhile their own kids are having trouble buying homes. Notice how the media denigrates adult children who live with their parents. It goes like this, "He is a loser living in mom's basement." Uh, mom wouldn't have that basement nor the house to go with it without social security which the "loser" pays through his FICA. Anyway, the loser in mom's basement is always a guy. Always. You never see the media denigrate women for living at home. But women get the message perhaps even more clearly than guys. Guys are practical and stay in the basement because it makes financial sense. Women, generally more lacking in financial sense, have the emotional need to show they are "better" and fork over money till deep in debt to show they are "making it." So, here we as a country are like 20 something women deep in student loan debt for an education we didn't understand supporting an economy filled with 70+ year olds living alone in four bedroom houses. The young and fertile are unmarried and in financial straits trying to keep it all going and importing scab labor as a band aid.

    No, Trump isn't the crazy one.
  64. Sane Donald Trump would have been ignored by the establishment. It took an iconoclast to move the Overton window.

  65. @Wilkey
    "A 'sane Trump' would have never made it up to here. He would have either cucked out or sold out or would have been drowned out by the Megaphone."

    There are two possibilities here. One is that politicians will look at Donald Trump and assume that his political positions and his cookiness go hand-in-hand. The other is that insane Trump may have opened up a space for a sane version of Trump - someone who understands the dire situation we are in and voices it without seeming unhinged.

    It blows my mind that the Republican Party still fails to realize how angry and frustrated the Republican voters are. That disgust has been obvious since at least 2010, but leaders prefer to ignore it and extinguish it rather than address it. Here in Utah we tossed out the late, unlamented establishment buttboy Senator Bennett back in 2010. The response of the Republican establishment was essentially to kill the traditional caucus/primary system so that no incumbent ever faced that kind of a threat again.

    Bennett supported the policies that gave us mass immigration, 15 million illegals, the Iraq War, and the 2008 economic meltdown. Did he apologize for any of that while he was on his deathbed? No. Instead, he allegedly apologized for the way this country treats Muslims. But the Republican delegates at the 2010 state convention were supposed the crazy ones for kicking that incompetent old geezer to the curb.

    Replies: @Questionator

    It blows my mind that the Republican Party still fails to realize how angry and frustrated the Republican voters are

    The party cannot take up for them because it would be crucified by the media.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe
    @Questionator



    It blows my mind that the Republican Party still fails to realize how angry and frustrated the Republican voters are

     

    The party cannot take up for them because it would be crucified by the media.
     
    That pretty clearly establishes that the media are really just the spokespeople for the democrat party.
  66. @Mike Sylwester
    I agree with Peggy Noonan's essay.

    Donald Trump spends all his time on television interviews and on mass audiences.

    It seems to me that he doesn't spend any significant time or energy in mastering the major issues. He doesn't read much about them, and he doesn't discuss them much with experts.

    His understanding of the major issues is about the same as it was two years ago. He is intellectually lazy and superficial. He really does not have the temperament to be the US President.

    I favored him in the autumn of 2015, but I expected that he would master the issues and improve his demeanor. When it became obvious to me that he never would do so, I switched my support to Ted Cruz.

    Trump is a scatter-brain buffoon, but I will vote for him anyway, because of the immigration issue.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Questionator

    I’ve listened to his immigration and foreign policy speeches. How much detail is a chief executive supposed to master? America First. Build the Wall. No more Muslims. He will have the services of thousands of underlings to call upon to work out the details.

    St. Ronald was no Master Of The Major Issues. He had a handful of deeply felt principles and hired smart people. He won the Cold War and overhauled the ridiculous pre-TEFRA tax code.

    As for temperament, I want him mad. Our enemies are ruthless and have zero empathy for us.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Yes.

    Micromanagers fare poorly in the Oval Office.

    Jimmy Carter was a micromanager. Bill Clinton was a micromanager who floundered for most of his first term.

    Six months after the inauguration, Bill had a 37% approval rating:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXJmDMPbguo#t=0m43s

    (The "moderate" he named to the Supreme Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)

    The Republicans famously took control of both houses of Congress in 1994.

    Bill was on shaky ground politically until about a year before the election, when Gingrich shut down the government. The public blamed the GOP for the budget mess.

    He was re-elected (with only 48% of the vote) because a) the economy was roaring, thanks to the tech boom; b) Bob Dole was an incredibly weak candidate, akin to McCain in '08; and c) Ross Perot ran again, taking 8% of the vote.

    As for Hillary's managerial skills, she micromanaged her health-care project into oblivion. Look at the mess she made of the State Department. I wouldn't trust her to run a lemonade stand.

  67. @Mike Sylwester
    I agree with Peggy Noonan's essay.

    Donald Trump spends all his time on television interviews and on mass audiences.

    It seems to me that he doesn't spend any significant time or energy in mastering the major issues. He doesn't read much about them, and he doesn't discuss them much with experts.

    His understanding of the major issues is about the same as it was two years ago. He is intellectually lazy and superficial. He really does not have the temperament to be the US President.

    I favored him in the autumn of 2015, but I expected that he would master the issues and improve his demeanor. When it became obvious to me that he never would do so, I switched my support to Ted Cruz.

    Trump is a scatter-brain buffoon, but I will vote for him anyway, because of the immigration issue.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Questionator

    But he has chosen Sessions and Stephen Miller.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @Questionator


    But he has chosen Sessions and Stephen Miller.
     
    I will vote for Trump because of the immigration issue.
  68. “Trump is nuts” is simply a sadly successful bit of political propaganda. He’s quite obviously not nuts and has demonstrated so in decades in the limelight. Not even a little bit nuts.

    He simply doesn’t speak in the spineless, lawyerly doublespeak we’ve come to simultaneously loathe and demand from our politicians.

    That so many people are suckered into believing otherwise is dispiriting.

  69. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    It’s not a surprise that a guy who makes his living in real estate is the only one in this election cycle who’s defending America’s real estate so vehemently. Trump understands the concept of hanging onto your land and keeping it from being overrun by undesirables who drive it into economic ruin far better than the other candidates do. Trump knows full well that a heavy concentration of the wrong people will create a cesspit no one can clean up. As a big city land mogul, he’s probably spent a certain amount of time pondering what happened to Detroit more deeply than you’d expect.

  70. @Wilkey
    "It’s not that. It’s the cutting entitlement spending while adding people to the entitlement roles via refugees and illegals."

    Well frankly it's both.

    I think the problem we have with entitlement spending is the assumption that elderly adults should live on their own rather than with their grown children. So many of our policies are based on the assumption that Americans should be as atomized as possible, and all of the added expenses that creates.

    Young working Americans are being taxed to death to support an atomized society we simply cannot afford.

    Replies: @Jack D, @27 year old, @Joe Schmoe

    In an ideal world, each American family would take care of its own elderly and each elderly person, not wishing to be a burden to his or her family (mostly her – the men die first) would take measures to amass enough savings during their working years so as not to be dependent.

    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven’t helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck before they can get their hand on them, many elderly would live in extreme poverty. Ideally there would be some kind of forced 401(k) program where you at least got to decide where to invest your own money, but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government (which doesn’t “invest” your ss taxes at all – they spend that money and more the minute they get it and hope that they can tax people in the future).

    But under a Hillary administration, the only solution will be more and more taxes on the “rich”. That’s really her only plan for anything.

    Taxes on the “rich” have a way of turning out to be taxes on the middle class. The truly rich have legions of lawyers and accountants (as Trump did) to figure out ways to avoid taxes.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Jack D


    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven’t helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck...
     
    They wouldn't spend every cent like that if they didn't know they could count on Social Security.

    Replies: @27 year old, @Jack D, @Wilkey, @Grace Jones

    , @Stan Adams
    @Jack D


    but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government
     
    Absolutely.

    In many cases, you can't even trust your own relatives.

    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.

    One of my relatives squandered the bulk of her husband's estate - several million in the bank and maybe a million-and-a-half in real estate - on leeching relatives and bad investments (recommended by forked-tongued financial "advisers"). She was almost broke even before she reached the point of full-blown senility.

    At one point, she took out a sizable personal loan - an amount well into the six figures - and blew through it in two years like an addict on a cocaine binge.

    In such situations, the real fun starts when the grubby relatives start pointing fingers at one another and filing lawsuits, leaving the elderly person to rot. Family reunions become scenes of hysterical denunciations.

    I, myself, was witness to one memorable conversation, the gist of which was: "You only gave me a $50,000 gift, instead of the $100,000 one that I asked for ... I'm not coming to your funeral! And don't you dare try to cut me out of your will!"

    (This, despite the fact that this person had been given tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. These were not loans - they were gifts.)

    Another relative, on being reminded that he had already been given tens of thousands of dollars to help pay for his child's education, said: "Well, it's not as if she gave the money to me, for my needs. It was for my kid. She's only given me, personally, maybe fifty thousand dollars. I should be getting a lot more."

    I once knew another old lady - a family friend - who had an adopted son. She and her late husband had run a thriving business for many years, but she was comfortably retired when I knew her. She and her son were pretty much estranged - barely on speaking terms - by the time he reached adulthood. He lived up north and rarely came down to see her, even on holidays. She always lamented this fact, and expressed the hope that one day they'd reconcile.

    When she had a stroke, her son immediately flew down, got her to sign her rights away, dumped her in a nursing home, sold her house, and made off with her money. When my mother called to inquire as to how she was doing, her son rudely cut my mother off, told her never to call again, and hung up. (He said the same thing to several of her friends.) She ended up dying in the nursing home not too long afterward.

    (We were unable to locate her before she died - the nursing home was in another state and the son wouldn't tell anyone where she'd gone.)

    And then there was yet another guy I knew - another family friend. He selflessly took care of his invalid mother for many years. After she died, his AWOL siblings showed up, screwed him out of his share of the inheritance, and went merrily on their way.

    And I knew a middle-aged lady - a neighbor - who served as a longtime caretaker for her aged uncle. She committed suicide after he died and her cousins screwed her over.

    (A bit drastic, I agree. The day after he died, they evicted her from his house and she had nowhere else to go. She had no money. I saw her on that day. She was so morose-looking that I took pity on her and offered to let her sleep on my sofa for a few days, until she figured something out. She said she'd think about it. The next day, another neighbor told me that she'd overdosed overnight. Her cousin found her lying dead on the kitchen floor.)

    Middle-class and upper-middle-class folks will enthusiastically betray their cousins, and their sisters and brothers, and even their mothers and fathers, for the sake of a few extra bucks. It happens all the time. It's sad. But it's human nature.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @AndrewR, @Kylie, @Olorin

  71. @jb
    Whenever possible in my comments in the New York Times I have been making the exact same point that Noonan is making (Sane Trump wins big!), in the hope that maybe some current or prospective Republican politician might read my comment, and it might suddenly dawn on him that Donald Trump's positions are extraordinary popular with the American people -- certainly on the Right, and to some degree even on the Left -- and that the only thing standing between Donald Trump and a historic landslide victory is his sorry personality. I encourage everyone to push this narrative, because I think it's the best way forward, and because the other side will be pushing a counter-narrative that says that Trump's positions are losers, and he only got as far as he did because his supporters are terrible people who liked Trump because of his terribleness, not in spite of it.

    While I am going to vote for Trump, I have to acknowledge that he is one of the least qualified candidates ever. In fact I wonder if perhaps the best outcome would be that Trump loses an extremely tight race, making it impossible to deny the popularity of his positions, and inciting a takeover of the Republican party be Trumpist insurgents, and a better Trumpist candidate in 2020. Probably a pipe dream of course. What I do know is that if Trump wins I will be simultaneously ecstatic and terrified.

    Replies: @newyorker, @Chrisnonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Trump starts the revolution; now someone is needed to finish it. Who can play the earnest pragmatic Brigham Young to Trump’s charismatic and undisciplined Joseph Smith, or Paul the apostle to Jesus Christ?

  72. Like many high functioning female, Noonan shares an elevated ability to lay out the dots and an inability to connect them together.

    –“Nut” reveals the Republican Establishment for what they are, and what their own constituents knew them to be.

    –Sixteen persons certified not to be nuts failed to even discuss those things which the base expected of them, a repeat of nearly thirty years of experience.

    –If only it had been someone entirely different to stake out these positions he would win.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @james wilson

    –If only it had been someone entirely different to stake out these positions he would win.

    If he had the support of mainstream Republican leadership, he would win.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  73. @Anonymous
    This is just the sort of thing I discuss with friends and family who either hate Trump or like Clinton.

    Trump has proven that quite a few people will vote for anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-immigration pro-us/anti-them type politicians. Other would-be politicians will copy him. Those others, at least some of them, are likely to be more eloquent, more nuanced, and more stable than Trump. Then whatcha gonna do?

    Replies: @Jack D, @27 year old, @No_0ne

    >Then whatcha gonna do?

    Not care because they will lose (at the national level) due to demographics

  74. Taxes on the “rich” have a way of turning out to be taxes on the middle class.

    Boy, did Dixie ever learn that lesson. Only Virginia and Florida rejected the 16th Amendment. Now the rest of them wish they did, too.

    Well, at least they’re “profiting”, in that their poor neighbors pay little or nothing, and get federal bennies.

  75. Sane Donald Trump, just to start, would look normal and happy, not grim and glowering. He would be able to hear and act on good advice.

    Trump looks as happy as Reagan did, considering the circumstances. Like Reagan, Trump has a naturally sunny disposition. If he didn’t, he would have curled up in a ball after that Access Hollywood tape came out.

    “Grim and glowering” doesn’t describe Trump at all.

    And as for hearing and acting on good advice, there are two obvious examples from the campaign:

    1) Picking Pence as a running mate, despite his preference for Christie or Newt.

    2) Agreeing to start using a teleprompter.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @Dave Pinsen

    He appears to respect and take advice from Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller.

  76. Trump is the sane one, it’s conventional wisodom that has taken a hit. Trump’s major achievement is Red-Pilling. There are no longer arguments about whether or not globalism is dominant ideology of the Establishment, if the Democratic party/Federal Government is in collusion with the press, or if the US has open borders with a pipeline from the Third World. You either support these things or you do not.

    In the early 2000’s, accusations of treasonous internationalism by a presidential candidate would have been met with vehement denials and accusations of paranoia. In 2016 they are met with Obama and HRC coming out in vocal support of it. None of this, nor the recent Wikileaks email dump or Project Veritas reporting would have carried the same weight minus the Trump phenomenon. If the GOP thinks it can reconstitute itself into the party of NeoCons in 2017 it is delusional. Just read the comments sections on mainstream web sites to see how the points of the discussion have changed. Trump has ushered in a new paradigm.

  77. @whorefinder
    I'm glad you brought up George Steinbrenner, Steve. I've noted for a little while that Trump shares similar qualities to Steinbrenner and Rudy Giuliani, two other successful New York-Republican types:

    -loud and garrulous
    -brash
    -politically incorrect
    -insulting to people that, previously, everyone was reverential to (e.g. Giuliani's refusal to meet with Al Sharpton, Steinbrenner ripping on Dave Winfield for not trying hard enough)
    -beloved by those who work for him (truly beloved; Steinbrenner's death brought tears to the eyes of almost every Yankee organization worker, and Trump's workers have been nearly universal in praising him)
    -obsessed with improving the legacy and restoring the honor to a dilapidated organization/place (Steinbrenner restored the Yankees into the premier franchise after they;d become loser-cheapskates in a crap ballpark in a crap neighborhood , Giuliani restoring his city from "Escape from New York" back into "On the Town" by means of "You've Got Mail")
    -self-made

    In short, all three men behave like benevolent rich men types from 1930s, 40s, and 50s movies: self-absorbed, combative, and loud mouthed but soft-hearted and willing to help out a truly in need person or an oppressed man who has the talent to succeed. They love themselves, but they love their fellow man as well. They see America as an opportunity, not something to be looted (the Left).

    Replies: @Danindc

    Well said whorefinder. Now go find me some whores.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Danindc


    Well said whorefinder. Now go find me some whores.
     
    Why would you think Whorefinder would find you whores? He finds his own whores. And you should find your own whores. If you are wondering where to look try the Capitol, the White House or any administrative agency in DC.
  78. @Dave Pinsen

    Sane Donald Trump, just to start, would look normal and happy, not grim and glowering. He would be able to hear and act on good advice.
     
    Trump looks as happy as Reagan did, considering the circumstances. Like Reagan, Trump has a naturally sunny disposition. If he didn't, he would have curled up in a ball after that Access Hollywood tape came out.


    "Grim and glowering" doesn't describe Trump at all.

    And as for hearing and acting on good advice, there are two obvious examples from the campaign:

    1) Picking Pence as a running mate, despite his preference for Christie or Newt.

    2) Agreeing to start using a teleprompter.

    Replies: @Questionator

    He appears to respect and take advice from Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller.

  79. There is no “Sane Trump”. If we’d had a candidate expressing the same ideas, but in a more eloquent and less combative manner, he’d still be Literally Hitler. They don’t hate Trump for his personality – they hate him for the ideas he’s embraced.

    Steve is mild-mannered and well-spoken. Has that stopped anybody from calling him a racist?

  80. @countenance
    One of Trump's virtues is that he never thinks of anything in intensely ideological terms.

    BTW, Peggy Noonan hates white people.

    Replies: @Danindc, @David In TN

    Nah – she has a good heart but wants to stay in the good graces of the establishment. She is definitely not the enemy.

  81. Tom Tancredo is a “sane Donald Trump”. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have the option of paying his own way when the donors shun him, and he lacks the showmanship to fire up the big crowds.

