Posted by Tina
The conservatives on this blog in particular will want to read an excellent article by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, “Trumps Intellectuals.” After recalling the potty mouths of former presidents Nixon and Johnson and the unseemly daliances of John F. Kenndy and Clinton and Clintons more troubling record of possible sexual abuses Barnes puts to rest what he calls the “conscience” argument and notes that the only intellectuals who are seriously negative on Trump are on the East Coast/DC corridor. Citing quotes from intellectuals in the West Barnes makes a sold case for the lowering of swords. One quote included a saying I wanted to share with you:
“There is a saying, variously attributed, that when a political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising essential topics, the electorate will soon turn to ‘unrespectable’ ones. It is no good now to keep on complaining that Trump is unrespectable. The real problem is that more mainstream Republicans were not respecting their own voters, and haven’t been for a long time. The first thing they need to do is start paying attention.” – Wilfred McClay holds the G. T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty at the University of Oklahoma
The unassuming Fred Barnes’ message may fall on dead ears but I say Kudos! His buddy at The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, has reportedly tweeted that, “There will be an independent candidate–an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.”
The Washington Examiner article states that it won’t be Mitt Romney, former Republican Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, or Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sass all of whom have been talking with Kristol about the matter for some time. It wasn’t made clear when the big announcement will happen.
Wasn’t it Jim Belushi, as Joe Dayton, who said to his family in Return to Me, “Will everyone just calm down! For the love of God and all that is holy, calm the hell down!”
Advice that seems appropriate here. The East Coast Republican intellectuals should reconsider in the spirit of the highly intellectual William F. Buckley who said, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
Trump fits…get over it. The people have spoken.
Oh, Geez, it’s the schoolyard argument. A small child whines: “But Timmy did it too!”
If that’s an intellectual argument, the intellect is limited.
And this in no way diminishes Trump’s status as a world-class boor.
The point is, Libby, not everything IS an intellectual argument. What’s so is that Trump is nothing new in terms of presidents with morals and ethics, we’ve had worse. So all of the trump bashing is just so much noise and perhaps a bit of sour grapes.
There is one very important non-intellectual feature with Trump…he knows how to manage the main stream media.
We can’t do worse than we’ve done with the hope and change candidate, especially in terms of the economy.
A boor? Maybe. Better than an unprepared, feckless, ally insulting, enemy uplifting adolescent parading around as an adult.
Seriously what qualifications does trump have?
Listen to his San Diego speech and explain to me what that was. Tina he babbled on about himself and his lawsuits. Seriously listen to it. he babbled. Weird and I mean that it was not sane at all.
Find a candidate. Trump is not in it for good reasons.
Tina: “A boor? Maybe. Better than an unprepared, feckless, ally insulting, enemy uplifting adolescent parading around as an adult.”
But see, Tina, Trump is a boor as well as an unprepared, feckless, ally insulting, enemy uplifting adolescent parading around as an adult. Every single flaw you can point out in the other candidates also exists in Trump; he’s just got additional flaws on top.
The sub-pseudo intellectual criticizes!
I wonder if Kristal was referring to the Libertarian Party’s nominations yesterday? Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were chosen as president and vice president. The whole event was covered on CSPAN and other channels for the first time.
Johnson/Weld are currently polling at 10% and will need 15% to be on the debate stage with the Dem’s and Rep’s candidate for the general.
It was announced during the convention that at least three Super PAC were there with big money.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/libertarians-johnson-weld-trump-gary-william-223703
They hope to pick up your votes after you see through Trump. I am not into them but would follow to see how they progress. A serious option for the real Libertarians.
Yes quite an interesting show on c-span strippers and all.
Barnes is right on the money!
Kristol is attempting to become a kingmaker and his efforts are falling flat. Nobody with a lick of sense wants a 3rd party candidate to split the vote and possibly hand the Demwits another 4 years of Obumblenomics – or WORSE!
Used to at least listen to Kristol’s opinions, but he’s become almost as loony as Glen Beck. Have a lot of other things that are a better use for my time.
The vote on both sides may very well be split. If the momentum continues? A chance to split both corrupt parties up. Anything is possible right now, both GOP and DNC are having meetings to try and stop the split. It is very real at this point and they are leaning on media to tell you otherwise.
The #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary camps are out there and many of us belong to both. We will be voting not staying home. So both parties are trying to find a way to unify as be the party that does not have a split vote, too late I say.
