The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why Is Bill Clinton Still a Member of Trump National Golf Club-Westchester?
🔊 Listen RSS
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

Screenshot 2016-06-29 00.05.30

A year ago, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President by pointing out that the Mexican government wasn’t sending us their best citizens as illegal immigrants and in response everybody respectable ostentatiously broke their contracts with Trump, I blogged:

Why Hasn’t Bill Clinton Resigned from Trump National Golf Club – Westchester?
STEVE SAILER • JULY 14, 2015

With the whole world rushing to issue press releases announcing they have cut all ties with Donald Trump for mentioning the I-word, I’m struck by the dog that hasn’t barked: Bill Clinton, who has long been said to be a member of the Trump National Golf Club – Westchester.

Ever since, I’ve brought up periodically just how weird it is that the Democratic candidate’s husband is still a member of the club that the horrible, horrible Trump founded and owned and named after himself. But I was starting to wonder if I’d made some kind of mistake about the facts of the matter, since nobody else is talking about it.

But yesterday retired NFL quarterback and sports commentator Boomer Esiason sent out this tweet.

 
Hide 56 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Are we really sure Trump isn’t in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    At this point, unless the goal is a mass roundup of all Trump fans in one fell swoop, it'd be a pretty stupid idea.

    let's say Trump is playing the long con with Billy Boy and Soros. He's riled up millions of dudes across the country and gotten them all together to make connections. He's pushed immigration into front-page news and made it ok to talk about. Those issues are not going away.

    If he's going to swerve, he's going to have millions of pissed-off, angry dudes who now are connected with one another, organized, and now have a rallying/battle cry: we can't trust any politicians these days. The system is broken!

    In other words, these dudes are intelligent, armed, and angry with good cause. And they know who they can reach out to for assistance in the U.S., because Trump introduced them to one another via his rallies and campaign.

    Massively stupid plan, if that's it. You created a potential and legitimate rebellious army that opposes you...and for what purpose?

    The government could have picked them off much more easily individually from other associations instead of uniting them under a common banner.

    , @Hodag
    One theory floating around: He can't quit. IF Clinton bought equity he likely bought when the market was high. Part of the deal is you have to keep paying dues until you sell your equity. And some clubs put a floor on what you can sell your equity for. Word on the street is like most country clubs Trump Westminster has had better days and the market for equity membership is in the toilet. So Clinton is stuck.

    There are clubs around Chicago with no downstroke at all, including clubs that have hosted majors in the last 25 years.
    , @SFG
    I always kind of wondered that myself. They were friends for a while, and Trump doesn't look like he can win at this point--plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal, which would not be out of character for Trump.

    That said: immigration restrictionism and nationalism is now being discussed. You've got the ball, run with it.
    , @Ed
    "Are we really sure Trump isn’t in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?"

    I've thought this too. Who knows? I really can't keep up with these people.

    It was linked earlier that Trump and Clinton discussed a Trump candidacy over the phone last year, and apparently Clinton was encouraging.

    My guess is that it is Clinton who was playing the long, or at least the medium con, like he always does, and Trump was playing a short con.

    The Clinton con was that Trump gets into the race, makes the serious Republican candidates look bad, and the Republican party look bad. He might bolt from the Republican party and run as an independent like Perot, and we know how much the Perot run helped Clinton! He could make criticisms of the serious Republican candidates that Hillary Clinton can't make, like Perot did. And if for some reason Trump won, well he should be easy to beat in the general election in November.

    This would be a typical Clinton con, thought out and slick, with the problem is that people might actually turn out to like what Trump is saying, something that would never occur to Clinton.

    As for Trump, I agree with Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism that he was engaging in a marketing/ self-promotion exercise as usual and it just got way out of hand.

    I really don't think it occurred to either man that the things Trump would say in speeches and debates would resonate with the voters. After all, past candidates like Buchanan and Kucinich have made much the same arguments and got no traction.

    , @Connecticut Famer
    That thought has crossed my mind too--and more than once. I do recall a story that came out late in the spring of 2015 that the Husband of Record had "suggested" to Trump that he "jump in" the Republican race. Clinton didn't get the nickname "Slick Willie" for nothing--when it comes to politics he does nothing without calculation. So, no matter how hard I try to suppress it, the nagging question keeps coming back "Is this whole thing a big scam?"

    That said, how ironic would it be if it all backfired, with dog turning on and biting his master.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    Bill's a lot smarter than Donald. The con is on Trump.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    iSteve commenters already covered this territory during the primaries. There's a NYT article out there detailing Trump's attempts to elbow his way into the Republican party going back years, and he Tweeted about immigration years before his phone call with Clinton.

    As I pointed out before, Clinton is probably one of the few people in the US who could out-negotiate Trump. So, it's possible Clinton was trying to pull one over on Trump, but it's also clear from Trump's history that he's been interested in getting into politics for a long time, which makes it unlikely he's in cahoots with Clinton. His potential business losses via being shunned by corporations if he loses the campaign also make it unlikely he is in it for the money.

    The really fun idea is that Lewandowsky used Trump to advance his political agenda. Not a serious possibility, but fun idea.
  2. @Peter Akuleyev
    Are we really sure Trump isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    At this point, unless the goal is a mass roundup of all Trump fans in one fell swoop, it’d be a pretty stupid idea.

    let’s say Trump is playing the long con with Billy Boy and Soros. He’s riled up millions of dudes across the country and gotten them all together to make connections. He’s pushed immigration into front-page news and made it ok to talk about. Those issues are not going away.

    If he’s going to swerve, he’s going to have millions of pissed-off, angry dudes who now are connected with one another, organized, and now have a rallying/battle cry: we can’t trust any politicians these days. The system is broken!

    In other words, these dudes are intelligent, armed, and angry with good cause. And they know who they can reach out to for assistance in the U.S., because Trump introduced them to one another via his rallies and campaign.

    Massively stupid plan, if that’s it. You created a potential and legitimate rebellious army that opposes you…and for what purpose?

    The government could have picked them off much more easily individually from other associations instead of uniting them under a common banner.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    Massively stupid plan, if that’s it. You created a potential and legitimate rebellious army that opposes you…and for what purpose?
     
    Well, as Ed and others have said, Clinton and Trump could have massively underestimated how much traction an anti-immigration message would get. The plan may have been just to divide the GOP and drive a giant wedge between the already widening gap between the fiscal conservative/socially liberal wing and the populist wing. And that part of the plan actually is working - GOP stalwarts like George Will are leaving, not to mention many of my friends and acquaintances in the financial world and a lot of powerful donors. If it was a conspiracy, then the flaw would be underestimating how many potential white independent and Democratic voters could bolt for Trump.
  3. @Peter Akuleyev
    Are we really sure Trump isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    One theory floating around: He can’t quit. IF Clinton bought equity he likely bought when the market was high. Part of the deal is you have to keep paying dues until you sell your equity. And some clubs put a floor on what you can sell your equity for. Word on the street is like most country clubs Trump Westminster has had better days and the market for equity membership is in the toilet. So Clinton is stuck.

    There are clubs around Chicago with no downstroke at all, including clubs that have hosted majors in the last 25 years.

    • Replies: @Marty
    Googling 'golf' and 'downstroke' produces no indication that the latter is used to mean initiation fee. Of the links that pop up, two are for Chicago area country clubs, Medinah and Olympia Fields., which I guess means the term is peculiar to that are. But then the term 'downstroke' doesn't appear on those websites, which I guess would be somewhat gauche.
    , @Jack D
    Don't be ridiculous. The Clintons are so rich that even if they lost every cent on their equity it wouldn't even be a rounding error on their financial statements. Hillary will probably be the richest President ever. Keep in mind that in addition to her personal net worth, the Clinton Foundation is a giant slush fund that is available to them. One of the reasons why Trump is probably not releasing his tax return is that it would show that Hillary is much richer than he is.
  4. Are we really sure Trump isn’t in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    Plutocrats always play the long con on us all. That should be the default assumption.

  5. Are we sure that’s not Hillary’s locker?

  6. So is Boomer in cahoots too? He’s a member of the Golf club too.

  7. @Peter Akuleyev
    Are we really sure Trump isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    I always kind of wondered that myself. They were friends for a while, and Trump doesn’t look like he can win at this point–plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal, which would not be out of character for Trump.