    • Agree: CJ
    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    @International Jew

    He's also vehemently pro-war, which disqualifies him in my book.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @International Jew

    Tom Tancredo is quite short, too.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @International Jew

    I have a somewhat favorable impression of Tancredo, but calling him "a 'sane Donald Trump'" may be an unfortunate example of what you are promoting. I believe it is an open secret in Colorado that Tancredo escaped service in the Vietnam war by pleading insanity.

  82. @jim jones
    I enjoy watching Trump rallies because they are good-natured and full of happy energy, the man speaks common sense and people respond with a sigh of relief:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snou8qrElnM

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    Yeah, Trump doesn’t look “grim and glowering” there at all.

    It’s Orwellian how Trump has been characterized by the mainstream media during this campaign, despite him having been in the public eye for four decades.

    They say Trump’s got a scary temperament. Is there one example of Trump laying a hand on anyone in anger in the last 40 years? Or physically exhibiting anger in another way (throwing or breaking some object)? How about a phone recording of Trump cursing someone out?

    • Replies: @johnnygeo
    @Dave Pinsen


    Is there one example of Trump laying a hand on anyone in anger in the last 40 years?
     
    I guess not counting Vince McMahon?
  83. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    In an ideal world, each American family would take care of its own elderly and each elderly person, not wishing to be a burden to his or her family (mostly her - the men die first) would take measures to amass enough savings during their working years so as not to be dependent.

    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven't helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck before they can get their hand on them, many elderly would live in extreme poverty. Ideally there would be some kind of forced 401(k) program where you at least got to decide where to invest your own money, but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government (which doesn't "invest" your ss taxes at all - they spend that money and more the minute they get it and hope that they can tax people in the future).

    But under a Hillary administration, the only solution will be more and more taxes on the "rich". That's really her only plan for anything.

    Taxes on the "rich" have a way of turning out to be taxes on the middle class. The truly rich have legions of lawyers and accountants (as Trump did) to figure out ways to avoid taxes.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Stan Adams

    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven’t helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck…

    They wouldn’t spend every cent like that if they didn’t know they could count on Social Security.

    • Replies: @27 year old
    @International Jew

    > They wouldn’t spend every cent like that if they didn’t know they could count on Social Security.

    This is typical GOP logic, and I tend to doubt that this is how people actually think. My hunch is people spending every cent and then more are not rationally responding to incentives, rather they are not thinking about their elderly years at all.

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Jack D
    @International Jew

    Maybe you wouldn't but lots of Americans would. The average net worth of an American black family is approximately zero. If you put another $X in their paychecks (for the ones that work at all) they would spend every cent of that too. Lots of Fishtown whites are the same. If they were capable of weighing the long term consequences of their actions, our prisons and diabetic wards wouldn't be full

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Wilkey
    @International Jew

    "They wouldn’t spend every cent like that if they didn’t know they could count on Social Security."

    Sane, intelligent people with a decent income don't spend every cent even when they feel they can count on social security, but it's incredibly depressing the number of people who don't save money - neither for retirement nor even for next week's rent. They don't. Lots and lots of people don't. There was a study released recently about how very few people there are who have even $1,000 in savings. It's like maybe only 50% of the country.

    Large numbers of people have to be forced to save or they won't. If people aren't forced to save then they will bring even the responsible people down with them, for example by driving up lifestyle expectations, prices for housing, etc.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @MarkinLA

    , @Grace Jones
    @International Jew

    Yeah, shame on them for wanting to eat and live indoors.

    Replies: @International Jew

  84. @Wilkey
    "It’s not that. It’s the cutting entitlement spending while adding people to the entitlement roles via refugees and illegals."

    Well frankly it's both.

    I think the problem we have with entitlement spending is the assumption that elderly adults should live on their own rather than with their grown children. So many of our policies are based on the assumption that Americans should be as atomized as possible, and all of the added expenses that creates.

    Young working Americans are being taxed to death to support an atomized society we simply cannot afford.

    Replies: @Jack D, @27 year old, @Joe Schmoe

    > the assumption that elderly adults should live on their own rather than with their grown children

    Allow the grown children to bill Medicare?

  85. @Dave Pinsen
    @jim jones

    Yeah, Trump doesn't look "grim and glowering" there at all.

    It's Orwellian how Trump has been characterized by the mainstream media during this campaign, despite him having been in the public eye for four decades.

    They say Trump's got a scary temperament. Is there one example of Trump laying a hand on anyone in anger in the last 40 years? Or physically exhibiting anger in another way (throwing or breaking some object)? How about a phone recording of Trump cursing someone out?

    Replies: @johnnygeo

    Is there one example of Trump laying a hand on anyone in anger in the last 40 years?

    I guess not counting Vince McMahon?

  86. @International Jew
    @Jack D


    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven’t helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck...
     
    They wouldn't spend every cent like that if they didn't know they could count on Social Security.

    Replies: @27 year old, @Jack D, @Wilkey, @Grace Jones

    > They wouldn’t spend every cent like that if they didn’t know they could count on Social Security.

    This is typical GOP logic, and I tend to doubt that this is how people actually think. My hunch is people spending every cent and then more are not rationally responding to incentives, rather they are not thinking about their elderly years at all.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @27 year old

    What you call my "GOP logic" is just a matter of assuming that people look out for their own interests.

    And do they? Well, if all your life you've been living at a Social Security-like standard of living (and it's such people we're talking about, right?) then spending everything you earn pre-retirement is exactly how you'd smooth out your lifetime consumption: textbook rationality!

  87. @AndrewR
    While any thinking and decent person owes Trump a great deal of gratitude for the good things he's done these past 16 months, I really don't agree that a more polished, more thoughtful and less impulsive person could not have done what he's done. Running for president is a very stressful job for anyone. A large majority of people would be unable to handle the stress and negativity. But many people much less volitile and cocky than Trump have done well campaigning for prez. You could make the argument that those people didn't face the pressure Trump has but I think there is a certain amount of pressure at which anyone who can handle that pressure can handle any pressure.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Where was this person in 2012? In 2008? In 2004? In 2000?

    You are deluding yourself if you believe that the problem is that we simply haven’t found the right person. The system is the problem. The system produces Republican candidates like Jeb and Mitt, and Democratic candidates like Barack and Hillary.

    The system smothers, absorbs, and/or destroys anyone who tries to fight against it. Sane, rational, milquetoast folks know that they cannot fight the system, so they don’t even try.

    The only kind of man who would dare to fight the system is:

    * someone with enough balls to take on everyone who’s anyone
    * someone with enough chutzpah to believe that he might win, even though everything is rigged against him
    * someone who is willing to put up with the kind of bullshit that Trump’s had to put up with
    * someone with the resources to pay his own way

    That last bullet item is the toughest nut to crack, but all of them are deal-killers. Finding someone who combines all four qualities and who is intelligent and charismatic enough to be elected president is … well-nigh impossible.

    So don’t delude yourself into thinking that, “Oh, if we had gone with Ted Cruz, Hillary would be fifty points behind.” Cruz showed the world how much of a weasel he was at the convention. And, even if he had somehow turned out to be a bona fide reformer, the media would have savaged him the way they’ve savaged Trump.

    The system is the problem. Don’t forget that.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Stan Adams


    The system is the problem. Don’t forget that.
     
    Right, because any other system would be better. Oh wait, if you don't mind, please offer five, or three, examples of a better system. (I.e. actual political systems that have worked well, not pie-in-the-sky utopian Leftist schemes that always result in torture, murder and untold suffering.)

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @guest

    , @AndrewR
    @Stan Adams

    You're deluded if you think the ground was fertile enough for a Trump-like figure in past elections. Especially in 2000. Give me a break, dude. So much has changed over the last 16 years and even the last four that it's unreal. If Trump had not run this time, trust me we would have seen a grassroots populist movement spring up that went way past anything the Tea Party could have dreamt of.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  88. @Jack D
    @Thirdtwin

    Their hands were not the part that he was interested in shaking.

    Howard Hughes was also a billionaire germophobe with a long list of female conquests.

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds - humans don't always behave according to "rules".

    Sex is a strong motivator and can overcome a lot of qualms. Think of all the species where the critter actually is willing to die for sex. Catching a cold is a small price to pay for some nooky with a hot cookie.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    If Trump was a serial groper there would be video of this such as there is for Joe Biden:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IL5u5U39Qo

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    I really don't give a damn about Trump's sex life, especially since the sex life of many prominent Dems is just as immoral or worse. Neither does Hillary. Hillary pretending that she is just shocked, shocked by this is just a bunch of hoohah to distract the rubes, but hey, if it works, it works.

  89. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Mike Sylwester

    I've listened to his immigration and foreign policy speeches. How much detail is a chief executive supposed to master? America First. Build the Wall. No more Muslims. He will have the services of thousands of underlings to call upon to work out the details.

    St. Ronald was no Master Of The Major Issues. He had a handful of deeply felt principles and hired smart people. He won the Cold War and overhauled the ridiculous pre-TEFRA tax code.

    As for temperament, I want him mad. Our enemies are ruthless and have zero empathy for us.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Yes.

    Micromanagers fare poorly in the Oval Office.

    Jimmy Carter was a micromanager. Bill Clinton was a micromanager who floundered for most of his first term.

    Six months after the inauguration, Bill had a 37% approval rating:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXJmDMPbguo#t=0m43s

    (The “moderate” he named to the Supreme Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)

    The Republicans famously took control of both houses of Congress in 1994.

    Bill was on shaky ground politically until about a year before the election, when Gingrich shut down the government. The public blamed the GOP for the budget mess.

    He was re-elected (with only 48% of the vote) because a) the economy was roaring, thanks to the tech boom; b) Bob Dole was an incredibly weak candidate, akin to McCain in ’08; and c) Ross Perot ran again, taking 8% of the vote.

    As for Hillary’s managerial skills, she micromanaged her health-care project into oblivion. Look at the mess she made of the State Department. I wouldn’t trust her to run a lemonade stand.

  90. @SPMoore8
    @SFG

    Most people were sold on the Iraq war because (1) it was going to be easy (remember Shock 'n' Awe?). (2) It was a liberation war, and there would be no anomie, guerilla war, or civil war, nor regional de-stabilization. (3) It would advance world peace because it would deprive Iraq of the NBC weapons we knew Saddam had, except, he didn't. (4) It was a socially progressive war, e.g., women's rights, with purple fingers from voting. (5) It would prevent further terrorism because Saddam was a terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 (he wasn't.)

    I think Noonan makes some good points. The main positive of Trump's campaign is that it has thrown open the Overton window on issues like the downside of the global economy, the risks and dangers associated with promiscuous immigration, the polarization of the nation along special interest lines, etc. Those issues, long occluded by the media, are now front and center and part of the national conversation. We'll see what happens next.

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @ben tillman

    “We’ll see what happens next.”

    I believe the phrase is “Woe to the conquered!”. Those issues “front and center and part of the national conversation” will be squished flatter than a highway squirrel.

    Keep fighting the good fight as long as you can, and remember the Brexiters were reported as 4 points adrift when the voting booths closed in the UK.

  91. @countenance
    One of Trump's virtues is that he never thinks of anything in intensely ideological terms.

    BTW, Peggy Noonan hates white people.

    Replies: @Danindc, @David In TN

    “BTW, Peggy Noonan hates white people.”

    She’s pretty much a four-square cuck. Years ago she wrote in the WSJ something like: “Immigrants are basically conservative.”

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @David In TN

    She was Reagan's speechwriter. Reagan gave us amnesty.

    Yes, Reagan won the Cold War, but he helped open the floodgates for the immivasion.

    , @snorlax
    @David In TN

    Noonan is a party woman. She takes the devil's advocate and/or earnestly argues on behalf of the party line of the day, whether that be Reaganism under Reagan, Trumpism under Trump, or cuckservatism under the cucks.

    I can respect that a lot more than the Kristols and Douthats of the world. Her principles are not always the same as ours, but when the situation calls for it, she's willing to eloquently defend our principles in the face of an otherwise very hostile WSJ editorial board.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  92. Ok, so I am deplorable and nuts. So be it, I’m with him.

    Peggy Noonans crowd who talk with a dialect that has no region, can clutch their pearls all they want but this isn’t going away.

  93. @International Jew
    @Jack D


    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven’t helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck...
     
    They wouldn't spend every cent like that if they didn't know they could count on Social Security.

    Replies: @27 year old, @Jack D, @Wilkey, @Grace Jones

    Maybe you wouldn’t but lots of Americans would. The average net worth of an American black family is approximately zero. If you put another $X in their paychecks (for the ones that work at all) they would spend every cent of that too. Lots of Fishtown whites are the same. If they were capable of weighing the long term consequences of their actions, our prisons and diabetic wards wouldn’t be full

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Jack D

    You've made two separate points here and I sorta agree with the second one — that if people thought ahead about nonfinancial matters they wouldn't commit crimes or overeat.

    But your first point, about the absence of financial planning, is an observation of what happens in a world where we have Social Security. It therefore tells us little about what we'd see in the absence of Social Security.

    If you've been living at a lower-middle-class or lower standard of living all your life, then counting on Social Security you're not being irresponsible at all; it's quite rational in fact.

    Doing things that will land you in prison or ruin your health: that's irresponsible.

  94. @David In TN
    @countenance

    "BTW, Peggy Noonan hates white people."

    She's pretty much a four-square cuck. Years ago she wrote in the WSJ something like: "Immigrants are basically conservative."

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @snorlax

    She was Reagan’s speechwriter. Reagan gave us amnesty.

    Yes, Reagan won the Cold War, but he helped open the floodgates for the immivasion.

  95. Anonymous [AKA "Chris Coinly"] says:

    Everyone tells me Trump is nuts, but no one explains how he is nuts or why they came to that conclusion (besides the usual tripe.

    I’d love to understand this.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    As soon as Trump stops interfering in politics, no one will ever call him insane again. If any other politician adopts his political positions, that person will also be called insane. In the Soviet Union, they used to lock up political dissidents in mental hospitals. Now do you understand?

    Replies: @Anonymous

  96. @International Jew
    Tom Tancredo is a "sane Donald Trump". Unfortunately, he doesn't have the option of paying his own way when the donors shun him, and he lacks the showmanship to fire up the big crowds.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @Harry Baldwin, @Almost Missouri

    He’s also vehemently pro-war, which disqualifies him in my book.

  97. @Coemgen
    @Jack D

    If Trump was a serial groper there would be video of this such as there is for Joe Biden:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6IL5u5U39Qo

    Replies: @Jack D

    I really don’t give a damn about Trump’s sex life, especially since the sex life of many prominent Dems is just as immoral or worse. Neither does Hillary. Hillary pretending that she is just shocked, shocked by this is just a bunch of hoohah to distract the rubes, but hey, if it works, it works.

  98. @Anonymous
    Everyone tells me Trump is nuts, but no one explains how he is nuts or why they came to that conclusion (besides the usual tripe.

    I'd love to understand this.

    Replies: @Jack D

    As soon as Trump stops interfering in politics, no one will ever call him insane again. If any other politician adopts his political positions, that person will also be called insane. In the Soviet Union, they used to lock up political dissidents in mental hospitals. Now do you understand?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    Makes sense to me.

    To be honest, as a non-American, both candidates seem like great choices to me. Besides Clinton being on the take, and her health issues, from an economic point of view I don't see a bad choice between Clinton and Trump.

    Some of you are more radical. I think you know that Trump will lead to some disruption. Historically change which occurs too soon usually is undone.

    On the other hand if your enemy is allowed to overplay his hand - given enough rope with which to hang himself - you can do permanent damage.

    Therefore if I was a radical - which I am not - I would be cheering on Clinton this electoral cycle.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @guest

  99. @james wilson
    Like many high functioning female, Noonan shares an elevated ability to lay out the dots and an inability to connect them together.

    --"Nut" reveals the Republican Establishment for what they are, and what their own constituents knew them to be.

    --Sixteen persons certified not to be nuts failed to even discuss those things which the base expected of them, a repeat of nearly thirty years of experience.

    --If only it had been someone entirely different to stake out these positions he would win.

    Replies: @Questionator

    –If only it had been someone entirely different to stake out these positions he would win.

    If he had the support of mainstream Republican leadership, he would win.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Questionator

    Yes. The GOPe have flat-out betrayed their base. Despicable.

    Replies: @guest

  100. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    In an ideal world, each American family would take care of its own elderly and each elderly person, not wishing to be a burden to his or her family (mostly her - the men die first) would take measures to amass enough savings during their working years so as not to be dependent.

    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven't helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck before they can get their hand on them, many elderly would live in extreme poverty. Ideally there would be some kind of forced 401(k) program where you at least got to decide where to invest your own money, but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government (which doesn't "invest" your ss taxes at all - they spend that money and more the minute they get it and hope that they can tax people in the future).

    But under a Hillary administration, the only solution will be more and more taxes on the "rich". That's really her only plan for anything.

    Taxes on the "rich" have a way of turning out to be taxes on the middle class. The truly rich have legions of lawyers and accountants (as Trump did) to figure out ways to avoid taxes.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Stan Adams

    but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government

    Absolutely.

    In many cases, you can’t even trust your own relatives.

    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.

    One of my relatives squandered the bulk of her husband’s estate – several million in the bank and maybe a million-and-a-half in real estate – on leeching relatives and bad investments (recommended by forked-tongued financial “advisers”). She was almost broke even before she reached the point of full-blown senility.

    At one point, she took out a sizable personal loan – an amount well into the six figures – and blew through it in two years like an addict on a cocaine binge.

    In such situations, the real fun starts when the grubby relatives start pointing fingers at one another and filing lawsuits, leaving the elderly person to rot. Family reunions become scenes of hysterical denunciations.