The media does not represent what the voters are thinking. Millions of us are unified and organized. In the end media may win….but for now it is wide open.
We have large indie media streams where when trolls are blocked we talk from all sides.
I guess that’s a possibility Peggy but the tweet indicated someone that we wouldn’t be aware of rather than someone already in contention. He also referred to an “independent” rather than a libertarian. We’ll see.
I was glad to see the more conservative libertarian won. What did you think of the one that took off his clothes on stage…and got booed? I guess that’s one way of conceding defeat, eh?
Darn missed the striptease act. Was he cute? McAfee is another nut job in my opinion.
I’d seen Austin Petersen on another program and decided to record the whole event. I fast forwarded through it looking for the candidates and what they had to say. Petersen is 35, a strong constitutionalist who he said aligned with Cruz and Lee, and he’s pro-life. He didn’t make it to the vp pick because of a rule that prevented him having his name on the list. Something to do about having enough token, I think. Anyway, I’m impressed with him and hope we’ll see more of him in the coming years.
Bishop Julian Lewis, Jr. caught my attention. Being a black preacher he went after the democrats and blamed them for the problems blacks have today.
I doubt there will be third party run, unless the Dems finagle one to take out Trump.
But, then I don’t think Hillary’s going to make it either. Her past is catching up with her and now the DNC is falling apart because of it. They let an Independent Socialist run so she wouldn’t have any real competition and could just crown her. That plan didn’t work so on to plan be if the FBI’s findings call for her indictment.
Tina: “…not everything IS an intellectual argument.”
Certainly not any argument in favor of Trump, since there is no intellectual argument in favor of Trump.
And if it’s not an intellectual argument, then it’s an emotional one. But we already know that. Trump voters are “angry,” “fed up with the system,” and their frustrations with ignorant, arrogant, lying politicians are somehow supposed to justify voting for an ignorant, arrogant liar who is NOT a politician. There is simply no logic to it.
“What’s so is that Trump is nothing new in terms of presidents with morals and ethics, we’ve had worse.”
You’re wrong. Previous presidents, and candidates, with glaring moral or ethical defects have at least made an attempt to hide said defects. Trump displays his brazenly: his bullying of both Republicans and Democrats, bragging about his penis during a debate, doxxing a United States senator from his own party…these are unprecedented. And if this is how he behaves in public, what earthly reason would you have to believe his behavior would be any better behind closed doors? What reason is there to think he’d be any more ethical than Hilary? There isn’t one, but your foaming hatred of Democrats prevents you from seeing that. If Trump were running as a Democrat–which he used to identify as–you wouldn’t hesitate to condemn him.
As conservative ethicist and frequent Hilary Clinton-basher Jack Marshall wrote, “There are many awful things Trump says and does, in fact, that Hilary Clinton, awful and corrupt as she is, would eat her foot before doing. There is, on the other hand, nothing Hilary has done that you or anyone else can honestly say Trump would not do.”
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/05/28/from-the-signature-significance-files-seriously-how-can-you-even-consider-voting-for-a-guy-like-this/
Your argument against “intellectuals” is irresponsible and unethical, in addition to untrue. It isn’t just “east coast intellectuals” (code for: “people who I’m angry are smarter than me”) who dislike Trump. His unfavorable rating is higher than his favorable rating among every single demographic group:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/31/nightmare-nominee-nobody-likes-donald-trump-not-even-white-men/
Trump would be the only president ever to have no experience in either government or military. You’re ready to elect the most unqualified, vulgar candidate ever to the highest office in the land, just because he’s running as a Republican. There is no defending this.
Chris you said to Tina, “Trump would be the only president ever to have no experience in either government or military. You’re ready to elect the most unqualified, vulgar candidate ever to the highest office in the land, just because he’s running as a Republican. There is no defending this.”
Now lets be real, nobody I know is trying to elect Trump just because he is a republican. Chris, surely you know its more complicated than that? Voters have either listen to him and liked what he had to say, or they appreciated his candor even if he was politically incorrect. Sometimes they felt that the economy was the key issue and therefore Trump was best equiped to deal with a nation plunging itselt into terminal debt because of his vast business experience. No doubt some voters felt Hillary was too dishonest, too far to the left and by virtue of her shortcomings Trump looks like the better choice. Some probably feel the democrats platform/agenda is wrong for America and they would rather have a republican president to work with a republican congress than elect Hillary. There are any number of very reasonable reasons that are far more credible than saying oh you just want to elect him because he is a republican. Now you know I would have preferred another candidate, but after looking at Hillary and Bernie, Trump’s stated policies on his website look pretty good! Have you visited his website and read those policies? Maybe you should?
