Tim Carney: You don’t have to choose the lesser of two evils:
As a conservative, I weigh the candidates against each other by considering the worst-case scenarios. On that score, there’s an irony: Hillary’s time as secretary of state — especially her disastrous and illegal war in Libya — doesn’t suggest supreme competence; Trump’s rhetoric, meanwhile makes many people think of fascism. But the “fascism” threat (an overblown word, of course) is probably greater with Hillary, and the incompetence threat is far greater with Trump.
They’re both incompetent fascist wannabes.
Hillary is the only one campaigning on ruling like a dictator. Trump has said he would change libel laws or something? The current guy spies on reporters and their families. On the fascist totalitarians scale, an imaginary Trump ranks below a real world Obama and Hillary.
Trump says he’ll go after Amazon to pay Jeff Bezos back for Washington Post articles…
Redefining fascism as defending yourself from slander is beyond absurd… court cases can be used as a weapon, but I doubt the intent here is for one billionaire to bury another with legal fees.
Calling people fascists that are not is what we expect from lefties and means less than nothing.
go after
Did he? When you read the quotes, he didn’t say that. He did throw some dirt on Bezos because Bezos is throwing dirt on Trump.
“This (Washington Post) is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon. Amazon is getting away with murder tax-wise. He’s using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed,” Trump said.
“He’s using the Washington Post … for political purposes to save Amazon in terms of taxes and in terms of antitrust,” Trump said.
“He thinks I’ll go after him for antitrust. Because he’s got a huge antitrust problem because he’s controlling so much, Amazon is controlling so much of what they are doing,” Trump said.
Prior to this, Trump has never said he was going after Amazon for antitrust. Bezos has never said he was attacking Trump because he was afraid of antitrust lawsuits. After this, Trump never said he was going to hit Amazon with antitrust lawsuits.
All Trump did was impugn the integrity of Bezos through the conduct of Amazon and the WP.
And Hillary, is the only candidate promising to be a dictator. Well, Sanders is too but we all know that primary is rigged.
Trump back in February: “”I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought The Washington Post to have political influence, and I gotta tell you, we have a different country than we used to have,” Trump said. “He owns Amazon. He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That’s not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”
Source: http://www.techinsider.io/donald-trump-says-amazon-will-have-such-problems-2016-2
I don’t want you to miss this threat: And believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”
That’s a good find.
What kind of problems? That customers of Amazon pay sales tax? Isn’t that what Democrats have been wanting?
Amazon already has antitrust problems with book publishers.
Isn’t Bezos buying a newspaper to push an agenda the very thing Democrats say is wrong with the corrupting influence of money in politics?
This is all hot air. Trump is just running his mouth in response to someone else running their mouth.
Hillary actually sued someone for making a movie, giving us Citizens United and she and Obama threw Nakoula in jail. When Trump does something more than run his mouth, we can talk but until then, there are others with a demonstrated track record of actual actions to attack the media in courts.
I am principled, so I wouldn’t support Trump taking judicial action against a critic, but hasn’t the president already been set? You can’t tell me Hillary wouldn’t use the judicial system to go after critics because she already did it.
They’re both incompetent fascist wannabes.
When it comes to choosing words, you are one of the best Rand (I am so looking forward to enjoying your book) but something about Trump has completely unhinged you.
Hillary is only incompetent if she isn’t capable of being an effective fascist. To judge her incompetent without considering her intent is to use someone else’s moral compass and not hers.
Trump is a mixed bag regarding both attributes and your use of fascist is more in line with lefty aspersions than your usual precise language. You’re too good to be so uncharacteristically loose with your language FWIW.
Trump is the lessor evil. He may even surprise you in some good ways. Hitler (if I may invoke the standard for fascists) was incompetent as a military leader. He was a very effective politician (many foreigners supported and admired him before the war.)
You don’t see many foreign admirers of Trump. He’s a wild man. It’s good that so many of the right people fear him.
I’m not sure it’s Rand who is unhinged about Trump.
I’m pretty sure it’s not.
For all of us I hope we never become sure.
I’ve long felt that in a choice between statists (usually the only choice left in major elections, during the current Twilight of the Republic), you should pick the one who at least leaves you the means of defense against the dire consequences of statism.* That means, at the very least, guns and gold. Nixon, for example, despite all his faults (wage and price controls, etc.) didn’t–as far as I remember–pose much of a threat to the Second Amendment; and withdrew FDR’s ban on private ownership of gold. Hillary has declared war on private gun-ownership; and while she hasn’t yet declared war on private gold stockpiling, there seems to be a momentum building on the Left that points that way. Trump has at least paid lip-service to respecting the Second Amendment, and would probably be okay with private ownership of gold, as far as I can tell. I’m sure he has his own stockpile of both guns and gold.