    I, myself, was witness to one memorable conversation, the gist of which was: “You only gave me a $50,000 gift, instead of the $100,000 one that I asked for … I’m not coming to your funeral! And don’t you dare try to cut me out of your will!”

    (This, despite the fact that this person had been given tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. These were not loans – they were gifts.)

    Another relative, on being reminded that he had already been given tens of thousands of dollars to help pay for his child’s education, said: “Well, it’s not as if she gave the money to me, for my needs. It was for my kid. She’s only given me, personally, maybe fifty thousand dollars. I should be getting a lot more.”

    I once knew another old lady – a family friend – who had an adopted son. She and her late husband had run a thriving business for many years, but she was comfortably retired when I knew her. She and her son were pretty much estranged – barely on speaking terms – by the time he reached adulthood. He lived up north and rarely came down to see her, even on holidays. She always lamented this fact, and expressed the hope that one day they’d reconcile.

    When she had a stroke, her son immediately flew down, got her to sign her rights away, dumped her in a nursing home, sold her house, and made off with her money. When my mother called to inquire as to how she was doing, her son rudely cut my mother off, told her never to call again, and hung up. (He said the same thing to several of her friends.) She ended up dying in the nursing home not too long afterward.

    (We were unable to locate her before she died – the nursing home was in another state and the son wouldn’t tell anyone where she’d gone.)

    And then there was yet another guy I knew – another family friend. He selflessly took care of his invalid mother for many years. After she died, his AWOL siblings showed up, screwed him out of his share of the inheritance, and went merrily on their way.

    And I knew a middle-aged lady – a neighbor – who served as a longtime caretaker for her aged uncle. She committed suicide after he died and her cousins screwed her over.

    (A bit drastic, I agree. The day after he died, they evicted her from his house and she had nowhere else to go. She had no money. I saw her on that day. She was so morose-looking that I took pity on her and offered to let her sleep on my sofa for a few days, until she figured something out. She said she’d think about it. The next day, another neighbor told me that she’d overdosed overnight. Her cousin found her lying dead on the kitchen floor.)

    Middle-class and upper-middle-class folks will enthusiastically betray their cousins, and their sisters and brothers, and even their mothers and fathers, for the sake of a few extra bucks. It happens all the time. It’s sad. But it’s human nature.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Stan Adams

    Yep. The viciousness of people fighting over the estates of their older relatives would put vultures to shame.

    , @AndrewR
    @Stan Adams

    And poor and rich people too.

    Damn those are some depressing stories.

    , @Kylie
    @Stan Adams

    In all seriousness, I hope your friends are better people than your relatives.

    Mine are, thank God.

    , @Olorin
    @Stan Adams


    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.
     
    Well, the system IS parasitic, Stan, and has to constantly come up with new leechable bloodstreams. Nice trusting ladies tend to be doomed without gentlemen to protect them. "Families"--faugh. Don't even get me started.

    It's not just the families, either. It's systemic. The UniParty has been trying to manipulate votes for its Coke versus its Pepsi candidates by playing on Millennials' and Gen Xers' selfishness in this way too.

    Saw a lengthy comment in these very pages just recently where someone was opining that no 70-year-old person should be allowed to live in a four-bedroom house alone (one she or he and mate bought and paid for, n.b.) when there are poor starving failure-to-launch betas in American basements.

    (Spending their money on artisan organic local weed, beer, and pizza. Oh, and iCrap and the bandwidth to support it. But we're supposed to believe that what they all want is an 80-hour-a-week high responsibility job in a STEM profession, a commute, a spouse, several children, and a house to maintain on the weekends. If you just give them grandma's house, all that will happen! Just like handouts magically make the black undertow turn middle class!)

    Then there's the mindset of the congenital wastrels. In my late 20s I crossed paths professionally with a number of North Shore Chicago ladies, some widowed, others divorced. I have never forgotten the one who, several years after having squandered a family trust of about $6 million, was mad when a casual friend inherited "close to a million!"...and didn't give her any.

    She was facing something like $150,000 in credit card debt she'd accrued. Unable to stop spending in the way that had squandered a fortune. Expecting to squander the friend's family's money in the same way. And still spending spending spending.

    I was still young, but that sense of entitlement to others' resources was a potent wake-up call: the demand was framed as Fairness and Justice and Women Helping One Another. All the ladies in question were good liberal Democrats who'd talk about how selfish all Republicans were, even though I don't think any of them had ever met one.

    I've advised various elders on self-protection where their estates or inheritances are concerned. They tend not to listen. It's like any other potency or power. Not everyone has the chops to handle it. Money is yet another thing that cannot be democratized without ill effects.

    Replies: @Questionator

  101. Let me get this straight. After all of the Islamic terrorist attacks, we continue to let Muslim foreigners pour into this country. Having learned nothing from the fiasco in Iraq (and Afghanistan and Libya), our political betters are itching for another Middle East war, but this time against a nuclear power… and Trump is the crazy one?

  102. @Stan Adams
    @Jack D


    but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government
     
    Absolutely.

    In many cases, you can't even trust your own relatives.

    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.

    One of my relatives squandered the bulk of her husband's estate - several million in the bank and maybe a million-and-a-half in real estate - on leeching relatives and bad investments (recommended by forked-tongued financial "advisers"). She was almost broke even before she reached the point of full-blown senility.

    At one point, she took out a sizable personal loan - an amount well into the six figures - and blew through it in two years like an addict on a cocaine binge.

    In such situations, the real fun starts when the grubby relatives start pointing fingers at one another and filing lawsuits, leaving the elderly person to rot. Family reunions become scenes of hysterical denunciations.

    I, myself, was witness to one memorable conversation, the gist of which was: "You only gave me a $50,000 gift, instead of the $100,000 one that I asked for ... I'm not coming to your funeral! And don't you dare try to cut me out of your will!"

    (This, despite the fact that this person had been given tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. These were not loans - they were gifts.)

    Another relative, on being reminded that he had already been given tens of thousands of dollars to help pay for his child's education, said: "Well, it's not as if she gave the money to me, for my needs. It was for my kid. She's only given me, personally, maybe fifty thousand dollars. I should be getting a lot more."

    I once knew another old lady - a family friend - who had an adopted son. She and her late husband had run a thriving business for many years, but she was comfortably retired when I knew her. She and her son were pretty much estranged - barely on speaking terms - by the time he reached adulthood. He lived up north and rarely came down to see her, even on holidays. She always lamented this fact, and expressed the hope that one day they'd reconcile.

    When she had a stroke, her son immediately flew down, got her to sign her rights away, dumped her in a nursing home, sold her house, and made off with her money. When my mother called to inquire as to how she was doing, her son rudely cut my mother off, told her never to call again, and hung up. (He said the same thing to several of her friends.) She ended up dying in the nursing home not too long afterward.

    (We were unable to locate her before she died - the nursing home was in another state and the son wouldn't tell anyone where she'd gone.)

    And then there was yet another guy I knew - another family friend. He selflessly took care of his invalid mother for many years. After she died, his AWOL siblings showed up, screwed him out of his share of the inheritance, and went merrily on their way.

    And I knew a middle-aged lady - a neighbor - who served as a longtime caretaker for her aged uncle. She committed suicide after he died and her cousins screwed her over.

    (A bit drastic, I agree. The day after he died, they evicted her from his house and she had nowhere else to go. She had no money. I saw her on that day. She was so morose-looking that I took pity on her and offered to let her sleep on my sofa for a few days, until she figured something out. She said she'd think about it. The next day, another neighbor told me that she'd overdosed overnight. Her cousin found her lying dead on the kitchen floor.)

    Middle-class and upper-middle-class folks will enthusiastically betray their cousins, and their sisters and brothers, and even their mothers and fathers, for the sake of a few extra bucks. It happens all the time. It's sad. But it's human nature.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @AndrewR, @Kylie, @Olorin

    Yep. The viciousness of people fighting over the estates of their older relatives would put vultures to shame.

  103. Articulateness isn’t a function of verbal fluency, of which I think Trump has plenty (it correlates with extraversion, where he’s ultra extreme.)

    Trump is exceedingly terse, characteristic of certain psychopaths.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    On the exact nature of "terseness": Misguided Concision: Terseness - http://disputedissues.blogspot.com/2009/07/misguided-concision-terseness.html

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  104. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Articulateness isn't a function of verbal fluency, of which I think Trump has plenty (it correlates with extraversion, where he's ultra extreme.)

    Trump is exceedingly terse, characteristic of certain psychopaths.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    On the exact nature of “terseness”: Misguided Concision: Terseness http://disputedissues.blogspot.com/2009/07/misguided-concision-terseness.html

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Most folks would understand that "My defense is compliance with the regulations" is a shorthand way of saying that "I defend myself by asserting that I complied with the regulations." It's not elegant, but it's hardly incoherent. But I suppose that a lawyer would tend to be pedantic about such things.

    Psychopaths are terse. Homicidal maniacs, such as Hillary, tend to be pithy.

    "We came, we saw, he died." [Demonic laughter]

  105. Anonymous [AKA "C Coinly"] says:
    @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    As soon as Trump stops interfering in politics, no one will ever call him insane again. If any other politician adopts his political positions, that person will also be called insane. In the Soviet Union, they used to lock up political dissidents in mental hospitals. Now do you understand?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Makes sense to me.

    To be honest, as a non-American, both candidates seem like great choices to me. Besides Clinton being on the take, and her health issues, from an economic point of view I don’t see a bad choice between Clinton and Trump.

    Some of you are more radical. I think you know that Trump will lead to some disruption. Historically change which occurs too soon usually is undone.

    On the other hand if your enemy is allowed to overplay his hand – given enough rope with which to hang himself – you can do permanent damage.

    Therefore if I was a radical – which I am not – I would be cheering on Clinton this electoral cycle.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Anonymous


    To be honest, as a non-American, both candidates seem like great choices to me. Besides Clinton being on the take, and her health issues, from an economic point of view I don’t see a bad choice between Clinton and Trump.
     
    You don't think that opening the floodgates to unlimited immigration from the Third World will have an effect on wages? Or that taxing productive citizens up the wazoo so that illegal immigrants can get free government services will have an effect on the economy as a whole?

    As an American, I'm glad that you're not voting in our election.

    (If you'd like to vote for Hillary, there's still time. Contact the Democratic Party for details. They're always happy to hear from friendly foreigners who are eager to vote in American elections.)
    , @guest
    @Anonymous

    Clinton wouldn't be so bad--again, ignoring her health and corruption--if it weren't for immigration (or if it were two decades ago) and possible war with Russia. Or foreign policy in general. But those are big deals.

    She's not a true believer like Obama, at least.

    Replies: @Questionator

  106. Trump poisoned the alt well. He’s given PC a new lease on life.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    I don't think so.

    Trump has destroyed the credibility of the mainstream media by forcing them to shill 24/7/365 for Hillary. He has made speakable thoughts that were long unspeakable (in public) and even unthinkable.

    Earlier this year, Trump was mocked for trotting out this (seemingly-misattributed) Gandhi quote: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    The alt-right is not being ignored anymore. It's not even being mocked. We're at the fighting stage. The Establishment is afraid of the alt-right. They're running scared.

    Even if Trump loses, he might end up as the Goldwater of the alt-right - the brave pioneer who ends up with fifty arrows in his back, but who marks the trail for others to follow. Goldwater was written off as a loon in '64, but he paved the way for Reagan in '80.

    That being said, I don't want to think about how bad things might be by 2032, if Hillary wins. If Trump is to be our Goldwater, then we can't wait 16 years for our Reagan. And we have to make sure that we don't end up electing a Nixon in the interim.

    Something tells me that Hillary might be our generation's Nixon. Obama is our Kennedy - overhyped and trendy, but ultimately incompetent. Bush II was a watered-down LBJ - a (transplanted) Texan brought down by his foreign misadventures.

    , @Matra
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    You mean PC was dying before Trump pumped life back into it? Ridiculous. Responding to PC with politeness and weakness (ie the conservative way) has been shown to be a failure time and time again.

  107. @Questionator
    @james wilson

    –If only it had been someone entirely different to stake out these positions he would win.

    If he had the support of mainstream Republican leadership, he would win.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Yes. The GOPe have flat-out betrayed their base. Despicable.

    • Replies: @guest
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "Despicable"

    The Deplorable over the Despicable!

  108. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Trump poisoned the alt well. He's given PC a new lease on life.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Matra

    I don’t think so.

    Trump has destroyed the credibility of the mainstream media by forcing them to shill 24/7/365 for Hillary. He has made speakable thoughts that were long unspeakable (in public) and even unthinkable.

    Earlier this year, Trump was mocked for trotting out this (seemingly-misattributed) Gandhi quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    The alt-right is not being ignored anymore. It’s not even being mocked. We’re at the fighting stage. The Establishment is afraid of the alt-right. They’re running scared.

    Even if Trump loses, he might end up as the Goldwater of the alt-right – the brave pioneer who ends up with fifty arrows in his back, but who marks the trail for others to follow. Goldwater was written off as a loon in ’64, but he paved the way for Reagan in ’80.

    That being said, I don’t want to think about how bad things might be by 2032, if Hillary wins. If Trump is to be our Goldwater, then we can’t wait 16 years for our Reagan. And we have to make sure that we don’t end up electing a Nixon in the interim.

    Something tells me that Hillary might be our generation’s Nixon. Obama is our Kennedy – overhyped and trendy, but ultimately incompetent. Bush II was a watered-down LBJ – a (transplanted) Texan brought down by his foreign misadventures.

  109. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Trump poisoned the alt well. He's given PC a new lease on life.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Matra

    You mean PC was dying before Trump pumped life back into it? Ridiculous. Responding to PC with politeness and weakness (ie the conservative way) has been shown to be a failure time and time again.

  110. “…as They Say…”

    To be filed under:
    How to publish WSJ column that half-grasps Invade the World/Invite the World idiom, with not too much clarity and depth, and prevent Deputy Editor for editorial page Bret Lewis Stephens’ ultimatum to Paul Gigot demanding my Weekend Edition slot to be switched with Bret Lewis Stephens’ (((Global View))) Tuesdays.

    Prediction:
    Noonan will be replaced by some of the full-time swamp creatures, such as Jennifer Rubin.

  111. @jb
    Whenever possible in my comments in the New York Times I have been making the exact same point that Noonan is making (Sane Trump wins big!), in the hope that maybe some current or prospective Republican politician might read my comment, and it might suddenly dawn on him that Donald Trump's positions are extraordinary popular with the American people -- certainly on the Right, and to some degree even on the Left -- and that the only thing standing between Donald Trump and a historic landslide victory is his sorry personality. I encourage everyone to push this narrative, because I think it's the best way forward, and because the other side will be pushing a counter-narrative that says that Trump's positions are losers, and he only got as far as he did because his supporters are terrible people who liked Trump because of his terribleness, not in spite of it.

    While I am going to vote for Trump, I have to acknowledge that he is one of the least qualified candidates ever. In fact I wonder if perhaps the best outcome would be that Trump loses an extremely tight race, making it impossible to deny the popularity of his positions, and inciting a takeover of the Republican party be Trumpist insurgents, and a better Trumpist candidate in 2020. Probably a pipe dream of course. What I do know is that if Trump wins I will be simultaneously ecstatic and terrified.

    Replies: @newyorker, @Chrisnonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Terrified of what? That he’ll grab Her Majesty, Queen of the UK, by the pussy? Doubtful. We already had a sexual predator in the Whitehouse, and things were pretty stable.

    You actually think Trump would start a nuclear war or attack China or something? If so, you’re falling for the media hype. It’s unlikely.

    When people say they’re afraid of a Trump presidency, they usually mean one of two things:

    (1) They’re all talk on immigration restriction and are actually afraid of seeing newspaper photos of illegals being evicted and loaded into vans to be deported. This shouldn’t be terrifying, though. It’s not cattle cars, it’s just enforcing the law. Personally, I want to see it. If we don’t see some Mexican tears, we can’t be sure we’re not overlooking people.

    (2) They’re concerned about their reputation with the non-deplorable leaders of the world like Merkel. Who cares if the Davos set doesn’t like Trump? The US is still the world’s daddy, and nobody stops trading with or listening to daddy even if they’re angry at him.

    I really can’t fathom being scared of a Trump presidency. It just sounds like imbibed MSM koolaid.

    • Replies: @jb
    @Chrisnonymous

    I'm not afraid of your 1) or 2), or of Trump starting a nuclear war; what I'm afraid of is that Trump, if he were to win, might turn out to be a terrible president across the board, to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years. I'm afraid I will cringe with embarrassment every time he opens his mouth on TV and brags about what a good brain he has, while showing only the crudest understanding of whatever issue it is that he is supposed to be dealing with. I cringe like that now when I listen to him debate! I'm afraid there will be stories about him groping women after he is elected. I'm afraid he will turn out to be totally ineffectual, because running a country is nothing at all like running a real estate empire, and he's in over his head. I'm afraid he might melt down entirely, and accomplish nothing. And he might!

    Or maybe he wouldn't. That's the problem -- I just don't know. My support for Trump is based entirely on his stated positions; I have very little confidence in the man himself. A "Sane Trump" though -- someone who could inspire both confidence from his base and at least a modicum of respect from his opponents while holding the same positions he holds now (and yes, that is possible!) -- would be a huge winner!

    Replies: @International Jew, @MarkinLA, @Ivan K.

  112. It happened because Donald Trump intuited where things were and are going.

    You would think maybe Noonan could reflect on this and figure out Trump is not insane.

    I think Trump needed more disciplined campaigning, needed to stay on message. But it’s his first campaign, he doesn’t like policy, and it’s not clear if he’s a true believer in his policy positions or just an opportunist. But–he’s not insane and not scary.

