Not a major news story
Five weeks before the election, Trump accuses Hillary of having an affair. Ok, that’s not at all interesting. But what is kind of interesting is the press reaction—a big yawn. In a normal election year this would have been a big deal. If Jeb! was the nominee and accused Hillary of infidelity it would be headline news—dominating the news cycle right up until the election.
Ezra Klein says the past 6 days shows that Trump is unqualified to be president.
And imagine it wasn’t Hillary Clinton trying to bait Trump into attacking Alicia Machado, but ISIS trying to bait Trump into attacking Iraq, or Vladimir Putin trying to bait Trump into breaking with NATO, or Angela Merkel trying to bait Trump into isolating the United States before a key vote at the United Nations, or China trying to bait Trump into giving them an excuse to assert their claim over Taiwan.
We have all known, abstractly, that this is a possibility. That Trump is easily baited has been on display since he began running for president. That America’s enemies would construct detailed psychological profiles of him and launch sophisticated plans to take advantage of his weaknesses is obvious. But the expectation was that he would have staff around him — his National Security Advisor, his chief of staff — who would explain that the latest provocation is a trap, and who would remind Trump of the importance of avoiding it.
But that’s why the Machado affair has been so enlightening. In this case, Hillary Clinton’s campaign explained that they were setting a trap. The media explained that Clinton’s campaign was setting a trap. And all of Trump’s staff and advisors undoubtedly explained that Trump’s enemies were setting a trap.
Trump didn’t listen, or perhaps he didn’t care. He sprung the trap anyway. He is more passionate about proving his dominance and humiliating his perceived foes than about following his strategy. As unpredictable and uncontrollable as he is to his allies, he is exactly that predictable and controllable to his enemies, and to America’s enemies.
It’s an excellent piece, but he should have mentioned that any 6-day segment over the past year shows Trump is unqualified; there’s nothing special about the past 6 days. Just on the basis of personality, Trump is so unqualified to be president that I’m starting to find it comical that some people still can’t see this. Really?
PS. One argument for Trump is that Congress would prevent him from doing anything crazy. Oh really?
The top two Republicans in Congress said they are open to altering legislation that allows lawsuits against foreign governments that sponsor terrorism — a stance expressed less than 24 hours after lawmakers voted to override President Obama’s veto of the measure.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday there might be “unintended ramifications” from the legislation, and he and Speaker Paul Ryan both suggested an openness to re-examining or altering the legislation in the post-election congressional period.
Obama criticized Congress for overriding his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, the first time during his presidency that lawmakers have successfully taken such action. He argued that beyond complex foreign policy implications, the law could expose American citizens to retaliation abroad.
And this had me rolling on the floor laughing:
McConnell agreed that it could be “worth further discussing” changes to the legislation, but he laid the blame on Obama and the White House for not engaging lawmakers sooner on the long-term ramifications: “I told the president the other day that this was an example of an issue we should have talked about much earlier.”
It’s Obama’s fault! Why didn’t he stop us from doing something stupid?
Tags:
2. October 2016 at 07:34
Alt-right and Sandernista crowds have turned this into a pornographic quest for Trump. The era of reasoned debate and assessment is clearly behind us.
2. October 2016 at 10:12
Scott,
Yes, and Paul Ryan could have prevented both votes for this law from occurring in the House. Recently though, you wrote something to the effect that hopefully Paul Ryan would be the next Republican candidate for President. I attacked his character, using the same fact-checking website you’ve used as evidence that Trump is a liar. While no one is as big a liar as Trump, Ryan is quite the liar, and he’s of course being very dishonest about this issue. The point here is that I think this is an area where you have ldeological blinders.
You don’t think much of my claim that character, even when we’re speculating on it as voters, matters. Elizabeth Warren was a better choice as Senator, as I argued when she ran against Scott Brown, due to her superior character, even given her economic naiveté. You not only disagreed, but were quite dismissive of my claim. But since, Brown, like Ryan, has endorsed Trump. Would Warren support Trump under any circumstances?