    That said: immigration restrictionism and nationalism is now being discussed. You’ve got the ball, run with it.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    Trump doesn’t look like he can win at this point–plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal,
     
    That's my issue. Trump is obviously not taking his campaign seriously, at least not by traditional standards. Either he is a fraud, or he is truly a master of persuasion playing 4D chess by doubling down on his Alpha shtick of ridiculous overconfidence and acting like he has already won. I assume Scott Adams will tell us it's the latter.
    , @5371
    [Trump doesn’t look like he can win at this point]

    That's a silly thing to say, when you consider how closely, as shown by history, the result depends on the economic conjuncture in november.
    , @Jack Hanson
    SFG you spent the year predicting Trump was going to lose to Cruz.

    Your predictions and commentary are worth as much as Rick Wilson's.
    , @Jack D
    Isn't it a little early to declare Trump the loser - I mean it's not like you are the Washington Post or something? It's not even like baseball where if you pile up a big lead in the early innings it's tough to make a comeback later. Nothing counts until Election Day, even if he is 40 points behind in the polls today. The candidate who is ahead in July doesn't always win in November.

    ISIS is doing Allah's work. Omar was enough of a fruit (literally) that the MSM and the D party (the same thing really) successfully managed to change the subject to guns but a few suicide bombers in the DC or NY subway system or at some major US airports could cast things in a whole new light. TATP is already illegal. I am by no means praying that these things happen (in fact the opposite - may God spare all the innocents!) but you can count on ISIS to do its worst. Maybe there will be another miracle and the FBI will convince the Justice Dept. to indict Hillary. A lot could happen in the next 4 months.
  8. Ed says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Are we really sure Trump isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    “Are we really sure Trump isn’t in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?”

    I’ve thought this too. Who knows? I really can’t keep up with these people.

    It was linked earlier that Trump and Clinton discussed a Trump candidacy over the phone last year, and apparently Clinton was encouraging.

    My guess is that it is Clinton who was playing the long, or at least the medium con, like he always does, and Trump was playing a short con.

    The Clinton con was that Trump gets into the race, makes the serious Republican candidates look bad, and the Republican party look bad. He might bolt from the Republican party and run as an independent like Perot, and we know how much the Perot run helped Clinton! He could make criticisms of the serious Republican candidates that Hillary Clinton can’t make, like Perot did. And if for some reason Trump won, well he should be easy to beat in the general election in November.

    This would be a typical Clinton con, thought out and slick, with the problem is that people might actually turn out to like what Trump is saying, something that would never occur to Clinton.

    As for Trump, I agree with Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism that he was engaging in a marketing/ self-promotion exercise as usual and it just got way out of hand.

    I really don’t think it occurred to either man that the things Trump would say in speeches and debates would resonate with the voters. After all, past candidates like Buchanan and Kucinich have made much the same arguments and got no traction.

    • Agree: Triumph104, AP
    • Replies: @5371
    Buchanan got plenty of traction!
    , @gruff
    I agree with what you say. But in response to this:

    I really don’t think it occurred to either man that the things Trump would say in speeches and debates would resonate with the voters. After all, past candidates like Buchanan and Kucinich have made much the same arguments and got no traction.
     
    I would posit that it's possible Trump was keeping his ears open and knew immigration was hotter than ever, and a much bigger deal than in Buchanan's day. Brat's upset victory, the Oregon driver license vote, many other little tells...even comments on the NYT, a leftish centrist paper, go hard restrictionist on articles about immigration. If it's a plot, he knew this was the angle to play.

    My biggest concern is that even though restrictionism is being discussed now, if Trump goes down the subject might be made anathema for a generation or more. "Oh you agree with that nazi that Rodham beat?" In other words a worst case scenario is that Trump pulls the rug out from under us, intentionally or not. This is a worrying prospect and will make the conflict even more vicious.

    Another thing is, Trump's relative success shows that if a reasonable, intelligent, well-read, experienced, confident politician took a restrictionist position, he would clean up, across party lines.
  9. @Peter Akuleyev
    Are we really sure Trump isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    That thought has crossed my mind too–and more than once. I do recall a story that came out late in the spring of 2015 that the Husband of Record had “suggested” to Trump that he “jump in” the Republican race. Clinton didn’t get the nickname “Slick Willie” for nothing–when it comes to politics he does nothing without calculation. So, no matter how hard I try to suppress it, the nagging question keeps coming back “Is this whole thing a big scam?”

    That said, how ironic would it be if it all backfired, with dog turning on and biting his master.

  10. @whorefinder
    At this point, unless the goal is a mass roundup of all Trump fans in one fell swoop, it'd be a pretty stupid idea.

    let's say Trump is playing the long con with Billy Boy and Soros. He's riled up millions of dudes across the country and gotten them all together to make connections. He's pushed immigration into front-page news and made it ok to talk about. Those issues are not going away.

    If he's going to swerve, he's going to have millions of pissed-off, angry dudes who now are connected with one another, organized, and now have a rallying/battle cry: we can't trust any politicians these days. The system is broken!

    In other words, these dudes are intelligent, armed, and angry with good cause. And they know who they can reach out to for assistance in the U.S., because Trump introduced them to one another via his rallies and campaign.

    Massively stupid plan, if that's it. You created a potential and legitimate rebellious army that opposes you...and for what purpose?

    The government could have picked them off much more easily individually from other associations instead of uniting them under a common banner.

    Massively stupid plan, if that’s it. You created a potential and legitimate rebellious army that opposes you…and for what purpose?

    Well, as Ed and others have said, Clinton and Trump could have massively underestimated how much traction an anti-immigration message would get. The plan may have been just to divide the GOP and drive a giant wedge between the already widening gap between the fiscal conservative/socially liberal wing and the populist wing. And that part of the plan actually is working – GOP stalwarts like George Will are leaving, not to mention many of my friends and acquaintances in the financial world and a lot of powerful donors. If it was a conspiracy, then the flaw would be underestimating how many potential white independent and Democratic voters could bolt for Trump.

    • Replies: @Difference maker
    I knew that an anti immigration platform would resonate, so it is no stretch to say that Trump knew
    , @whorefinder
    In which case, it would be an example of Brexit or Merkel's Boner---the ruling elites massively underestimating how much open borders is hated and hurts the working and middle class patriots. But I don't see that.

    On a related note, are we really all so sure David Cameron wanted open borders? He didn't have to call for the referendum, but did so "assured" Brexit wouldn't happen. There's a part of me who thinks Cameron actually cared about the British people enough to give Farage a chance to win it, while Cameron could sabotage his own side and help Farage all under the guise of "working towards the EU." If he had a conscious at all, Cameron had to be dismayed by the last few years of immigrant-related horror and the fact that his own party's policies weren't doing anything about it. If Farage and he end up becoming allies you heard it here first.

    It would be a rare circumstance of a politician willingly being the fall guy for an idea he believes in.

  11. @SFG
    I always kind of wondered that myself. They were friends for a while, and Trump doesn't look like he can win at this point--plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal, which would not be out of character for Trump.

    That said: immigration restrictionism and nationalism is now being discussed. You've got the ball, run with it.

    Trump doesn’t look like he can win at this point–plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal,

    That’s my issue. Trump is obviously not taking his campaign seriously, at least not by traditional standards. Either he is a fraud, or he is truly a master of persuasion playing 4D chess by doubling down on his Alpha shtick of ridiculous overconfidence and acting like he has already won. I assume Scott Adams will tell us it’s the latter.

    • Replies: @George
    Trump is funding that big jet that says Trump on it. He is risking his life at live events, unlike Hillary.

    The kind of voter Trump appeals to knows who Trump is, what date the election is, where the polling place is, and can figure out the mechanics of registering and voting without assistance. Clinton also has to convince Sanders voters to vote for her.
  12. @Peter Akuleyev

    Massively stupid plan, if that’s it. You created a potential and legitimate rebellious army that opposes you…and for what purpose?
     
