We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Whatever one thinks about Trump, and I certainly don’t always agree with him, he is the first major American politician (something he clearly is now) to name directly the entity that seeks to destroy Western civilization. He didn’t even cloak it in “radical Islam.”
The assumption of the “good people” is this will only make things worse, alarm the Muslim world and stir it up (as if it could be any more stirred up). Perhaps, however, it’s the contrary. Perhaps people are sitting in the Islamic world and privately sighing in relief. At last America has a leader (a “strong horse” in their parlance) who isn’t a fool, who is willing to stand up and say what so many already think.
– Roger L. Simon
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Simply not true. Mr Trump is a late person (not the first person) to this matter (many other politicians have talked about it – and talked about it more correctly) – and he does not even define what he is talking about.
There is nothing from Mr Trump about the history and theology of Islam (Mohammed and so on) it is just Muslims boo-hiss. A perfect “Islamophobe” for the Frankfurt School types of the Southern Poverty Law Centre and the rest of the enemies of the West.
If Mr Trump is the face of opposition to Islam then the West has already lost – as Mr Trump is an ignorant thug, and it shows.
And then we have last night.
Mr Trump going on about how the slaughter of protesters in 1989 by the tanks of Red China was about suppressing a “riot”.
About every issue of policy (from Social Security to Cuba – and the Mr Trump was speaking in southern Florida where a lot of people are Cuba) Mr Trump made error or fact after error of fact.
Mr Trump is not a young man (he is older than I am) – he is not going to learn a lot of new stuff.
If he is ignorant at his age (and he is ignorant) he is going to stay ignorant.
Ignorant about the economics (not the business, the economics, they are not the same thing Mr Trump) of international trade, about Cuba, about Social Security (you can have anything you like voters – just vote Trump…..).
And yes ignorant about Islam.
I am no friend of Mohammed and his followers – but I do not want this ignorant thug, Donald Trump, representing the West. He will mess it up – because he does not know anything.
“Paul do not be so harsh – make friends with the coming wave”.
Like Michelle Fields of Breitbart tried to.
The news organisation of Michelle Fields has been friendly (yes friendly) to Mr Trump.
But the lady asked a question Mr Trump did not like – so his campaign manager roughed her up.
And Mr Trump?
“It did not happen” “She made it up”.
A scumbag a complete and total scumbag.
That is what Mr Donald Trump is.
I wish I could edit comments on this thing – but the grammatical errors will have to stay.
The substance of what I have written is accurate – which is more than can be said for Mr Trump (I repeat a man who is actually older than me – he is not some college kid who is going to learn about things later), who is simply ignorant. Mr Trump makes errors of fact about everything – not just in the first debate, but even last night (he has learned nothing – and he is not going to learn anything).
Mr Trump does not know anything – he just inherited a lot of money and played some business deals and thinks that business and economics (and even national security policy) are the same thing.
Paul – I agree about not wanting Trump to be President. I want Cruz.
But, who else has been as blunt about the nastiness of Islam, as opposed merely to that get-out phrase “Islamic extremism”, among major American politicians of the kind who get a lot of votes?
Trump’s attraction is that he’s like a Mafia boss. When ordinary shmoes realize that the the official people in charge are inadequate and weak and uninterested in them and their problems, they turn to loud bruisers like Trump, who they think will do a better job of dealing with immediate threats in their neighbourhood.
Yes Cal – and Mafia rule leads to poverty and decay, look at Sicily.
Brian – true, listening to (say) Marco Rubio is deeply depressing.
No idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with Islamic theology, with the teachings and example of Mohammed himself, – it is all the fault of a few naughty “extremists” or “radicals” and (even – in spite of Iraq and Afghanistan) we can-and-should spread democracy to the Islamic world.
Bushism (for that us what this is) makes even Trump seem less stupid – at least his Mafia style instincts tell him “these are bad people”, Bush and others(such as Rubio) have not even got to that stage.
There are Congressmen and so on who know the theology – and talk about it.
Actually Ted Cruz (and his father) know the nature of Islamic theology fairly well.
But you are CORRECT – Ted Cruz chooses not to talk about it.
And for, I think, good reasons.
One only gets a few seconds to speak – and the left will distort what one says.