I find your Trump posts fun, and agree with you about Trump, as well as most of what you write about Clinton. But, you seem blind to the ridiculousness of the support you’ve thrown behind certain candidates. Otherwise, you’re very good at shooting straight.
2. October 2016 at 10:21
Hahaha
“If Jeb! was the nominee, and accused Hillary of infidelity, it would be headline news—dominating the news cycle right up until the election.”
That is because the mainstream media are all anti-Trump and in the tank for Hillary.
Are you serious? The globalists hate Trump and are purposefully biased against him.
Only a fool would seriously consider the major news network’s choices with respect to Trump and Hillary to be indicators of some sort of objective news worthiness.
The corruption in the Clinton Foundation is not major news not because it isn’t actually important or relevant, but because the major news networks want Hillary to win the election. They lie, they deceive, they distort, and they selectively choose stories to create a narrative.
I knew Sumner was rather sheepish with respect to politics. But he is literally brainwashed.
2. October 2016 at 11:56
“Just on the basis of personality,”
-All focus on personality, no focus on policy. Typical academic. Trump, unlike low-energy people, has a winning personality. It’s perfect to crush the menace of political correctness. The fact is, Clinton’s Machado bit was too good for Trump to pass up skewering (and, thus, winning). Here’s my explainer for why Scott Sumner is against Trump, even though he’s a much safer candidate on the issues that matter than Clinton (and why Sumner’s views on this election should be completely ignored):
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/10/01/he-kept-us-out-of-war/#comment-418238
BTW, check this out:
https://goo.gl/1hcaj3
2. October 2016 at 14:08
Scott, theck out the video here. Trump is VERY pursuasive. He is mesmerizing. It isn’t a question of reason, it is a question of people almost being in his spell. He is Rasputin, only for millions of people.
But he believes he has the master gene. The video at this article proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt: http://www.examplesofglobalization.com/2016/10/god-hates-master-race-idea-donald-trump.html
Problem is, with praise of Margaret Sanger, Clinton flirts with genetic improvement of the race. But don’t be fooled, Clinton’s off the wall ideas pale in comparison to Trump, who says he possesses the master gene.
2. October 2016 at 14:11
Harding, you said this: “Trump, unlike low-energy people, has a winning personality. It’s perfect to crush the menace of political correctness. The fact is, Clinton’s Machado bit was too good for Trump to pass up skewering (and, thus, winning).”
You are mesmerized, and deceived. You have left your reason at the door. Trump is a wicked fool. He is dangerous to our nation. He could forever divide it. Once you have other races not trusting whites, walk down the street and your silly ass will be in danger. Don’t continue to be foolish, Harding:
2. October 2016 at 14:16
Good post Scott.
Maybe some of the die hard Trumpistas have the same condition this woman has: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/08/484812170/what-an-hour-of-emotion-makes-visible
They literally can’t detect the problems that are so evident to other people (unless they get the magnet therapy perhaps, which only has a temporary effect unfortunately).
2. October 2016 at 16:56
The fundamental downward dynamic of identity politics — people vote for appalling candidates because if the other person wins, their tribe will be cut out of the goodies. (I really hate identity politics.)
The Donald is white voters finding their very own Marion Barry and non-Boston Irish Catholics their very own James Michael Curley.
Curley is perhaps particularly apposite as we live in an age when, if you don’t like your electorate, you can use immigration to adjust it appropriately. Aka the Curley effect
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/curley_effect_1.pdf
2. October 2016 at 16:58
Tom Brown: not seeing oneself as other’s see you is not specific to Trump voters. Robbie Burns may have noticed it some time ago …
Jonathan Haidt’s observation that morality binds and blinds is also apposite.
2. October 2016 at 17:25
Politics is like fundamentalist religion to many in the U.S. currently. They believe on faith, that Trump would be a good pres, despite no evidence for that, and lots of evidence to the contrary.