Re : “And if it’s not an intellectual argument, then it’s an emotional one. ”
Which precisely characterizes every comment post Piss Chris has ever made to this blog. He wears the mantle of Quentin Colgan well.
“Now lets be real, nobody I know is trying to elect Trump just because he is a republican.”
Of course you are. The “toe the party line and get behind Trump” campaign is really a campaign to save Republican congressional seats from abandonment by disgusted voters.
You and Tina both were appalled by his “liberal” position on assorted issues, but now that he’s the nominee you’ve, well, I’ll spare you the colorful and evocative, and just say … capitulated.
Your party leadership prizes power above all things, and you support them … to your detriment.
Pie, look over every comment of mine and every comment of yours from the past two months. Which ones rely more on intellectual argument, and which ones rely more on emotion–primarily anger?
If you’re honest with yourself, there is only one answer.
Geez you are pathetic, Chris. The president you voted for in 08 had political experience (He held office) and look at his record…UGLY!
Look at the unscrupulous, immoral (VULGAR) pair your party wants to RETURN to the WH. You should be in hiding rather than attempting to play Father Superior.
I have made no attempt in these pages to disguise my contempt for Trump. No reason to repeat any details.
I fancy myself a realist. That may be true, or it may not be true, but suffice it to say, if there is a third party bid, it will assure the election of Hillary. Even with Trump/Clinton standoff the election of Hillary may be may be assured.
That is how I see it.
I despise Hillary Clinton far more than I despise Donald Trump, even though the thought of either of those people in the White House makes me cringe. Yet the choice, for me at least, is clear.
Let the so called, self-defined, “conservative” establishment beltway pundits squawk all they like, they are all just so much noise at this point. A rabble without a cause.
Jack, interesting reply. Every word of it is an unethical rationalization, so let’s take a closer look:
“Now lets be real, nobody I know is trying to elect Trump just because he is a republican.”
There’s only one way to know that for sure: Imagine Trump with the exact same policies and behavior, only imagine that he were running as a Democrat. Would these same people be voting for him if that were the case?
“Voters have either listen to him and liked what he had to say, or they appreciated his candor even if he was politically incorrect.”
And those voters are idiots. Candor? What candor? He’s a liar, Jack. As in, “he almost never tells the truth, about anything.” Here is a record on teleprompters in the past month:
“—April 27: Uses a teleprompter while delivering a foreign policy speech.
—May 2: “I don’t have any teleprompters…I’m up here all by myself.”
—May 20: “I’ve started to use [teleprompters] a little bit. They’re not bad. You never get yourself in trouble when you use a teleprompter.”
—May 22: Attacks Clinton because she “reads off a teleprompter, you notice. She’s reading off a teleprompter, she always does.”
—May 24: “We should have a law that when you run for president, you shouldn’t be allowed to use a teleprompter.”
—May 26: Uses a teleprompter while delivering an energy policy speech in North Dakota.
—May 27: “Isn’t it great when you don’t use teleprompters? …we oughta have a law that if you’re running for president, you can’t use teleprompters.”
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/05/28/from-the-signature-significance-files-seriously-how-can-you-even-consider-voting-for-a-guy-like-this/
And this is small potatoes compared to some of his other lies. His claim that he has always been against the Iraq War? Lie. His claim that he never pretended to be his own spokesman? Lie. His claim that thousands of Muslims celebrated 9/11 in New Jersey? Disgusting, bigoted lie. His claim that he never called Marco Rubio Facebook’s private senator? Lie.
He’s not just “politically incorrect,” he’s incorrect on nearly everything. Hell, he said last week “There is no drought” in California! How does THAT level of ignorance not bother you, of all people? How can it not make every Californian conservative declare him too stupid to run for office?
“Sometimes they felt that the economy was the key issue and therefore Trump was best equiped to deal with a nation plunging itselt into terminal debt because of his vast business experience.”