And lots of middle or the road people (the sort of people who will vote in November – in the general election) do not want talk that sounds “mean about Muslims”.
The difficulty is to get past the nomination process (one set of voters) and then win the general election (a much larger group of voters).
Brit Hume (of Fox News) started this “liar liar” stuff about Ted Cruz – by saying that Ted Cruz had a “problem with the truth”.
Actually the Fox News “liar liar” campaign is itself a LIE – as what Ted Cruz has said about the record of Donald Trump (and Marco Rubio) has been the truth.
But there is a “problem with the truth” in a very different sense.
Ted Cruz believes (rightly or wrongly) that a lot of people (people who will vote in November) are not ready for the full truth.
And I agree with him. That does not mean lying – it means being quiet on certain matters. Saying “radical Islam” rather than just “Islam”.
The hard thing is to get past all that – and be sworn in as President.
Only then will there be a President who actually understands Mohammed and co in the Whitehouse.
Nor one must go overboard on the Islamic threat.
Yes it is an enemy of the West (it has been, contrary to the BBC and so on, for more than a thousand years) – but it is not actually the most dangerous threat the West faces.
At least in the case of the United States – China is far more dangerous than any Islamic power.
Even Iran.
The greatest threat to the United States is the Federal government itself. It presents a far greater hazard to most Americans than any foreign force. Look at the latest instalment in the Apple/FBI case:
Indeed, but agreeing with the Department of Justice may well mean you might be evil and anti-American.
Brian M : “But, who else has been as blunt about the nastiness of Islam”
Well, in fact there was another chap who was thought to be something of a loose cannon, mad dog, troublemaker and supreme egotist who had this to say :
Yes Lee, he did have a way with words 🙂 River War if I recall, yes?
“China is far more dangerous than any Islamic power.”
As an external threat, maybe. But the biggest threat to Western society is large-scale Muslim immigration. That’s why I agree with Mr Ed. The governments of Western countries are the greatest threats to our future, because they are determined to transform society and dilute the power of traditional Western culture. (I have no idea how effective Trump will really be in stopping immigration. Although I think he will be a terrible President I am tempted to say give him a go because the US
is rapidly heading down the toilet with the current setup.)
This can’t be said enough. And populist demagogues like Trump will do nothing to change that.
If Mr Trump is the face of opposition to Islam then the West has already lost – as Mr Trump is an ignorant thug, and it shows.
Wrong. It is strength that matters more than anything else when it comes to dealing with the Islamic world. Since they don’t have strength they resort to trying to soften us by making us feel guilty. Trump is the only one who wouldn’t give a damn about that.
BTW the Islamic world is far more upset by US support for Israel and things like the OIF and Libya than they are by a ban on Muslims entering the US. It is only white liberals obsessed with discrimination who are peeing themselves over Trump’s proposal.
Yes Perry – “The River War” but only the unedited version.
Both Winston Churchill and Gladstone would risk punishment in modern Britain.
Mr Ed – an out of control Federal government is indeed a terrible economic threat, but I am thinking of a physical threat (not to a few individuals – but to tens of millions of people).
The People’s Republic of China is not a joke – and nor is Islam.
Although YES the growth of he the Federal government (and of general leftism) leads, paradoxically enough, to the WEAKENING of the vital part of the Federal government – national defence.
Not just in physical stuff – but undermining the warrior spirit.
This started under President Clinton (trying to make the military P.C.) and has become a fanatical cult under President Obama – with more and more officers resigning in disgust (the generals and admirals left becoming more and more the lickspittle type).
The harm has not yet passed the point of no return – but it soon could.
As for getting rid of the Federal government.
Fine.
AS LONG AS SOMETHING IS READY TO PUT IN ITS PLACE.
Vague statements about “freedom” or “the enemy is just a fantasy made up by the bankers” (the latter basically a Rothbardian move) will not do.
There must be something real to put in the place of the Federal Government.
Not just for the sake of the survival of Americans.
But of the Western World in general.
Although YES.
Under a “President Hillary” or “President Donald” even I would give up reformism.
Jordan,
That might be qualified a bit;
The threat is the Federal Administrative State, which differs from the constitutionally delineated “Federal Government” comprised of a “Union” of independent States.
Since its beginnings around the end of the 1800s, the FAS has become fully established through the 1900s and, by legislative delegations of authority, is now a force without limiting principles or limitations of functions.