    As long as Noonan is writing senseless entertainment pieces, I wish she would call the doppleganger Bizzaro Trump instead of Sane Trump.

  113. @Yep
    Glad to see your thinking finally hit the mainstream Steve, even if they don't give you your props. I've always thought Invade the world, invite the world was one of your best memes. Maybe this is the reason for all the ddos attacks on the site lately?

    Off topic but still iSteve relevant: Christopher Nolan's brother Jonathan has made a pretty good remake of Michael Crichton's Westworld for HBO. It takes a lot of ideas from last year's Ex Machina. It's a bit slow but worth checking out.

    Replies: @Bugg, @Neither-Spiculus-Nor-Nero

    The Crichton/Yul Brenner original had many of the sam themes as did Crichton’s “Jurrassic Park” and “The Andromeda Strain”-technology will at some point run amok.Unintended consequence is almost always a consequence. So far, Nolan’s “Westworld” has a slightly different twist; man-made creation can spark something unexpected and very close to real life, the line between us and our creations is increasingly blurry and we proceed ignoring that at our peril. What happens when creation begets consciousness? Does that being have a soul? Is it a being at all? Now they could revert to a shoot’em up no different than the original (which was fun also) and there are snippets of that, but so far so good.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Bugg

    I assume the "unintended consequences" will eventually take over the storyline. Although it could all turn on what the Anthony Hopkins character has up his sleeve.

    The biggest difference for me is that the Yul Brynner character appears to have become human, in the body of Ed Harris. That's better than making him a chick, or something.

    Though now that I've said that, it occurs to me that one of the female robots will probably fulfill the sane function at some point.

  114. @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    Makes sense to me.

    To be honest, as a non-American, both candidates seem like great choices to me. Besides Clinton being on the take, and her health issues, from an economic point of view I don't see a bad choice between Clinton and Trump.

    Some of you are more radical. I think you know that Trump will lead to some disruption. Historically change which occurs too soon usually is undone.

    On the other hand if your enemy is allowed to overplay his hand - given enough rope with which to hang himself - you can do permanent damage.

    Therefore if I was a radical - which I am not - I would be cheering on Clinton this electoral cycle.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @guest

    To be honest, as a non-American, both candidates seem like great choices to me. Besides Clinton being on the take, and her health issues, from an economic point of view I don’t see a bad choice between Clinton and Trump.

    You don’t think that opening the floodgates to unlimited immigration from the Third World will have an effect on wages? Or that taxing productive citizens up the wazoo so that illegal immigrants can get free government services will have an effect on the economy as a whole?

    As an American, I’m glad that you’re not voting in our election.

    (If you’d like to vote for Hillary, there’s still time. Contact the Democratic Party for details. They’re always happy to hear from friendly foreigners who are eager to vote in American elections.)

  115. @Yep
    Glad to see your thinking finally hit the mainstream Steve, even if they don't give you your props. I've always thought Invade the world, invite the world was one of your best memes. Maybe this is the reason for all the ddos attacks on the site lately?

    Off topic but still iSteve relevant: Christopher Nolan's brother Jonathan has made a pretty good remake of Michael Crichton's Westworld for HBO. It takes a lot of ideas from last year's Ex Machina. It's a bit slow but worth checking out.

    Replies: @Bugg, @Neither-Spiculus-Nor-Nero

    Actually one of the reasons I’m looking forward to the election being over is so Steve can review movies and stuff on TV again. I hope he takes a look at Westworld.

    Per someone’s suggestion, I’m cracking open a Natty Light right now!

  116. @SFG
    @Spotted Toad

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @SPMoore8, @Detective Club, @anonn, @Busby, @ben tillman

    The replies above remember the era pretty poorly. The nation was driven insane by 9/11. The Dems largely went along because they were too scared to vote against the foolish bloodlust. You had to be a Serious Person in order to have a shot, and Seriousness in the time was defined by one’s unquestioning fealty to the Pentagon and Israel.

    The liberals of the era were also scared into thinking there was a permanent conservative majority that would prevent them from ever winning the White House again. (For those of you too young, this really happened.) The thinking was that the Republicans’ real homophobia and largely imagined racism were majority positions with the American people. While the Ds overplayed their hand on the racism, the Rs failed to see that their position on gay rights and weed is rapidly dying off. The gay marriage bans that helped win them the election in 2004 are nothing but an albatross now.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @anonn

    When you express an opinion or position, most of the world judges you based on how well that opinion matches their current view, not how accurate you turn out to have been. Thus, people who loudly opposed the Iraq war lost credibility by saying so. Even today, when almost everyone thinks it was a bad idea, essentially all the "serious foreign policy thinkers" that get any media attention were in favor of the war.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @anonn


    The replies above remember the era pretty poorly.
     
    You are delusional. The greatest mass murder of Americans, on American soil meant that someone had to lose their country. Unfortunately Bush 43 was doing his best to be the 21st century Woodrow Wilson. And the ROE were prescribed by the international Left. So we got the idiotic 'you broke it you fix it' Colin Powell program, for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But it is always nice to have a dishonest Leftist (sorry about the redundant adjective there) poke his head up out of the fever swamp to contribute.

    Replies: @NOTA, @anonn

  117. @Questionator
    @Mike Sylwester

    But he has chosen Sessions and Stephen Miller.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    But he has chosen Sessions and Stephen Miller.

    I will vote for Trump because of the immigration issue.

  118. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Questionator

    Yes. The GOPe have flat-out betrayed their base. Despicable.

    Replies: @guest

    “Despicable”

    The Deplorable over the Despicable!

  119. @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    On the exact nature of "terseness": Misguided Concision: Terseness - http://disputedissues.blogspot.com/2009/07/misguided-concision-terseness.html

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Most folks would understand that “My defense is compliance with the regulations” is a shorthand way of saying that “I defend myself by asserting that I complied with the regulations.” It’s not elegant, but it’s hardly incoherent. But I suppose that a lawyer would tend to be pedantic about such things.

    Psychopaths are terse. Homicidal maniacs, such as Hillary, tend to be pithy.

    “We came, we saw, he died.” [Demonic laughter]

  120. @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    Makes sense to me.

    To be honest, as a non-American, both candidates seem like great choices to me. Besides Clinton being on the take, and her health issues, from an economic point of view I don't see a bad choice between Clinton and Trump.

    Some of you are more radical. I think you know that Trump will lead to some disruption. Historically change which occurs too soon usually is undone.

    On the other hand if your enemy is allowed to overplay his hand - given enough rope with which to hang himself - you can do permanent damage.

    Therefore if I was a radical - which I am not - I would be cheering on Clinton this electoral cycle.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @guest

    Clinton wouldn’t be so bad–again, ignoring her health and corruption–if it weren’t for immigration (or if it were two decades ago) and possible war with Russia. Or foreign policy in general. But those are big deals.

    She’s not a true believer like Obama, at least.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @guest

    Immigration is everything.

    Replies: @guest

  121. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief
    Steve Sailer for President
    According to Fromm, beiing totally sane in an insane society is neither necessary nor reasonable.
    The hipie colusion once was: Freak out! - Which made sense for - hippies... (which is, why Frank Zappa made fun of them: To make clear, that this is hippie-stuff, and that there is a gap between the "seperate reality" (Castaneda) and - reality itself, so to speak).

    To differentiate a little more: The term "lack of verbal fluency" could make you think of a person of holy simplicity - being unspoiled and clear.

    The problem at this point of the consideration might be to get back to Trump -- in a world (the world of politics), that consists of words (for about -hm, hm: for at least - - 50%), it's very hard to keep track without verbal fluency.

    I have no idea wether George Steinbrenner could bidge this gap, since I do know nothing about him except for the few lines written above. And those lines seem a tad smaller than the gap.

    And let me add: That politics consist of words is nothing wrong at all - it's a fact.

    Final remark: Peggy Noonan's sighed question: What, if there had been a sane Donald Trump? - looks a lot as if she had thought of Steve Sailer at the very least a little bit, while she wrote this question down. Therefor: Congratulations!

    Replies: @Anon

    “looks a lot as if she had thought of Steve Sailer at the very least a little bit, while she wrote this question down.”

    Didn’t Ilana Mercer come up with ‘invade/invite’?

    Btw, I think calling Trump ‘nuts’ is extreme, indeed nutty.

    I’d agree with Noonan that Trump should have been more sensible, balanced, and judicious at times. And he overplayed the Mexican and Muslim card. That came close to demagoguery, but why is the d-label only applied to the ‘right’?
    I mean BLM, ‘rape culture’ hysteria, anti-Trump violence at rallies, anti-white vitriol, Trump-is-Hitler lunacy, and etc we hear so often from Democrats and media are far more demagogic. As for Trump-as-Siberian-Candidate(according to Paul Krugman), well well, look who is peddling conspiracy theories.

    Noonan could have made a good case that Trump has been too crude and rough. But nuts? That is establishment talking points. Supposedly, anyone who notices the power of the ruling elite must be crazy. Right, it’s nuts to see collusion between media and government, but it’s totally within bounds of sane discourse to say Putin is the puppetmaster behind Trump.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @Anon

    Noonan could have made a good case that Trump has been too crude and rough. But nuts? That is establishment talking points.

    Agree. Very, very weak on her part. Probably unforgivable.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Anon

    11 / 10 /

    I've thought a lot about Steve Sailers original article. Especially yesterday. But in the last weeks as well.

    One of the most remarkable sentences Sailer wrote in this context is the one that claims relative sanity/ and or personal stability for Trump:

    "Actually, Trump strikes me as remarkably psychologically stable under the decades of stressful situations he has thrust himself into."

    If you have a v e r y close reading of this sentence, it's one of slight mistrust - there is this part in it that speaks of stressful situations, h e has thrust himself into - - I know, there's a diffrent version in Steve Sailers sentence too, one that sounds a little bit less problematic and quite a bit more straightforward, a little bit more in the way, the legend Steinbrenner fits into Steve Sailers thoughts. And I don't want to neglect at all, that the original intention of this sentence was to articulate a (maybe slightly subdued) optimism, but some kind of optimism anyhow.

    And I do know, that this is no theoretical question any more.

    Just a sidenote: Jonathan Franzen seemed to be freaking out about the election. He told the German paper Die Welt in a lengthy interview last saturday, that he was afraid, that after the election, there'd follow at least a year of armed upheavels if not regional rebellions by militia men and the like.

    Franzen might have fallen asleep today feeling quite some relief.

    But then, the world is no totally pleasant place - Franzen might have felt a big anger as well. He had been confident last week, that Hillary Clinton would win - and that was why he worried, that yearlong shootings might lay ahead...

    Conclusion : - - in (our) days of miracle and wonder - nothing is easy - "they (even) make no jews like Jesus anymore" (Randy Newman)...Laugh/ Sigh ("Me Myself I").

  122. @Bugg
    @Yep

    The Crichton/Yul Brenner original had many of the sam themes as did Crichton's "Jurrassic Park" and "The Andromeda Strain"-technology will at some point run amok.Unintended consequence is almost always a consequence. So far, Nolan's "Westworld" has a slightly different twist; man-made creation can spark something unexpected and very close to real life, the line between us and our creations is increasingly blurry and we proceed ignoring that at our peril. What happens when creation begets consciousness? Does that being have a soul? Is it a being at all? Now they could revert to a shoot'em up no different than the original (which was fun also) and there are snippets of that, but so far so good.

    Replies: @guest

    I assume the “unintended consequences” will eventually take over the storyline. Although it could all turn on what the Anthony Hopkins character has up his sleeve.

    The biggest difference for me is that the Yul Brynner character appears to have become human, in the body of Ed Harris. That’s better than making him a chick, or something.

    Though now that I’ve said that, it occurs to me that one of the female robots will probably fulfill the sane function at some point.

  123. @Chrisnonymous
    @jb

    Terrified of what? That he'll grab Her Majesty, Queen of the UK, by the pussy? Doubtful. We already had a sexual predator in the Whitehouse, and things were pretty stable.

    You actually think Trump would start a nuclear war or attack China or something? If so, you're falling for the media hype. It's unlikely.

    When people say they're afraid of a Trump presidency, they usually mean one of two things:

    (1) They're all talk on immigration restriction and are actually afraid of seeing newspaper photos of illegals being evicted and loaded into vans to be deported. This shouldn't be terrifying, though. It's not cattle cars, it's just enforcing the law. Personally, I want to see it. If we don't see some Mexican tears, we can't be sure we're not overlooking people.

    (2) They're concerned about their reputation with the non-deplorable leaders of the world like Merkel. Who cares if the Davos set doesn't like Trump? The US is still the world's daddy, and nobody stops trading with or listening to daddy even if they're angry at him.

    I really can't fathom being scared of a Trump presidency. It just sounds like imbibed MSM koolaid.

    Replies: @jb

    I’m not afraid of your 1) or 2), or of Trump starting a nuclear war; what I’m afraid of is that Trump, if he were to win, might turn out to be a terrible president across the board, to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years. I’m afraid I will cringe with embarrassment every time he opens his mouth on TV and brags about what a good brain he has, while showing only the crudest understanding of whatever issue it is that he is supposed to be dealing with. I cringe like that now when I listen to him debate! I’m afraid there will be stories about him groping women after he is elected. I’m afraid he will turn out to be totally ineffectual, because running a country is nothing at all like running a real estate empire, and he’s in over his head. I’m afraid he might melt down entirely, and accomplish nothing. And he might!

    Or maybe he wouldn’t. That’s the problem — I just don’t know. My support for Trump is based entirely on his stated positions; I have very little confidence in the man himself. A “Sane Trump” though — someone who could inspire both confidence from his base and at least a modicum of respect from his opponents while holding the same positions he holds now (and yes, that is possible!) — would be a huge winner!

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @jb


    what I’m afraid of is that Trump, if he were to win, might turn out to be a terrible president across the board, to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years.
     
    That.

    I'm still going to vote for him, but I'm worried same as you.

    , @MarkinLA
    @jb

    to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years.

    If he doesn't win there won't be any other populists or nationalists for the next 50 years running anyway.

    , @Ivan K.
    @jb

    I'm happy as long as the establishment power is disunited between Trump and the old establishment. United gangsters in power is the worst thing that can be. Disunited gangsters in power means:
    a) they would knock each others' heads (good, since we can't knock them)
    b) they would have to court us to join fight for one side or the other, which takes time and demands our choice

    That's checks and balances 2017 edition.

    By the way: JFK blundered and bumbled his way, FDR brought to the country that trifle called WW2, and Lincoln was a terrible president in terms of both outcomes and sacrifices. And they are all worshipped!
    The liberal soul understands only that language; it respects only one kind of power: power that demands sacrifice coldly. Trump who is good for them would just make them more savage in demanding his head.

  124. @Hepp

    Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he’d opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.
     
    I don't know about that part. If you look at polling data ("want to go to war with X"), Republicans still get pretty excited about bombing Arabs. Even fictional ones, like the poll that showed 30% would bomb Agrabah.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    It would have been interesting to substitute Washington DC for Agrabah and observe the result.

  125. @jb
    Whenever possible in my comments in the New York Times I have been making the exact same point that Noonan is making (Sane Trump wins big!), in the hope that maybe some current or prospective Republican politician might read my comment, and it might suddenly dawn on him that Donald Trump's positions are extraordinary popular with the American people -- certainly on the Right, and to some degree even on the Left -- and that the only thing standing between Donald Trump and a historic landslide victory is his sorry personality. I encourage everyone to push this narrative, because I think it's the best way forward, and because the other side will be pushing a counter-narrative that says that Trump's positions are losers, and he only got as far as he did because his supporters are terrible people who liked Trump because of his terribleness, not in spite of it.

    While I am going to vote for Trump, I have to acknowledge that he is one of the least qualified candidates ever. In fact I wonder if perhaps the best outcome would be that Trump loses an extremely tight race, making it impossible to deny the popularity of his positions, and inciting a takeover of the Republican party be Trumpist insurgents, and a better Trumpist candidate in 2020. Probably a pipe dream of course. What I do know is that if Trump wins I will be simultaneously ecstatic and terrified.

    Replies: @newyorker, @Chrisnonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    While I am going to vote for Trump, I have to acknowledge that he is one of the least qualified candidates ever.

    Yes, compared to the miraculous, messianic, luminous Nobel-peace-prize winning community organizer we have in office now.

    Come on, LBJ was qualified or over-qualified and the same with Nixon. Both were disasters. Ford and Carter would also be considered qualified and both were worse than policy choices based on a random walk. Clinton’s only redeeming quality was that he spent most of his time thinking about his next ‘servicing’ and Bush 43’s leftist impulses drained the treasury and reduced the capital the Republican brand had almost to zero.

    Trump does not need those qualifications to do what needs to be done.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The dream candidate might be a computer program. With a perfect kill shot to end every volley. Then we could bicker about who gets to amend the program. Kind of like ask Siri, with the added feature that she could launch nukes.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  126. @Mr. Anon
    "Sane Donald Trump, just to start, would look normal and happy, not grim and glowering."

    This is a common idea among Republicans. Oh, you can't seem mean and divisive. You have to be cheerful, optimistic, and avuncular. Nonsense. Have they ever seen Democrats speak? They are not nice. They are not optimistic. When has Hillary Clinton ever said anything remotely nice? Ever heard Al Franken speak? He acts like a total dick. They scowl and all but claim that the other side wants to institute slavery and child sacrifice.

    If you predict dire consequences if the other side is elected, but then act as if you don't really care about the outcome, why should anyone take you seriously? Republicans need to get mean if they want to win.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Right. As bad as Hillary is, Elizabeth Warren is even worse. She sounds hysterical and upset, as if she is about to burst into tears, as she shrieks out her speeches. She sounds like a crazy, out-of-control woman. Not at all someone you’d want to invest with authority.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Harry Baldwin

    Yeah, I recently saw a clip of Warren speaking at a Hillary event. She sounded shrill and squeaky, as if a little unhinged.