It’s a waste of time to use using rational arguments against faith based politics though. The faithful can always think up counter-arguments that sound rational– to them.
2. October 2016 at 17:29
“The corruption in the Clinton Foundation is not major news” because there is no evidence that it exists. It’s all rumors and innuendo and unfounded accusations by Right Wing media. And it IS news on Right Wing propaganda media.
2. October 2016 at 17:30
“It’s Obama’s fault! Why didn’t he stop us from doing something stupid?”
Yeah, he should have told us it was a bad idea… Oh, wait, he did.
2. October 2016 at 17:44
E. Harding, your post you linked to says Trump can’t be bought. Of course, he can be bought. He’s completely about making money by hook or by crook– stiffing creditors and contractors, paying his own companies millions for campaign expenses. He’ll take money any way that he can get it. I know you love Trump and always have a counter argument for why Trump would make a great pres. So this post and link are for others, not you.
Trump’s campaign paid his businesses $8.2 million
The GOP presidential candidate draws on his own companies to an unprecedented degree.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-business-campaign-trail-228500#ixzz4LyxetGZs
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-business-campaign-trail-228500
2. October 2016 at 19:11
“Just on the basis of personality, Trump is so unqualified to be president that I’m starting to find it comical that some people still can’t see this. Really?”
You must think that politics in the U.S. is rational, rather than being like fundamentalist religion. You do live in the U.S., don’t you?
2. October 2016 at 20:17
Jill, I don’t go with fundamentalist bible belt morons, who are Zionist in disguise. I hate all master race ideas, including Menachem Begin’s and Donald Trump’s. You cannot be a follower of Christ and support the master race. So, don’t lump all people who profess to be Christians together. Most of them are frauds.
2. October 2016 at 20:26
Gary Anderson is hella creepy
3. October 2016 at 08:01
Trump is unqualified to be President, but I know for many he’s a least bad option. I’m not defending Trump here, but I want to explain why some people might be willing to vote for him regardless.
I’ve heard him compared by some Christians to a Christian version of Julian the Apostate – not in his case out of personal conviction, but many view him as the last chance to push back against progressives before small-o orthodox Christians fully become the outgroup in the United States from a cultural perspective.
Many Christians are terrified about the government making it more and more difficult to be a believer in the United States. No one expects a return to the suffering as it existed under Nero or Diocletian, but today, to voice public support for or live by principles held by Christianity since the beginning is liable to get you subject to a national 2 minute hate, to have you brought before the public authorities, to have your business destroyed by fines, potentially even to face jail time. You may be forced out of your job as a CEO, or a judge, for taking the same position on same sex marriage Barack Obama espoused as recently as 2008.
We understand that progressives don’t accept the moral teachings of Christianity. However, when our arguments for tolerance fall on deaf ears – arguments made on the most liberal of principles, namely the Jeffersonian principle that it is tyrannical to force a person to act against their conscience, and the Rawlsian principle that a pluralistic society should strive as far as possible to respect and keep a just peace between citizens committed to radically different moral, philosophical and religious views – it is terrifying to think where it could lead in the near future.
Liberalism is named as such because it places liberty as the ultimate political value, but because freedoms necessarily conflict, it ultimately requires unprincipled exceptions in favor of one group or the other. The desired freedoms of, to take just one example, same sex couples and orthodox Christians are in conflict. Increased freedom for one means decreased freedom for the other. This conflict in theory be balanced more delicately (i.e. same sex marriage is legal but Christians are in no way required to participate, contraception is legal but Catholic nuns aren’t required by law to provide it) but it is not. Because it is not, because Christians realize that liberals are making an exception to their own principles against Christianity, Christians are scared.