Again, those voters are idiots. If Trump’s business experience were the only thing we could evaluate when considering his knowledge of the economy, then those voters would be dumb, but not irredeemably so; business experience is not, in itself, a qualification for the presidency, but many people think it is.
But we have more than that: Trump has said plenty of things about the economy that we could look at when considering his qualifications, and nearly every one of those things are embarrassingly wrong. Trump said the unemployment rate could be 42%, which is impossible, since that’s higher than the total percentage of non-working Americans. Trump said the US could default on its debts, which every respectable economist on both the left and right assailed. Then he ludicrously claimed he never said that, and that the US could never default because we could “just keep printing money.” Again, economists laughed at him. He’s a moron on the economy, Jack; this isn’t an argument about Keynsian vs. supply side economics, because Trump could never even HAVE such an argument; he probably doesn’t even know what these terms mean.
I’m sure Trump voters THINK they care about the economy, but they don’t actually care enough to, you know, find out anything about it. Because if they did, they’d know putting Trump in charge of the economy is like giving car keys to a two year old.
“No doubt some voters felt Hillary was too dishonest,”
See above. Clinton may very well be dishonest, but anyone who thinks Trump is less dishonest than Clinton is fooling themselves. He is at least as dishonest as her, if not more.
“too far to the left”
That may be the only thing even close to a valid reason for Trump voters, and that’s still not a very good reason. If Ted Cruz was running against Kim Kardashian (who is at least as good a businesswoman as Trump is a businessman, and less vulgar), liberals would have no ethical choice but to vote for Cruz. It wouldn’t matter that Cruz would be too right wing for us; he’s still be a better, more qualified president.
“and by virtue of her shortcomings Trump looks like the better choice.”
Only if you don’t look at any of Trump’s shortcomings. Clinton is a liar you disagree with. Trump is a liar and an idiot.
“There are any number of very reasonable reasons that are far more credible than saying oh you just want to elect him because he is a republican.”
Except that none of the reasons you just gave me qualify as “reasonable;” they are a series of rationalizations, some better than others, but rationalizations all the same.
“Now you know I would have preferred another candidate, but after looking at Hillary and Bernie, Trump’s stated policies on his website look pretty good!”
You’re kidding. Which ones? His policy to ban all Muslim immigration, which all foreign policy experts say will make the war on terror harder? His policy to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, which is impossible? His tax policy which he claims will lower the deficit and the debt, but which tax policy experts argue is impossible? Name one policy of his that is actually practical, or has enough support from the public and Congress to actually happen; I don’t think you can.
“Have you visited his website and read those policies? Maybe you should?”
I’ve visited his website a few times. But given that the media reports on his every word, and he tweets twenty things a day, I’m not sure why you’d think I’m unfamiliar with his policies. Everyone who pays attention knows what his policies are. They are stupid, because he is stupid, as are his voters. Don’t be one of them, Jack. You’re better than that.
Chris you always try to set the rules to make sure you win. I guess you think we don;t notice. What a ridiculous choice you give Jack: “Imagine Trump with the exact same policies and behavior, only imagine that he were running as a Democrat.”
How about YOU imagining Trump as a Democrat…running against Hillary and Bernie. That’s the real choice we are faced with making. Within the context of the candidates running, nothing changes. Trump would still get Jacks vote…and mine!
Most everyone here supported a different candidate originally. None of us are thrilled at the choices in either party and have said so. Most of us have criticized Trump in one way or another, some, like Peggy and Pie, quite vociferously. Trump has been defended, yes, so have Hillary and Bill Clinton, including by you.
The primary is over. Our Republican candidate has been chosen by the larger body of voters who voted in the Republican primary. Get the hell over it!
The main policies that people are attracted to are associated with JOBS, BORDERS, and aggressively fighting ISIS. You are a moron if you think the CHANGE wanted now isn’t a DIRECT response to eight years of failure in these areas by the man who ran on hope and change and a laundry list of policies that have either failed or that he never did!
You have been an apologist for Obama, which makes your nasty accusations suspect as well as hypocritical. Your expressed position on Hillary is nonspecific industrial, the kind meant to cover your pathetic moralizing a$$. You have defended the most egregiously bad policies of both the Clintons and Obama and imagine that you alone take the high road on PS…what a joke!
Who the he77 are you to decide what makes Jack “better” anyway?
Tina: “How about YOU imagining Trump as a Democrat…running against Hillary and Bernie. That’s the real choice we are faced with making.”
