Now what, Ben?
I woke up this morning nauseous, after a restless night. It could have been dinner, but I’m pretty sure that it was Indiana.
Not that seeing Ted Cruz suspend his quest to be President was upsetting in and of itself. He’s a terrible candidate and a dangerous man, and almost certainly unelectable, which in his case is a good thing. As it did with Chris Christie, who was exposed as a character-free fraud; as it did with Jeb Bush, who demonstrated an inability to think; as it did with Ben Carson, who proved why his theory that leaders need no relevant experience at all was nonsense; as it did with Marco Rubio, who provided the definitive definition of “empty suit,” the primary system worked, and eliminated aspiring nominees who were unqualified and unfit in various ways.
It has not worked, however, with Donald Trump. This was not a failure of the primary system or the political system (Hillary Clinton’s impending nomination will be a failure of the political system) but something far more ominous. We are faced with the threat of an unstable, incoherent, ethics-free and irrational man becoming our President because of a catastrophic breakdown in the ethics of our cultural, societal and political institutions, over a long period of time. As a result, our democracy, ideals and way of life are imperiled as never before.
It didn’t have to be this way. It’s just how things broke, that’s all. The United States has sewn the seeds of its own destruction many times before and lucked out, smelling like a rose after mistakes, miscalculations and stupid actions that easily could have ended Mr. Jefferson’s experiment in tragedy and chaos. We might get lucky again, I suppose. Trump might get squished by a falling piece of space junk. Hillary Clinton might get possessed by the spirit of Julia Sand. I wouldn’t bet on it though.
While we face Armageddon—and the world shouldn’t be making any long-range vacation plans either, because without a focused, vital, responsible and competent United States, it is also in big trouble—at least we can use the waiting period to definitively identify the fakes, frauds and fools in out midst. What might have had me nauseous, for instance, was the head-popping op-ed yesterday by that most knee-jerk of knee-jerk Democratic mouthpieces, columnist E.J. Dionne, gloating over how Republicans have fallen prey to “celebrity populism,” as if his own party and profession hasn’t been at the forefront of nurturing it for the past eight years. One reason I don’t think the U.S. will be lucky this time is that the partisan polarization inflicting the culture is likely to block any honest assessment and diagnosis of what went so horribly wrong. Moreover, the same crippled and rotted institutions that led us to this point are the ones that have to reverse course and address it. I don’t see it happening.
Of course, I didn’t foresee this happening, either.
There’s no way to coherently describe a chaotic event in an organized fashion. Right now, I only have time to consider what forces in a democracy created a public so unprepared, deluded, ignorant, uninformed, immature and misguided as to even consider voting for a demagogue/narcissist/bully/fool like Donald Trump.
For now I’ll restrict the list to twelve. In no particular order, primary among them would be…
The education system, which was diminished by ideology, unions, anti-American cant, anti-Western civilization fads, New Age nonsense, group identification and a profession-wide loss of talent and dedication (an unexpected side effect of eliminating gender bias in the workplace), thus producing generation after generation of progressively less civicly literate, less historically informed and less ethically trained, complacent citizens…
American journalism, which began to see its function as partisan, social and political indoctrination and side-taking rather than challenging power, truth-seeking and gathering information…
Popular culture, which divorced from any responsible standards or motives other than profit, abandoned civility, ethical values and Western ideals for cynicism, darkness, snark, sensationalism and ugly role models, marinating the young in the juices of greed, sex, violence, class warfare and corruption.
The internet, which flooded society with easily available information as never before, with the result that the good and valuable was buried in and ultimately indistinguishable from the bad and misleading, creating a less-informed public rather than a better informed one…
Social media and the blogosphere, which gave everyone the illusion that reckless and uninformed opinions are as valuable and legitimate as thoughtful and informed ones…
Radio and TV talk shows, which encouraged incivility, hate, racial, ethnic, gender, class and generational divisions, group-based animus and warped perceptions of right and wrong, while elevating petty and shallow bloviators to the status of opinion leaders…
The private sector, which has a duty to remember that it must not abuse its power, and be perceived as a net benefit for society, but has not…
The federal government, which has a duty to justify its enormous expanse and expense by being competent, trustworthy and accountable, and has never been less so…
The political parties, which abandoned their duty to seek common ground, for that is the only way a republic can work, for the cynical strategy of mutual demonization, division and extremism; and jettisoned the objective of competent, pragmatic, inclusive government to pursue power, greed, and ideology…
The Presidency, which from Reagan the actor, through Clinton the sex machine, and now Obama the rock star, slowly transformed what was a crucial cultural leadership role distinct from and superior to mere celebrity into one that was marketed, sold and ultimately, with this administration, transformed into a glossy variety of pop stardom and the cult of personality over dignity, honor and substance.
