Hillary is terrible. I despise her. I endorse her.
At least I endorse her for voters living in purple states. For those living in red and blue states, I recommend voting for Gary Johnson. Since I live in Massachusetts, I plan to vote for Johnson. He’s far and away the best choice, which was not as true 4 years ago. Clinton is worse than Obama (more authoritarian/militaristic), and of course Trump is infinitely worse than Romney.
In past elections, I always voted for Libertarian, and didn’t view the differences between the main parties as being all that important. I pointed out that government grew faster under Bush than Clinton. There were some differences, but no clear advantage to either party. Many commenters (both progressive and libertarian) insisted that while that was true under Bush, the GOP was now much more the small government party, due to the ascent of the Tea Party. With the rise of Trump, that idea no longer even passes the laugh test. Trump may be the strongest supporter of big government that the GOP has ever nominated (with the possible exception of Nixon.) I was completely wrong about Trump having “no chance”, but I was totally right about the GOP not really being the small government party.
Update: PJ O’Rourke’s endorsement of Hillary is far better, as you’d expect.
The Trump phenomenon increasingly reminds me of the “cults” that were popular when I was younger. Charismatic leaders like Reverend Moon and Lyndon Larouche had dedicated followers who blindly accepted anything they said. (Are they still around?) I’ve noticed that Trumpistas in the comment section now defend any statement, no matter how absurd. “Trump wants to default on the US national debt? Great idea!—Let me explain why.”
If I could have any job right now, I’d probably most enjoy being the marketing person for the Clinton campaign. Where do you start? Perhaps with commercials showing all of Trump’s bankruptcies, and then Trump saying that he wants to solve America’s problems by having the US reschedule its debt. Hey, it worked for Greece!
But the Clinton people really need to be careful here, and hold some of their fire until after the convention. Trump is rapidly becoming the laughing stock of politics, and there’s a danger that it could reach a sort of “Thomas Eagleton” tipping point before the convention. Clinton needs to make sure Trump has the nomination in hand before tearing him to pieces.
PS. And now we discover that Trump supports a one time 14.25% wealth tax on the rich, another popular GOP idea. Seriously, even Bernie the Socialist Sanders didn’t go that far. BTW, “one time” taxes are a good indicator of corruption, of a banana republic-type policy regime. It’s time inconsistency on steroids. It’s all about making the Big Man look good for a few years, and let future generations suffer the consequences. The intertemporal equivalent of “America First—and to hell with the rest of the world.”
PPS. Of course I hope Clinton does not take my advice, and hits Trump so hard that he has to pull out before July. But that’s not likely, as ambitious politicians tell themselves that any short-term damage to the country required to get elected is a price worth paying for all the good things they’ll do as President. Clinton wants to win in a landslide, not a narrow victory over Paul Ryan. That’s how FDR justified not helping Hoover in the banking crisis of 1932-33. Taking office in the midst of a calamity gave FDR a free hand.
PPPS. When Clinton does a terrible job, don’t blame me for endorsing her. I warned you she is terrible. Blame the GOP voters who picked Trump, instead of someone like Kasich, who has a big lead over Clinton in the polls. The Trumpistas are going to allow a supremely unpopular Democrat to be elected (at least there’s a 75% chance they will.)
PPPPS. I see that a majority of former GOP presidential candidates are not going to vote for Trump. You know you’re in trouble when even most of your party leaders aren’t going to vote for you.
PPPPPS. I like these recent comments by President Obama (at Howard University commencement):
There was also a call for young black graduates to put themselves in the minds of others, police officers who may have bias or “the middle-aged white guy” who “you may think has all the advantages, but over the last several decades has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change and feels powerless to stop it.”
“You got to get in his head, too,” he said.
Amid an election that has seen millions of white Republican voters embrace Donald Trump’s populist message, Obama tried to offer a strategy.
“There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that. No matter how ridiculous or offensive.”
“My grandmother used to tell me, every time a fool speaks, they are just advertising their own ignorance.
“Let them talk.”
Yes, let Trump talk—the more, the better!
HT: Foosion.
Tags:
8. May 2016 at 15:28
Alas, Hillary is the only sane choice. We probably dislike her for different reasons, but it’s no contest compared to Trump.
You might like PJ O’Rourke’s endorsement:
PJ O’Rourke: Well, Peter, I have a little announcement to make. Yeah, I have a little announcement to make.
I mean, my whole purpose in life basically is to offend everyone who listens to NPR, OK? No matter what position they take on anything, like, I’m on the other side of it, you know.
I’m votin’ for Hillary.
I am endorsing Hillary. And all her lies and all her empty promises. I am endorsing Hillary. The second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place, you know? She’s wrong about absolutely everything — but she’s wrong within normal parameters!
Tom Bodett: That is a ringing endorsement! …
O’Rourke: I mean, this man just can’t be president of the US. I mean, they got this button, it’s in a briefcase, he’s gonna find it.
8. May 2016 at 16:39
I suspect Sumner boils down to a one issue voter on mass immigration over nationalism. The other left wing insanity bothers him, but on his one-issue, he aligns with Clinton. I’ll vote for the nationalist.
Hey, you have more political clout than I. Help build a better system than A/B voting. I like the idea with voting with our feet rather than these reality tv style voting contests.
8. May 2016 at 16:54
Thank you Trumpistas for making sure that a liberal will be in the White House in 2017. Gary Johnson doesn’t stand a chance against the two liberals he’s running against.
8. May 2016 at 16:57
Massimo,
Are you a liberal? If so, you’ll be happy if Trump happens to pull this off.
Oh, and the wall? That wall die in Congress, and Trump will then attack members of Congress for a few days and then forget about it. Trump doesn’t want the wall.
Trump will try to kill free trade, but I don’t see how that’s positive. Otherwise, what good is his nationalism?
By the way, I don’t even really think he’s much of a nationalist. He’s more cosmopolitan, if decades worth of comments before recent years are any indication.