The FAS is now a power of centralized (rule-making, execution and adjudication)authorities that are not separated by constitutional delineations, nor opposed (as yet) by any other power. It is the FAS that has direct (and ever-increasing) impacts on the populace.
The legislators have taken on a role (beneficial to them) of intermediaries between the social and economic society and the FAS, which is a creature of their delegation.
Reactions are beginning; some civil, some political.
The deficiencies of the existing (democratic) process are currently limiting the electorate (and populace) to use it for disturbance of the political order that has produced and maintains the FAS. This may well pass into civil disobedience and judicial disorder (Read, Charles Murray) if the populace impacted by the self-serving institutions of the FAS are not provided with, or cannot develop, an instrument or facilities of offsetting power.
Most discussion of Islam, and Donald Trump for that matter has simply degenerated into tribal virtue signalling of the worst kind. The query, “have you ever read the Koran?” or any follow up as to it’s interpretation and meaning to believers is way beyond the dread ‘triggering’. Something more akin to detonation. Sadly the one constant throughout is Islam, as in constant for centuries. They cannot and will not be ignored or liked into some happy drum circle or Whole Foods.
As if Hillary is brilliant?
As if “Ike” and co were brilliant?
As if any of the “Georges” were brilliant?
Yes, in many ways Trump is a brick, but he’s pretending to be “conservative” right now. He used to be openly pro-choice about abortion and supposedly some event changed his mind. He’s been openly gay rights and pro-gay marriage in the past and he recently changed the rules of the Ms Universe pageant allowing transgendered women into the pageant. That doesn’t sound very “conservative” (i.e. homophobic asshole) to me.
Does it really matter if one understands the nuanced details of Muhammad’s (another asshole) life, or if Trump merely realizes, like with the Japanese in WWII and the Germans of the same era, a significant portion of those people are real assholes who are trying to kill us, so we need to wake up and deal with them, perhaps vet them in some way, without being afraid of offending the idiot snowflakes, supposedly on our side.
Yes, trump is saying a lot of garbage, like touting tariffs as economic stimulus and china as “the enemy”. I only hope that’s part of his jingoistic “I’mma conservative, god bless America” mystery cloak that he’s hiding behind in order to get elected. China cannot harm the US at all in the arena of international trade, and yes, they do play ‘currency wars’, but so does every economic powerhouse ESPECIALLY the US.
Unfortunately, I expect trade will become less free under Trump because he’ll be using it as a weapon to play political hardball with, i.e. interjecting even more politics into economics. And as far as china is concerned, Walmart (I know, small beans) is the poor person’s best friend, foreign and domestic. (“Sweatshops” pay 2 to 5 times these “developing nation’s” average national wages; 7 times in the case of Honduras). If Trump is really serious about the idiotic position that other nations are “stealing our jobs”, he’ll harm the poor both foreign and domestic. Hopefully the man who made himself a ten-fold billionaire isn’t that stupid. (Yes he inherited money, but not 10 billion dollars. Let’s be honest here).
The point is somewhat-true, as far as it goes. But Mr Trump’s assessment of the Islamic threat is entirely binary – there’s good A-rabs, and there’s bad A-rabs, and that’s all there is to it. And anyone who’s done even as little reading as I knows that anything to do with Islam is far more complex than that.
He sees it as being as simple as ‘we find and kill all the bad A-rabs’, but that’s an entirely-irrational and unrealistic way to consider dealing with such a vast and varied collection of enemies, spread across such a great geographical and doctrinal span.
Aircraftsman Shaw learned the hard way that alliances in the Muslim world are complex and shifting and need constant attention. Both the current and prior denizens of the State Department, as well as myriad other diplomats across the world and across the ages, persist in seeing issues in the Muslim world in terms of ‘us and them’, just as Trump does. But it’s never ‘us and them’ with Muslims, it’s a continuum with many points and positions, and it takes a lot of skill and experience to even begin to navigate it. Trump has made it clear that he simply does not grasp this, and (more to the point) that his is not the kind of personality that’s willing to learn. He thinks that waving the big stick will make them A-rabs fall in line right quick – what he doesn’t grasp is that they’ll fall in line to his face, and stab him in the back at the same time, and do it all skillfully enough to make our allies doubt us more and our enemies hate us more. The Iranians are doing this precise thing to President Obama and Secretary Kerry right now.