Again, Trump does not seem motivated at all by the concerns of orthodox Christianity, but he includes orthodox Christians in his coalition and might pay at least some heed to their concerns. His Supreme Court picks might well be modeled on Antonin Scalia. His ability to violate political correctness without consequence is appealing to Christians who, for different reasons, also find themselves afoul of political correctness. Hillary, on the other hand, will keep the ball rolling inexorably in the progressive direction, with progressive court picks, executive orders, and of course via the bully pulpit. On top of that, a President Clinton would enjoy reinforcement and support from the media, whereas Trump would see significant push back at every turn.
Yes, Trump doesn’t seem to know what’s going on, is boorish, and from a Christian perspective doesn’t really seem to care on a personal level about issues they care about. His off the cuff comments on nuclear weapons, torture, etc. have been deeply disturbing from a Christian point of view. And maybe a Trump loss wouldn’t be the end – a deep recession in 2018 could limit Hillary to 4 years and allow her to be replaced by a President Cruz. Maybe a Trump victory would just supercharge progressives and give us a President Bernie (or equivalent, given his age) in 2020. I don’t really know.
I will say this. If you want to win Christians, progressives need to actually act on their buzzwords. They need to tolerate us, even if they despise us. They need to be inclusive, allowing us to live and let live. They need to celebrate diversity, even if that means including Christians as part of that diversity, along with Muslims and the transgender. If the choice is between greater alienation and personal risk to live out one’s faith with a competent (relatively speaking) leader and some hope of that not happening with a baboon, some people will vote for the baboon. Or as I’ve seen it put elsewhere on this election, a drunk firefighter is better than a committed arsonist.
3. October 2016 at 09:31
Scott, You said:
“The point here is that I think this is an area where you have ldeological blinders.”
So says the Democrat who focuses all his attacks on the GOP, at the independent who attacks both parties with relish. You do realize that the Dems also voted to override, don’t you?
Lorenzo, The problem with using immigration to adjust politics is that most of those Catholic Democratic voters are now going for Trump. I predict the Chinese will switch to the GOP in a few years, at least if the GOP presidential candidates stop mocking the way that Chinese talk.
Jill, You said:
“You must think that politics in the U.S. is rational,”
You think Trump is a normal American candidate?
Justin, America has many problems, the oppression of Christians (a huge majority of the population) is not in the top 300. Who is doing this oppressing? The Muslims? The Jews? The Unitarians?
3. October 2016 at 09:48
“Many Christians are terrified about the government making it more and more difficult to be a believer in the United States. No one expects a return to the suffering as it existed under Nero or Diocletian, but today, to voice public support for or live by principles held by Christianity since the beginning is liable to get you subject to a national 2 minute hate, to have you brought before the public authorities, to have your business destroyed by fines, potentially even to face jail time.”
It is funny how it was all too easy to be a “small-o orthodox Christian” and, say, a slaveowner or a segregationist (ask the Southern Baptists), but now it is supposedly impossible to be a “small-o orthodox Christian” and accept that different from them be treated like human beings. And what you call “national 2 minute hate” is just people disagreeing with you. Get used to it the same way non-Fundamentalists (whether you like it or not, lots of liberals, not to mention Obama and Clinton, consider themselves Christians) got used to the far-right hate machine.
“and the Rawlsian principle that a pluralistic society should strive as far as possible to respect and keep a just peace between citizens committed to radically different moral, philosophical and religious views”
Is this what the far-right does when it tries to impose its on theology on the other Americans? The Republican far-right made it clear over and over, as far as they are concerned, it is a Fundamentalist Christian country and they will do whatever it takes to keep it that way. Supporting an opportunist such as Mr. Trump is a feature, not a bug or a Hail Mary of some oppressed group. It just the latest iteration of the old Ann Coulter-Rush Limbaugh rabble-rousing/character assassination method we all know (“Godless: The Church of Liberalism”, calling the Pope a Communist, promoting Creationism, now supporting Trump). It is time to call their bluff.
“even if that means including Christians as part of that diversity, along with Muslims and the transgender.”