  127. @Anonymous
    This is just the sort of thing I discuss with friends and family who either hate Trump or like Clinton.

    Trump has proven that quite a few people will vote for anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-immigration pro-us/anti-them type politicians. Other would-be politicians will copy him. Those others, at least some of them, are likely to be more eloquent, more nuanced, and more stable than Trump. Then whatcha gonna do?

    Replies: @Jack D, @27 year old, @No_0ne

    Will they be billionaires with close to 100% name recognition and a knack for trolling the legacy media? If not, they will quickly die of neglect. For a national campaign, if you can’t access the megaphone, you’re done.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @No_0ne

    Next time, a softer-spoken version of Trump won't be beyond the pale.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  128. @Jack D
    @Thirdtwin

    Their hands were not the part that he was interested in shaking.

    Howard Hughes was also a billionaire germophobe with a long list of female conquests.

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds - humans don't always behave according to "rules".

    Sex is a strong motivator and can overcome a lot of qualms. Think of all the species where the critter actually is willing to die for sex. Catching a cold is a small price to pay for some nooky with a hot cookie.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds

    Because inconsistency is such a helpful trait, wonderfully suited to analysis, mathematics and especially computing. And Emerson was the founder of “American religion” and so propagating Emersonian nonsense (poetic license, after all) is just what the body politic needs – especially now.

    the critter actually is willing to die for sex

    Jack, it looks like you got the cold shoulder from the head cheerleader – but would you really have died for nooky with a hot cookie?

    • Replies: @guest
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The quote (from Self Reliance) is a FOOLISH consistency. Inconsistency isn't a virtue, even in Emersonland.

  129. @Boomstick
    "would Sane Trump have bothered to take on the world?"

    I think that's right; many of Trump's weaknesses are the direct result of his strengths. He's reflexively combative. If he lacked that quality campaign consultants would have herded him into the usual mush and the losing propositions that the last several Republican candidates have espoused. But that combativeness also leads him to get into fights with the Gold Star family that the Clinton campaign dangled in front of him. He's something the political classes haven't seen much of, the tycoon from an industry other than finance, media, or software.

    I don't think he's glowering at all. He's quite funny. The media clutches their pearls and portrays his jokes or sarcasm as serious proposals. He's something the political classes haven't seen much of, the tycoon from an industry other than finance, media, and software.

    Replies: @No_0ne

    “He’s quite funny. The media clutches their pearls and portrays his jokes or sarcasm as serious proposals.”

    Exactly. Who was it that said that the media takes him literally, but not seriously, and the people take him seriously, but not literally?

    I also think that Steve is onto something when he says that Trump’s verbal style is a reflection of the same personality traits that allowed him to make this run. He has a knack for cutting to the core of issues, that doesn’t always translate to smoothly crafted verbiage.

  130. @Jim Don Bob
    @TheBoom

    Noonan ridiculed McCain picking Palin in 2008 and then voted for Obama. She is hardly a conservative.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @TheBoom

    Noonan ridiculed McCain picking Palin in 2008 and then voted for Obama. She is hardly a conservative.

    Noonan prostituted herself so she could hang out with the Kool Kids in NYC. (Not realizing that prostitutes are always on the outside.) But her desire to be in the clique has been checked by her conscience. Even so, she still wants to preserve her status and position – whoring be damned – and ought to be read in that light.

  131. @Danindc
    @whorefinder

    Well said whorefinder. Now go find me some whores.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Well said whorefinder. Now go find me some whores.

    Why would you think Whorefinder would find you whores? He finds his own whores. And you should find your own whores. If you are wondering where to look try the Capitol, the White House or any administrative agency in DC.

  132. @Stan Adams
    @AndrewR

    Where was this person in 2012? In 2008? In 2004? In 2000?

    You are deluding yourself if you believe that the problem is that we simply haven't found the right person. The system is the problem. The system produces Republican candidates like Jeb and Mitt, and Democratic candidates like Barack and Hillary.

    The system smothers, absorbs, and/or destroys anyone who tries to fight against it. Sane, rational, milquetoast folks know that they cannot fight the system, so they don't even try.

    The only kind of man who would dare to fight the system is:

    * someone with enough balls to take on everyone who's anyone
    * someone with enough chutzpah to believe that he might win, even though everything is rigged against him
    * someone who is willing to put up with the kind of bullshit that Trump's had to put up with
    * someone with the resources to pay his own way

    That last bullet item is the toughest nut to crack, but all of them are deal-killers. Finding someone who combines all four qualities and who is intelligent and charismatic enough to be elected president is ... well-nigh impossible.

    So don't delude yourself into thinking that, "Oh, if we had gone with Ted Cruz, Hillary would be fifty points behind." Cruz showed the world how much of a weasel he was at the convention. And, even if he had somehow turned out to be a bona fide reformer, the media would have savaged him the way they've savaged Trump.

    The system is the problem. Don't forget that.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @AndrewR

    The system is the problem. Don’t forget that.

    Right, because any other system would be better. Oh wait, if you don’t mind, please offer five, or three, examples of a better system. (I.e. actual political systems that have worked well, not pie-in-the-sky utopian Leftist schemes that always result in torture, murder and untold suffering.)

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I was referring to the two-party system, but also to the media/educational complex that shoves PC multiculti bullshit down our throats.

    The Founding Fathers disliked the idea of political parties - for good reason.

    , @guest
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    How about, for one, the pre-1933 Republic? We basically had a plutocracy from Lincoln to FDR, but it was a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

    Or the pre-1860 Republic.

    Or the Articles of Confederation.

    All were better.

    That wasn't so hard.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  133. @anonn
    @SFG

    The replies above remember the era pretty poorly. The nation was driven insane by 9/11. The Dems largely went along because they were too scared to vote against the foolish bloodlust. You had to be a Serious Person in order to have a shot, and Seriousness in the time was defined by one's unquestioning fealty to the Pentagon and Israel.

    The liberals of the era were also scared into thinking there was a permanent conservative majority that would prevent them from ever winning the White House again. (For those of you too young, this really happened.) The thinking was that the Republicans' real homophobia and largely imagined racism were majority positions with the American people. While the Ds overplayed their hand on the racism, the Rs failed to see that their position on gay rights and weed is rapidly dying off. The gay marriage bans that helped win them the election in 2004 are nothing but an albatross now.

    Replies: @NOTA, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    When you express an opinion or position, most of the world judges you based on how well that opinion matches their current view, not how accurate you turn out to have been. Thus, people who loudly opposed the Iraq war lost credibility by saying so. Even today, when almost everyone thinks it was a bad idea, essentially all the “serious foreign policy thinkers” that get any media attention were in favor of the war.

  134. @No_0ne
    @Anonymous

    Will they be billionaires with close to 100% name recognition and a knack for trolling the legacy media? If not, they will quickly die of neglect. For a national campaign, if you can't access the megaphone, you're done.

    Replies: @NOTA

    Next time, a softer-spoken version of Trump won’t be beyond the pale.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @NOTA

    "Next time, a softer-spoken version of Trump won’t be beyond the pale."

    True. But that candidate might be electorally (i.e. demographically) beyond any hope of winning.

  135. @International Jew
    Tom Tancredo is a "sane Donald Trump". Unfortunately, he doesn't have the option of paying his own way when the donors shun him, and he lacks the showmanship to fire up the big crowds.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @Harry Baldwin, @Almost Missouri

    Tom Tancredo is quite short, too.

  136. @anonn
    @SFG

    The replies above remember the era pretty poorly. The nation was driven insane by 9/11. The Dems largely went along because they were too scared to vote against the foolish bloodlust. You had to be a Serious Person in order to have a shot, and Seriousness in the time was defined by one's unquestioning fealty to the Pentagon and Israel.

    The liberals of the era were also scared into thinking there was a permanent conservative majority that would prevent them from ever winning the White House again. (For those of you too young, this really happened.) The thinking was that the Republicans' real homophobia and largely imagined racism were majority positions with the American people. While the Ds overplayed their hand on the racism, the Rs failed to see that their position on gay rights and weed is rapidly dying off. The gay marriage bans that helped win them the election in 2004 are nothing but an albatross now.

    Replies: @NOTA, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The replies above remember the era pretty poorly.

    You are delusional. The greatest mass murder of Americans, on American soil meant that someone had to lose their country. Unfortunately Bush 43 was doing his best to be the 21st century Woodrow Wilson. And the ROE were prescribed by the international Left. So we got the idiotic ‘you broke it you fix it’ Colin Powell program, for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But it is always nice to have a dishonest Leftist (sorry about the redundant adjective there) poke his head up out of the fever swamp to contribute.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Thst explains why we bombed and invaded Afghanistan. But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so it's hard to see the motivation for invading them. My best guess at the time was that lots of people wanted a war for their own reasons (domestic politics, opportunities for feeding at the public trough, the chance to play God with whole countries and millions of people, defending Israel, playing the Great Game, etc.), and the anger and fear after 9/11 made it possible.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    , @anonn
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    The greatest mass murder of Americans, on American soil meant that someone had to lose their country.
     
    Since that someone turned out to a country that didn't do it, maybe it would have been better to use Paraguay as the scapegoat.

    And the ROE were prescribed by the international Left.
     
    Oh, so now Latte-sippers in Stockholm are responsible for the fact that we lose every war, every time? Maybe we're just terrible at it.

    Replies: @Questionator, @Charles Erwin Wilson

  137. @Thea
    His unpolished rhetoric is a large part of his appeal. He may be an a-hole but he's our a-hole type of thinking.

    Replies: @Questionator

    He isn’t an a-hole.

  138. @Anon
    @Dieter Kief

    "looks a lot as if she had thought of Steve Sailer at the very least a little bit, while she wrote this question down."

    Didn't Ilana Mercer come up with 'invade/invite'?

    Btw, I think calling Trump 'nuts' is extreme, indeed nutty.

    I'd agree with Noonan that Trump should have been more sensible, balanced, and judicious at times. And he overplayed the Mexican and Muslim card. That came close to demagoguery, but why is the d-label only applied to the 'right'?
    I mean BLM, 'rape culture' hysteria, anti-Trump violence at rallies, anti-white vitriol, Trump-is-Hitler lunacy, and etc we hear so often from Democrats and media are far more demagogic. As for Trump-as-Siberian-Candidate(according to Paul Krugman), well well, look who is peddling conspiracy theories.

    Noonan could have made a good case that Trump has been too crude and rough. But nuts? That is establishment talking points. Supposedly, anyone who notices the power of the ruling elite must be crazy. Right, it's nuts to see collusion between media and government, but it's totally within bounds of sane discourse to say Putin is the puppetmaster behind Trump.

    Replies: @Questionator, @Dieter Kief

    Noonan could have made a good case that Trump has been too crude and rough. But nuts? That is establishment talking points.

    Agree. Very, very weak on her part. Probably unforgivable.

  139. It’s not over. The MSM has tried to demoralize the base of support out there.

    We need to buck up in the last couple weeks despite the polls. The paradigm has shifted, and Trump was the catalyst. Warts and all.

    He’s not nuts, the establishment is nuts. And they want to take us with them. Don’t let it happen for the sake of the nation and our future.

  140. @guest
    @Anonymous

    Clinton wouldn't be so bad--again, ignoring her health and corruption--if it weren't for immigration (or if it were two decades ago) and possible war with Russia. Or foreign policy in general. But those are big deals.

    She's not a true believer like Obama, at least.

    Replies: @Questionator

    Immigration is everything.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Questionator

    I'm increasingly coming around to that viewpoint. Today I went to a grocery store one town over, and I could have sworn I was in India. Except the checkout guy was Vietnamese. (I presumed.) What the hell? Why are we doing this to ourselves?

  141. @SFG
    @Spotted Toad

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @SPMoore8, @Detective Club, @anonn, @Busby, @ben tillman

    They like their jobs. In 1990, many Democrats did not vote for Gulf War 1. That turned out to be a bad decision for them. Gulf War 2 looked like the same outcome. Result, the band wagon was over subscribed.
    Fast forward to 2005 and suddenly all the rats are looking for a way off the ship. So much so that by 2007, a Senator from New York had the stones to call the commander of US forces in Iraq, a liar. In public, in the US Senate. Demonstrating once again that timing is everything, this was shortly before said general’s forces crushed the insurgency.

  142. Perhaps, but would Sane Trump have bothered to take on the world?

    Exactly – many of the greatest leaders in human history have been eccentric, often obnoxious, “screwball“-types. Regular guys don’t make magnificent leaders in difficult times. The heroic are an odd lot, by and large. Trump may be a flawed man, but I have little doubt he is God’s instrument, and on November 8th, he will emerge victorious. At a minimum, he will carry every state Romney carried, plus Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and Maine’s District Two. That gets him to 260 EVs. I believe he has a better than 50 percent chance of wrangling the ten more he needs to enter the White House. And it will be glorious!

  143. @Harry Baldwin
    @Mr. Anon

    Right. As bad as Hillary is, Elizabeth Warren is even worse. She sounds hysterical and upset, as if she is about to burst into tears, as she shrieks out her speeches. She sounds like a crazy, out-of-control woman. Not at all someone you'd want to invest with authority.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Yeah, I recently saw a clip of Warren speaking at a Hillary event. She sounded shrill and squeaky, as if a little unhinged.

  144. Sane Donald Trump, just to start, would look normal and happy, not grim and glowering. He would be able to hear and act on good advice. He would explain his positions with clarity and depth, not with the impatient half-grasping of a notion that marks real Donald Trump’s public persona.

    You mean Pat Buchanan? Articulate, amiable (but certainly not above scrapping if need be), and holds most of the positions that Trump is leading with. But he couldn’t weather the media slime storm, as most decent people couldn’t. Politics ain’t beanbag, and Trump has enough bluster go blow for blow with any enemy, left or right. Would I prefer Pat? Of course I would (and honestly Peggy dropped the ball not mentioning him), but it seems Trump is the only person alive capable of cutting through the entire mountain of establishment bullshit.

  145. @NOTA
    @No_0ne

    Next time, a softer-spoken version of Trump won't be beyond the pale.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “Next time, a softer-spoken version of Trump won’t be beyond the pale.”

    True. But that candidate might be electorally (i.e. demographically) beyond any hope of winning.

  146. I lived in Seaford, Long Island NY for years. Peggy Noonan grew up in the town next door, Massapequa. Sometimes I like her columns but the affect she puts on is soooo phony. At my house, we laugh at her queenly demeanor. She must be a nut herself, the same kind of nut as Trump. Both of them have created characters for themselves for TV appearances.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Hersh

    "I lived in Seaford, Long Island NY for years. Peggy Noonan grew up in the town next door, Massapequa. Sometimes I like her columns but the affect she puts on is soooo phony. At my house, we laugh at her queenly demeanor. She must be a nut herself, the same kind of nut as Trump. Both of them have created characters for themselves for TV appearances."

    Peggy Noonan's speeches helped get two presidents elected. I love Peggy Noonan and I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. Her columns voice the frustration of regular Americans at the phoniness of our elite in a manner that could actually sway a lot of voters to our side. Conservatives are losing this election because we have embraced the true wackos like you and lost sight of the need to bring average Americans to our side. So just shut up and move along.

    Replies: @Hersh

  147. @Stan Adams
    @Jack D


    but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government
     
    Absolutely.

    In many cases, you can't even trust your own relatives.

    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.

    One of my relatives squandered the bulk of her husband's estate - several million in the bank and maybe a million-and-a-half in real estate - on leeching relatives and bad investments (recommended by forked-tongued financial "advisers"). She was almost broke even before she reached the point of full-blown senility.

    At one point, she took out a sizable personal loan - an amount well into the six figures - and blew through it in two years like an addict on a cocaine binge.

    In such situations, the real fun starts when the grubby relatives start pointing fingers at one another and filing lawsuits, leaving the elderly person to rot. Family reunions become scenes of hysterical denunciations.

    I, myself, was witness to one memorable conversation, the gist of which was: "You only gave me a $50,000 gift, instead of the $100,000 one that I asked for ... I'm not coming to your funeral! And don't you dare try to cut me out of your will!"

    (This, despite the fact that this person had been given tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. These were not loans - they were gifts.)

    Another relative, on being reminded that he had already been given tens of thousands of dollars to help pay for his child's education, said: "Well, it's not as if she gave the money to me, for my needs. It was for my kid. She's only given me, personally, maybe fifty thousand dollars. I should be getting a lot more."

    I once knew another old lady - a family friend - who had an adopted son. She and her late husband had run a thriving business for many years, but she was comfortably retired when I knew her. She and her son were pretty much estranged - barely on speaking terms - by the time he reached adulthood. He lived up north and rarely came down to see her, even on holidays. She always lamented this fact, and expressed the hope that one day they'd reconcile.

    When she had a stroke, her son immediately flew down, got her to sign her rights away, dumped her in a nursing home, sold her house, and made off with her money. When my mother called to inquire as to how she was doing, her son rudely cut my mother off, told her never to call again, and hung up. (He said the same thing to several of her friends.) She ended up dying in the nursing home not too long afterward.

    (We were unable to locate her before she died - the nursing home was in another state and the son wouldn't tell anyone where she'd gone.)

    And then there was yet another guy I knew - another family friend. He selflessly took care of his invalid mother for many years. After she died, his AWOL siblings showed up, screwed him out of his share of the inheritance, and went merrily on their way.

    And I knew a middle-aged lady - a neighbor - who served as a longtime caretaker for her aged uncle. She committed suicide after he died and her cousins screwed her over.