8. May 2016 at 17:00
Trumpistas,
Another prediction: If Trump wins, and he appoints a judge to the Supreme Court, it will be his left wing sister. Trump is nothing, if not a leftist, crony capitalist.
8. May 2016 at 17:22
Top VP choices for Trump:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Naomi Wolf
3. Naomi Klein(Trump loves conspiracy theories)
8. May 2016 at 17:27
Aw, come on Scott! Why break Gary Johnson’s heart like that?
I, for my part, will not bother to vote. My theory is this: as long you keeps insisting on eating the slightly less putrid turd on the platter, you only encourage the chef to keep feeding you shit.
8. May 2016 at 17:28
“PS. And now we discover that Trump supports a one time 14.25% wealth tax on the rich,”
Supported, in 1999
8. May 2016 at 17:31
Scott Freelander
“Top VP choices for Trump:”
I’m calling it right now: Sarah Palin.
If so, I kinda hope they win just so I can turn to the Democrat next to me at the bar and say ‘bet you never thought you’d miss Dick Cheney, eh?’
8. May 2016 at 17:41
“and of course Trump is infinitely worse than Romney.”
–How?, Sumner? Remember, as Yglesias points out, Romney ran on a nationalistic campaign based on being tough on Chinese currency manipulation and curbing illegal immigration. Of course, he was not remotely serious about it. Trump is.
“(Are they still around?)”
-Moon is dead. LaRouche is still around.
Also, Trump’s position in 1999 might as well have come from 1969, given the rapidity of Trump’s position changes. Obviously, Trump does not support such a wealth tax.
Scott, you are totally wrong. Trump is a big government conservative on most issues, not a liberal or a Democrat.
I say, let the champion of America First win. Trump may be unpredictable. But he sure as heck seems better than Hillary.
8. May 2016 at 17:41
Mark,
If Trump goes for a “conservative”, Gingrich would be a better fit. Like Trump, Gingrich is a liar, philanderer, and shameless panderer, full of stupidest, most grandiose ideas imaginable.
My personal favorite of his was to build a moon colony with 300,000 Americans on it. lol You can’t make this stuff up. Remember, he said that when trying to pander to central Floridians during a speech near Cape Canaveral.
Also, Gingrich is a great admirer of FDR, who he’s called the greatest President of the 20th century.
I put “conservative” in quotes, because Palin isn’t smart, educated, or coherent enough to have an ideology, and Gingrich is just a total crook and kook. Palin is nothing put a pawn to Trump.
8. May 2016 at 17:44
Harding,
Trump is a liberal and has been for decades. He’s just a very politically incorrect one, because he’s always been a narcissistic prick. You’re a pawn to him and nothing more. Watch. He’s already starting to run to the left of Hillary Clinton.
8. May 2016 at 17:51
Scott,
Unlike you, I’m concerned Trump can actually win. Yes, the electoral college map is stacked against Republicans to begin with, and Trump has high negatives with women and minorities, but he’s shifting quickly to the left, so I don’t know that the electoral college advantages go so readily to Clinton.
Also, Clinton has high negatives, doesn’t inspire anyone, and is under FBI investigation.
Trump is going to try to eviscerate her for enabling her husband’s adultery and what he claims is sexual harassment of women, and even sexual assault. He will point out the large donations and speaking fees she’s earned, and remind everyone he’s donated to her campaigns in the past and the Clinton Foundation and that he owned her.
Trump will promise to do more for the middle class, and perhaps even the poor, promise to do more for veterans, and say she’s just another crooked politician, while claiming to be a brilliant businessman.
Also, Bill Clinton doesn’t seem to campaign well when he does so on her behalf. Perhaps a lack of objectivity, and/or rust?
I’m actually not optimistic about Hillary’s chances, though I’m voting for her.
8. May 2016 at 18:02
“When Clinton does a terrible job, don’t blame me for endorsing her. I warned you she is terrible. Blame the GOP voters who picked Trump, instead of someone like Kasich, who has a big lead over Clinton in the pools.”
-The pools? And Kasich only polled well against Clinton because he had no media scrutiny directed at him. Almost none. Trump has had a lot. Clinton has had a moderate amount.
“Gingrich is a liar, philanderer, and shameless panderer, full of stupidest, most grandiose ideas imaginable.”
-And he took back the House for the GOP for a full dozen years. Impressive achievement, especially for a “total crook and kook”.
“Yes, the electoral college map is stacked against Republicans to begin with”
-I think it’s roughly even. Especially for someone like Trump, who’s got fantastic numbers among Italians and Poles in the Northeast.
8. May 2016 at 18:04
“At least I endorse her for voters living in purple states. For those living in red and blue states, I recommend voting for Gary Johnson.”
So you endorse Hillary in Georgia, and Gary Johnson in New Hampshire?
8. May 2016 at 18:09
@Steve
-No, he supports Gary Johnson in Georgia and Hillary in New Hampshire.
I like Iowa and New Hampshire being the first states to start the primary season. They’re both disproportionately White swing states in two different parts of the country. Very good benchmarks for choosing a nominee.
8. May 2016 at 18:10
Also, Gary Johnson (but also Donald Trump) likes Nazi wedding cakes, so I’m not voting for him just for that. If you’re running as an unelectable intellectual purist, you have to be at least intellectually pure.
8. May 2016 at 18:11
Scott, in what universe is Obama a moderate conservative and Trump a liberal? It makes no sense.
8. May 2016 at 18:30
Ok. So my prediction was pretty close. Noam Chomsky-the socialist anarchist says the same thing. If he lived in a purple state he’d vote for her.
With Trump you have a guy that is going to knock himself out. Against such an opponent a lot of it is simply getting out of his way and letting him do it.
Less is more
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/if-republicans-want-to-vote-for-hilary.html
8. May 2016 at 18:32
Mike, Trump’s gonna knock Hillary out. There’s no way he’s knocking himself out. In fact, his favorability ratings are rising among Republicans, and he managed to destroy Lyin’ Ted with only a few insults. That’s amazing.