    Well, as Ed and others have said, Clinton and Trump could have massively underestimated how much traction an anti-immigration message would get. The plan may have been just to divide the GOP and drive a giant wedge between the already widening gap between the fiscal conservative/socially liberal wing and the populist wing. And that part of the plan actually is working - GOP stalwarts like George Will are leaving, not to mention many of my friends and acquaintances in the financial world and a lot of powerful donors. If it was a conspiracy, then the flaw would be underestimating how many potential white independent and Democratic voters could bolt for Trump.

    I knew that an anti immigration platform would resonate, so it is no stretch to say that Trump knew

  13. Too much cuck defeatism in this comment section. Trump is in a dead heat with Clinton in crucial swing states of OH and PA. He is very much in the race.

    Not only that, but he’s saving his ammo. It may not seem like it, but its still early and he’s waiting for after the convention to fully lay in to Clinton. The Donald knows media, and he knows the A.D.D. of people that watch TV and tweet. Watch him stack negative Hillary news cycle upon negative Hillary news cycle as the last month clicks in to place. He’ll depress her voter turnout, and win an electoral college squeaker on the back of solid rust belt victories.

  14. “Massively stupid plan, if that’s it. You created a potential and legitimate rebellious army that opposes you…”

    One funny thing about this comment is that was the actual plot of the Star Wars prequels. And the plot wasn’t really the big problem with those movies.

  15. @SFG
    I always kind of wondered that myself. They were friends for a while, and Trump doesn't look like he can win at this point--plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal, which would not be out of character for Trump.

    That said: immigration restrictionism and nationalism is now being discussed. You've got the ball, run with it.

    [Trump doesn’t look like he can win at this point]

    That’s a silly thing to say, when you consider how closely, as shown by history, the result depends on the economic conjuncture in november.

  16. @Ed
    "Are we really sure Trump isn’t in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?"

    I've thought this too. Who knows? I really can't keep up with these people.

    It was linked earlier that Trump and Clinton discussed a Trump candidacy over the phone last year, and apparently Clinton was encouraging.

    My guess is that it is Clinton who was playing the long, or at least the medium con, like he always does, and Trump was playing a short con.

    The Clinton con was that Trump gets into the race, makes the serious Republican candidates look bad, and the Republican party look bad. He might bolt from the Republican party and run as an independent like Perot, and we know how much the Perot run helped Clinton! He could make criticisms of the serious Republican candidates that Hillary Clinton can't make, like Perot did. And if for some reason Trump won, well he should be easy to beat in the general election in November.

    This would be a typical Clinton con, thought out and slick, with the problem is that people might actually turn out to like what Trump is saying, something that would never occur to Clinton.

    As for Trump, I agree with Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism that he was engaging in a marketing/ self-promotion exercise as usual and it just got way out of hand.

    I really don't think it occurred to either man that the things Trump would say in speeches and debates would resonate with the voters. After all, past candidates like Buchanan and Kucinich have made much the same arguments and got no traction.

    Buchanan got plenty of traction!

  17. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Three possibilities: Bill really thinks Hillary is going to win, so he intends to keep his membership and say, “Hey, no hard feelings,” after the election and simply wait until Trump gets over his sulk about losing, and then they pat each other on the back and Bill can continue golfing and schmoozing.

    Second idea is that Bill isn’t very concerned if Hillary loses because he isn’t keen on being Mr. Hillary Clinton. He’s got an ego, and he’s in two minds about playing second fiddle his wife. He doesn’t want to say to her, “Mrs. President,” and see her in the most important place in every social function they’re required to attend. This would probably feel great to Hillary after Bill humiliated her with all his affairs, and she intends to rub her new, higher status in his face if she wins, and he knows it. It’s part of the psychological warfare inside their marriage, and for all I know, it may be one of her primary motivators for running for the office. Some women say, living well is the best revenge once they’ve dumped the cheating spouse, but in Hillary’s case, I think the best revenge on her hubby is becoming president herself and staying married to him so she can rub his face in it. You know, the “I’m somebody!” notion. Or, “they like me better than you,” referring to the American public.

    Third possibility is that if the Clintons lose, Bill still wants political influence, and he intends to patch things up with Trump and intends to be an ‘adviser’ and big influence. After all, what way to arrange for big donors to give to the Clinton foundation by saying to them, “You know, I may be able to do something for you via my good friend, President Trump.”

    Hardened politicos like Bill never cut loose anyone who can be useful to them.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  18. @Peter Akuleyev

    Trump doesn’t look like he can win at this point–plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal,
     
    That's my issue. Trump is obviously not taking his campaign seriously, at least not by traditional standards. Either he is a fraud, or he is truly a master of persuasion playing 4D chess by doubling down on his Alpha shtick of ridiculous overconfidence and acting like he has already won. I assume Scott Adams will tell us it's the latter.

    Trump is funding that big jet that says Trump on it. He is risking his life at live events, unlike Hillary.

    The kind of voter Trump appeals to knows who Trump is, what date the election is, where the polling place is, and can figure out the mechanics of registering and voting without assistance. Clinton also has to convince Sanders voters to vote for her.

  19. @Hodag
    One theory floating around: He can't quit. IF Clinton bought equity he likely bought when the market was high. Part of the deal is you have to keep paying dues until you sell your equity. And some clubs put a floor on what you can sell your equity for. Word on the street is like most country clubs Trump Westminster has had better days and the market for equity membership is in the toilet. So Clinton is stuck.

    There are clubs around Chicago with no downstroke at all, including clubs that have hosted majors in the last 25 years.

    Googling ‘golf’ and ‘downstroke’ produces no indication that the latter is used to mean initiation fee. Of the links that pop up, two are for Chicago area country clubs, Medinah and Olympia Fields., which I guess means the term is peculiar to that are. But then the term ‘downstroke’ doesn’t appear on those websites, which I guess would be somewhat gauche.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Downstroke is, among other terms, from the real estate transaction world, for a down payment. Of course, there is plenty of opportunity for gaucherie in that world as is well-known to anyone who has shopped for a house.
    , @Hodag
    Yes, a colloquialism for initiation fee.
  20. @SFG
    I always kind of wondered that myself. They were friends for a while, and Trump doesn't look like he can win at this point--plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal, which would not be out of character for Trump.

    That said: immigration restrictionism and nationalism is now being discussed. You've got the ball, run with it.

    SFG you spent the year predicting Trump was going to lose to Cruz.

    Your predictions and commentary are worth as much as Rick Wilson’s.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Huh? I definitely remember being skeptical about his chances, but I don't remember being in the tank for Cruz for more than a week at a time. Originally I wanted Trump to push a more moderate candidate like Kasich to the right on immigration, and for him to win.
  21. So Clinton is stuck.

    This one is pretty far-fetched. The Clintons can lay their hands on zillions, or on a hundred eager-to-please zillionaires if they prefer, but they can’t pony up the cash to get out of a golf club with bad optics, in an election year?

    It was linked earlier that Trump and Clinton discussed a Trump candidacy over the phone last year, and apparently Clinton was encouraging patronizing.

    FIFY.

    P.S., you guys all sound like Bill Paxton in Aliens. ‘Cept he had a good reason.

  22. Why Is Bill Clinton Still a Member of Trump National Golf Club-Westchester?

    Do they have any women PGA interns there?

  23. As for the idea that this is all a nefarious Clinton plan to eliminate competition? Consider that it eliminated…Ted Cruz. A pol roughly as charismatic as cankles. And 15 other mopes who would have surrendered to the media.

  24. I dunno – maybe he likes playing that course. It’s conveniently close to home. Sometimes a cigar is also a cigar (as Freud said) – and not something that you use as a sex toy on your barely legal intern – I’m talking to you, Bill.

    What is the correlation on iSteve between # of comments in excess of/below average and mention of (1) Joos and (2) golf?

  25. @Hodag
    One theory floating around: He can't quit. IF Clinton bought equity he likely bought when the market was high. Part of the deal is you have to keep paying dues until you sell your equity. And some clubs put a floor on what you can sell your equity for. Word on the street is like most country clubs Trump Westminster has had better days and the market for equity membership is in the toilet. So Clinton is stuck.

    There are clubs around Chicago with no downstroke at all, including clubs that have hosted majors in the last 25 years.