And as I explained, the choice is easy for any ethical, rational person: Bernie or Hilary.
I used an analogy to make this clear, but it wasn’t a very good one; Kim Kardashian is dumb, but she isn’t unhinged. Let’s use her husband Kanye instead, since he just had a mental breakdown on Ellen wherein he echoed Trump’s stream-of-consciousness speaking style, and he’s just as much of a narcissist who thinks he’s more talented than he actually is:
If Ted Cruz were the Republican nominee and Kanye West the Democratic nominee, I would have no choice but to vote for Ted Cruz. As a liberal, I think Cruz is too far to the right, dangerous, and a bit of a loon. BUT: he isn’t completely insane, he’s smart, he has actual political experience, and he actually runs on an agenda that most Americans can get behind. None of that could be said about Kanye West, nor could any of that be said about Donald Trump. So if these were my choices, I would have to put partisanship behind and do what’s best for my country. If that meant voting for the dangerous ideologue who I think would take the country in the wrong direction, over the guy who has never held political office, is vulgar in addition to being kookoo-bird crazy, and says wildly inappropriate things on national television, well, that’s what I would have to do.
You and Jack seem to be making a different choice.
And it’s entirely due to partisan hatred. Not even out of partisan loyalty; if it were, you’d be more worried about Trump’s corrosive effect on your party. It’s just sheer, irrational hatred of Democrats; no reasonable person could say Hilary or Bernie are more of a danger to our freedoms than a guy who has told his supporters to beat up protesters, said he would change the laws to sue media outlets who criticize him, praised Putin, said he would have the family members of terrorists killed, and said he would make soldiers follow illegal and unconstitutional orders. It’s not even close: whatever you think of Bernie or Hilary’s tendencies toward tyranny, Trump has them both beat on that front.
“The main policies that people are attracted to are associated with JOBS,”
Trump thinks the unemployment rate could be as high as 42%. You have tried to defend this impossible number, and I pointed out that your defense was laughable and made no sense; you could try it again, or you could concede that it’s indefensible. There is zero reason to believe Trump knows anything about creating jobs. He does not have an economic philosophy, and the things he has said about the economy are unflinchingly stupid. You’ve criticized Democrats for allegedly arguing that we should print more money (even though Democrats don’t actually argue that), but Trump literally said those exact words, and you were completely silent on it. If you cared about jobs, you would not vote for Trump.
“BORDERS,”
Trump’s suggestions on border control are ludicrous and impossible; no serious person believes he can build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it, and no serious person believes he can pass a law outlawing all Muslim immigration. Both of these policies would have to go through Congress, and the latter would likely have to go through the Supreme Court. If you cared about the borders, you would not support a candidate whose border-related policies are outrageous, stupid and impossible.
“and aggressively fighting ISIS.”
See above, RE: Not gonna happen. Every foreign policy expert who has spoken on his proposal to block Muslim immigration has condemned it; I asked you to find one who hasn’t, and you couldn’t. The same is true of his proposal to kill the family members of terrorists, which violates international treaties. The same is true of his endorsement of torture (his word). If that’s the kind of “aggression” you want, you’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t pretend that it represents the ideals of our nation, and don’t you dare pretend to be more patriotic than thou when you support such deep betrayals of our nation’s principles just because you have a scared.
“You are a moron if you think the CHANGE wanted now isn’t a DIRECT response to eight years of failure in these areas by the man who ran on hope and change and a laundry list of policies that have either failed or that he never did!”
Oh, I’m well aware it’s a response to the last eight years, and I’ll admit some failures. That doesn’t mean it’s a rational or ethical response. Trump voters are children throwing a tantrum; they didn’t get their way, so they’re saying “Screw it” and sabotaging the whole system. It’s understandable, but it isn’t in any way ethically defensible.
“You have been an apologist for Obama, which makes your nasty accusations suspect as well as hypocritical. Your expressed position on Hillary is nonspecific industrial, the kind meant to cover your pathetic moralizing a$$. You have defended the most egregiously bad policies of both the Clintons and Obama and imagine that you alone take the high road on PS…what a joke!”