They’ve been doing this for millennia – it’s in their DNA. Some jumped-up casino builder from Noo York with absolutely zero experience in Middle-East foreign affairs isn’t going to present them with any great challenges. They’ll run rings around him, just as they are doing with the current President.
Not suggesting, incidentally, that any other candidate could do much better. Trump simply leads the pack in his glorious, willful ignorance of how to deal with the Islamic threat.
llater,
llamas
What is, or are, the, or a, comparable, offsetting ideology or ideologies in western societies to that of “Islamic” convictions in eastern societies?
If Churchill were attempting to gain the PM position today, he’d get the “Loose cannon” treatment like Trump’s facing. (Never mind that he was actually a thinker and Nobel Prize winning author). And where is that opposition coming from? ‘From the ‘Tyranny of the Experts’ machine. I really don’t give a damn if Trump knows about, say, the difference between Shia and Sunni or that their split occurred before the Koran existed. What we need is someone with balls and who can’t be or won’t be controlled by the behind-the-scene power brokers and won’t cower in the face of political correctness. I think we could use a bit of loose cannon in the manipulator’s house of cards. Someone needs to swing their sizable cannon balls in their glass houses. (Big balls connotation intended).
Far be it for me to sound abit like Heath Ledger’s Joker, but the illusion is that one can control everything, and the schemes of the schemers need to be disrupted with a bit of powerful chaos.
Hail Eris? LOL
Llamas said.
“…good A-rabs and bad A-rabs”.
I suspect that you’re drinking the liberal’s koolaid with your assumption that Trump think’s Islam is a race rather than a SOCIAL SYSTEM of theocratic tyranny. (After all that’s what it is, not merely a “religion”.)
I’m “challenged” all the time by libtards, calling me a racist when I even as much quote the koran, exposing their machinations, self-delusions and lies. When I retort that most muslims ARE NOT Arab, and ask what race am I being racist against, I’m ALWAYS met with silence. Did they learn from their mistake? No. They never had any intent to be honest, merely effective. They’ll use the exact same ploy again AS SOON they can.
These dolts are emoters, not thinkers, like Ben Affleck. And like Affleck, established facts make them very, very angry. (They need to run to their safe spaces.) These relativists think truth and reality is an individual, subjective choice.
(Ben Affleck reference)
https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60
Llamas,
You really think that the ‘pretend to be nice but will stab you in the back’ muslim nations will confuse Trump? Are you freakin’ serious, my friend? Whether Iran will stab you in the back and renege on their deals is answered by the entire political history of Iran. The only people fooled by Iran playing nice are the liberal fucktarded hippies whose memory extends back, oh, at least a week.
“Radical” Islamists and Jihadists (and realize that radical means ‘to the root’, not ‘fringe’) are Klingons. They’ll do more than shoot themselves in the foot and be proud of it to achieve some blind ‘greater good’ goal, they’ll blow themselves up to do it. Of course it doesn’t help matters that the koran is itself an extremist xenophobic tome that touts the values of a pedophilic barbarian conqueror.
Cruz has.
I’m with Thailover on this. I’m no Trump fan, but I suspect that he’s the best on offer (yes, I know that’s a very low bar). He certainly seems to be the only candidate who recognizes that Islam (and not just “radical” Islam, whatever that means) poses an existential threat to the West. I don’t doubt that the Islamic world is, as Llamas says, “a continuum with many points and positions.” But with no viable means of identifying and separating a priori those various “points and positions”, I’m perfectly happy with Trump’s idea of excluding them all until we are satisfied that each individual does not pose an unacceptable risk. The burden of proof of acceptability should be on the applicant for admission to this country, not on us to prove his unworthiness. And with Muslims that should be a high bar, because my default position is to doubt the intelligence and/or honesty of anyone who accepts the teachings and values of a “pedophilic barbarian conqueror”.
Thailover wrote (at me):
“You really think that the ‘pretend to be nice but will stab you in the back’ muslim nations will confuse Trump? Are you freakin’ serious, my friend?”