    Don’t be ridiculous. The Clintons are so rich that even if they lost every cent on their equity it wouldn’t even be a rounding error on their financial statements. Hillary will probably be the richest President ever. Keep in mind that in addition to her personal net worth, the Clinton Foundation is a giant slush fund that is available to them. One of the reasons why Trump is probably not releasing his tax return is that it would show that Hillary is much richer than he is.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "One of the reasons why Trump is probably not releasing his tax return is that it would show that Hillary is much richer than he is."

    I doubt that very much. Tax returns reveal income, not the value of assets. I believe Trump has released statements (which are required by law, unlike tax returns) showing the value of his assets. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-files-personal-financial-disclosure-form-with-the-federal-e I believe that he is worth far more than the Clintons, even with all the corrupt money they have accumulated over the years.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Sometimes I wonder why people are so greedy. If you already have tens of millions of dollars, why do you need more? The Clinton have all they need for life. It's that extreme insatiable greed that I find perplexing.

    My guess is that a lot of wealthy and powerful people are sociopaths. Their sociopathy allowed them to claw their way to the top. Their sociopathy also makes them unable to stop. They just have to keep going until they destroy themselves or (more likely) destroy us.

    Watch this. 2 minute conversation between Gordon Gekko and Bud Fox.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GA8MQGvr_U
  26. @SFG
    I always kind of wondered that myself. They were friends for a while, and Trump doesn't look like he can win at this point--plus his low-rent campaign would make sense if he were actually trying to make money off the deal, which would not be out of character for Trump.

    That said: immigration restrictionism and nationalism is now being discussed. You've got the ball, run with it.

    Isn’t it a little early to declare Trump the loser – I mean it’s not like you are the Washington Post or something? It’s not even like baseball where if you pile up a big lead in the early innings it’s tough to make a comeback later. Nothing counts until Election Day, even if he is 40 points behind in the polls today. The candidate who is ahead in July doesn’t always win in November.

    ISIS is doing Allah’s work. Omar was enough of a fruit (literally) that the MSM and the D party (the same thing really) successfully managed to change the subject to guns but a few suicide bombers in the DC or NY subway system or at some major US airports could cast things in a whole new light. TATP is already illegal. I am by no means praying that these things happen (in fact the opposite – may God spare all the innocents!) but you can count on ISIS to do its worst. Maybe there will be another miracle and the FBI will convince the Justice Dept. to indict Hillary. A lot could happen in the next 4 months.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    The F.B.I. has reportedly found no evidence to support the claims that Omar Mateen was either homosexual or bisexual. According to "The Los Angeles Times" last week, his electronic devices contained no gay-dating aps, no erotic pictures of men, and no other evidence that he had been at the places that a few gay men have claimed, since the attack. I am unsurprised, as fabulating seems to be a characteristic trait of many gay men.
    , @Chrisnonymous

    Isn’t it a little early to declare Trump the loser
     
    It's early, but the way things are getting played out in the headlines right now and the ability of the media to spin Orlando to hurt Trump ("he congratulated himself") do not bode well.

    The problem with assuming that terrorist attacks and such will help Trump is that it is a very small percentage of the electorate that matters. If someone who is a tentative Trump supporter becomes an enthusiastic Trump supporter after multiple ISIS attacks, this does not redound to Trump at all in the voting booth.

    For news, I don't follow any specific website. The only thing I do is check out headlines on Google News. So I feel I get a good snapshot of the way media coverage is trending. What I see just from looking at Google News is that Trump's voice is getting drowned out. If he isn't allowed to throw some hard punches because his words can't get coverage, it doesn't matter if he gets ground game or GOPe money.
  27. If Trump really is a pawn of the elites, it’s strange that he’d be so forcefully anti-free trade and let Jeff Sessions write his immigration platform.

    Usually Republicans just campaign as being the party of small govt, lower taxes, pro-Israel, favorable to Christian values. They may come against illegal immigration, but then silently propose “guest worker” programs. Trump really hasn’t done that.

    I think it’s possible that Trump entered this race mostly to get some free publicity. The Clintons figured that Trump might come into the Republican primary for a few months and make everyone look ridiculous, then get out after having damaged the party’s brand. I don’t think anyone (even Trump) anticipated how much his campaign would take off.

    A new Quinnipiac poll released today (1600 registered voters) found Hillary ahead by only 42-40. Trump really could win this, especially if he stays serious.

    • Agree: tbraton
  28. @Jack D
    Don't be ridiculous. The Clintons are so rich that even if they lost every cent on their equity it wouldn't even be a rounding error on their financial statements. Hillary will probably be the richest President ever. Keep in mind that in addition to her personal net worth, the Clinton Foundation is a giant slush fund that is available to them. One of the reasons why Trump is probably not releasing his tax return is that it would show that Hillary is much richer than he is.

    “One of the reasons why Trump is probably not releasing his tax return is that it would show that Hillary is much richer than he is.”

    I doubt that very much. Tax returns reveal income, not the value of assets. I believe Trump has released statements (which are required by law, unlike tax returns) showing the value of his assets. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-files-personal-financial-disclosure-form-with-the-federal-e I believe that he is worth far more than the Clintons, even with all the corrupt money they have accumulated over the years.

  29. @Peter Akuleyev

    Massively stupid plan, if that’s it. You created a potential and legitimate rebellious army that opposes you…and for what purpose?
     
    Well, as Ed and others have said, Clinton and Trump could have massively underestimated how much traction an anti-immigration message would get. The plan may have been just to divide the GOP and drive a giant wedge between the already widening gap between the fiscal conservative/socially liberal wing and the populist wing. And that part of the plan actually is working - GOP stalwarts like George Will are leaving, not to mention many of my friends and acquaintances in the financial world and a lot of powerful donors. If it was a conspiracy, then the flaw would be underestimating how many potential white independent and Democratic voters could bolt for Trump.

    In which case, it would be an example of Brexit or Merkel’s Boner—the ruling elites massively underestimating how much open borders is hated and hurts the working and middle class patriots. But I don’t see that.

    On a related note, are we really all so sure David Cameron wanted open borders? He didn’t have to call for the referendum, but did so “assured” Brexit wouldn’t happen. There’s a part of me who thinks Cameron actually cared about the British people enough to give Farage a chance to win it, while Cameron could sabotage his own side and help Farage all under the guise of “working towards the EU.” If he had a conscious at all, Cameron had to be dismayed by the last few years of immigrant-related horror and the fact that his own party’s policies weren’t doing anything about it. If Farage and he end up becoming allies you heard it here first.

    It would be a rare circumstance of a politician willingly being the fall guy for an idea he believes in.

    • Replies: @Ed
    "On a related note, are we really all so sure David Cameron wanted open borders? He didn’t have to call for the referendum, but did so “assured” Brexit wouldn’t happen. "

    One interesting thing I found out the other day is that Cameron was a euroskeptic at least when he started his political career, but he kept quiet about it as he advanced.

    That means that both Cameron and Corbyn, the Labour leader, were at least closet euroskeptics, but the elites in both parties loudly insist on fealty to the "European" ideal, and in fact are trying to get rid of Corbyn for not cheering for the EU loudly enough. So I wondered if, when both were confronted in a situation where the British could start actually leaving the EU, they both sort of accidently on purpose fumbled things, not being strong enough for whatever reason to just oppose the organization openly.

    In the case of Cameron, a referendum on the EU has been a Tory election pledge for some time. The thing is, if they didn't get a majority they had an excuse not to act on it. They didn't get a majority in 2010 even though they went into government in coalition with another party. If they got a big majority, they could ignore it without having to worry about losing MPs and voters to UKIP. As it happened, likely with some cheating, they got a majority in 2015, but one small enough, and with a popular vote percentage small enough, that they actually had to deliver. Cameron then held back on the personal attacks on the Leave leaders that he was urged to do by the people running the Remain campaign, and then committed the government to honor the result even though legally the referendum was just advisory.

    in the US I suspect that some pols have been doing what they can to sabotage parts of the invade the world, invite the world agenda, such as Boeher on immigration and possibly Obama on more wars in the Middle East, but have had to do it very quietly.
    , @SFG
    There's a long British tradition of self-sacrifice for an ideal, most prominently in the Charge of the Light Brigade. And Cameron gets to keep drawing breath and even being semi-famous.

    But it's also pretty likely that he just took a gamble and goofed. He might have thought 'hey, if I win, I win, and if I lose, at least England gets out of the EU'.
    , @gruff

    If he had a conscience at all, Cameron had to be dismayed by the last few years of immigrant-related horror and the fact that his own party’s policies weren’t doing anything about it.
     