8. May 2016 at 18:49
“Are you a liberal? If so, you’ll be happy if Trump happens to pull this off.”
I’m very much not a liberal. And yes, I will be _thrilled_ if Trump wins. Horrified if Hillary wins.
And, btw, while I think Sumner is being completely absurd and emotional, I still absolutely worry that bad things will happen. I voted for Cruz in the primaries, who generally ran a very honest campaign with clear, logical policy positions, but was also not electable.
I _do_ think the elction system is broken, most of us agree. Running government is complicated, it’s absurd to expect the general public to be informed, and the election has morphed into this dumbed down reality tv competition. If you asked the general public to vote on how to run private companies like Apple and Google and retail stores, it would be a similar disaster. I prefer the model where people vote with their feet and wallets.
“Oh, and the wall? That wall die in Congress, and Trump will then attack members of Congress for a few days and then forget about it. Trump doesn’t want the wall.”
I would bet that Trump will build the wall or at least put up a bigger fight in Congress. Even if you are right, I’m sure Hillary would do worse.
“By the way, I don’t even really think he’s much of a nationalist. He’s more cosmopolitan, if decades worth of comments before recent years are any indication.”
Sumner flip flops here too. He simultaneously accuses Trump of being a sham nationalist, so nationalists shouldn’t fall for the scam and waste their vote. Then, Sumner accuses Trump of being a real nationalist, which is terrible in Sumner’s view, so don’t vote for a nationalist.
“Trump will try to kill free trade, but I don’t see how that’s positive. Otherwise, what good is his nationalism?”
So, for a more calm, reasoned view on restricting mass immigration, listen to David Frum. Trump is IMO the best actor to support the closest to restricting immigration. Even on the slight chance that Trump is scamming me, it’s a safe bet that he will be more of a immigration restrictionist than Hillary.
I would like to hear Sumner and the other anti-Trump people offer a reaction to David Frum on immigration. His points seem extremely articulate and calm, reasonable, and powerful.
I generally support free trade and I disagree with much of what Trump says on trade. Free trade generally requires a completely willing buyer and seller. The western model of mass immigration only offers choice to the immigrant not to the host society. I like Cruz’s position.
8. May 2016 at 19:09
Foosion, PJ O’Rourke is always great. I added an update.
Massimo, You said:
“I’ll vote for the nationalist.”
But wait, after the next post you said he can’t be trusted on anything. So why are you so naive as to trust him on this issue?
Scott, You said:
“Trump doesn’t want the wall.”
Yes I agree, but he’s knows it’s a way to get dumb nationalists to vote for him. It’s just a tool to Make Trump Great Again. It’s amusing seeing the “new right” being suckered by Trump.
Mark, I did say that people should vote for Johnson in red and blue states, and over 40 of the 50 states are either red or blue. Actually I’d be happy if people only voted for Hillary in Florida and Ohio. If she wins those 2 then Trump has no chance. In the other 48 states and DC please vote Johnson.
I predict Trump will pick Christie, or maybe Scott Walker.
Miguel, You said:
“Supported, in 1999”
You mean he can’t be trusted to stick to his views?
Harding, You said:
“Obviously, Trump does not support such a wealth tax.”
Today yes, but next week? Next year? Who can say?
I meant a big lead in the office pools, that bet on the race. 🙂
And Nazi wedding cakes?—well at least he’s intellectually consistent, I’ll give him that.
Scott, You said:
“Unlike you, I’m concerned Trump can actually win.”
What do you mean “unlike me”? I’m very worried about him winning. I find the 25% chance to be worrisome.
Steve, I view Georgia as a red state, so I recommend a Johnson vote. Vote Hillary in Ohio and Florida, and Johnson elsewhere.
8. May 2016 at 19:12
@Mike Sax
So, liberal Jews voting for a Zionist war-monger? Never saw that one coming.
8. May 2016 at 19:17
Scott,
I mean that I see the probability of Trump winning being higher than 25%. Trump is an economic and foreign policy ignoramus, but he’s very smart when it comes to knowing his mark, marketing, and dominating media coverage. He’s an excellent conman for the rubes, and the country’s largely filled with rubes.
8. May 2016 at 19:25
Trump can only be trusted on the issues he has an incentive to be trustworthy on. The wall is the first of these.
“Yes I agree”
-So, um, why are you against Trump, then?
Also, most of the conservative Soviet Jews went for Trump.
8. May 2016 at 20:07
“But wait, after the next post you said he can’t be trusted on anything. So why are you so naive as to trust him on this issue?”
I do believe him on nationalism and building a wall and reducing immigration or at least shifting to more desirable types of immigration. I think everyone believes him on this, even the protesters.
I think Islam should be at least verbally criticized for its connection to bad things. I believe Trump will at least shift rhetoric in this direction.
I feel he’s less reliable on say minimum wage or health care. He probably won’t raise minimum wage, which is good, but I can’t be sure.
8. May 2016 at 22:14
Scott, your Trump rants have been your most amusing posts by far. I wonder if you’ll be able to keep it up for 4-8 years.
This election cycle has been the most entertaining since 1992. Whatever you can say about our masters, they can put on a good show when they set their minds to it.
8. May 2016 at 22:23
Also, Hillary isn’t that bad. She’s more hawkish than Obama, but not any more “big government” on domestic issues than he is. She also voted for Barry Goldwater back in the day.
Yes, she’s corrupt, a liar, and probably has had at least a couple of people murdered, but that par for the course.
8. May 2016 at 22:38
Do we really need to use language like “despise” to describe these people? If you despise Hillary, what language do you reserve for serial killers or ISIS? The sorry state of our political discourse is depressing. This is Scott’s brain on politics.