You fail to see the difference–again because of sheer partisan hatred–between political disagreement and crazy-pants. We have different opinions on Obama. Our opinions are, mostly, within the realm of sane, reasonable political disagreement. Supporting Trump is far outside that realm, because nearly everything Trump does exists outside that realm. Different people can have different opinions on conservative vs. liberal policy. I have always said that, and I’ve always believed it. You seem to disagree, as you have implied many times lately that you find it impossible to take anything any liberal or Obama supporter says seriously. I find that sad, and it limits your ability to have a reasonable discussion in a way that is crippling to debate. But no reasonable person can support Trump–his policies are far outside the mainstream of American political thought, his behavior is disgusting, and he openly advocates violence against his critics.
Again, to paraphrase Jack Marshall from Ethics Alarms, there are plenty of unethical things Donald Trump has done that Hilary Clinton would never do. There are no unethical things Hilary Clinton has done that Donald Trump would not do.
“Who the he77 are you to decide what makes Jack “better” anyway?”
Someone who has gotten to know him quite well over the past eight years I have been commenting here.
I think you’re better too. You’ve just forgotten.
Put away the partisan hatred. Think rationally. Think calmly. Think at all. Every argument you have made in Trump’s defense has been emotionally driven. Try some intellectual arguments; if you find you can’t, then consider changing your position.
Chris you are definitely arrogant: “the choice is easy for any ethical, rational person”
You say you prefer either of these and still call yourself “ethical” and “reasonable,” however, you have to excuse and dismiss one hell of a lot to come to that conclusion.
Vote for whomever you please. I don’t give a rip.
Bernie was asked to leave a commune because he didn’t contribute (work) but was more than happy to share the fruits. He hardly worked at all for the first 20 to 30 years of adulthood. His associations are communist. His tax policies would kill what’s left of the economy. His healthcare and free college ideas are socialist government control.
Hillary Clinton and her horn dog hubby are the most corrupt pair of politicians to come down the pike. The media that covers for them is just as corrupt.
“Put away the partisan hatred. ”
Do not preach to me about partisan hatred. I have a very long memory and you have never been a friend to conservative ideas or to GWB nor have you shown any inclination to put down your own partisan ties.
Maybe the real motivation for all of this ridiculous anti-Trump crap is that you’re deathly afraid he will win. Too bad…that’s the way it rolls.
gotta go….
None of the above was a counter-argument to anything I wrote.
And check the polls. Trump still has no chance of winning the damn thing. He’s just determined to do as much damage as possible before he loses. And now you’re helping him.
Well, lie down with dogs.
I mean, for God’s sake–could you ever see Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders calling a journalist a “sleaze” to his face for asking a fair question, as Trump did in a press conference today? Never. It wouldn’t happen. And Trump immediately confirmed that this is how he will treat journalists when he is in the White House. That’s really the kind of man you want as president?
Trump is not an adult. He is a whiny baby throwing a tantrum. *That* is the most important difference between Trump and the other candidates running, and the only difference that matters. You have a decision: vote for someone whose political philosophy you find abhorrent, or vote for an angry bully who never emotionally matured past the fourth grade. Again: this should be easy.
Today’s article by Thomas Sowell seems appropriate here.
Socialism for the Uninformed:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436022/bernie-sanders-fans-dont-bother-think?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=May31Sowell
Trump last week:
“Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?”
Um, maybe the millions who would lose their jobs in the ensuing global recession?
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/20/11719594/donald-trump-trade-wars
Trump continued, “A lot of you don’t know the world of economics and you shouldn’t even bother. Just leave it to me, I have so much fun with it. Just go and enjoy your life.”
Translation: “Don’t bother informing yourselves, just continue believing every word I say like the drooling, gullible morons you are. Vote for me, dummies!”
Go ahead, Tina. Tell me again how Trump would be good for the economy. I need the laugh.
Here’s an east coast intellectual for ya:
Andrew Sullivan – New York Magazine
America has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny
As this dystopian election campaign has unfolded, my mind keeps being tugged by a passage in Plato’s Republic. It has unsettled — even surprised — me from the moment I first read it in graduate school. The passage is from the part of the dialogue where Socrates and his friends are talking about the nature of different political systems, how they change over time, and how one can slowly evolve into another. And Socrates seemed pretty clear on one sobering point: that “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.” What did Plato mean by that? Democracy, for him, I discovered, was a political system of maximal freedom and equality, where every lifestyle is allowed and public offices are filled by a lottery. And the longer a democracy lasted, Plato argued, the more democratic it would become. Its freedoms would multiply; its equality spread. Deference to any sort of authority would wither; tolerance of any kind of inequality would come under intense threat; and multiculturalism and sexual freedom would create a city or a country like “a many-colored cloak decorated in all hues.”