    This is just my random hypothesizing, but what if Cameron found out something that led him to believe that the UK was better off out, but that he couldn't reveal? Guaranteed Turkish accession, political unification, the next stage of Merkel's open borders plan...who knows what powerful people really know about.

    Which is to say it would be wonderful if you were right.

    He certainly resigned with alacrity.

  30. @Jack D
    Don't be ridiculous. The Clintons are so rich that even if they lost every cent on their equity it wouldn't even be a rounding error on their financial statements. Hillary will probably be the richest President ever. Keep in mind that in addition to her personal net worth, the Clinton Foundation is a giant slush fund that is available to them. One of the reasons why Trump is probably not releasing his tax return is that it would show that Hillary is much richer than he is.

    Sometimes I wonder why people are so greedy. If you already have tens of millions of dollars, why do you need more? The Clinton have all they need for life. It’s that extreme insatiable greed that I find perplexing.

    My guess is that a lot of wealthy and powerful people are sociopaths. Their sociopathy allowed them to claw their way to the top. Their sociopathy also makes them unable to stop. They just have to keep going until they destroy themselves or (more likely) destroy us.

    Watch this. 2 minute conversation between Gordon Gekko and Bud Fox.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    Jake Gittes: How much are you worth?

    Noah Cross: I have no idea. How much do you want?

    Jake Gittes: I just wanna know what you're worth. More than 10 million?

    Noah Cross: Oh my, yes!

    Jake Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?

    Noah Cross: The future, Mr. Gittes! The future. Now, where's the girl? I want the only daughter I've got left. As you found out, Evelyn was lost to me a long time ago.

    Jake Gittes: Who do you blame for that? Her?

    Noah Cross: I don't blame myself. You see, Mr. Gittes, most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they're capable of ANYTHING.
    , @whorefinder
    Money is a form of power. George Soros makes his billions so he can direct the fate of billions to misery.

    I was just reading an article about a couple of Brooklyn Eskimos who went into the extreme-high-end loan sharking business---totally legal---and then they got bought out by Goldman Sachs. They made tens of millions of dollars bilking business's dry with last minute, high rate loans to keep the failing business afloat.

    They were sitting there being interviewed in their mansion in Puerto Rico and they were discussing their next moves. One said to the reporter something akin to: "When we were poor, we didn't think there was much of a difference between ten million and one hundred million. Now that we have ten million, we realize there's a HUGE difference. We're trying to move to a hundred million."
    , @Steve from Detroit
    Great clip overall, but the real meat comes from 1:38 to 1:55.

    "We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price of paper clips. We pick that rabbit out of a hat while everyone sits out there wondering how the hell we did it.

    Now, you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you, Buddy?"

    Sometimes the elite tell you exactly what they're doing, just to rub it in.
  31. @JohnnyWalker123
    Sometimes I wonder why people are so greedy. If you already have tens of millions of dollars, why do you need more? The Clinton have all they need for life. It's that extreme insatiable greed that I find perplexing.

    My guess is that a lot of wealthy and powerful people are sociopaths. Their sociopathy allowed them to claw their way to the top. Their sociopathy also makes them unable to stop. They just have to keep going until they destroy themselves or (more likely) destroy us.

    Watch this. 2 minute conversation between Gordon Gekko and Bud Fox.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GA8MQGvr_U

    Jake Gittes: How much are you worth?

    Noah Cross: I have no idea. How much do you want?

    Jake Gittes: I just wanna know what you’re worth. More than 10 million?

    Noah Cross: Oh my, yes!

    Jake Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can’t already afford?

    Noah Cross: The future, Mr. Gittes! The future. Now, where’s the girl? I want the only daughter I’ve got left. As you found out, Evelyn was lost to me a long time ago.

    Jake Gittes: Who do you blame for that? Her?

    Noah Cross: I don’t blame myself. You see, Mr. Gittes, most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of ANYTHING.

  32. @Jack D
    Isn't it a little early to declare Trump the loser - I mean it's not like you are the Washington Post or something? It's not even like baseball where if you pile up a big lead in the early innings it's tough to make a comeback later. Nothing counts until Election Day, even if he is 40 points behind in the polls today. The candidate who is ahead in July doesn't always win in November.

    ISIS is doing Allah's work. Omar was enough of a fruit (literally) that the MSM and the D party (the same thing really) successfully managed to change the subject to guns but a few suicide bombers in the DC or NY subway system or at some major US airports could cast things in a whole new light. TATP is already illegal. I am by no means praying that these things happen (in fact the opposite - may God spare all the innocents!) but you can count on ISIS to do its worst. Maybe there will be another miracle and the FBI will convince the Justice Dept. to indict Hillary. A lot could happen in the next 4 months.

    The F.B.I. has reportedly found no evidence to support the claims that Omar Mateen was either homosexual or bisexual. According to “The Los Angeles Times” last week, his electronic devices contained no gay-dating aps, no erotic pictures of men, and no other evidence that he had been at the places that a few gay men have claimed, since the attack. I am unsurprised, as fabulating seems to be a characteristic trait of many gay men.

  33. @JohnnyWalker123
    Sometimes I wonder why people are so greedy. If you already have tens of millions of dollars, why do you need more? The Clinton have all they need for life. It's that extreme insatiable greed that I find perplexing.

    My guess is that a lot of wealthy and powerful people are sociopaths. Their sociopathy allowed them to claw their way to the top. Their sociopathy also makes them unable to stop. They just have to keep going until they destroy themselves or (more likely) destroy us.

    Watch this. 2 minute conversation between Gordon Gekko and Bud Fox.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GA8MQGvr_U

    Money is a form of power. George Soros makes his billions so he can direct the fate of billions to misery.

    I was just reading an article about a couple of Brooklyn Eskimos who went into the extreme-high-end loan sharking business—totally legal—and then they got bought out by Goldman Sachs. They made tens of millions of dollars bilking business’s dry with last minute, high rate loans to keep the failing business afloat.

    They were sitting there being interviewed in their mansion in Puerto Rico and they were discussing their next moves. One said to the reporter something akin to: “When we were poor, we didn’t think there was much of a difference between ten million and one hundred million. Now that we have ten million, we realize there’s a HUGE difference. We’re trying to move to a hundred million.”

  34. @Marty
    Googling 'golf' and 'downstroke' produces no indication that the latter is used to mean initiation fee. Of the links that pop up, two are for Chicago area country clubs, Medinah and Olympia Fields., which I guess means the term is peculiar to that are. But then the term 'downstroke' doesn't appear on those websites, which I guess would be somewhat gauche.

    Downstroke is, among other terms, from the real estate transaction world, for a down payment. Of course, there is plenty of opportunity for gaucherie in that world as is well-known to anyone who has shopped for a house.

  35. Why Is Bill Clinton Still a Member of Trump National Golf Club-Westchester?

    Check the membership list — if Monica Lewinsky is on it, you may have your answer.

  36. @JohnnyWalker123
    Sometimes I wonder why people are so greedy. If you already have tens of millions of dollars, why do you need more? The Clinton have all they need for life. It's that extreme insatiable greed that I find perplexing.

    My guess is that a lot of wealthy and powerful people are sociopaths. Their sociopathy allowed them to claw their way to the top. Their sociopathy also makes them unable to stop. They just have to keep going until they destroy themselves or (more likely) destroy us.

    Watch this. 2 minute conversation between Gordon Gekko and Bud Fox.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GA8MQGvr_U

    Great clip overall, but the real meat comes from 1:38 to 1:55.

    “We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price of paper clips. We pick that rabbit out of a hat while everyone sits out there wondering how the hell we did it.

    Now, you’re not naive enough to think we’re living in a democracy, are you, Buddy?”

    Sometimes the elite tell you exactly what they’re doing, just to rub it in.

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
  37. @Peter Akuleyev
    Are we really sure Trump isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    Bill’s a lot smarter than Donald. The con is on Trump.

  38. Isn’t it a little early to declare Trump the loser – I mean it’s not like you are the Washington Post or something? It’s not even like baseball where if you pile up a big lead in the early innings it’s tough to make a comeback later. Nothing counts until Election Day, even if he is 40 points behind in the polls today. The candidate who is ahead in July doesn’t always win in November.