Religious institutions, which squandered their ability and power to bolster the moral foundation of society and culture…
and
Civil rights, women’s rights and other minority advocacy groups, which embodied the corruption process described by Eric Hoffer (who noted that every cause transitions into a business and ultimately a racket) and began opposing dissent and free expression and using real and imagined grievance to justify intolerance, bullying and special privileges.
The end result of this witch’s brew of ineptitude, arrogance, stupidity and incompetence has been a public justifiably frustrated and angry, but too ignorant, badly-educated, and ill-informed to know what to do about it. Democracy can’t work this way, as many philosophers, government theorists and commentators have written and explained for centuries.
Asked by a woman outside of Independence Hall what we had, following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The “you” is crucial, and Ben, as usual, was wise and prescient. For it is not the well-informed “elite” who must preserve democracy and representative government by care and responsible conduct, but the public. With the American public showing every sign that it is not up to the task, I don’t think Ben’s doubts have ever been more justified than now.
Ethics Alarms 
So when do you start to stump for Hillary?
No joke. Seldom has “the lesser of two evils” been more apt.
Still can’t do it. Make America great again!
There is no rational way to justify that position.
The rational way I justify it is that I will not, under any circumstances, cast a vote that will put a proven pathological liar with a record of abuse of power in government in the White House. The one thing that separates Hilary from Trump is we have seen her in action in government. I can’t and won’t vote for more of that, nor for giving her unlimited power.
Steve-O-in-NJ said, “The rational way I justify it is…”
You said rational and then wrote that nonsense?
So you’re literally going to vote for the devil you don’t know as opposed to the devil you do know with the hope that the proven narcissistic pathological liar devil you don’t know Trump might somehow be “better” than the pathological liar devil you do know Clinton?
Also; what is this “unlimited power” you speak of that you wouldn’t give to Clinton but are willing to give to the narcissist Trump?
Your idea of rational thinking and mine are in two different realities.
It’s still not rational. You can’t argue from one side of the equation at a time in a case like this. FDR could have made that kind of argument not to ally the US with Stalin, and it would have been irresponsible.
Let’s not demonize Hillary beyond reason. She’s a liar and she’s corrupt, but she is within the range of intellect, experience and ability or previous Presidents. She won’t be the worst one ever—I don’t see how she could be worse than Obama. Nor will she embarrass the nation; nor will she validate being a vulgar asshole as a life-style. It’s a tragic choice, and nobody feels this more than I do.
But every American has a duty to swallow hard and do whatever is required to keep Trump out of the White House.
I frankly don’t want to vote for either of them. “She won’t be the worst one ever” is a rationalization. We’re just left with two really bad choices here. And yes, in this case I will vote for the devil I don’t know, who pivoted toward being presidential last night, and the devil I do know, who is a despot-in-waiting.
“Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.” Charles Spurgeon
…but Trump is also a despot in waiting, and to a greater degree. Obviously. When has Hilary praised Vladimir Putin right after being reminded of his policy of disappearing journalists?
Trump would also be the most uninformed president ever. When has Hilary ever said the unemployment rate could be as high as 40%–higher than the total number of non-working Americans? When has she ever accused someone’s father of helping Lee Harvey Oswald and then defended it because it was in the Enquirer?
No, she probably won’t be the worst one ever. That’s important, because it means that we have survived worst. There’s never been anyone who even ran for the office as unfit as Trump. Even Aaron Burr…at least he was smart and articulate.
But the media would cover up all of her mistakes, though.