    (A bit drastic, I agree. The day after he died, they evicted her from his house and she had nowhere else to go. She had no money. I saw her on that day. She was so morose-looking that I took pity on her and offered to let her sleep on my sofa for a few days, until she figured something out. She said she'd think about it. The next day, another neighbor told me that she'd overdosed overnight. Her cousin found her lying dead on the kitchen floor.)

    Middle-class and upper-middle-class folks will enthusiastically betray their cousins, and their sisters and brothers, and even their mothers and fathers, for the sake of a few extra bucks. It happens all the time. It's sad. But it's human nature.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @AndrewR, @Kylie, @Olorin

    And poor and rich people too.

    Damn those are some depressing stories.

  148. @Lot
    @Parsifal

    That's too gloomy, Europe and Australia have normal and sane restrictionist politicians.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Tim Howells, @Barnard, @ben tillman

    That’s too gloomy, Europe and Australia have normal and sane restrictionist politicians.

    I don’t know whether Pim Fortuyn qualified as normal or sane, but he certainly doesn’t now, since he was assassinated.

  149. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @jb


    While I am going to vote for Trump, I have to acknowledge that he is one of the least qualified candidates ever.
     
    Yes, compared to the miraculous, messianic, luminous Nobel-peace-prize winning community organizer we have in office now.

    Come on, LBJ was qualified or over-qualified and the same with Nixon. Both were disasters. Ford and Carter would also be considered qualified and both were worse than policy choices based on a random walk. Clinton's only redeeming quality was that he spent most of his time thinking about his next 'servicing' and Bush 43's leftist impulses drained the treasury and reduced the capital the Republican brand had almost to zero.

    Trump does not need those qualifications to do what needs to be done.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    The dream candidate might be a computer program. With a perfect kill shot to end every volley. Then we could bicker about who gets to amend the program. Kind of like ask Siri, with the added feature that she could launch nukes.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Neil Templeton

    That's scary - very scary. Especially given those who amend the program now.

  150. @International Jew
    @Jack D


    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven’t helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck...
     
    They wouldn't spend every cent like that if they didn't know they could count on Social Security.

    Replies: @27 year old, @Jack D, @Wilkey, @Grace Jones

    “They wouldn’t spend every cent like that if they didn’t know they could count on Social Security.”

    Sane, intelligent people with a decent income don’t spend every cent even when they feel they can count on social security, but it’s incredibly depressing the number of people who don’t save money – neither for retirement nor even for next week’s rent. They don’t. Lots and lots of people don’t. There was a study released recently about how very few people there are who have even $1,000 in savings. It’s like maybe only 50% of the country.

    Large numbers of people have to be forced to save or they won’t. If people aren’t forced to save then they will bring even the responsible people down with them, for example by driving up lifestyle expectations, prices for housing, etc.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Wilkey

    According to a recent news article, 69% of Americans don't have $1,000 in savings.

    http://time.com/money/4499957/savings-less-than-1000/

    Then there's Neal Gabler, successful author who claimed he couldn't come up with $400 in an emergency. According to a survey, 47 percent of Americans could not come up with $400 without borrowing money or selling something.

    , @MarkinLA
    @Wilkey

    All it takes is one big hospital bill and you are in bankruptcy court. It happened to my niece who's husband was a pastor for a church in rural Washington state.

    I am a paper millionaire and I could lose it all with one serious medical condition. A guy in our gun club regularly got medical bills for 100-200,000 dollars for his initial ICU stay, chemo and other treatments for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Luckily he had insurance or he would have lost everything he worked 45 years for.

  151. @Hersh
    I lived in Seaford, Long Island NY for years. Peggy Noonan grew up in the town next door, Massapequa. Sometimes I like her columns but the affect she puts on is soooo phony. At my house, we laugh at her queenly demeanor. She must be a nut herself, the same kind of nut as Trump. Both of them have created characters for themselves for TV appearances.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    “I lived in Seaford, Long Island NY for years. Peggy Noonan grew up in the town next door, Massapequa. Sometimes I like her columns but the affect she puts on is soooo phony. At my house, we laugh at her queenly demeanor. She must be a nut herself, the same kind of nut as Trump. Both of them have created characters for themselves for TV appearances.”

    Peggy Noonan’s speeches helped get two presidents elected. I love Peggy Noonan and I sure as hell didn’t vote for Trump in the primaries. Her columns voice the frustration of regular Americans at the phoniness of our elite in a manner that could actually sway a lot of voters to our side. Conservatives are losing this election because we have embraced the true wackos like you and lost sight of the need to bring average Americans to our side. So just shut up and move along.

    • Replies: @Hersh
    @Wilkey

    It is absolutely a fact that Peggy Noonan is the only person from Massapequa, Long Island, NY (or the entire South Shore of Long Island) who behaves and talks like that. For example, Alec Baldwin is also a Massapequan.

  152. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @anonn


    The replies above remember the era pretty poorly.
     
    You are delusional. The greatest mass murder of Americans, on American soil meant that someone had to lose their country. Unfortunately Bush 43 was doing his best to be the 21st century Woodrow Wilson. And the ROE were prescribed by the international Left. So we got the idiotic 'you broke it you fix it' Colin Powell program, for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But it is always nice to have a dishonest Leftist (sorry about the redundant adjective there) poke his head up out of the fever swamp to contribute.

    Replies: @NOTA, @anonn

    Thst explains why we bombed and invaded Afghanistan. But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so it’s hard to see the motivation for invading them. My best guess at the time was that lots of people wanted a war for their own reasons (domestic politics, opportunities for feeding at the public trough, the chance to play God with whole countries and millions of people, defending Israel, playing the Great Game, etc.), and the anger and fear after 9/11 made it possible.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @NOTA

    It's easy to see the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. It was a telishment.

  153. @SFG
    @Spotted Toad

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @SPMoore8, @Detective Club, @anonn, @Busby, @ben tillman

    Why were so many liberals into the Iraq War? I get conservatives of that era loved war and the military (and Israel, oil, etc.) but why were liberals so eager to fight that stupid war?

    Same reason that Republicans supported it: The mass media put that opinion into their heads.

  154. @International Jew
    @Jack D


    But in the real world (and falling real incomes haven’t helped) Americans spend every cent they earn and more, so unless the funds are taken out of their paycheck...
     
    They wouldn't spend every cent like that if they didn't know they could count on Social Security.

    Replies: @27 year old, @Jack D, @Wilkey, @Grace Jones

    Yeah, shame on them for wanting to eat and live indoors.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Grace Jones

    ...and have cable TV and a smartphone and daily trips to Starbucks and a diet that, when it doesn't rely on eating out, runs to heavily processed and packaged supermarket fare that costs ten times as much as cooking from scratch besides loading them up with excess sugar and salt.

  155. @Stan Adams
    @AndrewR

    Where was this person in 2012? In 2008? In 2004? In 2000?

    You are deluding yourself if you believe that the problem is that we simply haven't found the right person. The system is the problem. The system produces Republican candidates like Jeb and Mitt, and Democratic candidates like Barack and Hillary.

    The system smothers, absorbs, and/or destroys anyone who tries to fight against it. Sane, rational, milquetoast folks know that they cannot fight the system, so they don't even try.

    The only kind of man who would dare to fight the system is:

    * someone with enough balls to take on everyone who's anyone
    * someone with enough chutzpah to believe that he might win, even though everything is rigged against him
    * someone who is willing to put up with the kind of bullshit that Trump's had to put up with
    * someone with the resources to pay his own way

    That last bullet item is the toughest nut to crack, but all of them are deal-killers. Finding someone who combines all four qualities and who is intelligent and charismatic enough to be elected president is ... well-nigh impossible.

    So don't delude yourself into thinking that, "Oh, if we had gone with Ted Cruz, Hillary would be fifty points behind." Cruz showed the world how much of a weasel he was at the convention. And, even if he had somehow turned out to be a bona fide reformer, the media would have savaged him the way they've savaged Trump.

    The system is the problem. Don't forget that.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @AndrewR

    You’re deluded if you think the ground was fertile enough for a Trump-like figure in past elections. Especially in 2000. Give me a break, dude. So much has changed over the last 16 years and even the last four that it’s unreal. If Trump had not run this time, trust me we would have seen a grassroots populist movement spring up that went way past anything the Tea Party could have dreamt of.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @AndrewR


    You’re deluded if you think the ground was fertile enough for a Trump-like figure in past elections.
     
    Proposition 187 passed in 1994.

    For the briefest of moments, California Gov. Pete Wilson - hardly a right-winger, but Trump-like on immigration - was a national figure. But then the media found out that he'd once employed an illegal as his maid, and it was over for him. They destroyed him. Then they - the whole rotten establishment - found a way to overturn Prop. 187. So that was that.

    Especially in 2000.
     
    Trump considered running for the Reform Party nomination in 2000:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBa3SU46Qs

    McCain gave Bush a real run for his money in the primaries that year. Dubya, like Jeb this year and Mitt in 2012, was seen as the big-money establishment candidate who inspired no real grass-roots enthusiasm.

    If Trump had not run this time, trust me we would have seen a grassroots populist movement spring up that went way past anything the Tea Party could have dreamt of.
     
    When?

    Folks have been angry about the immivasion for a long time. But it takes a charismatic leader to translate widespread, even near-universal, popular anger into political action. The masses need to coalesce around a unifying force.

    Trump helped put the alt-right on the radar screen. He deserves credit for that, if nothing else.
  156. @SPMoore8
    @SFG

    Most people were sold on the Iraq war because (1) it was going to be easy (remember Shock 'n' Awe?). (2) It was a liberation war, and there would be no anomie, guerilla war, or civil war, nor regional de-stabilization. (3) It would advance world peace because it would deprive Iraq of the NBC weapons we knew Saddam had, except, he didn't. (4) It was a socially progressive war, e.g., women's rights, with purple fingers from voting. (5) It would prevent further terrorism because Saddam was a terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 (he wasn't.)

    I think Noonan makes some good points. The main positive of Trump's campaign is that it has thrown open the Overton window on issues like the downside of the global economy, the risks and dangers associated with promiscuous immigration, the polarization of the nation along special interest lines, etc. Those issues, long occluded by the media, are now front and center and part of the national conversation. We'll see what happens next.

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @ben tillman

    Most people were sold on the Iraq war because (1) it was going to be easy (remember Shock ‘n’ Awe?). (2) It was a liberation war, and there would be no anomie, guerilla war, or civil war, nor regional de-stabilization. (3) It would advance world peace because it would deprive Iraq of the NBC weapons we knew Saddam had, except, he didn’t. (4) It was a socially progressive war, e.g., women’s rights, with purple fingers from voting. (5) It would prevent further terrorism because Saddam was a terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 (he wasn’t.)

    Nos. 2 and 4 were post-hoc rationalizations. The invasion was sold beforehand by convincing Americans that Saddam was behind 9-11 and by convincing Americans that Saddam had WMD, basically your (3) and (5).

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @ben tillman

    I agree with you in part, however, I remember in the run up to the war there was a lot of discussion about how the invaders would greet us with flowers and Chalabi would be installed as the Liberator with no conflict, so that's part of what I meant by #2. Another aspect of #2 was the fact that we had a pretty light footprint with long supply lines, and I thought, first, that we didn't have enough people for that (or to secure the border) and we didn't have enough troops to maintain civil order.

    The way I figured it is that by using a fairly small number of people for the invasion we were invasion were inviting anomie (that happened as soon as Baghdad was taken, with the museum and other public buildings), as well as guerilla war (I think the first suicide bombing took place even before we got to Baghdad), and finally by using so few people and putting them in a fluid "insurgency" environment we were asking for excesses to take place, and sure enough, Abu Ghraib and other incidents followed a year later.

    On #4, you are right, but again, in the lead up to the invasion there were a lot of stories about the "rape rooms" that the Saddam family had installed to oppress women, and there were also a lot of stories about the shredder that the Saddam family maintained to kill their enemies (did they ever find this thing?): the story was that if they liked you they fed you into the shredder head first but if they didn't, feet first.

    And then every barrel of insecticide was identified as a chemical weapon ...... so much nonsense about that war.

  157. @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    Then whatcha gonna do?
     
    Duh. Assassinate their character. Call them Nazis and racists. Dig up dirt about their sex lives. Have women come forward to make false accusations. Etc. Easy peasy. See Alinsky Rule #12.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Duh. Assassinate their character. Call them Nazis and racists. Dig up dirt about their sex lives. Have women come forward to make false accusations. Etc. Easy peasy. See Alinsky Rule #12.

    And if that doesn’t work, there’s always the trump card: the Long/Wallace treatment.

  158. @ben tillman
    @SPMoore8


    Most people were sold on the Iraq war because (1) it was going to be easy (remember Shock ‘n’ Awe?). (2) It was a liberation war, and there would be no anomie, guerilla war, or civil war, nor regional de-stabilization. (3) It would advance world peace because it would deprive Iraq of the NBC weapons we knew Saddam had, except, he didn’t. (4) It was a socially progressive war, e.g., women’s rights, with purple fingers from voting. (5) It would prevent further terrorism because Saddam was a terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 (he wasn’t.)
     
    Nos. 2 and 4 were post-hoc rationalizations. The invasion was sold beforehand by convincing Americans that Saddam was behind 9-11 and by convincing Americans that Saddam had WMD, basically your (3) and (5).

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    I agree with you in part, however, I remember in the run up to the war there was a lot of discussion about how the invaders would greet us with flowers and Chalabi would be installed as the Liberator with no conflict, so that’s part of what I meant by #2. Another aspect of #2 was the fact that we had a pretty light footprint with long supply lines, and I thought, first, that we didn’t have enough people for that (or to secure the border) and we didn’t have enough troops to maintain civil order.

    The way I figured it is that by using a fairly small number of people for the invasion we were invasion were inviting anomie (that happened as soon as Baghdad was taken, with the museum and other public buildings), as well as guerilla war (I think the first suicide bombing took place even before we got to Baghdad), and finally by using so few people and putting them in a fluid “insurgency” environment we were asking for excesses to take place, and sure enough, Abu Ghraib and other incidents followed a year later.

    On #4, you are right, but again, in the lead up to the invasion there were a lot of stories about the “rape rooms” that the Saddam family had installed to oppress women, and there were also a lot of stories about the shredder that the Saddam family maintained to kill their enemies (did they ever find this thing?): the story was that if they liked you they fed you into the shredder head first but if they didn’t, feet first.

    And then every barrel of insecticide was identified as a chemical weapon …… so much nonsense about that war.

  159. @AndrewR
    @Stan Adams

    You're deluded if you think the ground was fertile enough for a Trump-like figure in past elections. Especially in 2000. Give me a break, dude. So much has changed over the last 16 years and even the last four that it's unreal. If Trump had not run this time, trust me we would have seen a grassroots populist movement spring up that went way past anything the Tea Party could have dreamt of.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    You’re deluded if you think the ground was fertile enough for a Trump-like figure in past elections.

    Proposition 187 passed in 1994.

    For the briefest of moments, California Gov. Pete Wilson – hardly a right-winger, but Trump-like on immigration – was a national figure. But then the media found out that he’d once employed an illegal as his maid, and it was over for him. They destroyed him. Then they – the whole rotten establishment – found a way to overturn Prop. 187. So that was that.

    Especially in 2000.

    Trump considered running for the Reform Party nomination in 2000:

    McCain gave Bush a real run for his money in the primaries that year. Dubya, like Jeb this year and Mitt in 2012, was seen as the big-money establishment candidate who inspired no real grass-roots enthusiasm.

    If Trump had not run this time, trust me we would have seen a grassroots populist movement spring up that went way past anything the Tea Party could have dreamt of.

    When?

    Folks have been angry about the immivasion for a long time. But it takes a charismatic leader to translate widespread, even near-universal, popular anger into political action. The masses need to coalesce around a unifying force.

    Trump helped put the alt-right on the radar screen. He deserves credit for that, if nothing else.

  160. @Wilkey
    @Hersh

    "I lived in Seaford, Long Island NY for years. Peggy Noonan grew up in the town next door, Massapequa. Sometimes I like her columns but the affect she puts on is soooo phony. At my house, we laugh at her queenly demeanor. She must be a nut herself, the same kind of nut as Trump. Both of them have created characters for themselves for TV appearances."

    Peggy Noonan's speeches helped get two presidents elected. I love Peggy Noonan and I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. Her columns voice the frustration of regular Americans at the phoniness of our elite in a manner that could actually sway a lot of voters to our side. Conservatives are losing this election because we have embraced the true wackos like you and lost sight of the need to bring average Americans to our side. So just shut up and move along.

    Replies: @Hersh

    It is absolutely a fact that Peggy Noonan is the only person from Massapequa, Long Island, NY (or the entire South Shore of Long Island) who behaves and talks like that. For example, Alec Baldwin is also a Massapequan.

  161. Keep in mind that this article was published in th WSJ not the Huffington Post or a publicating entity of that ilk. This is not a reasoned objection to Trump’s immigration or other policies, It’s a goofy diatribe. What has happened to the WSJ?

  162. @Wilkey
    @International Jew

    "They wouldn’t spend every cent like that if they didn’t know they could count on Social Security."

    Sane, intelligent people with a decent income don't spend every cent even when they feel they can count on social security, but it's incredibly depressing the number of people who don't save money - neither for retirement nor even for next week's rent. They don't. Lots and lots of people don't. There was a study released recently about how very few people there are who have even $1,000 in savings. It's like maybe only 50% of the country.