*I know, Jim: statism has NO dire consequences, right? But I’m addressing to this to people who live in reality, so you can sit this one out.
Trump uses gold faucets. His family is adorned with it. No worries on the privately owned gold front.
she hasn’t yet declared war on private gold stockpiling
She leaves that to her son-in-law.
She shouldn’t…he’s an abject failure
It depends on your point of view. I assume you oppose transferring wealth from rich Americans to poor Greeks. With that view, he’s a failure. But if you support wealth transfer, which is pretty much the reason to attack private gold stockpiling; then dude did his job perfectly.
I see what you are saying; what I was referring to was the fact that his hedge fund failed.
It was more of a wealth transfer from people who wanted favors from the Clintons to the father of their grandchild.
No one should think this electorate will be the same as the one we get four years from now.
The chessboard can only get worse from here on in. The millions of new voters that a Hillary administration imports will not be libertarians. Many will be the voters that elected Hugo Chavez, and now wish to live in a country that sells toilet paper. We have the best in the world.
Nor will our GOP Senate (assuming it holds) suddenly grow a spine when Hillary nominates judges. If we want free speech again after Hillary, it will take a serious willingness to break the law.
Sorry #NeverTrumpers, but this is it. There are only two choices.
I find it interesting that Carney won’t advocate voting third party. If you’re not going to vote for either major party candidate, then why not vote for someone who is not major party?
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will.
– Geddy Lee et al.
Pretty sure that Neil Peart wrote all the lyrics. (I m most definitely not a Rush fan, but being an engineer, I know lots of Rush fans – still can’t figure out how Rush became the go-to band of ’80s engineering students…)
Well, that’s why I said “et al.” But, the words were sung by Lee. We quote JFK, not Ted Sorensen.
I will choose free will.
Bertrand Russell explained why there is no free will:
“You can do as you please, but you can’t please as you please.”
And it is no surprise to me that many GOP foreign policy wonks believe there is no choice but Hillary:
“It’s not even a f**king close call,” said a senior GOP congressional staffer who works on foreign policy. “I’m struck by people who are like, ‘This is a dilemma!’ What’s the dilemma? I’m not here to tell you I love everything about Hillary Clinton, and that she’s going to be perfect, but from the point of view of someone who thinks about foreign policy and national security, it’s not even a close call.”
Read more here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/never-trump-hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-establishment-213898#ixzz48yX3H8Ta
Yeah, there were a bunch of GOP foreign policy wonks who thought Reagan was clueless, too. Turned out, they were.
“They’re both incompetent fascist wannabes.”
I believe that Henry Ford was what one could call a fascist.
At wiki:
“Ford was also widely known for his pacifism during the first years of World War I, and also for being the publisher of antisemitic texts such as the book The International Jew.”
And:
“The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford’s “Social Department” approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and (what today are called) deadbeat dads. The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this “profit-sharing.”
And:
Ford is the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf. Adolf Hitler wrote, “only a single great man, Ford, , to [the Jews’] fury, still maintains full independence…[from] the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions.” Speaking in 1931 to a Detroit News reporter, Hitler said he regarded Ford as his “inspiration,” explaining his reason for keeping Ford’s life-size portrait next to his desk.Steven Watts wrote that Hitler “revered” Ford, proclaiming that “I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany,”
So Hitler had a man crush for Henry Ford. and obviously Hilter was a fascist.
But the problem with the idea that Henry Ford was a fascist, is one needs to be politician and attempting to make the government act as though it was a business. OR to be called fascist one has to be business working with a fascist government. OR be supporter of a fascist government. And since one can call the US government as being a fascist government [see Liberal Fascism]- or more specifically, President Wilson was a fascist.
And so Henry Ford was alive and involved with Wilson and that government, this allows one to call Henry Ford a fascist, but you can also say he was mostly interested in running his business of making cars.
Now the US government with it’s billion spent on alternative energy or it’s unnecessary insistence of making SLS is doing things which are fascist. The only thing not making it fascist it one argue it’s not as all encompassing as to reach some arbitrary threshold.
And if the wall with Mexico was a huge governmental project, one could call it fascist.idea. Making a huge Military could also be called a fascist idea. Because one could see them as social mechanism. Or fascist like the idea of having wars as means of increasing governmental power. Or it does matter how it’s done, the point was getting the government in charge of every facet of it all citizen’s lives.
So this what Lefties want, totalitarianism. Or it’s not about free markets, it’s about controlling markets having monopolies owned are controlled by the government- or socialism.
Correction: it’s about controlling markets having monopolies owned and/or are controlled by the government- or socialism.
So continuing, bank bailouts of companies to large to fail, quantitative easing, and continuation of the Great Recession- are opportunities
which Obama has been happy to use to make America more socialist/fascist- or it allows an increase of the scope of governmental power. One can also say, the decrease of the US military is also in this same direction. Because the future need to increase of the Military at some later point in time- because the world is engulfed in war- because one would be in a panic in increase the size of the military, would require even more need of employing governmental power to rapidly attainment it, quickly.
