May 03, 2016

The Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire

And one of those will be our leader

For the state of our civics is dire.

"[expletives deleted]"

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at 07:45 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I've been called ******* nuts these evening when I patiently explained (for the 100th time) that I wasn't opposed to Donald Trump because I didn't like his toupee.  It is not clear to me at all that Donald Trump is a superior choice, regardless of the letter he's choosing to represent himself as.  And of course, if I don't believe Trump in the oval office is relatively superior to Clinton, or at least not to any compelling degree, then I just accept the long view and choose not to compromise my ethics.  I can make a long-view argument that Hillary will be better for the country in the end, but I'm still not sure how comfortable I am with it.

Posted by: Ben at Wed May 4 01:25:31 2016 (DRaH+)

2 I've been a Cruz supporter since shortly before Walker got out (and boy was Walker a disappointment), and I've come to the conclusion he'd have been among our best Presidents.  Unfortunately, Cruz always had the deck stacked against him.  The Elites on both sides of the isle politically and in the MSM have been routinely changing their shorts about the idea of him winning since Rubio bailed.  They think they can control Trump better and that a loss by Trump (more likely to happen in their opinion) would discredit the other Republican factions and give them back the reigns of power.  I think they are wrong on both counts, Trump won't be controllable in the way they think and he will do better in the general then people are currently willing to credit him, especially against Hillary or Bernie.

Unfortunately I think Trump managed to make opposing Ted personal to a significant segment of the rebellious voter population that Ted needs to build into a coalition.  The 'Lying Ted' and 'Canadian' smears are going to stick, damaging Ted going forward and be difficult to shake.  Ted also did himself no favors in the end by going for broke on this election by stacking his entire chance on rules lawyering the delegates and appearing to try to make truce with the establishment against Trump.  It give him an unfortunate, and I believe inaccurate, air of being just another greedy politician. 

Unfortunately I think Ted's, and the country's, best option at this point would be to get him on the Supreme Court as he won't be granted the advantages of being 'next in line' that other Repub candidates have had.

As for Trump, I do think he will be better then Hillary, though that is a low bar indeed.  There is at least a chance he could surprise us and be honestly good or great, but no such chance for a known commodity like Hillary.  Also, I have little doubt that with Trump we'll at least finally get our wall built.  Whether it is a physical Great Wall of China or a virtual surveillance wall remains to be seen, but I have no doubt something will be built which will at least be an improvement over the last 30 years.

Posted by: StargazerA5 at Wed May 4 07:47:55 2016 (5YSpE)

3 I'm not particularly thrilled by Trump, but it's pretty obvious that he's not interested in fundamentally transforming the country like Obama and Hillary are.
And while I've flirted with the "burn it down" school of thought, in the end I remember that history is replete with examples that what comes later is more likely to be worse.

Posted by: Rick C at Wed May 4 17:57:45 2016 (FvJAK)

4 All that matters is keeping Hillary out of the White House. If that means suffering through one term of a Trump Presidency, so be it, and with the resulting embarrassment for the Republican Party, maybe they will learn their lesson and things will be better after that.

Posted by: Mauser at Wed May 4 22:01:46 2016 (5Ktpu)

5 I'll probably end up voting for some joke candidate like Gary Johnson or whomever the Libertarians put up as a clay pigeon, assuming they don't run an actual Satanist or the like, but between Clinton and Trump, I think I'd give the edge to Clinton.  I've more confidence that she won't provoke a shooting war with the Chinese, and I have no such confidence in Trump.  On the off chance that Clinton turns out to be even more frothingly incompetent at campaigning than she already has shown herself to be, and that orange clown ends up in the White House, he'll have such a collection of re-treads, adventurers, and sly-eyed con-men working for him that you might as well have a magic 8-ball running his policy desks.

Posted by: Mitch H. at Thu May 5 08:56:58 2016 (jwKxK)

6 That's about where I am, Mitch H.  Johnson won't win; I honestly don't think Trump has a change in heck, either.  But, Hillary is a very easy target.  And while I generally don't support the idea that standing in opposition is better than compromising to win, that's the way I'm leaning this year.

Posted by: Ben at Thu May 5 10:12:26 2016 (DRaH+)

7 I don't want to get into a fight in the comments here so this is the last I'll mention it, but you are advocating for malice over incompetence.  The latter seems better from where I'm sitting.

Posted by: Rick C at Thu May 5 10:17:34 2016 (ECH2/)

8 Oh...While I typed, the conversation was down here. 
Yeah, this is a mess. 
I've gotta say that I'm generally inclined to lean towards incompetence than malice. Where it gets complicated is when one throws a malevolent incompetent into the mix as that messes up the equation...and I'm not sure where the greater value of either characteristic lies in this set. 

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Thu May 5 11:04:50 2016 (/4jFR)

9 I mean, we've got one person who says "I like veteranss, I just don't want street vendors in front of my classy, snobby building" (which somehow gets turned into "I hate veterans"), again, compared to someone who went out of her way to be rude and demeaning to her Secret Service detail.  I can feel that Trump will be less bad for the country while still not actually liking him.

Posted by: Rick C at Thu May 5 14:32:23 2016 (ECH2/)

10 My rule since the Eighties has been "I only vote for Republicans because Democrats destroy the country faster". I have yet to see evidence that undermines this theory.

Now, if Trump could actually take California in the general election, it would be worth voting for him to watch the head explosions. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter who I vote for.


Posted by: J Greely at Thu May 5 15:15:28 2016 (CLiR9)

11 Clinton and Trump... it's like they split Nixon and LBJ each down the middle and set all the dials to 11.  Clinton got the Machiavellian evil, Trump took the sour populist hatred of the establishment, both of them took a fair helping of petty self-dealing corruption, while Trump ran away with LBJ's incandescent crassness and, I fear, foreign-policy pugnacious recklessness.
After eight years of Obama, either one of them will cement our status as an elective dictatorship.   Domestically I suspect it'll be a kleptocratic congealed drift towards the entitlements/debt cliff - whether the congressional Republicans lose their majority or not, the only real difference will be whether Congress joins in on the petty cultural war harassment, or continues to leave it to an increasingly lawless executive.  And anyone who thinks Donald Trump has the bureaucratic ability or inclination to keep any of that from happening hasn't been paying attention. Either he keeps within the letter of the regulatory apparatus (I hesitate to refer to it as "law" anymore) and gets rolled by the bulletproof, amorphous eternal bureaucracy, or he tries to play despot and lays about with the firing stick, whereupon he's going to find out just how little traction rule by temper tantrum really has in the face of a skilled and self-interested apparat.

Posted by: Mitch H. at Thu May 5 15:52:04 2016 (jwKxK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What colour is a green orange?

36kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.1539 seconds.
77 queries taking 0.1224 seconds, 289 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.