Yes, I am serious. Mr Trump has shown me no indication whatsoever that he has any sort of wisdom, nuance or common sense when it comes to the outcomes of the things he does. On the contrary, he has repeatedly demonstrated what can only be described as a juvenile infatuation with the immediate and simple, with no thought for tomorrow. Maybe that’s why he’s gone broke so many times, and left a trail of failed ventures behind him that’s now 30 years long.
You have to ask yourself how a man in his position could possibly allow himself to become associated with a get-rich-quick real estate scam like Trump “University”, or how he can lower himself to acting like a carnival barker for such hucksterism as Trump Steaks or a branded line of “power suits”? It’s not like he needs the money, which might be some sort of excuse. He just sees the shiny outcome, and dives in, with no thought for the consequences. His standard recourse when things go wrong is to either a) walk away while disavowing any knowledge and claiming total innocence or b) sue everyone in sight. Neither of these approaches will work in the office he now seeks.
Do I think that the Middle Eastern nations can play him? Like a cheap violin. He simply doesn’t have the knowledge, experience or skill to deal with these kinds of issues. The world is not New York real estate, which is the only arena in which he has had much success of any sort.
For example – If I were a bad actor in the world of ‘radical Islam’, I know just what I’d do, and right now. I’d want him to be elected President, but I want him elected as fatally-damaged goods. So I’d carry out multiple attacks on his personal properties, or the properties that are indelibly associated with him because he insists on putting his name on the front in 18-foot gold letters. I’d firebomb his silly-ass private jet, and napalm that ghastly golf resort in Florida (I forget its name) and carry out attacks on the casinos that bear his name.
This tells the faithful back home that even though he’s running for President, we can attack him with impunity. And it allows me to make the case, when he’s elected, that he’s not doing (whatever he does) for the greater good of the world, but rather for personal revenge. Given his past history of this sort of thing, the story will be an easy sell.
Or any one of a hundred other scenarios in which he is shown to be powerless, impotent and motivated by the wrong impulses. It’s easy. The man is a walking mess of pathologies. The simplest insult, the slightest ridicule, the least setback, causes him to go off like a Roman candle, spewing bile, cursing, threatening lawsuits, plotting revenge – he won’t change when he’s elected. He’s a lousy winner as well as a lousy loser. For anyone skilled in those arts, he would be easy to manipulate. I’ll bet they say an extra-special prayer to Allah each night that he gets elected. Obama was easy to fool, because he’s got no backbone and no principles. Trump would be even-easier to fool because he’s got no principles, but also no control and no boundaries – he says, and does, whatever comes to him in the moment.
But we needn’t worry about it too much. The Democrats are just sitting on their hands, watching the Republicans self-destruct and give them Trump on a platter as their candidate. Then they’ll eviscerate him. It will be just-as-easy for them, they’ve done it to much-more capable candidates than him.
llater,
llamas
I look forward to Trumps Bull-in-a-china-shop presidency. American power has become a joke in the last 20 years, they can certainly destroy any target in the world at a moments notice but there is not an ounce of political courage or willpower to do it. Everything has to be run past a thousand lawyers and diplomats and the UN and god knows who else. I’d like a man who says “Screw it, bomb them until they give up or die” and doesn’t need a committee to make a decision.
Let freedoms enemies be put on the back foot for a change. Let them imagine an egotistical blowhard in control of the worlds most powerful military and let them figure that into their calculations. I suspect it will result in a much more peaceful world.
Much of the Muslim world is governed by nasty bastards who will kill you if you bother them. Islam understands nasty bastards, and knows it’s a good idea to steer clear of them unless there is profit or fame in association. If the US elects Trump, they will recognize him as a nasty bastard, though not as bad as some.
There is a certain crude wisdom in presenting the world with a situation it can understand.
llamas,
Have you ever thought of becoming a scriptwriter and thus returning 24 to its glory days?
:>))
Llamas, one doesn’t become a multi-billionaire in business for decades and not know about faces filled with smiles and cocked knives behind their backs. He can’t be guilty of suspecting all muslims, the alleged “racism”, and at the same time, a sucker for bad brokered deals with muslim nations because he trusts them to keep their word. This is true for anyone, much less Trump. No doubt, he probably even has experience with people who would screw themselves over to further their agenda, hidden or otherwise.