This is the first time I think you’ve been wrong about Mr. Trump. Burr was demonstrably worse. Aaron Burr seemed to be actively trying to betray the interests of the United States for his own selfish ends. Furthermore, he was smart and articulate, which meant that he might have done real damage in politics. By contrast, Trump seems to actually believe he would be good for America. He seems to be doing what he thinks is best for America (The fact that he thinks that is terrifying in itself). Furthermore, Aaron Burr was smart and articulate, and therefore, might have gotten some things done. Trump’s a blowhard, he’ll make more than a few enemies, and the checks and balances of our federal system will (hopefully) stop him dead in his tracks. In short, I think it’s safe to say I’d prefer a president who’s a raving narcissistic imbecile who actually, but wrongly, believes his appointment to president will help the American people to a president who is smart, articulate, cunning, charming and quite possibly out to actively betray the interests of the American people. That second president (Burr) might actually be dangerous. Trump, I think, will very quickly become a sitting duck president with no real power if elected.
Interestingly, I don’t think you can say the American system has failed if Trump becomes elected because the separation of powers check may still stop him dead in his tracks. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to vote for Trump anymore than wearing a seat belt makes it okay to engage in reckless driving.
I think you just agreed with me about Burr. And I would have voted for Burr over Trump. He was power mad, but he also would have been deft at using power.
I can’t reply directly to you, Jack, so I have to reply to myself. I think we agree with everything up until the end result. They are definitely choice A and choice B for the worst ever. I, however, would vote for Trump because I have some faith that the Congress and the courts would limit his power because they would know what a jackass he is. I would be afraid they would get charmed by the talents of Mr. Burr. I agree that Burr would be better at using power, but that’s more scary to me than Mr. Trump. I’d vote for Clinton over either of them, obviously.
If you’re not up on your Harry Potter this may not make sense to you, but I’d rather face a power mad Petter Pettigrew as president than a power mad Voldemort. Neither choice is particularly appealing. If we have to face a villain, I prefer my villain to have as little competency as possible.
As long as the end debate is “Which of the two worst unsuccessful Presidential candidates would have made the worst President?, I’ll consider it a success all around.
It is not a rationalization. It is an ethical balancing act between two bad choices, with neither an intent to deceive, nor a reckless abandonment of logic.
You are forgetting one thing.
With Trump as President, the Congress would block most of his policy initiatives, and the media will “rediscover” its role in “challenging power, truth-seeking and gathering information”.
Do you think Democrats in Congress would try to rein in the excesses of a Clinton presidency? Or that the media will expose the truth?
All excellent points, Michael. I almost said, “I can’t believe Jack is falling for that bitch.” Well, I guess his mind’s made up, so I know what to expect to read here for the next few months. My mind’s made up, too. LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! Somewhere, between the devil we know and the devil we don’t know, there’s the certain hell of suffering the devil we thought we knew. We ain’t seen nothing yet. B-b-b-b-baby, we just ain’t seen nothin’ yet…b-b-b-b-bad to the bone. B-B-B-B-Bitch of the rich.
“unlimited power” This in an Americanism. Your president doesn’t have anything resembling unlimited power. If Obama is an example, your president doesn’t even have incrementally more power than any other branch of government. Obama tried desperately to flex that muscle and generally failed. The Prime Minister of Canada has more power to effect Canadian policy than the American President has to affect American policy. And your system was designed with that as a feature, as opposed to a bug.
Executive Orders. DOJ appointments.
You’re assuming a POTUS that acts within convention. And constitutionally.
In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
FDR was probably the greatest sinner here. Cruz certainly would have weilded executive power to the limit. Trump? There’s no evidence that he even knows what the powers of the President are – and will likely use Executive Orders to rule by decree. So what if the SCOTUS throws a fit? Let them enforce it.
We’ve seen how far a president can get on his own with appointments, haven’t we? Marrick Garland, who should have been accepted immediately, is still cooling his heels in purgatory. “What if the senate wasn’t so confrontational” you say? Then it wouldn’t be an example of a president on his own.
While I agree that voting for Mrs. Clinton would be against every principle I have, voting for Mr. Trump would be anathema. For while Hillary has a proven record of abuse of power in government, the Donald also has a proven record of abuse of power, just in the business sector, rather than government. I think they’re equals when it comes to lying, in fact, the only real difference I can see between the two candidates is that Donald Trump much more unpredictable. That’s not a good thing viewed thru the lens of his character. In short, I cannot vote for Hillary, and I won’t hold my nose and vote for Trump. This is the first time I’ve been asked to choose between two candidates, neither of whom having any redeeming qualities. I simply cannot choose party over country.
Great post, Jack. These are the very topics that have been dinner table conversation in my home for quite a while now.