    Yeah, I’m reconsidering my standing invitation to share a foxhole with SFG. Too quick to declare defeat. Nobody wants to share a foxhole with a guy like that.

    FFS, even Obama said “that’s why they have elections” the other day.

    A new Quinnipiac poll released today (1600 registered voters) found Hillary ahead by only 42-40. Trump really could win this, especially if he stays serious.

    Yep. IMO, the really important stat is how far below 50% Hillary is. That means there’s a lot of voters that are either undecided, or unwilling to tell their decision to pollsters.

    The candidates haven’t even been officially nominated yet, for crying out loud.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Hillary's average national poll number is 45%, while Trump is at 39%. The difference is hardly huge by any means. I also wouldn't be surprised if polls under predict Trump's support, as it's politically incorrect to vote for him.

    I think Trump's new strategy of emphasizing his protectionist, anti-outsourcing trade policy should be helpful in the rustbelt. Trump also has spent very little on ads so far (in comparison to Clinton), so more ads might help a bit too.

    This is far from over.
    , @SFG
    I think I would have really gotten on your nerves anyway. Besides, I'd be pretty useless in a war.

    When to give up is a difficult question, though--too early and you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, too late and you waste energy and treasure in a fruitless cause (and blood in a war). (If the South had fought to the last man, the only result would have been the extinction of the Southern man and Yankees stealing all the Southern belles.) Even if you think the enemy is trying to exterminate you it pays to retain enough personnel to defend a position elsewhere if you flee.

    I don't think I ever actually thought Trump *could win*--I just advocated *supporting his campaign* because it would (a) make immigration restriction *the* issue the next time around, effectively allowing the guy to be Goldwater to someone else's Reagan (Jeff Sessions maybe?) and (b) decrease the size of Hillary's margin and likely coattails down the ballot--if he loses 35-65 a la Goldwater lots of districts may flip R to D, but in a 48-52 squeaker the Republicans may retain control of Congress, which will slow down Hillary's AFFH and give us breathing room. The GOP doesn't just roll over and play dead every time they don't think they can win.

    I've given him money. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

    Still, as Hanson says, I've been wrong about Trump so far (though I really don't remember falling in love with Cruz). So maybe I'll be wrong again.
  39. @Marty
    Googling 'golf' and 'downstroke' produces no indication that the latter is used to mean initiation fee. Of the links that pop up, two are for Chicago area country clubs, Medinah and Olympia Fields., which I guess means the term is peculiar to that are. But then the term 'downstroke' doesn't appear on those websites, which I guess would be somewhat gauche.

    Yes, a colloquialism for initiation fee.

  40. @Svigor

    Isn’t it a little early to declare Trump the loser – I mean it’s not like you are the Washington Post or something? It’s not even like baseball where if you pile up a big lead in the early innings it’s tough to make a comeback later. Nothing counts until Election Day, even if he is 40 points behind in the polls today. The candidate who is ahead in July doesn’t always win in November.
     
    Yeah, I'm reconsidering my standing invitation to share a foxhole with SFG. Too quick to declare defeat. Nobody wants to share a foxhole with a guy like that.

    FFS, even Obama said "that's why they have elections" the other day.

    A new Quinnipiac poll released today (1600 registered voters) found Hillary ahead by only 42-40. Trump really could win this, especially if he stays serious.
     
    Yep. IMO, the really important stat is how far below 50% Hillary is. That means there's a lot of voters that are either undecided, or unwilling to tell their decision to pollsters.

    The candidates haven't even been officially nominated yet, for crying out loud.

    Hillary’s average national poll number is 45%, while Trump is at 39%. The difference is hardly huge by any means. I also wouldn’t be surprised if polls under predict Trump’s support, as it’s politically incorrect to vote for him.

    I think Trump’s new strategy of emphasizing his protectionist, anti-outsourcing trade policy should be helpful in the rustbelt. Trump also has spent very little on ads so far (in comparison to Clinton), so more ads might help a bit too.

    This is far from over.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    I think it's pretty encouraging for Trump that he is not so far down in the polls even though he has run no ads against Hillary yet.

    I've read that even the ads Sanders ran were not strong attacks on Hillary.

    Given that Hillary has received virtually nothing but puff pieces in media, and vast hordes of them, I have to believe that her real negatives have not yet been exposed and exploited with due concentration.

    All of which suggests that Trump can pull her down many notches once he starts to campaign in earnest against her.

    Trump, on the other hand, has already had everything thrown at him and is still standing. It's hard to see how or why he's going to go down further, absent major forced errors. Of which, of course, he is quite capable -- maybe even talented.

  41. @Jack D
    Isn't it a little early to declare Trump the loser - I mean it's not like you are the Washington Post or something? It's not even like baseball where if you pile up a big lead in the early innings it's tough to make a comeback later. Nothing counts until Election Day, even if he is 40 points behind in the polls today. The candidate who is ahead in July doesn't always win in November.

    ISIS is doing Allah's work. Omar was enough of a fruit (literally) that the MSM and the D party (the same thing really) successfully managed to change the subject to guns but a few suicide bombers in the DC or NY subway system or at some major US airports could cast things in a whole new light. TATP is already illegal. I am by no means praying that these things happen (in fact the opposite - may God spare all the innocents!) but you can count on ISIS to do its worst. Maybe there will be another miracle and the FBI will convince the Justice Dept. to indict Hillary. A lot could happen in the next 4 months.

    Isn’t it a little early to declare Trump the loser

    It’s early, but the way things are getting played out in the headlines right now and the ability of the media to spin Orlando to hurt Trump (“he congratulated himself”) do not bode well.

    The problem with assuming that terrorist attacks and such will help Trump is that it is a very small percentage of the electorate that matters. If someone who is a tentative Trump supporter becomes an enthusiastic Trump supporter after multiple ISIS attacks, this does not redound to Trump at all in the voting booth.

    For news, I don’t follow any specific website. The only thing I do is check out headlines on Google News. So I feel I get a good snapshot of the way media coverage is trending. What I see just from looking at Google News is that Trump’s voice is getting drowned out. If he isn’t allowed to throw some hard punches because his words can’t get coverage, it doesn’t matter if he gets ground game or GOPe money.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I'll walk back my former statement a little--he might make it. (When the facts change, I change my opinions...) He has pretty strong headwinds--the media doesn't like him, demographics are getting bluer, and he's got terrible approval ratings outside of noncollege whites. But, guys hate Hillary. So we'll see.

    I admit my current routine is NYT, Atlantic, New Republic, Unz, National Review, Breitbart. Thing is there's no real good even center-right equivalent of the NYT--journals of opinion don't break news. I'm quite open to suggestions.

  42. Ed says:
    @whorefinder
    In which case, it would be an example of Brexit or Merkel's Boner---the ruling elites massively underestimating how much open borders is hated and hurts the working and middle class patriots. But I don't see that.

    On a related note, are we really all so sure David Cameron wanted open borders? He didn't have to call for the referendum, but did so "assured" Brexit wouldn't happen. There's a part of me who thinks Cameron actually cared about the British people enough to give Farage a chance to win it, while Cameron could sabotage his own side and help Farage all under the guise of "working towards the EU." If he had a conscious at all, Cameron had to be dismayed by the last few years of immigrant-related horror and the fact that his own party's policies weren't doing anything about it. If Farage and he end up becoming allies you heard it here first.

    It would be a rare circumstance of a politician willingly being the fall guy for an idea he believes in.

    “On a related note, are we really all so sure David Cameron wanted open borders? He didn’t have to call for the referendum, but did so “assured” Brexit wouldn’t happen. ”

    One interesting thing I found out the other day is that Cameron was a euroskeptic at least when he started his political career, but he kept quiet about it as he advanced.

    That means that both Cameron and Corbyn, the Labour leader, were at least closet euroskeptics, but the elites in both parties loudly insist on fealty to the “European” ideal, and in fact are trying to get rid of Corbyn for not cheering for the EU loudly enough. So I wondered if, when both were confronted in a situation where the British could start actually leaving the EU, they both sort of accidently on purpose fumbled things, not being strong enough for whatever reason to just oppose the organization openly.