My impression, (and it’s just an impression mind you) that his bicker wars were simply because he’s rich enough to be eccentric with little to no blowback. I got a big kick out of him beating Rosie O’Donnell at HER own bully game, following HER own established rules. He rolled in the mud with a pig of a person and made the big mouth bully run away. He did it because he wanted to, not because he was compelled to. (No one can take O’Donnell seriously). When was the last time someone stood up to Bully O’Donnell and made her take cover? (Barbara Walters, probably, and Barbara lost some ‘lib’ point for it). When he knows he can’t indulge in such silliness, he’ll dial it back and he already has. When he was not afraid to push back against conservative TV (Fox TV) sweetheart Megan Kelly, even conservatives respected him for it.
Mr. Black said,
“Everything has to be run past a thousand lawyers and diplomats and the UN and god knows who else. I’d like a man who says “Screw it, bomb them until they give up or die” and doesn’t need a committee to make a decision.”
Khadaffy Duck to Reagan: “cross this line of death and…”
Reagan: crosses line.
Khadaddy Duck: Backs up and says, “Uh…ok, now cross THIS line of death and…”
lol
It’s a question of whether an elected Mr Trump stays in charcacter as President, or reverts to type. If he stays in character, we will at least have the fun of a British Prime Minister humiliating himself one way or the other whatever he does viz-a-viz President Trump.
If he reverts to type, it’s Hillary without the little Fidel inside bursting to get out, but rather an inner Juan Perón, less dangerous.
But there is only one man on Earth who might save the USA, Senator Cruz, imho.
A slim hope, IMO, Mr Ed. And I absolutely agree with you, which puts me in an extremely awkward position. :>((
. . .
The Trumpster. Tonight I watched the video of Megan Kelly trying to interview Rubio and talking with Rich Lowry of National Review, with the rioters in Chicago in full hue & cry at D.T.’s attempt to have a rally. Cruz was giving a speech, so rather than interview him they just picked up the speech and broadcast it.
Expressions of distaste for the state of the political climate from all three, especially Rubio and Lowry as I recall. For some reason they seemed to think that Trump’s general manner during the campaign has encouraged the nastiness. Megyn brought up the 1968 DNC Convention in Chicago, which my god! may have been before she was born. Unbelievable. But those riots were staged. Choreographed almost. These, said Mr. Lowry (I think it was) involved a lot of professional “protestors,” along with the genuine mob. And there were protesters protesting the protesters also.
I’ve said a few times, though maybe not here, and now I will say it here–please forgive me if I said already. I lost all respect for Trump the very first time I saw him, which was when I happened to surf past The Apprentice. I thought, my God, what an example to be setting of how adults and businessmen behave.
Libertarians don’t seem to like to admit it, but we are all setting an example for others every time we leave the house. And even at home, if there’s so much as a goldfish living with us.
We ought to be at some pains to try to be good examples. And the trumpeter should be ashamed of himself.
As regards the contest between the candidates, Alisa said it best: “Cruz has”.
As regards the contest in November, were it Trump v. Clinton or Sanders, I’m not overly worried by the picture of IS bombing a Trump building and then saying, “He’s only attacking us for revenge.” IS’ friends in the west will find excuses anyway, and I prefer Cruz _because_ I think Trump’s ego may be our best hope. “What his hard heart denies, his charitable vanity supplies” was said of many a tyrant in the past, and explains many a celebrity backing a left-wing cause today. “What his liberal-reared brain denies, his egotistical anger supplies” may be our best hope for Trump.
I think that if he does win the candidacy, Trump has a chance of beating either Clinton or Sanders (I think it will be Sanders). If he does become president, he will be a mediocre one – just another statist thug in the long line of other statist thugs the US has been having as candidates/presidents for decades now. Will he be the worst of the lot? I doubt it. Is he going to solve any real problems instead of creating new ones? Hell no. To me he’s just another McCain or Romney, only much more loud and emotionally/mentally unstable. I didn’t bother voting for those two, and I won’t bother with this one.
Mr Ed said,
“But there is only one man on Earth who might save the USA, Senator Cruz, imho.”