You know very well that the idea that Fundamentalists are just another group, like Muslims and the transgender, entitled to rights, not privileges, and the same protection any other law-abiding group deserves is anathema to the very Fundamentalists you think liberals should bend over backwards to court. No, they are not being forced to choose the “commited arsonist”, they just want to see what they think is a modern Babylon burn.
3. October 2016 at 09:50
* its own theology
3. October 2016 at 09:59
Yes, I think Trump is a normal American candidate– only more extreme. Voters have been propagandized for years by Fox News, Clear Channel iHeart radio, Right wing web sites etc. to vote on emotion, not facts or rationality– specifically to get riled up with fear and anger and to vote accordingly. And to totally ignore facts and consensus reality. Trump realized this and knew he could lead people as they ride on waves of emotion better than it’s ever been done before. He just took it to its logical– and emotional– extreme.
As Thomas above states, there has been a Far Right Hate Machine–and Anger/Fear/Scapegoating Machine for some time now. As Bill Maher says “Trump didn’t create this swamp. He just rose from it.”
So yes, Trump is doing what many American candidates have done before– only he’s better at it. He’s doing effective– but dangerous– political marketing. If you get people all riled up enough with emotion, they shut down their rational thinking centers– and the candidate doesn’t need to worry at all about facts or reason. He just drives the train, on waves of emotion. Not good for a democracy. But he’s different from past candidates only in the degree to which he takes this.
3. October 2016 at 12:41
Scott,
It could have been said that America has many problems, and the oppression of gays was never in the top 300. That being said, I can understand why for gay people, gay rights was the top issue. It’s ultimately a matter of perspective. For Christians, the ability of a Christian to live out their faith IS this most important issue, not monetary policy or foreign policy.
I think I get it – Christians are your outgroup. You don’t seem to find it troublesome that Christians have been hauled before courts, faced crushing legal penalties, lost their jobs or businesses, or because of these things have been afraid to voice their views or live their faith publicly. Christians find these things horrifying. Moreover, Christians expect these problems to only get worse from here, as the next generation will include a new large set of secular nones and the more religious elderly pass away.
Christians who take their faith seriously, while a larger population than, say, LGBT Americans, are a minority of the population – many Americans are nominal Christians (what Ross Douthat calls the Christian penumbra) – they don’t go to Church most Sundays, they rarely read scripture, they often accept secular morality in place of what is taught by their Church, etc.
Anyway, my point in commenting was to help you understand why some people might feel compelled to vote for Donald Trump, even if they generally have the same reaction to him that you do. Additionally, this casual dismissal of Christian concerns as not being worth considering is counterproductive. No Christian is just going to accept that his or her issues don’t count. Trump might have no idea what he’s doing and he might be embarrassing as President, but at least he doesn’t have them in his crosshairs.
3. October 2016 at 13:33
Fascinating, Justin. Your comment makes me think about how our election seems to be about voting for someone who hates who you hate, or someone who hates people who you think hate you or who you think have dissed you, or who at the very least is not among the people whom you think hate you. A whole lot of it is about hate.
Amazing to me, Justin, that you think Christians “can’t voice their views or live their faith publicly.” They can do that more than any other religious or non-religious group. The problem for non-Christians is that some Christians in the U.S. try to force others to live, not just by Christian rules– but by fundamentalist Christian rules. Many Christians accept gay people and their marriages. Many don’t want abortion to be illegal, regardless of whether they believe it is moral or not.
I think religious tolerance is great. Trying to make the beliefs of one particular sector of one religion, into the law of the land– that’s the problem. Although I am sure you don’t see it that way.
I do understand that you think Trump is a guy who will protect fundamentalist Christians from being “persectued” by not being able to force their will on other people who are not fundamentalist Christians. And he certainly is one coercive guy. So if you want someone to help you to coerce other people, he’s your man.