8. May 2016 at 22:51
Why would you say that “when Hillary does terrible job…”? Everything suggests that she’ll basically continue Bill Clinton/Obama policies. Has America done terribly under those guys? And of course we all know that under democratic presidents country has done much better than under Rs (at least economic growth).
So please vote for Clinton, she’ll make 100 times better president than Bush or Reagan or Romney or Trump.
8. May 2016 at 23:04
While I joined the Rep party just to vote against Trump, it’s a mistake to think that what he’s saying has anything to do with what he would do if he wins. His campaign comments expire as soon as he inhales after stating them. He just wants to win. How he does that is just a detail.
His home strategy is to make a deal. That will moderate what happens. He’s already starting to acknowledge this. See his comments today on MTP. No wall. Deal. No Muslim ban. Deal. No tax cuts on the rich. Deal.
He has no fixed principles. He’s about winning, not about principles. It pleases me that he’s not stupid. Whoever convinces him of what to do will be pleased about his ability to get the country behind him.
I’m not going to vote for him.
9. May 2016 at 00:51
What do you reckon the odds are that Trump has been a Trojan horse for Hillary all along?
9. May 2016 at 02:11
“Yes, let Trump talk — the more, the better!”
I’m totally pro free speech. The so-called “protesters” and “activists” who disrupt political rallies are simply fascists. But I wouldn’t conclude that talking is Trump’s weakness. He got so far by talking only – which is pretty impressive.
9. May 2016 at 04:53
Yes, Trump is all over the board.
But remember, it was Trump who single-handedly demolished the entire GOP establishment, punditry, affiliated news outlets, PACs, Super PACs, chattering classes, and office holders.
Trump did that, with a skeleton crew, and no budget, and losing some states due to caucus chicanery.
Yes, he is such a buffoon, say those in their armchairs. Well, you get out there and crush the GOP then.
Amazing. And welcome. Trump told the GOP, at a GOP debate, that Iraq was a $5 trillion waste of money. He told Fox News to shove it. And now he is gunning for Paul Ryan.
The GOP has been fronting for the anti-labor, anti-middle class crowd for decades, playing off ethnic tensions, and social issues.
The GOP is not for or against immigration or trade. They give a hoot about Jesus or abortion. They are for anything that tilts the playing field against labor and the middle class, for less taxes on the rich, and for endless military outlays and entanglements and rural subsidies.
Maybe I will vote for Gary Johnson, if I bother to vote.
The Donks are perhaps even less admirable than the GOP.
9. May 2016 at 06:16
The one question that has not been answer is if Trump changes the direction of the Republican Party to more of a Buchanan/Douthat direction. (Of course there is wide variation with that but I do see reasonable to think the Republicans go Douthat direction as Democrats go Matt Yglesias.)
Also, it is fair question why European & US are going populist conservative direction versus say Asian Nations. My guess it is with significant period of stagnant wages (15 years) and open economies the conservative party is looking for a different direction. While the Asian economies, outside of Singapore and Hong Kong are more closed societies and have policies to ensure low unemployment.
9. May 2016 at 06:22
I endorse abstaining from voting for President. I’m going to vote for all of the other offices but not for President. I don’t want any of the available candidates to be President.
9. May 2016 at 06:50
I like the 14.25 pct wealth tax idea.
Of course people will act horrified, but it’s one logical way to address the wealth inequality divide. To move money from the wealthy to the 99 percent, you have to either:
a) take it from them.
b) massive deficit spending backed by central bank buying bonds.
Or I guess you could just complain about wealth inequality while not having any plans to address it … the current Democratic party stance.
9. May 2016 at 06:51
Libertarianism is a failed ideology implemented in no major countries and endorsed by a tiny fraction of Americans. One of libertarianism’s shining lights is Singapore, a country led by an authoritarian racist who openly preached how eugenics was integral to his worldview and governance.
Everything you hate about Trump: using libel laws to suppress opponents and run a quasi-one party state, strict controls of drugs and social behavior, universal healthcare and heavily regulated markets, strict immigration policies that account for HBD, are all cornerstones of the Singapore system.
In fact all of the things libertarians hate seem to work fine in lots of other systems, and they don’t even seem to hate them much when other people do it. Asia is racist and doesn’t allow immigration. They also have universal healthcare, the commies. Scandinavia has robust and effective welfare states, which is supposed to be impossible according to libertarians.
Just about any non-extreme governmental system seems to work as long as your demographics remain intact. And no matter how terrible a mistake you make, like Germany and Japan in WWII or China under Mao, as long as you hold onto your demographics you’ll eventually emerge on the other side a successful society, almost no matter what system you choose.
I posted my reply to Sumner on racial voting patterns in the other thread. In the long run, IQ and the wealth of nations is all that matters. You are your demographics in the long run. That makes demographics the #1 issue. There is a 0% chance Hillary will work against demographic apocalypse. There is a greater then 0% chance Trump will. That’s the only question of importance for our children’s future. All of the policies these two implement won’t leave a single mark 100 years from now, but immigration will.
To Sumner, anti-racism is a religious principle that has to be endorsed no matter its effects and no matter how it conflicts with other values and objectives. He’s a religious fanatic holding to a scientifically disproven doctrine, and he’s going to drag down our entire society to uphold it.
9. May 2016 at 07:03
If Obama supported a diversity of views, he and his supporters wouldn’t be trying to get anyone who disagrees with them fired from their job or using the justice department to shut them down. It’s cheap talk, look at actions.
SJWs are simply taking Blank Slate ideology seriously. If blacks and the same as whites, why does life have a “disparate impact”. If not genes, it must be racism. If you can’t find any racism, it must be some hidden insidious racism like unconscious bias or something. Once you eliminate genes as an explanation what they say makes a lot more sense then what Sumner says.
Disparate Impact is the foundation of our entire legal apparatus on issues of race, and its used to punish people and institutions all the time. The SJWs are simply being logically consistent with the core doctrines. Sumner wants unprincipled exceptions. Believe in the core doctrine, but don’t apply it consistently. Don’t follow it to its logical conclusions, stop that train of thought wherever I want it to stop.
9. May 2016 at 07:29
“He has no fixed principles. He’s about winning, not about principles.”
@Larry, Democracy is strictly about winning votes and power. The idea of fixed principles is completely naive and absurd. See:
“The GOP is not for or against immigration or trade. They give a hoot about Jesus or abortion. ”
@Benjamin, the political parties are just vehicles to win elections. That’s it. The idea that either party cares about any issue that won’t win elections is beyond absurd. If they did, they would just be instantly replaced by another party that was willing to play to win.
“Also, it is fair question why European & US are going populist conservative direction versus say Asian Nations.”
@collin, Asian nations are already far more extreme nationalist than the far right nationalists of Europe and US. Japan has been completely hostile to US/European style mass immigration. They are more racist and racially discriminatory than the far right in the west.
“I like these recent comments by President Obama”
@sumner, so in Obama’s rhetoric you detect no calculated manipulative tactics, no political games, just pure wholesome goodness. Only Trump is the manipulative deceptive con artist. Jeez…
9. May 2016 at 07:33
Scott
How about some substance on why Hillary is terrible.
9. May 2016 at 07:44
Is this supposed to be a surprise? This is a perfect libertarian response to everyday political life. Too cool for school most of the time (ignoring political life or advocating postures like voting for Gary Johnson or Harry Browne) but, push comes to shove, revealing a portfolio of emotional reactions similar to those of partisan Democrats. So, you have Tyler Cowen telling the world he’s gonna miss Obama (ignoring the reality that this has been the most abusive administration since Executive Order 9066) and Scott Sumner quite at home with the Clintons’ criminality because Trump had the temerity to say we need to build a wall along the Rio Grande, that some Mexican immigrants are criminals, and that the permission to immigrate is not uniform and that it’s legitimate to take ascribed traits into account. All of these things grate terribly even though he cannot make up his mind whether Trump intends this be done or not.
(Oh, and the thread is decorated by asdf’s usual thrift-shop markdown rendering of Richard Lynn. Cute.)
9. May 2016 at 08:05
I like these recent comments by President Obama (at Howard University commencement):
OK, what did he putatively say, as opposed to paraphrases?
“America is by almost every measure better than it was when I graduated from college, …Race relations are better since I graduated. That’s the truth. No, my election did not create a post-racial society, but the election itself and the subsequent one — because the first one, folks might have made a mistake… was just one indicator of how attitudes have changed…
Self-centered as ever.
Racism persists. Inequality persists…”When I was graduating, the main black hero on TV was Mr. T,” the burly, Mohawk-wearing former professional wrestler. “Rap and hip-hop were counter-culture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyonce runs the world.
The point about Mr. T is trivia. Rap then as now is ghastly anti-music. The prevalence of rap is an indicator of decadence, full stop. (While we’re at it, Count Basie, Dizzy Gillespie, and Dinah Washington were mainstream tastes; they were also talented musicians and not the least bit obscene).
We’re no longer entertainers, we’re producers, studio executives. No longer small-business owners, we’re CEOs, we’re mayors, representatives, presidents of the United States.”
Motown was founded before BO was born, Quincy Jones was the record executive who made Lesley Gore’s career, John Johnson was CEO of his own publishing firm ‘ere BO was born, there have been blacks in Congress without interruption since 1928, Carl Stokes was elected Mayor of Cleveland when BO was 6 years old, and we’ve never had a black American president; BO’s connection to the domestic black population is that he married into it.
“You have to go through life with more than just passion for change. You need a strategy….I’ll repeat that. I want you to have passion [but] you have to have a strategy. Not just awareness but action. Not just hashtags but votes. You see, change requires more than righteous anger.”
He didn’t have the cojones to tell them that the Black Lives Matter discourse is utter humbug and malicious humbug (quite possibly because he doesn’t get it).
“the middle-aged white guy” who “you may think has all the advantages, but over the last several decades has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change and feels powerless to stop it.” “You got to get in his head, too,”
Supercilious as ever.
“There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that. No matter how ridiculous or offensive. My grandmother used to tell me, every time a fool speaks, they are just advertising their own ignorance. Let them talk.
I’ll wager Madelyn Dunham, whose quondam employees have said was a woman of considerable asperity, saw her grandson for who he.
9. May 2016 at 08:57
Scott,
You and P.J. are people I can respect. I’m not really a Democrat: I’m a Republican hater, but if Trump were running as a Democrat, I’d do the same as you: endorse the Republican candidate. The man is simply unfit.
9. May 2016 at 09:07
E. Harding let me make one point clear. I have been saying since last July that Trump could win the GOP nomination.
His victory is a shock for most Beltway pundits but not for me. I consider his nomination my own sweet vindication.
You will see I’m on record here.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/this-is-why-im-trump-democrat-reason-759.html
Now why did I anticipate his victory and the pundits didn’t? Simply put as Nate Silver himself admits: they overestimated the Republican party.
So I saw Trump coming.
But the difference between the GOP primary and the general election is simply huge.
The very things he says that makes GOP voters love him more, make general election voters hate and despise him more. There is just this amazing inverse relationship here: the primary GOP voters more and more love what he says and the general election voters just hate him more and more.
This is why I rooted for him from day one.
Hillary should start with what conservatives and Republicans like Ben Howe and Max Boot are saying.
That Trump is the most unqualified Presidential nominee every put up by either party in history.
Again this is what conservatives and Republicans are saying about the Republican party’s own nominee.
She should just play that again and again.
9. May 2016 at 09:09
“If I could have any job right now, I’d probably most enjoy being the marketing person for the Clinton campaign.”
The ads literally write themselves: conservatives and Republicans are providing all the material. Use what the other GOP candidates have said about Trump: ranging from what passes for moderate on the GOP side these days (Jeb!, Graham, Romney, etc), to the hard Christian-right (kill-the-gays Cruz), and everything in between. Pundit-wise too, the material has already been written. Jennifer Rubin, Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer on the war-mongering-I-never-saw-a-war-I-didn’t-like-especially-in-the-Middle-East, socially moderate side of things, to the WSJ and NR to nut jobs like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, and onto the hard holier-than-thou Christian-cultist right like Erick Erickson and the “bathroom birthers.”
9. May 2016 at 09:12
I can’t express how much I loathe Hillary, but you’re right. Trump has to be stopped.
9. May 2016 at 09:14
“That Trump is the most unqualified Presidential nominee every put up by either party in history.”
-So was Abraham Lincoln. Since when did qualifications equal competence?
“Republicans like Ben Howe and Max Boot are saying.”
-A fat loser and a neocohen? That should cause Trump’s approval rating to skyrocket among the general electorate.
“There is just this amazing inverse relationship here”
-I believe you. But Trump already won the nomination, so he will attack Hillary both on partisan and cross-partisan issues.
9. May 2016 at 09:15
… note Cruz himself didn’t advocate killing the gays. It’s just that he shared a stage with someone who did, and he didn’t raise one peep of an objection. Same as how he didn’t raise a peep of an objection about Trump until he saw his chances of winning start to dry up and Trump went after his family. He kept his “principled” mouth shut about Trump all of 2015 and a good bit of this year, though he was given AMPLE opportunity to pipe up. Typical of that kind of “principled” conservative. It’ll be a joy to see Cruz eventually endorse Trump, and effectively stab Erickson, Beck, Levin and friends in the face.
9. May 2016 at 09:16
“anti-racism is a religious principle that has to be endorsed no matter its effects and no matter how it conflicts with other values and objectives.”
Thank god for the internet, what would one do without having gems like this to read. Really opened me up to think about all the wonderful benefits of racism.
9. May 2016 at 09:18
Trump’s favorability ratings among Republicans and leaners has soared 11 percentage points in a month. It’s now as high as Clinton’s low among Democrats and leaners. Favorability ratings are easy to change.
Scott,
how about some substance for why Trump is worse than Her?
9. May 2016 at 09:35
… Rubin at least had the good sense to realize Cruz was a phony con artist and fraud from the get-go, yet still she preferred him to Trump (understandable… he does appear to be sane at least).
As foosion already quoted (above) from P.J. O’Rourke’s Hillary “endorsement.”:
“I mean, this man just can’t be president of the US. I mean, they got this button, it’s in a briefcase, he’s gonna find it.”
I will say this about the Trump supporters though: I hope they never forgive the #NeverTrump crowd for stabbing Donald and thus America, freedom and whiteness in the back: I hope Levin, Beck, Erickson, and all the rest are forever despised as RINOs, cuckservatives, puppets of Israel, holier-than-thou fake Christians, insiders, establishment squishes and crony capitalists who desperately hate America and white people. Lump ’em all together, and never forgive them or their kids or grand kids or great grand kids. Stay bitterly divided for generations to come! The #NeverTrumpers feel exactly the same way, so why not?
Plus all the pundits and right-wing radio hosts will be forced to make a difficult choice: hopefully one that carries real consequences for them for the rest of their careers. No more fence sitters. (Where’s Limbaugh on this anyway? Has Levin called him out yet?… has Rush said something embarrassing about Jews yet (in response)? What about the right wing brain trust (outside of Palin, that is): Ted Nugent and Phil Robertson? I know they were Cruz guys, but have they embraced Donald yet?)
This is shaping up to be the perfect year for a Republican hater such as myself. I could care less about the Dems: all the fun is watching the other side self destruct. My pop-corn budget is going to be 100x normal this year.
9. May 2016 at 10:06
Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party candidate) recommended (during a CNN interview I think it was) that people take this quiz to see which (remaining) candidate best matches their views:
http://www.isidewith.com/
More nuanced responses are available if you select the 3rd option on each question.
Gary came in at 74% for me… the lowest of the non-Trump candidates (the highest non-Trumper was at 87%). Trump came in at 27%: the highest score of anybody I know who’s taken it yet, which has them accusing me of being a Trump supporter (Junior grade).
But do they have a team to keep the thing updated as Trump changes his views from tweet to tweet? It could be kind of a crap shoot.
9. May 2016 at 10:32
That Trump is the most unqualified Presidential nominee every put up by either party in history.
Mike Sax, he’s not even the most unqualified nominated in the last 10 years.
Trump’s been running a large multi-sector business concern for 40 years and been tangling with public officials that entire time.
Now consider the current incumbent. Pro-rating part time and seasonal labors, he practiced law for about 4 years. Pro-rating part-time and seasonal labors, he was a law school instructor for about 5 years. He was a working legislator for 10 years and change. What did that amount to? He never was offered a partnership, never published any scholarly articles, taught boutique courses, did not serve on faculty committees, avoided the tenure track, and established himself as a go-to expert in no area of policy. The Democratic Party nominated someone for whom corporation counsel of Cook County would have been the logical next step in his career.
You’ve had experienced executives in the past who competed passably in Democratic nomination contests, but the only ones in the last 20 years have been Wesley Clark and Howard Dean (unless, of course, you’re counting the utterly unscrupulous failure the Democratic Party will be nominating this year).
9. May 2016 at 10:35
… note Cruz himself didn’t advocate killing the gays. It’s just that he shared a stage with someone who did,
The man did not, but partisan Democrats just recycle talking points in lieu of thinking.
9. May 2016 at 10:40
Hillary should start with what conservatives and Republicans like Ben Howe and Max Boot are saying.
Neither one would be known outside the narrow circle who read opinion journalism (I’ve never heard of Howe, myself). Max Boot is one of the puppy dogs in John Podhoretz kennel. Open borders advocacy is baseline with that crew. No one among them disputes it, though not all of them opine on the subject. Of course Boot’s kvetching.