So we live in a big government reality.
Any presidential candidate could be called a fascist.
And what would not be in the direction fascism, is increasing
the middle class and thereby increasing the nation’s economic growth, and comparatively shrink the government and pay down the governmental debt.
But it seems the most likely path to America becoming worst is ignoring
the current situations which are emergencies.
So there is difference of using emergencies and resolving emergencies.
And having essentially no border, is one current emergency.
Any presidential candidate could be called a fascist.
Any prez trying to make smaller less intrusive govt. would find themselves blocked at every turn. This is why we need a wrecking ball. Trump may not be that guy, but there isn’t anyone more that guy in view.
Yeah.
But I would like to point out that Trump has already been successful
in terms of being a wrecking ball.
Also the weakness of Dem party by having Obama as President and by selected Clinton, has allowed Bernie to be another type of
wrecking ball.
Both Trump and Bernie have demonstrated the weakest of “the rigged system”.
Expect “reforms” of the rigged system, and regardless of any reforms the rigged system has been mortally damaged in terms of future elections.
And coupled with continuing growing of “new media”, this could merely be the beginning of more kinds of wreaking balls in the future elections. Or as I said, Trump has already, won.
But Trump could do some more winning, and we will see what happens.
Any prez trying to make smaller less intrusive govt.
I don’t think Trump has that goal necessarily. Maybe a GOP congress could push him in that direction.
Trump is clear on some things and fuzzy on most others. He has talked about eliminating entire govt. departments (then saying perhaps not all functions of them.)
Nobody, including his supporters, thinks Trump is an ideal candidate. But Trump is the only one, there is not a singe other, that can shake us loose from the decline (slow agonizing death to be honest) that we are experiencing.
Fingers in the dike are just stall tactics; Trump may be a disaster, but recovering from a disaster may be our only hope.
Hillary is intentionally evil. Trump is not. It really is as simple as that. More than that, Trump exposes the Potemkin village that is our modern society.
At least the media will be less likely to jump on the bandwagon of enhanced executive power when it is wielded by Trump.
Cthulhu/Shiva 2016: Why vote for a -lessor- evil?
Vote for lessor of evil which will allow you to vote the next time for the lessor of evil.
Or vote for any supreme leader, which will be worshiped less.
Worshiping a president is violation of the first of the 10 commandments.
Personally, I dislike Trump.
I will admit that I am amazed by what Trump has done in this very weird election cycle. But also a bit interested in Bernie campaign. In some sense both campaigns of Trump and Bernie are opposites and have sameness. The media is obsessed with Trump, and media not trying to pay much attention to Bernie. And Trump no longer facing a contested election- but media still transfixed with Trump.
And it seems the biggest real chance for a contested election is the Dems. Were one to simply look at the election results, Bernie Sanders campaign from the beginning has had the greatest chance of contested convention.
Now when there was the slightest chance of contested convention regarding Trump- for weeks this is all media could think or talk about.
Now, there is some sort of concession that Bernie might cause a contested convention, but the tendency is give up on the idea.
Or a completely different direction than media reaction to slight chance of Republican contested convention.
Maybe the media wants to be “surprised” in 3 weeks. And then gush endlessly like they did with Trump in regard to the Dem contested convention. Or the see the fire in the house, and are apparently waiting for the house to be engulfed in flames before become obsessed with the fire.
But anyhow back to question. I don’t think it matter if you vote for Hillary or Trump. Or Bernie. Or some other Dem. Or other party’s
President candidate.
If you are rep [or dem] what important is who wins the congressional races. And would say if worried about evil, one want a strong Congress, which means you should vote for Rep congressional candidates.
a strong Congress
Until they punch the media back twice as hard (like Trump does) there’s no such congress critters.
A strong congress is a congress that doesn’t need every member of a party to vote with the party, and the ability to get significant amount of the other party to vote on your bill..
Or strong party can get a super majority [and different types of super majorities to support bills]..
And a party that can get enough total vote to override a Presidential veto [and be able to impeach a President if there is sufficient cause].
And a party that can get enough total vote to override a Presidential veto [and be able to impeach a President if there is sufficient cause].
This could be the rallying cry for the GOPe #NeverTrumps and the down ticket races. “Vote for GOP Senate candidates so we can impeach Trump if we need to.” That would probably backfire and lead everyone to voting for Democrats though.
Shiva supports Trump, as does Vishnu. UK Guardian story
That’s the difference between reading about someone getting their head cut off and having it done to a friend or family member.
It amazes me that no amount of warning prepares people for reality, then when they experience it they think they were never warned.
We read about no go zones in foreign countries and forget we have them right here in America. I’m for zero tolerance of no go zones.