Jack,
“While we face Armageddon—and the world shouldn’t be making any long-range vacation plans either, because without a focused, vital, responsible and competent United States, it is also in big trouble”
Are you suggesting the US is the only country equipped or able to solve this impending Armageddon, or only that a weak US makes it more likely?
-Neil
Neither. If you’ll check, Armageddon is in reference to US problems only.
But yes, a weak US is dangerous for the rest of the world…as the last 7 years have demonstrated vividly.
Jack,
Well said.
Populists have done some terrible things in the world and it’s generally been too late for the people when they find out how the populist wields their power once they are the “leader” of a country.
Time to repost this…
I personally believe that we as a nation are rapidly ascending to the point where we will be precariously perched on the precipice of the complete destruction of that solid base which is the core of freedom in the United States of America – the Constitution; there are very few options for the people to regain control of its government when we reach that point and teeter off the wrong side of that precipice.
It’s funny you mention the internet. From everything I’ve read lately, and this is far from scientifically conclusive but probably accurate…the dynamic of the internet is such that it 1) appears to be making us dumber, 2) also appears to be making us overly delusional and confident about our knowledge and understanding. That’s a pretty lethal combination.
There’s just no evidence that the easy access to information provided by the internet has made us smarter. Instead it’s just so flooded with crap that you can find whatever you need to confirm your biases and delusions while surrounding yourself with like-minded people.
Exactly.
And thus we use the Internet to communicate with each other on Ethics Alarms.
I think it’s fine if you ration online to certain things and times. Looking up facts, like that actor that was in a movie is fine. There used to be sprited discussion on letters pages in newspapers, magazines, and comic books. Ethics alarms continues that with a bugger pool. Documentary and raw info like the weather or when the airlifts to Berlin began, SHOULD be always available. Knowledge shouldn’t be hidden away,, and there were some technical papers that would have been better if the net existed and I could have seen more source fiche.
But there are two ways that current online living are a problem. One is that it swells too fast into mob hysteria and the dark side of lynchings, bullying and suicide. Few places have engaged moderators to ride the brakes like here. That requires live people not software. (Thanks, Jack. You spend a lot of effort on riding this wave) Any site that runs appreciably faster then moderators can keep up is ripe for abuse. The current election cycle is a horrifying example of mass hysteria, where anger at the dreck that professional politicians do means too many will vote for ANYTHING that isn’t one.
The other, and possibly bigger thing is that people would rather watch/read/play with their smart phones than with the people in the same room. Negliecting job work is bad for career and society as a whole. Negecting people prevents making the common bonds of friendship and relationships. How can you make the solid kind of friend that helps move apartments or car breaks down you if you only have your FB friend, your virtual jogging friend, your minecraft friend, your dating site friend, your professional association etc? Face to face requires a real person, who may have warts too, but that the.Real relationships beat ephemeral electronic ones every time. Unless that online date with Chris who didn’t exist was all good. Online is a spice, a condiment, not the main dish.
*bigger pool, yikes!
The problem is the that the masses are now ignorant as to how to figure out the differences between the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and blind ignorance based fallacies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_CgPsGY5Mw
“They can’t put anything on the internet that isn’t true.”
I’ve thought more than once that the idiot portrayed in that commercial is a lot closer to the truth about sooooooooooo many people than we want to openly admit. I’ve seen real life idiots just like that in person, and I’m absolutely sure that many of you have too. The dumbing down of our society is increasing as we speak.
“The paper said they did”
“No, the paper reports what the girl said.”…
“They wouldn’t print a story like that if it wasn’t true…”
The Franchise Affair by Josephine Tey (1948)
The tendency to believe anything in print/online isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s much easier to read the headlines. Often headlines don’t reflect what is in the news story. Today it’s even easier to pass on the meme. No reflection required.
“2) also appears to be making us overly delusional and confident about our knowledge and understanding.”
A lot,of this is that the internet lets you look right past the people next door who might disagree with you, but connect with the only other 37 people in the world who think exactly like you. It’s a huge collection of echo chambers.
It is sad that we have come to this joyless outcome: an election for the U.S. presidency in which we have to chose who we despise, distrust and fear the least.
Nixon-McGovern was close, except that George was an honest and decent man.
You must be wondering why Jim Webb lost the primaries.
No, I know Jim, and I know why he lost the primaries. He really does “tell it like it is,” and people hate that.
So he actually does what Donald Trump claims to do?