I’m fine with either Trump or Cruz. Both candidates are seriously flawed as far as this ‘radial atheist’ Objectivist, c’est moi, is concerned. Trump is like a bull in a china shop, and Cruz has a bible strapped to his face. Women of every political ilk KNOW that Cruz, for example, has a hard-on about establishing a national ban on abortion. He’ll play right into their “war against women” rhetoric…and it’ll SERIOUSLY work against him. (More women vote than men). Does Cruz really understand that women are not payed less than men BECAUSE they dont have a penis, etc? I somehow doubt it. He’s paid attention to actual issues like foiling the gun grabbers. I also suspect that Cruz’ idea of “putting Americal back to work” consists of more cronyism toward the auto industry, etc.
Ellen said,
By Jove, I think she’s got it.
One of the impressive things about Trump is the way he gets his opponents to act as his salesmen. For example the Republican establishment (sour-faced losers against Trump), those protesters in Chicago (violent communists against Trump) or even Paul Marks on this very thread.
Yep, Trump sells well, and so did Hitler (shut up, Godwin!).
‘One of the impressive things about Trump is the way he gets his opponents to act as his salesmen. For example the Republican establishment (sour-faced losers against Trump), those protesters in Chicago (violent communists against Trump) or even Paul Marks on this very thread.’
Indeed. The protesters are morons. Do they realise that their 1968 equivalents helped Nixon win?
Theres no doubting Trumps egomania, and he may well be a thug, but frankly right now a thug is what we need to stand up to the enemies of the West, inside and out.
And it is wonderful to behold how the more that the bolshevik media attack him the stronger he grows, the frankfurt school narrative of the hegemonic media-academic complex is crumbling at last.
Islam hates us, says Trump.
And they also know the wealth of the wicked is destined for the righteous and Ted Cruz – “the Anointed One” – is just the guy to help with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNa5w9js48s
The ‘Untruth’ about Donald Trump.
https://youtu.be/Gw8c2Cq-vpg
About media lies and misquotes.
Pay no attention to the length of the video, as it’s entertaining and feels like 15 minutes.
EVERYONE is gunning for Trump right now, it’s ridiculous.
There’s lies, damned lies, and….well, you know.
Patrick Crozier said,
He outlined his strategy for this in The Art of the Deal. (I’m paraphrasing). First, he says something general, usually couched in bravado and a bit of hyperbole, then his attackers (often the media themselves) rail something damning against him and his comments, (and usually rephrased as lies), then he retorts with a more specific clarification of what he said and exposure of his detractors deceptions…all of which serves as personal and professional publicity played out in the media.
“If he does become president, he will be a mediocre one”. Probably. But not a dull one. There will be, as the Chinese say, interesting times.
I have plenty of other entertainment opportunities, thank you much.
Perhaps. We won’t know until he does become president and finishes his term of office, which is no sure thing. I’m sure many people said the same about Reagan.
Trump is unpredictable – he has a high ceiling, but also a low floor. The very fact that he has a higher ceiling than Obama (at best a mediocre president, at worst the very worst ever), and even Bush, is to his credit.
Thanks. I agree – that is an extremely informative video! Vote Trump!
I will point out that to forgo voting for the Heffalumpian candidate is to help Bernie or Shrill, whichever, to get the Top Job. (Or any other socialist or communist the Dims see fit to put up.)
Voting for a 3rd-party candidate doesn’t have the same effect, because although you’re depriving the Jackass of the Day of your vote, you’re not offsetting one of the J-A’s votes.
I’m going to propose a possible upside to a Trump presidency which I haven’t seen addressed anywhere. The last Republican president we had who was anything like Trump (arrogant, strong-willed, even a little paranoid) was Nixon. There was both good* and bad** in his administration, but one remarkable thing to come out of that era was Congress reasserting some of its Constitutional powers against the “imperial presidency”. This took several forms, including passing (over Nixon’s veto) the War Powers Act (which was intended to, and for a long time actually did, significantly limit the president’s power to unilaterally conduct foreign military adventures) and imposing the first meaningful restrictions on our intelligence agencies, notably the CIA (which at the time was the primary agency for covertly causing trouble abroad).