    Large numbers of people have to be forced to save or they won't. If people aren't forced to save then they will bring even the responsible people down with them, for example by driving up lifestyle expectations, prices for housing, etc.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @MarkinLA

    According to a recent news article, 69% of Americans don’t have $1,000 in savings.

    http://time.com/money/4499957/savings-less-than-1000/

    Then there’s Neal Gabler, successful author who claimed he couldn’t come up with $400 in an emergency. According to a survey, 47 percent of Americans could not come up with $400 without borrowing money or selling something.

  163. @Jim Don Bob
    @TheBoom

    Noonan ridiculed McCain picking Palin in 2008 and then voted for Obama. She is hardly a conservative.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @TheBoom

    She poses though as a conservative and is representative of the globalist ilk.

  164. @Wilkey
    @International Jew

    "They wouldn’t spend every cent like that if they didn’t know they could count on Social Security."

    Sane, intelligent people with a decent income don't spend every cent even when they feel they can count on social security, but it's incredibly depressing the number of people who don't save money - neither for retirement nor even for next week's rent. They don't. Lots and lots of people don't. There was a study released recently about how very few people there are who have even $1,000 in savings. It's like maybe only 50% of the country.

    Large numbers of people have to be forced to save or they won't. If people aren't forced to save then they will bring even the responsible people down with them, for example by driving up lifestyle expectations, prices for housing, etc.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @MarkinLA

    All it takes is one big hospital bill and you are in bankruptcy court. It happened to my niece who’s husband was a pastor for a church in rural Washington state.

    I am a paper millionaire and I could lose it all with one serious medical condition. A guy in our gun club regularly got medical bills for 100-200,000 dollars for his initial ICU stay, chemo and other treatments for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Luckily he had insurance or he would have lost everything he worked 45 years for.

  165. @Questionator
    @guest

    Immigration is everything.

    Replies: @guest

    I’m increasingly coming around to that viewpoint. Today I went to a grocery store one town over, and I could have sworn I was in India. Except the checkout guy was Vietnamese. (I presumed.) What the hell? Why are we doing this to ourselves?

  166. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Jack D


    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds
     
    Because inconsistency is such a helpful trait, wonderfully suited to analysis, mathematics and especially computing. And Emerson was the founder of "American religion" and so propagating Emersonian nonsense (poetic license, after all) is just what the body politic needs - especially now.

    the critter actually is willing to die for sex
     
    Jack, it looks like you got the cold shoulder from the head cheerleader - but would you really have died for nooky with a hot cookie?

    Replies: @guest

    The quote (from Self Reliance) is a FOOLISH consistency. Inconsistency isn’t a virtue, even in Emersonland.

  167. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @anonn


    The replies above remember the era pretty poorly.
     
    You are delusional. The greatest mass murder of Americans, on American soil meant that someone had to lose their country. Unfortunately Bush 43 was doing his best to be the 21st century Woodrow Wilson. And the ROE were prescribed by the international Left. So we got the idiotic 'you broke it you fix it' Colin Powell program, for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But it is always nice to have a dishonest Leftist (sorry about the redundant adjective there) poke his head up out of the fever swamp to contribute.

    Replies: @NOTA, @anonn

    The greatest mass murder of Americans, on American soil meant that someone had to lose their country.

    Since that someone turned out to a country that didn’t do it, maybe it would have been better to use Paraguay as the scapegoat.

    And the ROE were prescribed by the international Left.

    Oh, so now Latte-sippers in Stockholm are responsible for the fact that we lose every war, every time? Maybe we’re just terrible at it.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @anonn

    Since that someone turned out to a country that didn’t do it, maybe it would have been better to use Paraguay as the scapegoat.

    Or Israel.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @anonn


    Maybe we’re just terrible at it.
     
    Well, we are terrible politically, that is undeniable. But militarily? If you made victory the objective instead of nation-building we know how fast the matter could have been resolved - months in Afghanistan - weeks in Iraq. The rest was a consequence of not only the hubris of Bush43, but the entire foreign relations establishment.

    They thought globally and acted stupidly.

    Replies: @Questionator

  168. @David In TN
    @countenance

    "BTW, Peggy Noonan hates white people."

    She's pretty much a four-square cuck. Years ago she wrote in the WSJ something like: "Immigrants are basically conservative."

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @snorlax

    Noonan is a party woman. She takes the devil’s advocate and/or earnestly argues on behalf of the party line of the day, whether that be Reaganism under Reagan, Trumpism under Trump, or cuckservatism under the cucks.

    I can respect that a lot more than the Kristols and Douthats of the world. Her principles are not always the same as ours, but when the situation calls for it, she’s willing to eloquently defend our principles in the face of an otherwise very hostile WSJ editorial board.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @snorlax

    "I can respect that a lot more than the Kristols and Douthats of the world. Her principles are not always the same as ours, but when the situation calls for it, she’s willing to eloquently defend our principles in the face of an otherwise very hostile WSJ editorial board."

    I agree.

  169. “Noonan ridiculed McCain picking Palin in 2008 and then voted for Obama. She is hardly a conservative.

    Nor, for that matter, is John McCain.

  170. If you want to trip yourself out, compare the real Patton with the Hollywood version:

    Hollywood Patton

    The Real Patton

  171. @Busby
    @SFG

    They like their jobs. In 1990, many Democrats did not vote for Gulf War 1. That turned out to be a bad decision for them. Gulf War 2 looked like the same outcome. Result, the band wagon was over subscribed.
    Fast forward to 2005 and suddenly all the rats are looking for a way off the ship. So much so that by 2007, a Senator from New York had the stones to call the commander of US forces in Iraq, a liar. In public, in the US Senate. Demonstrating once again that timing is everything, this was shortly before said general's forces crushed the insurgency.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Coemgen

    I wonder what Gen. Petraeus' life would be like now if the Iraq Surge had been less successful...

  172. @NOTA
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Thst explains why we bombed and invaded Afghanistan. But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so it's hard to see the motivation for invading them. My best guess at the time was that lots of people wanted a war for their own reasons (domestic politics, opportunities for feeding at the public trough, the chance to play God with whole countries and millions of people, defending Israel, playing the Great Game, etc.), and the anger and fear after 9/11 made it possible.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    It’s easy to see the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. It was a telishment.

  173. @Questionator
    @Wilkey

    It blows my mind that the Republican Party still fails to realize how angry and frustrated the Republican voters are

    The party cannot take up for them because it would be crucified by the media.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    It blows my mind that the Republican Party still fails to realize how angry and frustrated the Republican voters are

    The party cannot take up for them because it would be crucified by the media.

    That pretty clearly establishes that the media are really just the spokespeople for the democrat party.

  174. @Coemgen

    I wonder what Gen. Petraeus’ life would be like now if the Iraq Surge had been less successful…

  175. @Wilkey
    "It’s not that. It’s the cutting entitlement spending while adding people to the entitlement roles via refugees and illegals."

    Well frankly it's both.

    I think the problem we have with entitlement spending is the assumption that elderly adults should live on their own rather than with their grown children. So many of our policies are based on the assumption that Americans should be as atomized as possible, and all of the added expenses that creates.

    Young working Americans are being taxed to death to support an atomized society we simply cannot afford.

    Replies: @Jack D, @27 year old, @Joe Schmoe

    I think the problem we have with entitlement spending is the assumption that elderly adults should live on their own rather than with their grown children. So many of our policies are based on the assumption that Americans should be as atomized as possible, and all of the added expenses that creates.

    I know so many 70+ aged women who live alone in four bedroom houses. Meanwhile their own kids are having trouble buying homes. Notice how the media denigrates adult children who live with their parents. It goes like this, “He is a loser living in mom’s basement.” Uh, mom wouldn’t have that basement nor the house to go with it without social security which the “loser” pays through his FICA. Anyway, the loser in mom’s basement is always a guy. Always. You never see the media denigrate women for living at home. But women get the message perhaps even more clearly than guys. Guys are practical and stay in the basement because it makes financial sense. Women, generally more lacking in financial sense, have the emotional need to show they are “better” and fork over money till deep in debt to show they are “making it.” So, here we as a country are like 20 something women deep in student loan debt for an education we didn’t understand supporting an economy filled with 70+ year olds living alone in four bedroom houses. The young and fertile are unmarried and in financial straits trying to keep it all going and importing scab labor as a band aid.

    No, Trump isn’t the crazy one.

    • Agree: International Jew
  176. @Grace Jones
    @International Jew

    Yeah, shame on them for wanting to eat and live indoors.

    Replies: @International Jew

    …and have cable TV and a smartphone and daily trips to Starbucks and a diet that, when it doesn’t rely on eating out, runs to heavily processed and packaged supermarket fare that costs ten times as much as cooking from scratch besides loading them up with excess sugar and salt.

  177. @Jack D
    @International Jew

    Maybe you wouldn't but lots of Americans would. The average net worth of an American black family is approximately zero. If you put another $X in their paychecks (for the ones that work at all) they would spend every cent of that too. Lots of Fishtown whites are the same. If they were capable of weighing the long term consequences of their actions, our prisons and diabetic wards wouldn't be full

    Replies: @International Jew

    You’ve made two separate points here and I sorta agree with the second one — that if people thought ahead about nonfinancial matters they wouldn’t commit crimes or overeat.

    But your first point, about the absence of financial planning, is an observation of what happens in a world where we have Social Security. It therefore tells us little about what we’d see in the absence of Social Security.

    If you’ve been living at a lower-middle-class or lower standard of living all your life, then counting on Social Security you’re not being irresponsible at all; it’s quite rational in fact.

    Doing things that will land you in prison or ruin your health: that’s irresponsible.

  178. @27 year old
    @International Jew

    > They wouldn’t spend every cent like that if they didn’t know they could count on Social Security.

    This is typical GOP logic, and I tend to doubt that this is how people actually think. My hunch is people spending every cent and then more are not rationally responding to incentives, rather they are not thinking about their elderly years at all.

    Replies: @International Jew

    What you call my “GOP logic” is just a matter of assuming that people look out for their own interests.

    And do they? Well, if all your life you’ve been living at a Social Security-like standard of living (and it’s such people we’re talking about, right?) then spending everything you earn pre-retirement is exactly how you’d smooth out your lifetime consumption: textbook rationality!

  179. @jb
    @Chrisnonymous

    I'm not afraid of your 1) or 2), or of Trump starting a nuclear war; what I'm afraid of is that Trump, if he were to win, might turn out to be a terrible president across the board, to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years. I'm afraid I will cringe with embarrassment every time he opens his mouth on TV and brags about what a good brain he has, while showing only the crudest understanding of whatever issue it is that he is supposed to be dealing with. I cringe like that now when I listen to him debate! I'm afraid there will be stories about him groping women after he is elected. I'm afraid he will turn out to be totally ineffectual, because running a country is nothing at all like running a real estate empire, and he's in over his head. I'm afraid he might melt down entirely, and accomplish nothing. And he might!

    Or maybe he wouldn't. That's the problem -- I just don't know. My support for Trump is based entirely on his stated positions; I have very little confidence in the man himself. A "Sane Trump" though -- someone who could inspire both confidence from his base and at least a modicum of respect from his opponents while holding the same positions he holds now (and yes, that is possible!) -- would be a huge winner!

    Replies: @International Jew, @MarkinLA, @Ivan K.

    what I’m afraid of is that Trump, if he were to win, might turn out to be a terrible president across the board, to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years.

    That.

    I’m still going to vote for him, but I’m worried same as you.

  180. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @snorlax
    @David In TN

    Noonan is a party woman. She takes the devil's advocate and/or earnestly argues on behalf of the party line of the day, whether that be Reaganism under Reagan, Trumpism under Trump, or cuckservatism under the cucks.

    I can respect that a lot more than the Kristols and Douthats of the world. Her principles are not always the same as ours, but when the situation calls for it, she's willing to eloquently defend our principles in the face of an otherwise very hostile WSJ editorial board.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    “I can respect that a lot more than the Kristols and Douthats of the world. Her principles are not always the same as ours, but when the situation calls for it, she’s willing to eloquently defend our principles in the face of an otherwise very hostile WSJ editorial board.”

    I agree.

  181. @anonn
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    The greatest mass murder of Americans, on American soil meant that someone had to lose their country.
     
    Since that someone turned out to a country that didn't do it, maybe it would have been better to use Paraguay as the scapegoat.

    And the ROE were prescribed by the international Left.
     
    Oh, so now Latte-sippers in Stockholm are responsible for the fact that we lose every war, every time? Maybe we're just terrible at it.

    Replies: @Questionator, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Since that someone turned out to a country that didn’t do it, maybe it would have been better to use Paraguay as the scapegoat.

    Or Israel.

  182. Was Don Quixote sane? Weren’t all the sane guys, the calm ones able to go with the flow, doing just that?

    In insane times, only the madman of some sort can see and declare the insanity.

    The cockservatives, which group features not merely the Weekly Standard and National Review crowds but Rod Dreher and most of those who wrote for The American Conservative, will always end up opposing anyone with the now very combination of brains and balls.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @jake

    Rod Dreher increasingly seems a bit unhinged over Trump.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  183. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Stan Adams


    The system is the problem. Don’t forget that.
     
    Right, because any other system would be better. Oh wait, if you don't mind, please offer five, or three, examples of a better system. (I.e. actual political systems that have worked well, not pie-in-the-sky utopian Leftist schemes that always result in torture, murder and untold suffering.)

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @guest

    I was referring to the two-party system, but also to the media/educational complex that shoves PC multiculti bullshit down our throats.

    The Founding Fathers disliked the idea of political parties – for good reason.

  184. @jb
    @Chrisnonymous

    I'm not afraid of your 1) or 2), or of Trump starting a nuclear war; what I'm afraid of is that Trump, if he were to win, might turn out to be a terrible president across the board, to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years. I'm afraid I will cringe with embarrassment every time he opens his mouth on TV and brags about what a good brain he has, while showing only the crudest understanding of whatever issue it is that he is supposed to be dealing with. I cringe like that now when I listen to him debate! I'm afraid there will be stories about him groping women after he is elected. I'm afraid he will turn out to be totally ineffectual, because running a country is nothing at all like running a real estate empire, and he's in over his head. I'm afraid he might melt down entirely, and accomplish nothing. And he might!

    Or maybe he wouldn't. That's the problem -- I just don't know. My support for Trump is based entirely on his stated positions; I have very little confidence in the man himself. A "Sane Trump" though -- someone who could inspire both confidence from his base and at least a modicum of respect from his opponents while holding the same positions he holds now (and yes, that is possible!) -- would be a huge winner!

    Replies: @International Jew, @MarkinLA, @Ivan K.

    to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years.

    If he doesn’t win there won’t be any other populists or nationalists for the next 50 years running anyway.

  185. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Stan Adams


    The system is the problem. Don’t forget that.
     
    Right, because any other system would be better. Oh wait, if you don't mind, please offer five, or three, examples of a better system. (I.e. actual political systems that have worked well, not pie-in-the-sky utopian Leftist schemes that always result in torture, murder and untold suffering.)

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @guest

    How about, for one, the pre-1933 Republic? We basically had a plutocracy from Lincoln to FDR, but it was a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

    Or the pre-1860 Republic.

    Or the Articles of Confederation.

    All were better.

    That wasn’t so hard.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @guest


    That wasn’t so hard.
     
    Yes, because static analysis is easy. But to employ a weak analogy, we are in a movie, not a snapshot.

    Given the circumstances of the US, the current alternatives are all inferior. If you want to invoke the past let us make David's son Solomon King and have rule by wisdom instead of the current model of rule by venality.
  186. What one doesn’t learn reading the WSJ.

    Where I and most people I know work, to call someone “nuts” would bring down upon our heads the entire Establishment of politically correct “human resources” ladies and their various state and federal laws and rules.

  187. @jake
    Was Don Quixote sane? Weren't all the sane guys, the calm ones able to go with the flow, doing just that?

    In insane times, only the madman of some sort can see and declare the insanity.

    The cockservatives, which group features not merely the Weekly Standard and National Review crowds but Rod Dreher and most of those who wrote for The American Conservative, will always end up opposing anyone with the now very combination of brains and balls.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Rod Dreher increasingly seems a bit unhinged over Trump.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Anonymous

    Rod Dreher's been unhinged since he left NR and started all that Crunchy Con nonsense.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/crunchy-cons-not-dead-yet/

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  188. @Neil Templeton
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The dream candidate might be a computer program. With a perfect kill shot to end every volley. Then we could bicker about who gets to amend the program. Kind of like ask Siri, with the added feature that she could launch nukes.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    That’s scary – very scary. Especially given those who amend the program now.

  189. @guest
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    How about, for one, the pre-1933 Republic? We basically had a plutocracy from Lincoln to FDR, but it was a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

    Or the pre-1860 Republic.

    Or the Articles of Confederation.

    All were better.

    That wasn't so hard.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    That wasn’t so hard.

    Yes, because static analysis is easy. But to employ a weak analogy, we are in a movie, not a snapshot.

    Given the circumstances of the US, the current alternatives are all inferior. If you want to invoke the past let us make David’s son Solomon King and have rule by wisdom instead of the current model of rule by venality.

  190. @anonn
    @Charles Erwin Wilson


    The greatest mass murder of Americans, on American soil meant that someone had to lose their country.
     
    Since that someone turned out to a country that didn't do it, maybe it would have been better to use Paraguay as the scapegoat.

    And the ROE were prescribed by the international Left.
     
    Oh, so now Latte-sippers in Stockholm are responsible for the fact that we lose every war, every time? Maybe we're just terrible at it.

    Replies: @Questionator, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Maybe we’re just terrible at it.

    Well, we are terrible politically, that is undeniable. But militarily? If you made victory the objective instead of nation-building we know how fast the matter could have been resolved – months in Afghanistan – weeks in Iraq. The rest was a consequence of not only the hubris of Bush43, but the entire foreign relations establishment.