9. May 2016 at 10:51
Kasich is worse than Trump. The guy has such an intense authoritative response to his own emotional insecurities that he tried to get Fargo banned.
Also, he’s a pragmatist, the absolute worst. Pragmatism is the road to totalitarianism. It’s the philosophy that says “this thing that you want government to do, I totally agree that government should do it, but government can’t do it now because it’s not practical.” Yet when it becomes practical, the pragmatist has no principles to fall back on. Always fear the proclaimed pragmatist; authoritarianism is extremely pragmatic.
9. May 2016 at 11:10
@asdf,
“SJWs are simply taking Blank Slate ideology seriously. If blacks and the same as whites, why does life have a “disparate impact”. If not genes, it must be racism.”
No, it’s simpler than that. It’s my tribe vs your tribe warfare. Except warfare is conducted via contests for government/legal power rather than traditional violent warfare. Blank Slate and accusations of racism are just tools to rationalize and justify seizing power. Almost no one actually believes that. Ask any hard left liberal if academic achievement is nature or nurture, and the answer is almost always (correctly) “both”.
I agree with everything else you said.
The Open Border crowd cites Singapore as a model for successful mass immigration. And sure, Singapore has a very large percentage foreign born population, but it’s largely ethnic Chinese immigration to an ethnic Chinese majority state.
9. May 2016 at 13:18
Art Deco’s Pope (the kosher Pope):
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-hides-the-cross.htm
9. May 2016 at 14:06
I put “conservative” in quotes, because Palin isn’t smart, educated, or coherent enough to have an ideology, and Gingrich is just a total crook and kook. Palin is nothing put a pawn to Trump.
No, Gov. Palin is a rhetorical punching bag for self-aggrandizing twits who aren’t fit to take out her trash. There’s nothing erratic or unpredictable about what she advocates. Gingrich has no history of public corruption (or at least no history that stands out against the backdrop of other quondam members of Congress). Gingrich is an accomplished politician with an odd and fertile imagination. He’s also rather oleaginous and mistreats his wives.
9. May 2016 at 14:53
Massimo, You said:
“I do believe him on nationalism and building a wall and reducing immigration or at least shifting to more desirable types of immigration. I think everyone believes him on this, even the protesters.”
Why? Hasn’t he back-tracked several times on this? Yes he has!!
You said:
“I think Islam should be at least verbally criticized for its connection to bad things.”
All religions are connected to bad things. Do you think candidates should criticize the Catholics for covering up the scandal of pedophile priests?
Charlie, You said:
“I like the 14.25 pct wealth tax idea.”
I’m not surprised by anything these days.
Dune, “Double-despise”? Seriously, I sort of agree with you, but I was just trying to dramatize the intensity of my antipathy to Trump.
Andy, You said:
“Everything suggests that she’ll basically continue Bill Clinton/Obama policies.”
I strongly disagree. The country did do well under Clinton’s policies, as you say, but did not do well under Obama’s far worse polices. I expect Hillary to be even worse.
Larry, You said:
“His home strategy is to make a deal. That will moderate what happens. He’s already starting to acknowledge this. See his comments today on MTP. No wall. Deal. No Muslim ban. Deal. No tax cuts on the rich. Deal.
He has no fixed principles. He’s about winning, not about principles.”
I agree. The real issue here goes well beyond Trump. It’s about the future of the GOP, will it become like France’s National Front? That’s what worries me. Trump is just a clown.
Saturos, It makes complete sense, but I have a policy of not believing conspiracy theories.
Ben, You said:
“Yes, Trump is all over the board.
But remember, it was Trump who single-handedly demolished the entire GOP establishment, punditry, affiliated news outlets, PACs, Super PACs, chattering classes, and office holders.”
Hitler did something similar, and no I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler.
Collin, You said:
“The one question that has not been answer is if Trump changes the direction of the Republican Party to more of a Buchanan/Douthat direction.”
That’s an insult to Douthat, who I greatly respect.
asdf, You said:
“One of libertarianism’s shining lights is Singapore”
You really are an idiot.
James, She’s a fan of military intervention. She likes the war on drugs. She likes the war on terror. She wants a $12 minimum wage. She’s from the least libertarian wing of the Dems.
9. May 2016 at 15:41
Tom, You said:
“I will say this about the Trump supporters though: I hope they never forgive the”
If Trump losses they’ll all crawl back into their holes. In June 1992, Perot was polling at 39%, ahead of the other two. By 1993 his “movement” had collapsed.
Steve F, I’m a pragmatist too.
9. May 2016 at 15:55
Do you think candidates should criticize the Catholics for covering up the scandal of pedophile priests?
1. The priests in question were not typically given to paedophilia, but to pederasty.
2. I’m not aware of any organization which publishes the personnel files of its employees, or discloses them to third parties without some sort of compulsory process.
3. Complaints against priests were typically very dated when they were received by chanceries. The median lapse of time in the diocese of Syracuse was 25 years. It was shorter prior to 2002, but nowhere near real time. About 50 people claimed retrospectively that they were molested in some way between 1949 and 1980. Fewer than 5 people filed a complaint during that span of years.
4. Nothing prevented the aggrieved parties from complaining to police themselves.
5. The pew sitting Catholic knew nothing about any of this. Bishops and a few chancery employees did. A great many bad decisions were made, but most of the complaints against bishops were a bum rap.
9. May 2016 at 16:00
Hitler did something similar, and no I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler.
He did nothing of the kind. The Nazi Party was a fad organization who added a mass of voters very rapidly under abnormal economic stress during the period running from 1928 to 1932. They were already demographically imploding by the end of 1932. If the senile Paul von Hindenburg had elected to hang tight, they’d have retreated to a modest share of the electorate, like the Finnish fascists.
The two issues Trump has raised (one explicitly and one implicitly) have been a nagging problem for decades.
9. May 2016 at 16:02
She’s a fan of military intervention. She likes the war on drugs. She likes the war on terror.