Hasn’t Chris Christie has been doing it for his entire career.
Someone else did this:
http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/bgforums/thread-print.cfm?threadid=448145&forum=1
This isn’t unfair. Both are examples of candidates who were swept up by forces they didn’t predict, and thrust into challenges far, far over their heads and beyond their abilities. And both lack the character to realize it.
I touched on this here once before, I’ll just throw it out again for future reference: I think that genetics is playing a big role here. I don’t mean racial or even human genetics – this is primitive. Organisms want to display their own fitness, so that they’ll be attractive mating partners. They don’t have to be fit – as with the peacock’s tail – they just have to give the appearance of “abundance.” One way to show abundance is to let the world see you be generous, unthreatened, and concerned about others.
Our rise to democracy and modern communication has led us to a point where a person can stake out ANY position that is supposedly for the benefit of others, and assert his or her goodness and generosity and courage based on the mere taking of that position, without ANY requirement that the professed caring involve some sort of action that would lead to the person giving up anything of value. I’m not sure what to do about it yet, but we have to head in some direction where words, meanings and actions are tied together again.
The Republicans’ pathetic inability to field a competent presidential candidate for quite a while is so depressing. All I can think of is watching a Cubs broadcast years ago and hearing Harry Caray moan as the Northsiders’ bullpen blew up once again: “Can’t ANYBODY on this team get an out?”
I too will have to vote for HRC. What a missed opportunity.
How about third party instead, if you do not like either candidate?
Not realistic.
How so? Just select someone other than Trump or Clinton.
I think the people who could legitimately make a run of a third party run in this political climate might be worse than our current choices. I think Bernie is worse than Hillary, I think Elizabeth Warren is worse than Hillary, and if wither of them ran, it would more likely split the vote to trump than elect either. And I just don’t see anyone with the charisma necessary to carry anything out of the right right now.
And squander your vote, Michael. Remember H. Ross Perot? We have him to thank for eight, and potentially sixteen, years of The Snopes, er, Clintons carting furniture out of the White House and running it like an Air B-n-B.
Romney was a very competent candidate, and with fair coverage and without the idiotic and self-destructive rejection of him by the hard right, he might well have prevailed.
Romney was a halfway competent candidate, but I don’t think it was the hard right that did him in – it was his failure to counter the “war on women” line.
He’s looking like George Washington right now.
But a more able, nimble, experienced politician should have been able to knock off Obama. Another lost opportunity.
A level media playing field might have been enough.
The media not having a level playing field is one reason to support Donald Trump in the general election.
At least they would actually go back to their role of “challenging power, truth-seeking and gathering information”. There would be covering up stories merely because they would make Trump look bad.
The exact same hard right that is now demanding people who have been saying “never trump” for months that they have to unite behind Trump.
Let them try saying that to me. Can’t wait.
For another reason for Trump’s rise, look here.
I wonder why they would oppose Donald Trump.
They share his ethos.
Here is a quote from an actual supporter of Donald Trump.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.israel/NaRdFwc_HEs/5qClEI0oD68J
“I’ll make a prediction. Should the Honorable Donald Trump be elected as President of the USA I say the ‘CITIZENS’ USA will experience the highest standard of living in the history of the USA. Since his daughter Ivanka Trump is a Jewess having made an observant orthodox conversion accepted by the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel then the Honorable Donald Trump being the builder he is may help Israel to demolish the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, Israel.”
One of the smart ones, I see…
I think there are likely some translation issues with that comment; it may or may not have been what the person was trying to say.
If everyone who shared the ethos of Donald Trump voted for Donald Trump, he would win in a landslide.
Does that say more about him, or about the voters?
Oh, the voters, no doubt.
Trump would win a majority of Democrats, if all who shared his ethos voted for him.
I wonder why those “[c]ivil rights, women’s rights and other minority advocacy groups” do not seem to recognize that Trump is just like them.
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same comment over and over?
I will not endorse either Trump or Clinton. Sanders has a sliver of hope, but when it comes down to decision-time, I’ll do what I’ve done for the past 2 elections, vote Libertarian. Has Obama been the best president? No. Has he been the worst? No. Has he been president without my endorsement? Yes. Whatever will be will be, but they’ll do it without my endorsement yet again. I’ll take the sane path and consider my options from lower down the ticket. That’s the responsible and ethical thing to do and if everyone on the ticket proves to be unfit for service, then I’ll have to write in a name that is fit for service. I can come up with at least one name to write in.