This rainbow-flag polity, Plato argues, is, for many people, the fairest of regimes. The freedom in that democracy has to be experienced to be believed — with shame and privilege in particular emerging over time as anathema. But it is inherently unstable. As the authority of elites fades, as Establishment values cede to popular ones, views and identities can become so magnificently diverse as to be mutually uncomprehending. And when all the barriers to equality, formal and informal, have been removed; when everyone is equal; when elites are despised and full license is established to do “whatever one wants,” you arrive at what might be called late-stage democracy. There is no kowtowing to authority here, let alone to political experience or expertise.
The very rich come under attack, as inequality becomes increasingly intolerable. Patriarchy is also dismantled: “We almost forgot to mention the extent of the law of equality and of freedom in the relations of women with men and men with women.” Family hierarchies are inverted: “A father habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents.” In classrooms, “as the teacher … is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers.” Animals are regarded as equal to humans; the rich mingle freely with the poor in the streets and try to blend in. The foreigner is equal to the citizen.
And it is when a democracy has ripened as fully as this, Plato argues, that a would-be tyrant will often seize his moment.
***
Just the first few paragraphs, but what do you think? I haven’t actually finished it, I was so bowled over by old Plato having forseen it all quite some time ago. Now I have to go find out, if he says, how it is that you, who decry late stage democracy, are the ones to bring on the tyranny.
I stopped reading Andrew Sullivan when he dove into Trig Palin birtherism. That said, that looks like an interesting article so far.
It’s worth reading, but as I got further into it, there were worrisome bits. We’ll say he has his own vision, and for all his sympathy for the white boy’s plight, he is solidly behind the elites, exhorting them to get off their keisters and justify their status.
Andrew Sullivan hand-wringing and fantasizing.
I find it hard to believe Socrates knew little of the habit of tyrannical regimes of the ancient Assyrians and Egyptians, or the long string of ancient Greek tyrants which did not follow democratic regimes.
Don’t have time to read the Sullivan piece now…off the top of my head…the world is ALREADY in sustained recession or full blown depression and headed for another crash. If world war doesn’t follow it will be a miracle.
Must read Camille Paglia. The lady turns a phrase like no other. She’s feeling the Bern so she focuses on both Hillary and Trump in her latest.
Tina: “the world is ALREADY in sustained recession or full blown depression”
No, it’s not. The global recession ended seven years ago, and has not restarted. You are living in the past, and can’t see the signs of recovery due to Obama Derangement Syndrome (the counterpart to Bush Derangement Syndrome, which I admit falling prey to occasionally back in the day).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/oecd-calls-an-end-to-the-global-recession-1786221.html
WATCH: Horowitz Says #NeverTrump ‘Serving the Enemy’
Re Paglia : “It’s zombie time at campaign Hillary. Behold the dead men walking! It was with strangely slow, narcotized numbness that the candidate and her phalanx of minions and mouthpieces responded to last week’s punishing report by the State Department’s Inspector General about her email security lapses. Do they truly believe, in the rosy alternate universe of Hillaryland, that they can lie their way out of this? Of course, they’re relying as usual on the increasingly restive mainstream media to do their dirty work for them.”
Of course they believe in the rosy alternate universe of Hillaryland and can lie their way out of this. Obama did it, why not Hillary?
Well now I am impressed. Tina, subjecting herself to possible corruption by an organ of the liberal media … which isn’t so liberal after all, right? … just thoughtful. You do not want Fox pre-digesting your exposure to stuff, you opinions, like you was a baby seagull or something else not quite sentient.
I, however, limit my exposure to Camille. She is, IMHO, a sort of Ann Coulter, but with a decent intellect/education. And I swear to Pete, in every “brilliant” thing she writes, there is at least one reference to at least one other “brilliant” thing she’s written, proving how presciently brilliant she is.
Gag.
I find Paglia more like Andrew Sullivan–she says she’s a feminist but all she does is criticize feminists, like how Andrew Sullivan says he’s a conservative but all he does is criticize conservatives. It makes them look like they’re really just in it for the attention.
That is it, I think. She was never in it for anything more than the attention … and the tenure. And, she’s done a lot of damage.