    In the case of Cameron, a referendum on the EU has been a Tory election pledge for some time. The thing is, if they didn’t get a majority they had an excuse not to act on it. They didn’t get a majority in 2010 even though they went into government in coalition with another party. If they got a big majority, they could ignore it without having to worry about losing MPs and voters to UKIP. As it happened, likely with some cheating, they got a majority in 2015, but one small enough, and with a popular vote percentage small enough, that they actually had to deliver. Cameron then held back on the personal attacks on the Leave leaders that he was urged to do by the people running the Remain campaign, and then committed the government to honor the result even though legally the referendum was just advisory.

    in the US I suspect that some pols have been doing what they can to sabotage parts of the invade the world, invite the world agenda, such as Boeher on immigration and possibly Obama on more wars in the Middle East, but have had to do it very quietly.

  43. @Peter Akuleyev
    Are we really sure Trump isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?

    iSteve commenters already covered this territory during the primaries. There’s a NYT article out there detailing Trump’s attempts to elbow his way into the Republican party going back years, and he Tweeted about immigration years before his phone call with Clinton.

    As I pointed out before, Clinton is probably one of the few people in the US who could out-negotiate Trump. So, it’s possible Clinton was trying to pull one over on Trump, but it’s also clear from Trump’s history that he’s been interested in getting into politics for a long time, which makes it unlikely he’s in cahoots with Clinton. His potential business losses via being shunned by corporations if he loses the campaign also make it unlikely he is in it for the money.

    The really fun idea is that Lewandowsky used Trump to advance his political agenda. Not a serious possibility, but fun idea.

  44. @Jack Hanson
    SFG you spent the year predicting Trump was going to lose to Cruz.

    Your predictions and commentary are worth as much as Rick Wilson's.

    Huh? I definitely remember being skeptical about his chances, but I don’t remember being in the tank for Cruz for more than a week at a time. Originally I wanted Trump to push a more moderate candidate like Kasich to the right on immigration, and for him to win.

  45. SFG says:
    @whorefinder
    In which case, it would be an example of Brexit or Merkel's Boner---the ruling elites massively underestimating how much open borders is hated and hurts the working and middle class patriots. But I don't see that.

    On a related note, are we really all so sure David Cameron wanted open borders? He didn't have to call for the referendum, but did so "assured" Brexit wouldn't happen. There's a part of me who thinks Cameron actually cared about the British people enough to give Farage a chance to win it, while Cameron could sabotage his own side and help Farage all under the guise of "working towards the EU." If he had a conscious at all, Cameron had to be dismayed by the last few years of immigrant-related horror and the fact that his own party's policies weren't doing anything about it. If Farage and he end up becoming allies you heard it here first.

    It would be a rare circumstance of a politician willingly being the fall guy for an idea he believes in.

    There’s a long British tradition of self-sacrifice for an ideal, most prominently in the Charge of the Light Brigade. And Cameron gets to keep drawing breath and even being semi-famous.

    But it’s also pretty likely that he just took a gamble and goofed. He might have thought ‘hey, if I win, I win, and if I lose, at least England gets out of the EU’.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    British political customs tend to be a little better than American political customs.

    Part of it is that Prime Ministers aren't deified the way American Presidents have been, especially since Pearl Harbor. Notice that American Presidents never have a job again after they leave office, not since John Quincy Adams went into the House. But former PMs can rise again, the way former PM Balfour became Foreign Secretary.
  46. SFG says:
    @Svigor

    Isn’t it a little early to declare Trump the loser – I mean it’s not like you are the Washington Post or something? It’s not even like baseball where if you pile up a big lead in the early innings it’s tough to make a comeback later. Nothing counts until Election Day, even if he is 40 points behind in the polls today. The candidate who is ahead in July doesn’t always win in November.
     
    Yeah, I'm reconsidering my standing invitation to share a foxhole with SFG. Too quick to declare defeat. Nobody wants to share a foxhole with a guy like that.

    FFS, even Obama said "that's why they have elections" the other day.

    A new Quinnipiac poll released today (1600 registered voters) found Hillary ahead by only 42-40. Trump really could win this, especially if he stays serious.
     
    Yep. IMO, the really important stat is how far below 50% Hillary is. That means there's a lot of voters that are either undecided, or unwilling to tell their decision to pollsters.

    The candidates haven't even been officially nominated yet, for crying out loud.

    I think I would have really gotten on your nerves anyway. Besides, I’d be pretty useless in a war.

    When to give up is a difficult question, though–too early and you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, too late and you waste energy and treasure in a fruitless cause (and blood in a war). (If the South had fought to the last man, the only result would have been the extinction of the Southern man and Yankees stealing all the Southern belles.) Even if you think the enemy is trying to exterminate you it pays to retain enough personnel to defend a position elsewhere if you flee.

    I don’t think I ever actually thought Trump *could win*–I just advocated *supporting his campaign* because it would (a) make immigration restriction *the* issue the next time around, effectively allowing the guy to be Goldwater to someone else’s Reagan (Jeff Sessions maybe?) and (b) decrease the size of Hillary’s margin and likely coattails down the ballot–if he loses 35-65 a la Goldwater lots of districts may flip R to D, but in a 48-52 squeaker the Republicans may retain control of Congress, which will slow down Hillary’s AFFH and give us breathing room. The GOP doesn’t just roll over and play dead every time they don’t think they can win.

    I’ve given him money. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

    Still, as Hanson says, I’ve been wrong about Trump so far (though I really don’t remember falling in love with Cruz). So maybe I’ll be wrong again.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sen. Jeff Sessions is almost 70 years old. He isn't going to be the Reagan to Trump's Goldwater.
  47. SFG says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Isn’t it a little early to declare Trump the loser
     
    It's early, but the way things are getting played out in the headlines right now and the ability of the media to spin Orlando to hurt Trump ("he congratulated himself") do not bode well.

    The problem with assuming that terrorist attacks and such will help Trump is that it is a very small percentage of the electorate that matters. If someone who is a tentative Trump supporter becomes an enthusiastic Trump supporter after multiple ISIS attacks, this does not redound to Trump at all in the voting booth.

    For news, I don't follow any specific website. The only thing I do is check out headlines on Google News. So I feel I get a good snapshot of the way media coverage is trending. What I see just from looking at Google News is that Trump's voice is getting drowned out. If he isn't allowed to throw some hard punches because his words can't get coverage, it doesn't matter if he gets ground game or GOPe money.

    I’ll walk back my former statement a little–he might make it. (When the facts change, I change my opinions…) He has pretty strong headwinds–the media doesn’t like him, demographics are getting bluer, and he’s got terrible approval ratings outside of noncollege whites. But, guys hate Hillary. So we’ll see.

    I admit my current routine is NYT, Atlantic, New Republic, Unz, National Review, Breitbart. Thing is there’s no real good even center-right equivalent of the NYT–journals of opinion don’t break news. I’m quite open to suggestions.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    You can get the real news from the NY Times, you just have to read between the lines, like in Pravda in the old days. So if the NY Times says that a group of justifiably angry Mexican immigrants attacked supporter of the Fascist Trump, you just read "Mexicans attack Trump supporters". "Hillary escapes prosecution" is really "Hillary BARELY escapes prosecution." It's not that hard once you get the hang of it.
  48. @Ed
    "Are we really sure Trump isn’t in cahoots with the Clintons and playing the long con on us all?"

    I've thought this too. Who knows? I really can't keep up with these people.

    It was linked earlier that Trump and Clinton discussed a Trump candidacy over the phone last year, and apparently Clinton was encouraging.

    My guess is that it is Clinton who was playing the long, or at least the medium con, like he always does, and Trump was playing a short con.

    The Clinton con was that Trump gets into the race, makes the serious Republican candidates look bad, and the Republican party look bad. He might bolt from the Republican party and run as an independent like Perot, and we know how much the Perot run helped Clinton! He could make criticisms of the serious Republican candidates that Hillary Clinton can't make, like Perot did. And if for some reason Trump won, well he should be easy to beat in the general election in November.

    This would be a typical Clinton con, thought out and slick, with the problem is that people might actually turn out to like what Trump is saying, something that would never occur to Clinton.

    As for Trump, I agree with Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism that he was engaging in a marketing/ self-promotion exercise as usual and it just got way out of hand.