3. October 2016 at 15:39
Scott – I apologize for the significant amount of space on this topic. I’ll let this be my last comment and keep my peace thereafter. I pretty much agree with what you say regarding Trump, again I’m only trying to explain a slice of his support.
–“It is funny how it was all too easy to be a “small-o orthodox Christian” and, say, a slaveowner or a segregationist (ask the Southern Baptists), but now it is supposedly impossible to be a “small-o orthodox Christian” and accept that different from them be treated like human beings.”–
I get it, you don’t like Christianity – say what you will but this type of language is not persuasive. Anyway, this comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The Christian faith does not require one to be either a slaveowner nor a segregationist.
–“And what you call “national 2 minute hate” is just people disagreeing with you.”–
Is it?
“Memories Pizza was forced to close because of death threats the business received in response to its owners’ statements regarding RFRA and service to gay customers (they said they would serve anyone but could not in good conscience cater a gay wedding)…The owners of Memories Pizza, the O’Connor family, did not willingly seek out controversy, deny service to a gay person or couple, or even go out on a limb to suggest that they would. No, they merely responded to a question from Alyssa Marino, a local reporter for ABC 57 News who had come to their shop in search of a story.”
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/02/was-memories-pizza-a-victim-of-irrespons
–“Is this what the far-right does when it tries to impose its on theology on the other Americans? The Republican far-right made it clear over and over, as far as they are concerned, it is a Fundamentalist Christian country and they will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.”–
First, if it’s so bad for the far-right (which in 1995 was known as ‘the center’) to impose its views on other Americans, how can you then say it’s no problem at all for the far-left to impose its views on other Americans? Second, the principles I mentioned are *liberal* principles, not conservative ones. It’s reasonable to expect liberals to abide by their own stated principles, no?
–“Supporting an opportunist such as Mr. Trump is a feature, not a bug or a Hail Mary of some oppressed group. It just the latest iteration of the old Ann Coulter-Rush Limbaugh rabble-rousing/character assassination method we all know (“Godless: The Church of Liberalism”, calling the Pope a Communist, promoting Creationism, now supporting Trump). It is time to call their bluff.”–
While I readily admit that some people out there might be basically as you describe, with but one exception all of the people I know who support Trump are doing so very reluctantly.
–“You know very well that the idea that Fundamentalists are just another group, like Muslims and the transgender, entitled to rights, not privileges, and the same protection any other law-abiding group deserves is anathema to the very Fundamentalists you think liberals should bend over backwards to court. No, they are not being forced to choose the “commited arsonist”, they just want to see what they think is a modern Babylon burn.”–
I think you misread the analogy – Clinton is the committed arsonist, Trump is the drunk firefighter. It’s from the article below, which basically says the same thing I am saying.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-christian-support-for-trump
Christians are not asking liberals to bend over for them, we’re just asking them to perhaps lower their raised middle fingers and treat us like fellow human beings. We’re asking for people to respect our wishes not to be involved when it comes to things contrary to our faith. That’s it. I don’t care what label you give it.
And liberals should try to court Christian voters.
The mere fact that many Christians feel they cannot reason with the secular left (and this discussion is a good example) only makes it more likely they’ll be tempted to play Russian roulette with the country and vote Trump.
3. October 2016 at 17:28
“I get it, you don’t like Christianity – say what you will but this type of language is not persuasive. Anyway, this comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The Christian faith does not require one to be either a slaveowner nor a segregationist.”
I don’t like hypocrites, not matter thei religious status. We are not talking about a “faith”, we are talking about an ideology (Fundamentalism) that just can’t accept to be one among many and that left behind already an impressive paper trail of both rabid propaganda and votes making clear what it wants. The problem remains, we are told that slavery and other gross human rights violations were all good and fun (at worse, an individual conscience matter), but granting, or rather, recognizing human rights of other peopke is a crime. Sorry, but I am not trying to “persuade” the “Christian” (again, whether you like it not, many liberal voters and politicians are Christians, you don’t get to redefine the term to suit your political interests) far-right, I am not trying to persuade David Duke either. Trump can corner the crazy vote for all I care. As for “language”, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”
“And liberals should try to court Christian voters.