“The forces of Emmanuel Gosdtein are constantly slandering Cthulhu!
Cthulhu only wants the best for you! Love Cthulhu! Cthulhu loves you!”
–Miskatonic Jim
Then there’s this article about Rep Dave Brat, who boasts about his leading role in turning the GOP into an anti-immigration party — something Rand claims never, EVER happened.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-dave-brat-the-american-people-are-waking-up/article/2582423
If Brat had actually succeeded, one of the Republicans running for president would have succeeded against the Democrat Trump.
Brat did succeed. He was (and is) a Trump supporter.
At some point, Rand, it might be easier to put down the shovel and just admit you were wrong.
Brat did succeed. He was (and is) a Trump supporter.
The second statement is not evidence of the first.
Brat wanted to convert the GOP into an anti-immigration party and to make Donald Trump the party’s leader. He accomplished both goals. In standard English, he “succeeded.”
I’m not surprised that you continue to deny tha,’ in your weird “A is not A” debating style.
Whether you acknowledge the evidence or not, xenophobic anti-immigration elements like Brat were active in the GOP long before Trump, slowly turning it from a limited-government party into an anti-immigration party. Assisted by pundits such as yourself.
Pundits who spread anti-immigrant hysteria are partly of the responsibility for the rise of Trump. He may not be the anti-immigration candidate you wanted, but he is the anti-immigratiom candidate you got.
What did you think the result of your efforts would be? Did you expect the GOP would nominate a candidate who was a perfect copy of yourself, favoring limited government and individual liberty on some issues, but opposing them on other issues (such as immigration) where you oppose them. That was never a realistic expectation. You don’t get to create a perfect candidate to sit your taste, like a fictional character in an Ayn Rand novel.
For years, you’ve been trying to rewrite the English language in order to stifle debate. You’ve enforced your own version of Political Correctness to suppress criticism of your ideas. You’ve said there’s no such thing as racism or nativism because “those are words the Left uses.” Trumpers use the same technique, and take it one step farther. I’ve been told it is wrong to call Trumpers Klansmen or Nazis even when they are card-carrying members of the American Nazi Party.
Suddenly, you’re having your nose rubbed in the reality of racist nativism by a candidate who is not to your liking. Trumpism may not be what you expected, but it should not have been a surprise. History shows that this is the way Know Nothing parties tend to go. When you build a party based on hatred of one group — whether it’s foreigners or Jews or blacks — the most extreme haters quickly take over. You sowed the wind. Now you’re reaping the whirlwind.
You’ve enforced your own version of Political Correctness to suppress criticism of your ideas. You’ve said there’s no such thing as racism or nativism because “those are words the Left uses.” Trumpers use the same technique, and take it one step farther. I’ve been told it is wrong to call Trumpers Klansmen or Nazis even when they are card-carrying members of the American Nazi Party.
This is more hilariously insane than usual. For example, please provide a single quote of mine in which I’ve said “there is no such thing as racism or nativism.”
“Brat wanted to convert the GOP into an anti-immigration party and to make Donald Trump the party’s leader. He accomplished both goals. In standard English, he “succeeded.” ”
Trump gave money to Brat, why isn’t Trump, turning the “GOP into anti-immigration party”?
Of course what is opposed is illegal immigration, rather than legal immigration. Or Trump as part of some of business uses legal immigration and married a legal immigrate.
Of course being a business man, one would rather deal only with legal immigration, rather than be liable to various laws about illegal immigrates.
Is anyone trying to limit the very large immigration quotas for Mexicans. There is more legal immigrate from Cuba then Canada. I didn’t even know there was legal immigrate from Cuba- but more Cubans getting US legal status than Canadian, in years of 2009 thru to 2013, according to govt document I was looking at recently. But I don’t think I have it bookmarked..
This is more hilariously insane than usual.
Take note Edward, your comment is even more extreme than that. You are correct on one point. Extremists will latch on even to a mischaracterization.
Anyone that wants caution with new immigration (legal and/or illegal) is slandered as anti-immigrant which is simply emphatically false. When you engage in that kind of slander you lose credibility.
I’ve been told it is wrong to call Trumpers Klansmen or Nazis
When you smear all supporters you certainly are wrong. How can you not get that when apparently it’s been brought to your attention by many?
When you build a party based on hatred of one group
What group is that?
an anti-immigration party
Did you read you own link? He is against illegal immigration.
I get your point that any form of immigration, like open borders, can be made legal but open borders currently isn’t legal. Also, being against open borders isn’t anti-immigrant either.
When people have a position, why not accurately say what it is? When you have a position, why not accurately say what it is? You make your point on this subject rather dishonestly.