Someone has to carry on the business of government while libertarians are engaged in their insipid self-congratulation exercises. That includes fighting wars, seeing to security, and controlling crime.
9. May 2016 at 17:12
“All religions are connected to bad things. Do you think candidates should criticize the Catholics for covering up the scandal of pedophile priests?”
sumner,
I absolutely do think the Catholic church deserved some level of public shame and criticism for their involvement in pedophile scandals.
There should be some kind of fair system to set appropriate levels of society shame and criticism.
Consider Islam vs Confederate sympathizers and symbols.
By every measure, the amount of violence and terror motivated, inspired, and supported by Islam is far greater than that committed by Confederate sympathizers. Yet, our society and specifically President Obama shames Confederate symbology aggressively and walks on eggshells to avoid offending or criticizing Islam. This isn’t based on anything close to a fair process.
Out president is shaming, crushing, and seizing land and assets from southern whites, who are easy targets. He’s trying to buy good will from Muslims. It reminds me of the Arab aphorism: “it is always better to be the enemy of the British than their friend. For if you are their friend, they will try to sell you. But if you are their enemy, they will always try to buy you.”
9. May 2016 at 17:32
@ssumner
“You really are an idiot.”
Your going to permanently destroy our country for generations and this is the best you’ve got? You really are evil.
9. May 2016 at 17:54
“James, She’s a fan of military intervention. She likes the war on drugs. She likes the war on terror. She wants a $12 minimum wage. She’s from the least libertarian wing of the Dems.
I realize you’re short on time and have a lot of commenters but this does not describe anyone who is terrible let alone Hillary.
Military intervention- it has pros and cons. Over 250k dead in Syria since 2011. Seems reasonable that some kind of military intervention warranted.
War on Drugs- no doubt this was a mistake.
War on Terror- pros and cons but far from being terrible for having a tough stance against isis.
$12 min wage- she’s actually to the right of her party on this. You constantly ignore some of the mitigating effects on adverse employment growth the increases of wages have ie productivity, less turnover, more motivated workforce. Is 12 too high? Maybe but surely it’s not terrible
Least libertarian – no she doesn’t think like you and this makes her terrible?
I don’t think so
9. May 2016 at 18:10
based off your explanation the title of this post should be
“Hillary has many opinions that I disagree with, and yet, I’m voting for her.”
It would be a little more consistent.
9. May 2016 at 19:39
“Over 250k dead in Syria since 2011.”
-The U.S. is building airbases on Syrian soil, james; helloo? The CIA and Turks have been supplying Syrian rebels with weapons since the beginning. And Russia’s intervention began in September of last year. Too little, too late to make a huge difference.
“pros and cons but far from being terrible for having a tough stance against isis.”
-Barack Obama (with Erdogan, Hillary, Cameron, and Kerry’s help) re-created ISIS, james. Helloo? Anybody home? Hillary is the last person to have a tough stance on ISIS. Putin is the first.
“You constantly ignore some of the mitigating effects on adverse employment growth the increases of wages have ie productivity, less turnover, more motivated workforce”
-Do you really think employers are stupid enough not to recognize these benefits if they exist? Nominal wages have an upward bias.
Here’s my isidewith:
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2288150125
“That’s an insult to Douthat, who I greatly respect.”
-No wonder, given how he stubbornly denied reality regarding the Donald until the very end and is so half-pill. He also didn’t understand that Trump is infinitely better than Rubio, especially for winning the general election.
“will it become like France’s National Front? That’s what worries me.”
-Different times call for different measures. Dems are saying immigration will destroy the GOP. The GOP acts on the evidence they present. In any case, Trump’s supporters aren’t going anywhere. And, if you recall, Romney ran on a “self-deport” plank.
“Hitler did something similar, and no I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler.”
-Wow. That’s even worse than what Trump usually does.
9. May 2016 at 20:09
Scott,
I suspected you think of yourself as a pragmatist (most people who like getting things done think of themselves that way). But I think in politics, the term is typically used to describe somebody who has a philosophy of government that isn’t rooted in principle. I think your philosophy is rooted in principle.
It’s just so easy to grow government for practical purposes. It takes theory to provide the rationale for why practice may be misguided. When I look at the history of the growth of government and bad policy, I see a bunch of pragmatism that eschewed theory.
10. May 2016 at 04:07
@Art Deco
What’s the more significant historical event: the birth of Jesus, or the killing of Jews during World War 2?
10. May 2016 at 17:28
Art, You said:
“Someone has to carry on the business of government”
There are plenty of countries that get along just fine without finding new wars to fight every few years. The world isn’t going to end if we don’t go into Iraq, or Libya, or Panama, or Serbia, or Syria, etc. I think the Afghan war was justified, BTW. And I favor NATO.
James, I think you took the post title a bit too seriously. I was just trying to dramatize my opposition to Trump. There are many many other issues that I disagree with Hillary on, which I didn’t have time to cover, and I do think she is worse than Obama. But if you want to say she isn’t “terrible” by the standards of politicians, fine.
And contrary to what you claim, I do not plan to vote for her, and said so above. I will vote for Gary Johnson. But if I lived in Florida I would vote for her.
10. May 2016 at 18:50
A libertarian who favors NATO? I see.
10. May 2016 at 19:41
ya prob did take it a bit too literally. But the thing is a lot of ppl despise her for reasons that would be defined as disagreement if applied to others. I dont get it. E. Harding is prob ignorant enough to explain it.
11. May 2016 at 16:44
Oderus, You said:
“A libertarian who favors NATO? I see.”
Of course the free countries of the world should join together to defend themselves. It’s prevented a repeat of WWI and WWII. It’s a no-brainer.
In contrast, non-Nato countries like Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Iraq, etc., get invaded.
James, I see her as being strongly opposed to a libertarian view of life.
12. May 2016 at 13:09
Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, pushed to bomb Libya and to support rebels in Syria so I will vote for Gary Johnson.