Write in “Jack Marshall”.
I think the Titanic is going down. Maybe we should all move to Canada, intelligent Republicans and Democratics and put up with the crappy weather.
I wonder how the 2016 Republican Party Platform is going to read with Trump as their nominee.
Sorry. I did the best I could yesterday. 😦
I know. You tried. All one can do.
I am starting to think that Trump is brilliant. Instead of trying to make himself likeable to multiple voting blocks — evangelical, libertarian, women, blacks, latinos, union workers, etc., he focused unashamedly on one — people of below average intelligence. And people of below average intelligence, by definition, make up 50% of the electorate. So he locked them up. These people who think zero government experience and a spotty and suspicious work record makes him a qualified candidate. Someone who “knows all the big words,” consults with “himself” on foreign trade, and makes dick jokes during a presidential debate? Wow.
This guy could actually win this thing. I take comfort that every poll shows that Clinton will trounce him, but there is a very real (albeit small) chance that this man is going to destroy our country.
Well, the hypereducated are fewer in number than the hard-hats…
I think…. And I kind of hope I’m wrong, because at this point I’ll swallow my gorge and admit Hillary might be the best thing for America on that stage. (EUch. Ptooey. Racccch) But I think that we’re overestimating voter excitement on the Democrat side, and we’re overestimating the average Bernie voter’s party loyalty.
First, Voter turnout for the Democratic primary is at a low not seen in a very, very long time, I think I saw a tally a couple of weeks back that said that in 2007, The Democrats had 8 million people vote in the Obama-Clinton Primary at the same time 5 million people had voted in the Republican Primary, and those numbers have basically inverted. Now…. I’m not going to read too much into the gain on the republican side, because Romney had the nomination sown up long before May, and the race was probably uninteresting, if not over by now…. But the decrease on the Democrats side is shocking to me.
More, Trump voters liked Trump, and Bernie voters like Bernie, I think there’s a giant swathe of the people who voted Bernie in the primary that will stay home in November, and I think there’s another portion that will actually go from Bernie to Trump (Which could accurately be labelled the “Let it BURN voter. Pun intended.)((I’m Witty, dammit.)).
Democrats, after rigging the nomination to install a proven vote loser and STILL having her barely squeak by, are foolish to assume Hillary will beat Trump in a cake-walk. Hillary can’t beat anyone in cake-walk.
Jim Webb could have beaten Trump in a cake walk.
I doubt it very much. Jim is as cuddly as a porcupine. He only won a Senate seat because his competition ran the dumbest campaign in history. And he’s not a Democrat, he’s a mutant. He should have run as a Republican, and Trump as a Democrat.
Hillary Clinton is even less cuddly.
Just ask Bill.
Also, Clinton is apparently making gun control one of her campaign issues- at a time when criminal homicide is lower than it was inn 1960, when the FBI first kept statistics?
I wonder how many gun owners will vote for Donald Trump because of this.
Lots. But Hillary has no central beliefs, remember. She’ll be Annie Oakley if she needs it to pick up some voter blocs.
But she has a record of supporting gun control just this year. she also supported legalizing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for criminal misuse by third parties.
Yup. She might lose because if it. My guess is that she doesn’t touch the issue during the campaign.
Gun control is going nowhere, no matter who is President.
“Hillary can’t beat anyone in cake-walk.”
Not anyone except Donald Trump.
I hope you’re right, but I think you’re wrong. Especially if she’s campaigning from a defendant’s box.
If Hillary and the Democrats are foolish enough to assume that as you do, we’re all doomed to Trump.
In this post , you claimed that the Democratic Party vilified and denigrated white people.
If there was a quote from someone in the Democratic Party leadership that denigrated or vilified whites, or tried to justify state discrimination against whites, the Democrats would lose handily, even more so than a Bostonian mayoral candidate who defamed the Irish. I have yet to see or hear such a quote.
[Reply to Humble Talent May 4 at 3:25 pm]
Hillary won’t suffer for voter turnout. Just let Trump open his mouth some more, especially, saying anything remotely “pro-life.” Let the mouthpieces of the monopoly on propcasting get warmed-up and take their shots. Women will turn out in unprecedented numbers to vote against Trump, including women who are saying, right now, that no way will they ever vote for Hillary. He’s doomed. Hillary’s entitled. The insufferable bitch. It’s going to be a landslide. Voters might even hand over both houses of Congress to the bitch, too.