It’s hard to keep track of all the ludicrous claims the right makes about Trump. He’s simultaneously a power hungry fascist and a simpleton who can’t remember the capitals of Europe. When the unhinged people can agree on which slanders are the real ones and which are ‘mistakes’, maybe Trump can get around to addressing them.
He’s simultaneously a power hungry fascist and a simpleton who can’t remember the capitals of Europe.
In what way are those two positions incompatible? One need not know geography to be a power-hungry fascist.
“He’s simultaneously a power hungry fascist and a simpleton who can’t remember the capitals of Europe. ”
Those two traits are not mutually exclusive.
Trump has lots of powerful and effective opposition. Hillary’s opposition is feckless. Ergo, President Trump would be constrained in a manner that President Rodham would not. As Glenn Reynolds says, we need a Republican President if only so that the Press will do its job.
That makes it a pretty easy choice in terms of preventing a runaway imperial presidency.
Your point is so obvious Bart that only the unhinged could possibly miss it.
Bart seems to think that Hillary is the Republican and Trump is the Democrat.
In the real world, both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP. Assuming that does not change, it is Hillary who would face opposition to her policies in Congress, while Trump would have easy sailing in the House and Senate.
Furthermore, Reince Priebus and the GOP establishment have begun a purge of Republican politicians who do not swear fealty to Trump. It just happened to Senator Ben Sasse, and Mitt Romney is now being threatened as well.
Then, of course, there are the rape and death threats from Trump supporters who are never prosecuted because — how did you say it, Ken? — “violence from the Left always gets a pass”?
“…both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP.”
And, I believe they show a picture of them in the dictionary next to the word “feckless”.
In the real world, both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP.
In the real real world, the Senate is controlled by the party that has sixty votes.
Bart also said, we need a Republican President if only so that the Press will do its job.
A President Trump would face powerful opposition from the media. I took Bart’s comment to be about the media but let’s say he meant congress as well.
The GOP in congress has been fighting itself over the past few election cycles. IMO, it is fairly likely that the GOPe would go along with whatever Trump wants, since he is basically a moderate establishment candidate that would fit in in either party. But there is a conservative faction of Tea Party congress people that have been effective in reining in some of the party’s excesses.
A GOP with competing factions could help keep Trump in check, it certainly doesn’t lead to the one party one voice that one might expect.
Of course, many of the Democrats are likely to go along with whatever Trump does because Trump is a Democrat on many issues. This might counteract the conservative faction of congress.
The country might finally get what they want, a President who can get things done by working with both parties, and it might not turn out the comity leads to wise policies.
“In the real world, both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP. Assuming that does not change, it is Hillary who would face opposition to her policies in Congress, while Trump would have easy sailing in the House and Senate. ”
More like the House and Senate will have easy sailing with Trump,
and have same problem they had with Obama with Clinton.
What Clinton will do, is complain that Congress does give her her first 100 days. And she because she a woman she should actually get 1000 days.
how did you say it, Ken? — “violence from the Left always gets a pass”?
I don’t recall saying that? I will note that the instigators of violence are usually from the left and if the right defends themselves they are then blamed for it.
Trump has lots of powerful and effective opposition. Hillary’s opposition is feckless.
You deny this??? It’s not just about votes. It’s about the entire media bias. In a sane world Hillary would be laughed off the stage followed by iron bars. Instead Trump is being bashed for being a serial dater. Get real.
The Republic is falling into ‘Caesarism’ as one article recently put it. Exactly.
I happen to think it would faster with Trump, and more dangerous, but in any case welcome to a replay of the fall of the Roman Republic – exactly what the Founders were hoping to make impossible.
Oh well.
I’m not seeing it but the danger is their from either party after the precedents set by the current President. Cruz was the only one who might had made an effort of reversing the precedents but he wasn’t explicitly promising to do so.
Part of what I find so depressing about the Trump phenomenon is that I used to at least sort of believe that there was a some kind of often-silent near-majority that, deep down, wanted limited government, civil liberties, non-interventionist foreign policy, etc.
Boy, do I feel stupid now. The American electorate has been revealed to be people demanding Free Stuff Now, or intolerant hatemongers like BLM, or supporters of nation building like Libya and Syria, or state-shtuppers, or those who just want a Big Man to make it all better. I’m mostly OK with immigration restrictions, but the only candidates that espoused any concepts of limited government and liberty were Rand Paul and Jim Webb, and you see where they ended up.
“I used to at least sort of believe that there was a some kind of often-silent near-majority that, deep down, wanted limited government, civil liberties, non-interventionist foreign policy, etc.
Boy, do I feel stupid now.”
Because they elected Trump as president nominate?
I think people do want limited government, and etc.
But it should also be noted that what they want is far away from what they presently have.
But there is also a significant minority who are Socialist/Marxist and want a totalitarian government or the opposite of a limited government.