The mere fact that many Christians feel they cannot reason with the secular left (and this discussion is a good example) only makes it more likely they’ll be tempted to play Russian roulette with the country and vote Trump.”
Those “Christians” don’t want to “reason”, they just want to keep unearned privileges and impose their own theology on all other groups, including other Christians. Mr. Trump is just the latest tool the Evangelical Right wants decided to use, no matter the consequences for the country.
“You misread the analogy – Clinton is the committed arsonist, Trump is the drunk firefighter. It’s from the article below, which basically says the same thing I am saying.”
Are the people “playing Russian roulette with the country” choosing the firefighter? OK, then… Clinton, not the Russian roulette fellows and their human gun, is the arsonist. Why not? It is not even among the top ten most ridiculous far-right claims I have heard or read.
“Christians are not asking liberals to bend over for them, we’re just asking them to perhaps lower their raised middle fingers and treat us like fellow human beings.”
The same message can be heard coming from any other group that fights against a secular that rather respects all ideologies instead of favoring one (which again is anathema for the far-right).
“how can you then say it’s no problem at all for the far-left to impose its views on other Americans?”
“It’s reasonable to expect liberals to abide by their own stated principles, no?”
Oh, no, the standard right-wing whining against how oppressed they stand. The country heard it before, from the “opression” it meant setting slaves free to the oppression it meant ending racial segregation to the “oppression” it meant accepting homossexuals in the Army. It is funny how the existence of real oppression in America never bothered the “Christian” far-right. Talk about people who “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Do I have to say who the camel is this time?
“Memories Pizza was forced to close because of death threats the business received in response to its owners’ statements regarding RFRA and service to gay customers (they said they would serve anyone but could not in good conscience cater a gay wedding)…”
Oh, I see, I thought the Obama’s Federal stormtroops would raid the place…
By the way, “It definitely helped us. I’m not going to say that it didn’t,” he said. “The Lord works the way he works. I pretty much just let him deal with it.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/01/memories-pizza-owner-responds-to-claim-that-his-shop-catered-a-gay-wedding/
I am pretty sure, for the early Christians, being sent to the lions were more incovenient than just free publucity for their shops. Well, thank God (no irony intended), Salman Rushdie or Solzhenitsy he is not. Talking about people who want real censorship, “separate set of questions asked what kind of books should be barred from school libraries specifically. In almost every category, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to endorse book bans. That includes ‘books with explicit language’ (bye-bye, ‘Catcher in the Rye’); ‘books which include witchcraft or sorcery’ (to the slaughter, ‘Harry Potter’); ‘books which include vampires’ (night night, ‘Twilight’); ‘books that discuss evolution’ (into the bin, Darwin); and ‘books which question the existence of a divine being or beings’ (quit your squawking, Stephen Hawking”– https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-politics-of-stifling-speech/2015/08/10/724d2a62-3f9c-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html?utm_term=.16f4a1d9d2cf All too Rawlsian of course…
“While I readily admit that some people out there might be basically as you describe…”
Some people? There is an entire giant, well-funded political movement you are just pretending doesn’t exist.
3. October 2016 at 19:41
Excellent points, Thomas.
4. October 2016 at 03:23
Thanks, Jill.
4. October 2016 at 04:41
Scott,
Yes, most of the Democrats defied Obama too, but I thought we were discussing Presidential candidates and potential candidates.
Libertarianism, with a capital L is a joke. Even in a year like this, with two historically unpopular candidates, their candidate can’t crack 10 percent support, because their nominee is incompetent and unserious. And that strip-tease at the party convention didn’t help add credibility. And if reports about Weld endorsing Clinton are true, it will be the ultimate humiliation.