I disagree. You look at the demographics that Trump does best with, and it’s actually the moderates. Bernie and Trump kinda split them. These are the people who don’t care about abortions or transgender bathrooms when they’re loosing their livelihoods, Bernie voters focused on things like the minimum wage and Trump voters focused on illegal immigration. This isn’t the political class that usually votes. I think you’re making a mistake in assuming they’re going to behave like historic voters.
I mean…. Trump just said last week that he doesn’t care where transgender people pee, and Jenner made a show of going to Trump Tower in New York to use the ladies room (Stunningly and Bravely, of course), days before handing Cruz his ass in Indiana. Trump’s voter base doesn’t care. “Let people pee wherever the hell they want, we have bigger things to worry about” resonated with them.
Women will tilt overwhelmingly toward Hillary. Trust me. You’ll see it in the exit polls, but before that, you’ll see it all over the propcastmosphere.
What is the propcastmosphere?
[Reply to Michael Ejercito May 4 at 9:09 pm]
Propcastmosphere = “the media.” The propaganda broadcasters, the atmosphere they dominate with their pollution, and the audience that breathes that atmosphere, thinking it’s all clean, fresh air.
You really think? And you really think it’ll make that bog of a difference?
BIG. I’m making some coffee.
I like “bog of a difference”!
I like “bog” too! Gonna have to use that, somehow. [reply to Humble Talent] Jeez, I thought the polls were already showing that Donald has much less support from women than Hillary. Maybe I was projecting…if I was, I’ll stick to believing that I am projecting accurately. I mean, in my own family, I know there are women who are saying no way they’ll vote for Hillary. But I also know my family history of swearing they’ll vote one way, then once they are in the ballot box, voting another way (they admit it, obviously – unless my family is more full of liars than I thought…hmmmmm…).
An aside: I am trying to get into the habit of saying “Donald” and “Hillary.” Because I do mean to treat our nation’s top two candidates for the presidency as equally as possible – because to me, assholes and bitches are indistinguishable, and their labels are synonyms.
Trump has been opening his mouth for the past six months, and yet a majority of Indiana Republicans who voted voted for Trump. Where were the anti-Trump women then? Should they have not delivered the state to Ted Cruz?
The same black the anti-trump black people were, voting for Hillary. Getting a low percentage of a demographic that doesn’t vote republican in a republican primary is meaningless.
the same place the anti-trump black people were…. It’s too bloody early.
“Trump has been opening his mouth for the past six months, and yet a majority of Indiana Republicans who voted voted for Trump.”
Two counters: (1) The propcasters have not sharpened their partisan, pro-Hillary knives yet, not yet started stabbing them in joshing earnest into Donald with coordinated precision. (I just had to use that guy’s name, somehow – Josh Earnest’s, I mean.) (2) One state. Redder than red. Probably also, primary-voter-for-primary-voter, a state with more Republican primary voters more pissed-off at the Republican party establishment than in any other state.
The rest of my speculation for why Indiana went so strongly for Donald: It might not be known or public, but the demographics of the Indiana primary voters who voted for Trump could have shown a higher percentage of males than females voting. Some reaction against old favorite son and now convict Denny Hastert (or his enemies) might have been in play. Lastly, perceptions of Cruz as the second coming of irresistible punching bag Dan Quayle might have reflected some voters’ put-off feelings. Then again, there is the history of Indiana Republicans voting for rich white guys, like Quayle…
The media is the enemy.
If everyone who shares the same ethos as Donlad Trump votes for him, he will win in a landslide. Here is a quote from someone who shares the ethos of Donald Trump.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/10/no-a-public-university-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/
– morgan child
How many morgan childs are out there?
At least it wasn’t Morgan Fairchild? Amirite?
I would add to this list
A large plurality (if not majority) of Trump’s opponents, whose only criticism is to cry Racist and Bigot.
That was group 12.
Donald Trump actually filed a lawsuit against Palm beach, alleging it was retaliating against him for allowing blacks and Jews into the golf club he built there.
What a “racist” he is.
Do you post with an etch-a-sketch or something? I’m trying to figure out why you post little blurbbits without any kind of explanation. I have no idea what you tried to say there.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-trump-palm-beach-20160311-story.html
In answer to the accusation of posting in indecipherable blurbs, you post an indecipherable blurb. Well done. Seriously.