Now, both houses of Congress is presently held by the Party which wants to get towards a more limited government. And the House of Representatives is directly related to the entire population of the citizens
of the US. And are re-elected every 2 years, and one can say these representatives the most closely reflective of the will of the American people and/or changing will of the people. This body is also charged with responsibility and power to do the most in terms having more limited government or even, say, having a more totalitarian government.
America has problem in terms of any desire for a limited government, which is America is the world’s superpower. Or even after what Obama did in terms of lessening America’s status in the world, this still remains a reality.
And it’s one of the President’s duties, to deal with this aspect about America’s relationship to the world- that it is a superpower, and so relationship and dealing with all the other world’s powers.
And obviously, President Obama has failed badly in this regard.
And obviously Clinton experience as being Sec of State, has indicated her lack of ability in this regard. Or at best, all Clinton did was show up for the job- if you don’t want also delve into her numerous corrupt activities and lack of transparency. Or no one can point to a single accomplishment related to her time spend as Sec of State. Or course one can say the same thing in terms Obama even longer time spend in area of foreign policy and for which, he is ultimately responsible.
The problem with being a super power is corruption. It’s problem with any and all government. As chief executive, a main duty involves dealing with corruption. This true in terms of government and true of CEO of company- or buck stop there.
Now if one has corruption, the higher degree of corruption, will be related to the desire to have a outsider, solve the problem.
So it safe to say the US federal government has much corruption. And from reported polls of voters, they seem to want a outsider.
gbaikie, limited government is not incompatible with being a superpower. Imagine if all the govt. used taxes for was the strongest national defense and stayed the hell out of the rest of our lives. That would be a very powerful, but limited govt.
Start with getting govt. out of all aspects of regulating commerce (which is an integral part of the definition of fascism.)
I was saying being a superpower- makes it more difficult.
But yes, having a limited government is compatible to being superpower.
But providing free global security to the world is additional cost born by the US tax payers.
And not having limited government makes being a superpower more unstable- or eventually not compatible.
Ie, China in it’s current form of government is incompatible with being superpower, and US is increasingly incompatible.
The US as sole Superpower is creating vacuums which makes a favorable environment for wars continuing and new wars beginning.
I’m mostly OK with immigration restrictions, but the only candidates that espoused any concepts of limited government…
And you don’t see any contradiction in that?
The most fundamental human liberties are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which, according to the Founding Fathers, were endowed to all men by their Creator.
If you deny that and give government the power to decide who should have those basic rights and who shouldn’t, based on place of birth or other criterion, you don’t have limited government, by definition. If you grant the government power to decide who is allowed to breathe the air or walk the land, how can you object when government infringes on individual liberties in much smaller ways?
If you deny that and give government the power to decide who should have those basic rights and who shouldn’t
Can’t they have those rights without coming to the USA? There is nothing magical about our way of life, it can be adopted anywhere should people choose to do so.
Also, many people coming to America aren’t doing so because of ideological affinity for us. Quite the opposite. Democrats are importing people because they are hostile to classical American ideology, racist, and bigoted toward groups of existing Americans in order to fundamentally change the country through factional conflict.
Maybe instead of thinking everyone who isn’t for open borders are racists, you could look at the racist and bigoted views of some of our immigrants? If racism is bad, why are we importing people with these views? Can you see how doing so causes conflict?
Immigration is a complex subject, especially because many of the people pushing open borders are against assimilation and think the mixing of races and cultures is evil. Out of many one, is great, but out of many many, is a recipe of constant strife.
–Maybe instead of thinking everyone who isn’t for open borders are racists, you could look at the racist and bigoted views of some of our immigrants? If racism is bad, why are we importing people with these views? Can you see how doing so causes conflict?–
I noticed in passing that white privilege only applies to white people
born in the US.
So, that good news for me, since I not born in US, and never considered myself as having anything amounting to white or other kinds of privilege. Of course, I agree with the obvious that anyone living in America has advantage. Or anywhere that has indoor plumbing as the norm, has an advantage. Speaking English has an advantage. Though having access to American public education, is questionable as advantage.
It seems in the US there is a lot of confusion about racism.
Of course being a “ism” requires a system of belief. One can’t be born with any kind of “ism”. So any ism requires an education, though education can be monkey see, and monkey do type stuff.
Btw, one could say that in terms of sheer quantity, US Public Education is largely education of monkey see, and monkey do type variety. Or US education is lacking in education requiring discipline and system of reasoning- hence the bad test scores.
Edward that’s bullshit. If you don’t have borders you have no govt.
Borders serve a purpose. Eliminating them is anarchy. The fuzzy part is there are more than one border. Nations have borders with rules that only apply within those borders. Being a citizen is a different kind of border with rules that apply to non citizens as well. The entire world is another border with another set of rules.
Rules have limitations, but we all seem to agree that some are needed. Borders define the scope of those rules. People can vote with their feet to leave a border that has rules they don’t like, but to enter a border doesn’t give them the right to eliminate the rules in that new border.