    I really don't think it occurred to either man that the things Trump would say in speeches and debates would resonate with the voters. After all, past candidates like Buchanan and Kucinich have made much the same arguments and got no traction.

    I agree with what you say. But in response to this:

    I really don’t think it occurred to either man that the things Trump would say in speeches and debates would resonate with the voters. After all, past candidates like Buchanan and Kucinich have made much the same arguments and got no traction.

    I would posit that it’s possible Trump was keeping his ears open and knew immigration was hotter than ever, and a much bigger deal than in Buchanan’s day. Brat’s upset victory, the Oregon driver license vote, many other little tells…even comments on the NYT, a leftish centrist paper, go hard restrictionist on articles about immigration. If it’s a plot, he knew this was the angle to play.

    My biggest concern is that even though restrictionism is being discussed now, if Trump goes down the subject might be made anathema for a generation or more. “Oh you agree with that nazi that Rodham beat?” In other words a worst case scenario is that Trump pulls the rug out from under us, intentionally or not. This is a worrying prospect and will make the conflict even more vicious.

    Another thing is, Trump’s relative success shows that if a reasonable, intelligent, well-read, experienced, confident politician took a restrictionist position, he would clean up, across party lines.

  49. @SFG
    I'll walk back my former statement a little--he might make it. (When the facts change, I change my opinions...) He has pretty strong headwinds--the media doesn't like him, demographics are getting bluer, and he's got terrible approval ratings outside of noncollege whites. But, guys hate Hillary. So we'll see.

    I admit my current routine is NYT, Atlantic, New Republic, Unz, National Review, Breitbart. Thing is there's no real good even center-right equivalent of the NYT--journals of opinion don't break news. I'm quite open to suggestions.

    You can get the real news from the NY Times, you just have to read between the lines, like in Pravda in the old days. So if the NY Times says that a group of justifiably angry Mexican immigrants attacked supporter of the Fascist Trump, you just read “Mexicans attack Trump supporters”. “Hillary escapes prosecution” is really “Hillary BARELY escapes prosecution.” It’s not that hard once you get the hang of it.

  50. @JohnnyWalker123
    Hillary's average national poll number is 45%, while Trump is at 39%. The difference is hardly huge by any means. I also wouldn't be surprised if polls under predict Trump's support, as it's politically incorrect to vote for him.

    I think Trump's new strategy of emphasizing his protectionist, anti-outsourcing trade policy should be helpful in the rustbelt. Trump also has spent very little on ads so far (in comparison to Clinton), so more ads might help a bit too.

    This is far from over.

    I think it’s pretty encouraging for Trump that he is not so far down in the polls even though he has run no ads against Hillary yet.

    I’ve read that even the ads Sanders ran were not strong attacks on Hillary.

    Given that Hillary has received virtually nothing but puff pieces in media, and vast hordes of them, I have to believe that her real negatives have not yet been exposed and exploited with due concentration.

    All of which suggests that Trump can pull her down many notches once he starts to campaign in earnest against her.

    Trump, on the other hand, has already had everything thrown at him and is still standing. It’s hard to see how or why he’s going to go down further, absent major forced errors. Of which, of course, he is quite capable — maybe even talented.

  51. @whorefinder
    In which case, it would be an example of Brexit or Merkel's Boner---the ruling elites massively underestimating how much open borders is hated and hurts the working and middle class patriots. But I don't see that.

    On a related note, are we really all so sure David Cameron wanted open borders? He didn't have to call for the referendum, but did so "assured" Brexit wouldn't happen. There's a part of me who thinks Cameron actually cared about the British people enough to give Farage a chance to win it, while Cameron could sabotage his own side and help Farage all under the guise of "working towards the EU." If he had a conscious at all, Cameron had to be dismayed by the last few years of immigrant-related horror and the fact that his own party's policies weren't doing anything about it. If Farage and he end up becoming allies you heard it here first.

    It would be a rare circumstance of a politician willingly being the fall guy for an idea he believes in.

    If he had a conscience at all, Cameron had to be dismayed by the last few years of immigrant-related horror and the fact that his own party’s policies weren’t doing anything about it.

    This is just my random hypothesizing, but what if Cameron found out something that led him to believe that the UK was better off out, but that he couldn’t reveal? Guaranteed Turkish accession, political unification, the next stage of Merkel’s open borders plan…who knows what powerful people really know about.

    Which is to say it would be wonderful if you were right.

    He certainly resigned with alacrity.

    • Replies: @whorefinder

    what if Cameron found out something that led him to believe that the UK was better off out
     
    Eh, unlikely. The already-known factors in the EU have been enough to drive many people to want out. There's precious little I could think of that Cameron could find out that would suddenly make him change sides to Leave. If anything shocking did come across his desk, and Cameron did want to leave because of it alone, I think he would have let it slip out to the press through a third party---" a hacker sent this to the Times"---and then let the vote happen.

    But hey, you never know.
  52. If the embed doesn’t work: Yes, Minister

  53. @gruff

    If he had a conscience at all, Cameron had to be dismayed by the last few years of immigrant-related horror and the fact that his own party’s policies weren’t doing anything about it.
     
    This is just my random hypothesizing, but what if Cameron found out something that led him to believe that the UK was better off out, but that he couldn't reveal? Guaranteed Turkish accession, political unification, the next stage of Merkel's open borders plan...who knows what powerful people really know about.

    Which is to say it would be wonderful if you were right.

    He certainly resigned with alacrity.

    what if Cameron found out something that led him to believe that the UK was better off out

    Eh, unlikely. The already-known factors in the EU have been enough to drive many people to want out. There’s precious little I could think of that Cameron could find out that would suddenly make him change sides to Leave. If anything shocking did come across his desk, and Cameron did want to leave because of it alone, I think he would have let it slip out to the press through a third party—” a hacker sent this to the Times”—and then let the vote happen.

    But hey, you never know.

  54. @SFG
    There's a long British tradition of self-sacrifice for an ideal, most prominently in the Charge of the Light Brigade. And Cameron gets to keep drawing breath and even being semi-famous.

    But it's also pretty likely that he just took a gamble and goofed. He might have thought 'hey, if I win, I win, and if I lose, at least England gets out of the EU'.

    British political customs tend to be a little better than American political customs.

    Part of it is that Prime Ministers aren’t deified the way American Presidents have been, especially since Pearl Harbor. Notice that American Presidents never have a job again after they leave office, not since John Quincy Adams went into the House. But former PMs can rise again, the way former PM Balfour became Foreign Secretary.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You forgot about William Howard Taft becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after his presidency.
  55. @SFG
    I think I would have really gotten on your nerves anyway. Besides, I'd be pretty useless in a war.

    When to give up is a difficult question, though--too early and you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, too late and you waste energy and treasure in a fruitless cause (and blood in a war). (If the South had fought to the last man, the only result would have been the extinction of the Southern man and Yankees stealing all the Southern belles.) Even if you think the enemy is trying to exterminate you it pays to retain enough personnel to defend a position elsewhere if you flee.

    I don't think I ever actually thought Trump *could win*--I just advocated *supporting his campaign* because it would (a) make immigration restriction *the* issue the next time around, effectively allowing the guy to be Goldwater to someone else's Reagan (Jeff Sessions maybe?) and (b) decrease the size of Hillary's margin and likely coattails down the ballot--if he loses 35-65 a la Goldwater lots of districts may flip R to D, but in a 48-52 squeaker the Republicans may retain control of Congress, which will slow down Hillary's AFFH and give us breathing room. The GOP doesn't just roll over and play dead every time they don't think they can win.

    I've given him money. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

    Still, as Hanson says, I've been wrong about Trump so far (though I really don't remember falling in love with Cruz). So maybe I'll be wrong again.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions is almost 70 years old. He isn’t going to be the Reagan to Trump’s Goldwater.

  56. @Steve Sailer
    British political customs tend to be a little better than American political customs.

    Part of it is that Prime Ministers aren't deified the way American Presidents have been, especially since Pearl Harbor. Notice that American Presidents never have a job again after they leave office, not since John Quincy Adams went into the House. But former PMs can rise again, the way former PM Balfour became Foreign Secretary.

    You forgot about William Howard Taft becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after his presidency.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2