Jack said:
“Religious institutions, which squandered their ability and power to bolster the moral foundation of society and culture…”
I have to admit that my head nearly exploded when I saw that you wrote this, after so many times that you have ridiculed people of faith for standing by their moral principals as outlined in the Bible. To the great shame of many religious institutions, they have failed to live up to their responsibilities to these principals – this I agree with completely. I believe that they lost any moral authority that they might have had once they began to change to fit into modern societal standards.
You can’t pick and choose which moral foundations you will stand up for, yet your position has been that these same institutions have to get in line with current thinking about sexual morality or lose their ability to participate in modern society. You can certainly put them on this list as they are culpable, but it is a bit ironic that you have.
No, it’s not ironic. The manner in which the religious institutions have squandered and devalued their authority is why I have criticized them. Just because religions deal in mythology and fables for social control purposes doesn’t mean that the mythology and fables, and the faith they engender, don’t have vital societal purposes and functions. Morality is simpler than ethics, and more people are simple than not.
Of course I can and will pick and choose which moral foundations you will stand up for—the ones with integrity that don’t engage in constant hypocrisy. The others are a net damage to society.
phil: “You can’t pick and choose which moral foundations you will stand up for”
Not only can you, you must, if you are to be an ethical person. The alternative to “picking and choosing” is “believing whatever you are told, even if it doesn’t make sense, even if it contradicts itself, and even if it causes provable harm,” all of which apply to the traditional religious treatment of homosexuality.
Also: even the most devout “pick and choose” what to follow from their religious texts; they are just able to develop elaborate rationalizations for why they do this.
Jack, I haven’t read all 90 plus comments yet so someone may brought this up. I respect and have learned a great deal from you but I just can’t wrap my head around you even considering voting for Hillary. I get not voting for Trump, I loathe him, but voting for Hillary is not ethically defensible in any way. She is corrupt, she has abused the offices she has already held and she has broken the law regardless if she is actually indicted or not. It doesn’t matter if she is supremely qualified or experienced for the office, electing Hillary would be like hiring a known child molester, who is being investigated for molestation, to teach orphan elementary children because they had taught before, abuse is going to happen.
She believes she is above the law and she would inherit an already corrupt Obama government it would be a huge disaster.
Voting for her is ethically indefensible, experience cannot out weigh her corruption and balanced against Trump, as revolting as he is, he hasn’t abused his government office and the authority that goes with it because he hasn’t held one.
You aren’t voting for Hillary; you are voting against Trump.
Beth said, “You aren’t voting for Hillary; you are voting against Trump.”
That is EXACTLY how the Democratic Party has been campaigning for years; they aren’t trying to sell their ideology, their trying to demonize the opposition and win by default.
We need candidates we can actually vote FOR!
Hillary is corrupt and has record of abusing her office. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption, there is no justifying it, you rationalize it as voting against Trump but that just means you further enable her, you make her above the law. I cannot express just how disgusted I am with Trump being the nominee but he has no record, nor really does Hillary as a legislator and I don’t think he is very principled but I do think he runs generally along a fiscal consecutive social liberal line. He has no record of corruption, abuse of power or breaking the law. He is by default the more palatable candidate.
That’s crazy, Steve. Trump has proved beyond any doubt that he is every bit as dishonest, ruthless and corrupt as Clinton, AND narcissistic, AND dumb, AND lazy, AND unprepared, AND incoherent, AND vulgar and childish.
Focus.
All that, not sure if he is as bad as her or worse, but he’s not a criminal—he may turn out to be in the end but you know she is now, indicted yet or not.
So how does Gary Johnson compare?
Would not a vote for Gary Johnson also be a vote against Trump?
No, it’s vote for Trump, because it doesn’t impeded his election at all.
It is also a vote for Clinton, because it did not impede her election at all. Or that is at least what Trump supporters would say…
Sure, it’s what Trump supporters will say, just as Clinton supporters will say the opposite. In that argument, Hillary’s fans win. Their candidate is just untrustworthy and without scruples or honesty, but there is an appreciable possibility that she won’t harm the office, the culture and the nation over the long term. That makes her obviously the choice of Trump. I really don’t care what Trump supporters say, since they are, by definition, ignorant, emotional fools.