Obama showed that tapping into the largest voting block of all, people who don’t vote, is the path to the Presidency. Are they principled educated people who don’t vote out of disgust for the system? Nope, they watch YouTube videos of people sitting in a bathtub filled with milk and cereal chowing down.
Conservative ideology isn’t one people are born with, it is learned. Politics are downstream of culture. We need an effort to teach society of the benefits of capitalism and conservative ideology. This is hard because the educational system has been taken over by people trying to tear down the ideological foundations our country was built on and the cultural institutions that enculturate Americans in non-Democrat party thinks.
So education must take place outside of government run institutions.
To get better politicians, we need a better educated populace to produce and elect them. Short of that, we need to create the conditions for the wrong people to do the right things.
The American electorate has been …
…dumbed-down because we let the left control education and the media for more than a generation.
I called my step son last week and found him at a Sanders rally in CA!!! Apparently it was full of kids like him (25 yo.)
The second term of Obama has clarified what America has become.
So it sounds like President Trump will have Vice-President Gingrich to push all the right buttons. Surely that should be enough to get you all onboard the Trump Train?
You remember Gingrich, the pro-space speaker?
Certainly a plus.
“No one should think this electorate will be the same as the one we get four years from now.”
Extend that. No one should think that the press/media we have now is the media that will be covering the 2020 election, either. In fact, one must suppose the press will be different, if only because Moore’s Law (tottering though it may be) will introduce new tools of gathering and spreading information between now and 2020.
So, do we want a White House with which the press and media giants are complicit; one that tightens and expands the ties that bind the publisher’s son to the diplomatic corps’ jobs and the correspondent’s husband to the regulator’s policies?
Or, do we want a White House with which the press and media are inherently antagonistic, that cannot issue a statement that the “sky is blue” without layers and layers of fact-checkers poring over D.C. meteorological records to determine whether the day on which the phrase was used might have included cirrostratus (grey) clouds and perhaps yellow or pink halos around the setting sun?
I think Donald Trump will have deleterious effects on every aspect of our government, culture, and institutions EXCEPT the press. The press under a Trump presidency, I predict, would be restored and invigorated in the role our founders intended.
I similarly think Hillary Clinton will have deleterious effects on MOST, but not quite every, aspect of government, culture, and institutions, but ESPECIALLY upon the press. Under the 2nd Clinton presidency, the Drudge, PJM, Breitbart, and talk-radio “conspiracy” the Clintons have long wanted to destroy will be under constant attack on all fronts, to the cheers of their CNN CBS Disney Facebook/Twitter/PuffHost/Salon competition. The free press will freely choose to align itself to conduit, uncritically, the narrative of the Clinton government to the low-information-voters and consumers of their advertising.
I’m trying to make up my mind now whether I’m willing to save the press at the expense of the military, the churches, the schools, the free-market, the health-care system, …
, and talk-radio “conspiracy” the Clintons have long wanted to destroy will be under constant attack on all fronts, to the cheers of their CNN CBS Disney Facebook/Twitter/PuffHost/Salon competition.
People think Trump will attack media with the government, and he might who knows, but Hillary and the Democrats have a demonstrated track record of doing so. Sure, there is what happened at the IRS, the jailing of Nakoula, the spying on a Fox reporter and his family, and the spying on other reporters but the Citizens United lawsuit was brought by Hillary to prevent people from exercising free speech.
Somehow the genesis of Citizens United always escapes the discussion of the subject.
This seems relevant:
http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/dont-republicans-name-enemy/
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Trump’s list of supreme court picks…
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Steven Colloton,
Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid,
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Raymond Gruender,
Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Hardiman,
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Raymond Kethledge,
Michigan Supreme Court Associate Justice Joan Larsen
Utah Supreme Court Associate Justice Thomas Lee
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals William H. Pryor,
Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice David Stras,
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes
Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett.
A bunch of lousy democrats… not.
They’re not his picks. They’re a list that someone else gave him to try to fool people into thinking he’s a conservative. He hasn’t committed to nominating any of them.
Rand, you’re beginning to spin like Jim. Where ever the names came from, he released them. Nobody is fooled into thinking Trump is a conservative. When he actually nominates somebody from this list, then what? He’s still just trying to fool us?
America could use 4 years of being fooled like that!
If he actually is elected, and nominates someone from that list, then I’ll be pleased. I have zero reason to believe it will happen. He himself hasn’t committed to doing it. But there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on about him.
“If he actually is elected…”
It seems to me, that out of the 17 candidates, Trump has the best chance of win the election- against Clinton.
I think Trump has best chance to beat Clinton because he has
the most knowledge of Clinton [as compared to other 16]. I think if Bernie Sanders or some other Dem is the Dem nominee, then Trump has less of advantage of winning as compared to other 16 candidate.