So, yes, what you say about Democrats is true, but consider the alternatives, including a white nationalist party, a libertarian party full of extremist, politically incompetent kooks, and the left wing kooks of the Green Party.
Democrats are incompetent, somewhat corrupt, and cowardly, but they’re clearly the best of a bad lot. Throwing away support on one of the kook parties will accomplish nothing.
4. October 2016 at 06:52
Justin, I’m not a Christian nor a Trump supporter, but I just read a piece this morning (one in a long series over the last year) by Erick Erickson, who does identify as Christian and conservative. In fact his Christianity is a big reason why he won’t be voting for Trump:
http://theresurgent.com/erick-drops-the-mic-on-trump-and-christians/
That was actually a storified tweet storm but you’ll find a lot more from him on that issue if you look through his old articles.
4. October 2016 at 06:57
Lorenzo, it’s not seeing yourself that was the topic of that article. It was the inability of that woman to understand real conversations unless she got the magnet therapy (which only lasted a short time after the therapy). W/o the therapy she hears words and understands them, but totally misses the overall meaning because she’s blind to context. Search for the word “dvd” in the article, and there’s an example of what I’m talking about. My point is anybody that hears Trumps words and thinks they represent something meaningful must be blind to him being an obvious huckster. Hucksters will say or do anything, and there’s no use paying any attention to attempting to assign meaning to their words.
4. October 2016 at 09:45
Justin, You said:
“I think I get it – Christians are your outgroup.”
No, I don’t think you do. I don’t have outgroups, I’m a utilitarian. Why not try taking my comment literally. i just don’t see religious persecution as a major issue. I never said it was not an issue, I’m sure I agree with Christian groups on some of their complaints. I said it was not a major issue, as far as I can see. I’m not expert, I rely on the stories people bring to me, like gay wedding cakes.
Tom, I’m not surprised by Erickson. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a less Christian candidate than Trump, his whole world view is about as far from Christianity as one can imagine. “I’m the greatest of all time because I’m a billionaire and I go through beautiful women like used tissue paper and I support partial birth abortion.” Yeah, that sounds like a humble pious Christian.
4. October 2016 at 12:23
I said it was not a major issue, as far as I can see. I’m not expert, I rely on the stories people bring to me, like gay wedding cakes.
It’s not an issue to you, because neither you nor any sort of person you care about is being harassed. What anti-discrimination law does is make your everyday discretionary decisions a cause of action and puts your business at the mercy of legal sharks. The notion that refusing to bake a cake for someone is some sort of tort is absurd. Libertarians don’t care about merchants. They only care about junkies.
4. October 2016 at 16:00
Scott,
I wish you and some other GMU economists would be Democrats, because I think the party really needs your influence. In a first-past-the-post system, the Libertarians will almost never matter much, unless they take the place of one of the other two major parties, and I don’t see that happening.
And so, unfortunately, I don’t see a future Council of Economic Advisers or FOMC with market monetarists or other smart, more libertarian-minded economists well-represented.
I don’t know how much difference it would make, but I’d love to see economists like you and Tyler Cowen saying that you’re Democrats and arguing that Democrats need to get smart economically. They certainly aren’t smart on economics now, but I think they’re more redeemable than the Republican Party.
4. October 2016 at 17:48
Scott: yes, a lot of analysis seems to presume that a two-Party system is not dynamic. More sophisticated versions admit that it is, but worry the dynamism will take “their” Party away from where they want it to be.
5. October 2016 at 12:36
Art, I guess you didn’t real my posts which call for abolishing the ADA, which probably attracts many more lawsuits that Nazi wedding cakes. I also favor making it harder to sue for discrimination violations–partly because I think it would help minorities to find jobs.
Scott, You should be happy I endorsed Hillary—don’t get so greedy.
Lorenzo, I realize that in a two party system neither party can ever be “my party”. I’m not afraid of losing the GOP; I never had it. I just want it to stay plausible, so we have competition.