Today we have another “imperial president”, whom it pleases to rule by wielding his “pen and phone”. Many of Obama’s Executive Orders are blatantly unconstitutional, and his assertion that he can circumvent the Senate’s power to “advise and consent” on treaties would be risible were it not for the fact that the Senate has acceded to it. The Republicans controlling Congress dare not seriously challenge anything Obama has done because they are terrified of being called “racist”, and of course the Democrats are ecstatic over his actions. But with a Republican in the White House, and especially one which is disliked and distrusted by the Republican Party elite, there is no risk of such a charge. We could find ourselves in a situation where Congress actually pushes back against the presidency, reclaims some of its rightful powers, and essentially inoculates the republic against the excesses of another Obama for a few more decades. Such a restoration of the Constitutional order is much to be desired.
Of course, that won’t do anything about restoring the proper roles of the states in the federalist political structure, but one problem at a time.
* Opening relations with China, ending the Vietnam war.
** Abolishing the gold standard, implementing wage and price controls.
I cannot wait to see the look of horror on the faces of the lefty media nazis when Trump becomes President.
Laird:
There also needs to be the occurrence of the equivalent of Watergate to a Trump Presidency to achieve the outcome you suggest.
As you know, the ‘benefits’ you refer to coming out of the Nixon Presidency such as the War Powers Act and restrictions on the CIA happened in spite of the efforts of the administration, not because of them. It was the emasculation of Nixon’s political power due to Watergate that allowed the Congress to pass that legislation – such measures would never have been passed if Watergate had not occurred. (Of course, that legislation was particularly popular in the country due to the ongoing fall out from the Vietnam War but a strong Nixon Presidency would have been able to block such legislation by marshalling GOP forces in the congress, persuading waiving Democrat hawks not to support the legislation and by presidential veto – none of this was possible due to Watergate.)
So to achieve a similar carving back of the “Imperial Presidency” during a future Trump administration in a way similar to the late stages of the Nixon Administration, you need (i) Trump to be in the Whitehouse; and (ii) Trump to do something so egregious (like the Watergate break ins) so that his political power is so weakened during the remainder of his presidency that Congress can pass measures which weaken the executive branch.
I read that Max Boot, a neocon Rubio Adviser, say he’d prefer Stalin over Trump. These people truly are unhinged, not Trump. If Trump causes the neocons to convert to Communism, I’d give Trump another medal, to go with the other one for sparing the world from another Bush administration.
Perhaps Laird, a Trump Presidency will be, for the Republic, like a dose of untested medicine, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
Anthony, I fully understand that the “benefits” I referred to came about despite Nixon, not because of him (I did note that he had vetoed the War Powers Act); indeed, that was my point. Actions such as the WPA veto override, the Church Commission (which brought to light CIA misdeeds and lead to structural reforms of the intelligence agencies), and the threatened impeachment itself, could never have happened had not Nixon alienated much of the leadership within his own party. Watergate fatally weakened him, but it was far from his only injury. It was merely the last one.
Would it require a Watergate-like triggering event to provoke a similar reaction by Congress in a Trump administration? Probably, but that’s a very low bar. You cite Watergate as if it were some major crime. It wasn’t. Watergate was a minor peccadillo, made toxic only by the accumulation of Nixon’s other transgressions (the Pentagon Papers, his lies about bombing in Cambodia, trying to sic the IRS on his perceived enemies, etc.). Absent that record of turpitude Watergate would be, at most, a minor historical footnote. Similarly, I suspect that it would take only a minor breach by Trump to unleash the pent-up hostility of Congress. He will have no reservoir of goodwill to draw upon when the inevitable happens. It is clear that Trump is viscerally disliked by the Republican elite, so their appetite for protecting his flank will be severely limited from the start. And Republicans in general are disgusted by Obama’s over-reaching, and would support, even celebrate, reining in the Presidency, even if it happens to be held by someone (nominally) of their own party. So I’m sure there will be ample opportunity for Congress to push back against a President Trump.
Mr Ed, you may be correct.
As I recently pointed out on my “Facebook” page (I even managed to “link” to a recording of the remarks) when Pamela Geller held her Mohammed drawing contest in Texas, several people were murdered by Islamists.
What did Donald Trump do – before the bodies of the murdered were even cold.
Mr Trump attacked – attacked Pamella Geller and the other people who had been at the contest.
They had “provoked” the Islamists, “taunted” them. By drawing Mohammed.
That is Donald Trump.
That is his stand for Freedom of Speech against Islam.
Brian.
Please tell Roger L. Simon.
Yes indeed, Paul. Very understanding of him, and PC besides. I’m sure it played well on the Upper East Side.