As far as trusting whether Trump will select these judges.
I fail to see why he would not do this. One thing is he spend much time working towards getting this list. And Trump seems like kind of person who doesn’t like to waste his time and apparently, he been engaged in this effort for over 3 months. I am sure if he had a good reason, he might be willing to waste this amount time. But what is this good reason?
One explanation could be related to fever swamp idea, that Trump is acting as Dem secret agent.
Such an idea was fairly crazy when it was suggested and over time is becoming ever more highly unlikely.
I am not going to go into all it’s nuttiness, but I think one has to include Newt Gingrich as member of this conspiracy. And also probably has to include Ben Carson as being duped or part of it. And one also widen it to include lots of other insider type people being duped or being co-conspirators. [And perhaps include involving space aliens and lizard people.]
Another perhaps more convincing possibility is related to Trump’s older sister [Maryanne Trump Barry]. So that could be a reason he would willing to spend time, “appearing” to be interested in finding judges. Though this also has it’s own weirdness- in that Trump has to get his selected judge to pass the approval process of the Senate. And simply because it’s Donald’s sister, is one strike against such a choice- or selecting family members as Supreme Court is generally frowned upon- if for no other reason, an obvious bias. So even if the Senate liked Maryanne Trump Barry, this would a factor against her getting her Senate confirmation.
Second, one has to look at from point of view of Maryanne Trump Barry, she unless silly, would probably refuse to be involved- obviously it would a circus- even if Trump wasn’t the President. Or if she wanted to be supreme court judge, it would the worst time to be selected. Unless she wanted to change her career to become some media talking head.
One thing is he spend much time working towards getting this list.
There is no reason to think that he spent any personal time on it at all.
**Rand Simberg
May 19, 2016 at 9:45 AM
One thing is he spend much time working towards getting this list.
There is no reason to think that he spent any personal time on it at all.**
Not being a lefty, you do realize that getting other to do work, is actually work?
But simply flying around the world or putting in time, is not actually an indication the amount of work done. Or it’s the results which matter as measurement of work.
So question becomes is this a good list.
One thing I use, as to guide to value of something, is how much Lefties hate something.
And Lefties seem to hate these people on the list.
Others have said it’s very conservative list- that doesn’t tell me as much as lefties hating them.
I consider Lefties as having one significant ability- they have very good sense of smell for anything which is not Lefty. Conversely, conservatives seem very poor at this.
I can’t can say I have done any work related to knowing these selected judges. It’s simply is not important to me, and frankly, I probably know less about Trump than most people.
I have never watched his Apprentice TV show and as said, I don’t like Trump.
And I suppose I am going to get to know Trump more than I would choose to- and I blame the Republicans for this..
The Clintons I know too much about. And would purchase something which could remove it from my head- and I blame the Lefties for this. Though I also blame Obama for Trump.
If Obama was Carson, we probably would not have got Trump wanting to be President. As I don’t think we would still be in the great recession- and global great recession.
Lefties have the merit of causing things to get so bad, that people decide they have to do something- problem is it has to get pretty ugly and obvious.
Not being a lefty, you do realize that getting other to do work, is actually work?
Trump didn’t have to spend much time “getting others to do that for him.” They were eager to provide it, in the hope he would use it.
Trump didn’t have to spend much time…
I was thinking about this as I went out shopping so it’s funny that you touched upon it while I was gone.
Trump shouldn’t be spending his time coming up with a list. That is not the job of an executive. If he had, I’d like him less. His job is to make decisions and get the support of the people which he needs to get anything through congress.
The fact that others are involved is a good thing and incidentally gives lie to the Napoleon/Hitler meme.
Rand Simberg
“May 19, 2016 at 11:00 AM
Not being a lefty, you do realize that getting other to do work, is actually work?
Trump didn’t have to spend much time “getting others to do that for him.” They were eager to provide it, in the hope he would use it”
If it’s a lousy list, you have a point.
If you are a Rino can you find good judges?
I don’t even have much confident that Cruz could make
a good list.
As I said I don’t offer an judgement on whether it is a good
list. But I have noticed that Lefties hate it- which is a good sign it could be a good list. Or if some lefty somewhere is praising one or two guys on Trump’s list, then that is indication that mistakes were made.
If it’s a lousy list, you have a point.
It’s a good list, but it doesn’t change my point.
They’re not his picks.
Does any President make such a decision without counsel? It would be impossible to make a good decision without the input of others because no one knows all of the best potential appointees.
This shows that Trump listens to others, and is a good sign. Sure, no one knows who an ultimate pick could be. It might not be anyone on that list. It could be Obama. Or it could be someone similar to the names on the list.
But there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on about him.
Of course. It’s called hope; because we know the alternative.
Even some of our best choices often disappoint. Life does not come with guarantees.