    They thought globally and acted stupidly.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Eliminating nation building as the objective would have frustrated the strategy behind going into Iraq in the first place.

  191. @Stan Adams
    @Jack D


    but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government
     
    Absolutely.

    In many cases, you can't even trust your own relatives.

    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.

    One of my relatives squandered the bulk of her husband's estate - several million in the bank and maybe a million-and-a-half in real estate - on leeching relatives and bad investments (recommended by forked-tongued financial "advisers"). She was almost broke even before she reached the point of full-blown senility.

    At one point, she took out a sizable personal loan - an amount well into the six figures - and blew through it in two years like an addict on a cocaine binge.

    In such situations, the real fun starts when the grubby relatives start pointing fingers at one another and filing lawsuits, leaving the elderly person to rot. Family reunions become scenes of hysterical denunciations.

    I, myself, was witness to one memorable conversation, the gist of which was: "You only gave me a $50,000 gift, instead of the $100,000 one that I asked for ... I'm not coming to your funeral! And don't you dare try to cut me out of your will!"

    (This, despite the fact that this person had been given tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. These were not loans - they were gifts.)

    Another relative, on being reminded that he had already been given tens of thousands of dollars to help pay for his child's education, said: "Well, it's not as if she gave the money to me, for my needs. It was for my kid. She's only given me, personally, maybe fifty thousand dollars. I should be getting a lot more."

    I once knew another old lady - a family friend - who had an adopted son. She and her late husband had run a thriving business for many years, but she was comfortably retired when I knew her. She and her son were pretty much estranged - barely on speaking terms - by the time he reached adulthood. He lived up north and rarely came down to see her, even on holidays. She always lamented this fact, and expressed the hope that one day they'd reconcile.

    When she had a stroke, her son immediately flew down, got her to sign her rights away, dumped her in a nursing home, sold her house, and made off with her money. When my mother called to inquire as to how she was doing, her son rudely cut my mother off, told her never to call again, and hung up. (He said the same thing to several of her friends.) She ended up dying in the nursing home not too long afterward.

    (We were unable to locate her before she died - the nursing home was in another state and the son wouldn't tell anyone where she'd gone.)

    And then there was yet another guy I knew - another family friend. He selflessly took care of his invalid mother for many years. After she died, his AWOL siblings showed up, screwed him out of his share of the inheritance, and went merrily on their way.

    And I knew a middle-aged lady - a neighbor - who served as a longtime caretaker for her aged uncle. She committed suicide after he died and her cousins screwed her over.

    (A bit drastic, I agree. The day after he died, they evicted her from his house and she had nowhere else to go. She had no money. I saw her on that day. She was so morose-looking that I took pity on her and offered to let her sleep on my sofa for a few days, until she figured something out. She said she'd think about it. The next day, another neighbor told me that she'd overdosed overnight. Her cousin found her lying dead on the kitchen floor.)

    Middle-class and upper-middle-class folks will enthusiastically betray their cousins, and their sisters and brothers, and even their mothers and fathers, for the sake of a few extra bucks. It happens all the time. It's sad. But it's human nature.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @AndrewR, @Kylie, @Olorin

    In all seriousness, I hope your friends are better people than your relatives.

    Mine are, thank God.

  192. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    While stitching a cut on the hand of a 75 year old farmer, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

    Eventually the topic got around to Donald Trump and his role as the Republican Nominee for President.

    The old farmer said, “Well, as I see it, Donald Trump is like a ‘Post Tortoise’.”

    Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post tortoise’ was.

    The old farmer said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that’s a post tortoise.”

    The old farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to explain.

    “You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there,
    he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, he’s elevated beyond his ability to function,
    and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with”

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @Anon

    Poor analogy

  193. Steve,
    See Laura Ingraham’s article that covers many of the iSteve and Unz themes. Noon an could factor in as a tenuous elite proxy.

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/elites-blew-world/

  194. @Anon
    While stitching a cut on the hand of a 75 year old farmer, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

    Eventually the topic got around to Donald Trump and his role as the Republican Nominee for President.

    The old farmer said, "Well, as I see it, Donald Trump is like a 'Post Tortoise'.''

    Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post tortoise' was.

    The old farmer said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that's a post tortoise."

    The old farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain.

    "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there,
    he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, he's elevated beyond his ability to function,
    and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with"

    Replies: @Questionator

    Poor analogy

  195. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @anonn


    Maybe we’re just terrible at it.
     
    Well, we are terrible politically, that is undeniable. But militarily? If you made victory the objective instead of nation-building we know how fast the matter could have been resolved - months in Afghanistan - weeks in Iraq. The rest was a consequence of not only the hubris of Bush43, but the entire foreign relations establishment.

    They thought globally and acted stupidly.

    Replies: @Questionator

    Eliminating nation building as the objective would have frustrated the strategy behind going into Iraq in the first place.

  196. @Anonymous
    @jake

    Rod Dreher increasingly seems a bit unhinged over Trump.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Rod Dreher’s been unhinged since he left NR and started all that Crunchy Con nonsense.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/crunchy-cons-not-dead-yet/

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Jim Don Bob


    Rod Dreher’s been unhinged since he left NR
     
    Rod Dreher was always unhinged.
  197. @Stan Adams
    @Jack D


    but given the way Wall St. has behaved, people trust them even less than they trust the government
     
    Absolutely.

    In many cases, you can't even trust your own relatives.

    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.

    One of my relatives squandered the bulk of her husband's estate - several million in the bank and maybe a million-and-a-half in real estate - on leeching relatives and bad investments (recommended by forked-tongued financial "advisers"). She was almost broke even before she reached the point of full-blown senility.

    At one point, she took out a sizable personal loan - an amount well into the six figures - and blew through it in two years like an addict on a cocaine binge.

    In such situations, the real fun starts when the grubby relatives start pointing fingers at one another and filing lawsuits, leaving the elderly person to rot. Family reunions become scenes of hysterical denunciations.

    I, myself, was witness to one memorable conversation, the gist of which was: "You only gave me a $50,000 gift, instead of the $100,000 one that I asked for ... I'm not coming to your funeral! And don't you dare try to cut me out of your will!"

    (This, despite the fact that this person had been given tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. These were not loans - they were gifts.)

    Another relative, on being reminded that he had already been given tens of thousands of dollars to help pay for his child's education, said: "Well, it's not as if she gave the money to me, for my needs. It was for my kid. She's only given me, personally, maybe fifty thousand dollars. I should be getting a lot more."

    I once knew another old lady - a family friend - who had an adopted son. She and her late husband had run a thriving business for many years, but she was comfortably retired when I knew her. She and her son were pretty much estranged - barely on speaking terms - by the time he reached adulthood. He lived up north and rarely came down to see her, even on holidays. She always lamented this fact, and expressed the hope that one day they'd reconcile.

    When she had a stroke, her son immediately flew down, got her to sign her rights away, dumped her in a nursing home, sold her house, and made off with her money. When my mother called to inquire as to how she was doing, her son rudely cut my mother off, told her never to call again, and hung up. (He said the same thing to several of her friends.) She ended up dying in the nursing home not too long afterward.

    (We were unable to locate her before she died - the nursing home was in another state and the son wouldn't tell anyone where she'd gone.)

    And then there was yet another guy I knew - another family friend. He selflessly took care of his invalid mother for many years. After she died, his AWOL siblings showed up, screwed him out of his share of the inheritance, and went merrily on their way.

    And I knew a middle-aged lady - a neighbor - who served as a longtime caretaker for her aged uncle. She committed suicide after he died and her cousins screwed her over.

    (A bit drastic, I agree. The day after he died, they evicted her from his house and she had nowhere else to go. She had no money. I saw her on that day. She was so morose-looking that I took pity on her and offered to let her sleep on my sofa for a few days, until she figured something out. She said she'd think about it. The next day, another neighbor told me that she'd overdosed overnight. Her cousin found her lying dead on the kitchen floor.)

    Middle-class and upper-middle-class folks will enthusiastically betray their cousins, and their sisters and brothers, and even their mothers and fathers, for the sake of a few extra bucks. It happens all the time. It's sad. But it's human nature.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @AndrewR, @Kylie, @Olorin

    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.

    Well, the system IS parasitic, Stan, and has to constantly come up with new leechable bloodstreams. Nice trusting ladies tend to be doomed without gentlemen to protect them. “Families”–faugh. Don’t even get me started.

    It’s not just the families, either. It’s systemic. The UniParty has been trying to manipulate votes for its Coke versus its Pepsi candidates by playing on Millennials’ and Gen Xers’ selfishness in this way too.

    Saw a lengthy comment in these very pages just recently where someone was opining that no 70-year-old person should be allowed to live in a four-bedroom house alone (one she or he and mate bought and paid for, n.b.) when there are poor starving failure-to-launch betas in American basements.

    (Spending their money on artisan organic local weed, beer, and pizza. Oh, and iCrap and the bandwidth to support it. But we’re supposed to believe that what they all want is an 80-hour-a-week high responsibility job in a STEM profession, a commute, a spouse, several children, and a house to maintain on the weekends. If you just give them grandma’s house, all that will happen! Just like handouts magically make the black undertow turn middle class!)

    Then there’s the mindset of the congenital wastrels. In my late 20s I crossed paths professionally with a number of North Shore Chicago ladies, some widowed, others divorced. I have never forgotten the one who, several years after having squandered a family trust of about $6 million, was mad when a casual friend inherited “close to a million!”…and didn’t give her any.

    She was facing something like $150,000 in credit card debt she’d accrued. Unable to stop spending in the way that had squandered a fortune. Expecting to squander the friend’s family’s money in the same way. And still spending spending spending.

    I was still young, but that sense of entitlement to others’ resources was a potent wake-up call: the demand was framed as Fairness and Justice and Women Helping One Another. All the ladies in question were good liberal Democrats who’d talk about how selfish all Republicans were, even though I don’t think any of them had ever met one.

    I’ve advised various elders on self-protection where their estates or inheritances are concerned. They tend not to listen. It’s like any other potency or power. Not everyone has the chops to handle it. Money is yet another thing that cannot be democratized without ill effects.

    • Replies: @Questionator
    @Olorin

    I’ve advised various elders on self-protection where their estates or inheritances are concerned

    What can they do to self protect?

  198. @Jim Don Bob
    @Anonymous

    Rod Dreher's been unhinged since he left NR and started all that Crunchy Con nonsense.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/crunchy-cons-not-dead-yet/

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Rod Dreher’s been unhinged since he left NR

    Rod Dreher was always unhinged.

  199. @jb
    @Chrisnonymous

    I'm not afraid of your 1) or 2), or of Trump starting a nuclear war; what I'm afraid of is that Trump, if he were to win, might turn out to be a terrible president across the board, to the point that he discredits populism and nationalism for the next 50 years. I'm afraid I will cringe with embarrassment every time he opens his mouth on TV and brags about what a good brain he has, while showing only the crudest understanding of whatever issue it is that he is supposed to be dealing with. I cringe like that now when I listen to him debate! I'm afraid there will be stories about him groping women after he is elected. I'm afraid he will turn out to be totally ineffectual, because running a country is nothing at all like running a real estate empire, and he's in over his head. I'm afraid he might melt down entirely, and accomplish nothing. And he might!

    Or maybe he wouldn't. That's the problem -- I just don't know. My support for Trump is based entirely on his stated positions; I have very little confidence in the man himself. A "Sane Trump" though -- someone who could inspire both confidence from his base and at least a modicum of respect from his opponents while holding the same positions he holds now (and yes, that is possible!) -- would be a huge winner!

    Replies: @International Jew, @MarkinLA, @Ivan K.

    I’m happy as long as the establishment power is disunited between Trump and the old establishment. United gangsters in power is the worst thing that can be. Disunited gangsters in power means:
    a) they would knock each others’ heads (good, since we can’t knock them)
    b) they would have to court us to join fight for one side or the other, which takes time and demands our choice

    That’s checks and balances 2017 edition.

    By the way: JFK blundered and bumbled his way, FDR brought to the country that trifle called WW2, and Lincoln was a terrible president in terms of both outcomes and sacrifices. And they are all worshipped!
    The liberal soul understands only that language; it respects only one kind of power: power that demands sacrifice coldly. Trump who is good for them would just make them more savage in demanding his head.

  200. @Olorin
    @Stan Adams


    You might be surprised by the number of parasites who feast on the fortunes of trusting old widows. And you might also be surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those widows.
     
    Well, the system IS parasitic, Stan, and has to constantly come up with new leechable bloodstreams. Nice trusting ladies tend to be doomed without gentlemen to protect them. "Families"--faugh. Don't even get me started.

    It's not just the families, either. It's systemic. The UniParty has been trying to manipulate votes for its Coke versus its Pepsi candidates by playing on Millennials' and Gen Xers' selfishness in this way too.

    Saw a lengthy comment in these very pages just recently where someone was opining that no 70-year-old person should be allowed to live in a four-bedroom house alone (one she or he and mate bought and paid for, n.b.) when there are poor starving failure-to-launch betas in American basements.

    (Spending their money on artisan organic local weed, beer, and pizza. Oh, and iCrap and the bandwidth to support it. But we're supposed to believe that what they all want is an 80-hour-a-week high responsibility job in a STEM profession, a commute, a spouse, several children, and a house to maintain on the weekends. If you just give them grandma's house, all that will happen! Just like handouts magically make the black undertow turn middle class!)

    Then there's the mindset of the congenital wastrels. In my late 20s I crossed paths professionally with a number of North Shore Chicago ladies, some widowed, others divorced. I have never forgotten the one who, several years after having squandered a family trust of about $6 million, was mad when a casual friend inherited "close to a million!"...and didn't give her any.

    She was facing something like $150,000 in credit card debt she'd accrued. Unable to stop spending in the way that had squandered a fortune. Expecting to squander the friend's family's money in the same way. And still spending spending spending.

    I was still young, but that sense of entitlement to others' resources was a potent wake-up call: the demand was framed as Fairness and Justice and Women Helping One Another. All the ladies in question were good liberal Democrats who'd talk about how selfish all Republicans were, even though I don't think any of them had ever met one.

    I've advised various elders on self-protection where their estates or inheritances are concerned. They tend not to listen. It's like any other potency or power. Not everyone has the chops to handle it. Money is yet another thing that cannot be democratized without ill effects.

    Replies: @Questionator

    I’ve advised various elders on self-protection where their estates or inheritances are concerned

    What can they do to self protect?

  201. @International Jew
    Tom Tancredo is a "sane Donald Trump". Unfortunately, he doesn't have the option of paying his own way when the donors shun him, and he lacks the showmanship to fire up the big crowds.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @Harry Baldwin, @Almost Missouri

    I have a somewhat favorable impression of Tancredo, but calling him “a ‘sane Donald Trump’” may be an unfortunate example of what you are promoting. I believe it is an open secret in Colorado that Tancredo escaped service in the Vietnam war by pleading insanity.

  202. @Anon
    @Dieter Kief

    "looks a lot as if she had thought of Steve Sailer at the very least a little bit, while she wrote this question down."

    Didn't Ilana Mercer come up with 'invade/invite'?

    Btw, I think calling Trump 'nuts' is extreme, indeed nutty.

    I'd agree with Noonan that Trump should have been more sensible, balanced, and judicious at times. And he overplayed the Mexican and Muslim card. That came close to demagoguery, but why is the d-label only applied to the 'right'?
    I mean BLM, 'rape culture' hysteria, anti-Trump violence at rallies, anti-white vitriol, Trump-is-Hitler lunacy, and etc we hear so often from Democrats and media are far more demagogic. As for Trump-as-Siberian-Candidate(according to Paul Krugman), well well, look who is peddling conspiracy theories.

    Noonan could have made a good case that Trump has been too crude and rough. But nuts? That is establishment talking points. Supposedly, anyone who notices the power of the ruling elite must be crazy. Right, it's nuts to see collusion between media and government, but it's totally within bounds of sane discourse to say Putin is the puppetmaster behind Trump.

    Replies: @Questionator, @Dieter Kief

    11 / 10 /

    I’ve thought a lot about Steve Sailers original article. Especially yesterday. But in the last weeks as well.

    One of the most remarkable sentences Sailer wrote in this context is the one that claims relative sanity/ and or personal stability for Trump:

    “Actually, Trump strikes me as remarkably psychologically stable under the decades of stressful situations he has thrust himself into.”

    If you have a v e r y close reading of this sentence, it’s one of slight mistrust – there is this part in it that speaks of stressful situations, h e has thrust himself into – – I know, there’s a diffrent version in Steve Sailers sentence too, one that sounds a little bit less problematic and quite a bit more straightforward, a little bit more in the way, the legend Steinbrenner fits into Steve Sailers thoughts. And I don’t want to neglect at all, that the original intention of this sentence was to articulate a (maybe slightly subdued) optimism, but some kind of optimism anyhow.

    And I do know, that this is no theoretical question any more.

    Just a sidenote: Jonathan Franzen seemed to be freaking out about the election. He told the German paper Die Welt in a lengthy interview last saturday, that he was afraid, that after the election, there’d follow at least a year of armed upheavels if not regional rebellions by militia men and the like.

    Franzen might have fallen asleep today feeling quite some relief.

    But then, the world is no totally pleasant place – Franzen might have felt a big anger as well. He had been confident last week, that Hillary Clinton would win – and that was why he worried, that yearlong shootings might lay ahead…

    Conclusion : – – in (our) days of miracle and wonder – nothing is easy – “they (even) make no jews like Jesus anymore” (Randy Newman)…Laugh/ Sigh (“Me Myself I”).

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS