Friday, October 14, 2016

The MSM in four lines


To win an election
They ignore unwanted semen
Yet demonize an erection
While erecting a demon

68 comments:

Bilbo said...

Yes, too bad we never caught Hitler on tape saying what Trump did.

Mister Jorge said...

Bilbo, are you supporting that little comic you posted?
Trump supports "Banning the minority religion."

That's laughable.
What's the word for throwing people off of the scent of an actual concern while highlighting a proximate cause.

Like Trump is saying "Banish! I say!! Banish all minority religions! Religions of adherence should be of the MAJORITY!"

Never mind the violence that goes to the core of that religion's "theology of coercion, conversion, and subservience"

J said...

And with Mister Jorge's comment begins the hundreds-long back-and-forth about historical Muslim scholarship and different schools' takes on proper Quran interpretation.

Mister Jorge said...

Yup, because there are many different takes on how Muslims are to be severe and unrelenting on those who are unbelievers.

Craig Payne said...

The poem: T.S. Eliot, I presume?

Chad Handley said...

The hypocrisy charge cuts both ways, doesn't it? Most conservatives at the time said Bill Clinton's antics disqualified him for the presidency, and many are now saying that Trump's antics are irrelevant.

Martin said...

I must say, I'm a bit disappointed with Dr. Feser. I've been a fan and follower for years, despite parting ways politically on some issues, and I've always appreciated how very little he comments on US politics. I'm kinda with Christians as they were prior to the 1970s: don't get too involved in politics. It's part of the changing, fleeting, temporary world. Dr. Feser had recommended Mark Anderson's Pure: Modernity, Philosophy, and the One. Here is a quote from his chapter on politics:

>Human happiness consists in contemplation of the Divine
>Politics is a distraction from the Divine - it drags one down
>Democracy draws everyone into politics, and thus away from the source and cause of human happiness
>Is Democracy, then, misanthropic?

That goes doubly for this election year, which has descended so low it's beyond childish at this point.

Please, Dr. Feser. Get back on track with good philosophy posts, and stay out of this garbage...

Tony said...

Chad, other than the fact that most conservatives took issue not so much with Bill's carrying on with sexual liaisons in the White House, as with his abuse of official (including "boss" and law enforcement) powers, and that most of the Republicans now saying Trump's antics are irrelevant are not actually conservatives, you are pretty nearly almost kind of spot on.

Edward Feser said...

Martin, relax, huh? It's a joke.

Anonymous said...

Professor Feser. - did someone hack your account or did you really post this?

Edward Feser said...

The Russians, I think.

Anonymous said...

Now that IS funny!

Martin said...

Ed,

LOL! Ok, fine! This whole election is just exhausting... I'm so sick of it.

Chad Handley said...

So if I understand you correctly, Tony, you're saying that No True Conservative is defending Trump?

Tony said...

Nope.

Timocrates said...

The Democrats have admitted total defeat. The only thing they campaign on now is smears and slanders.

Be honest: if it weren't for these alleged scandals of Donald Trump, it would be transparently obvious he was going to sweep the nation in the vote (which he will anyways). They need some sort of plausible denial of this reality.

The MSM is taxing democracy (or even an Augustinian pretense of it) to its limit. These people are truly pathetic beyond pathetic.

Trump should simply tell the clowns who run the media: You're fired.

Anonymous said...

Uh, Ben Shapiro? If you wanted the definition of a sophist, I think his picture would be there right next to Christopher Hitchens.

Timocrates said...

Yahoo's top headline article:

"Election Day worries for civil rights advocates: Disruptions could stem from new voting restrictions or even Donald Trump's call for supporters to monitor the polls"

You can't make this crap up.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/possible-problems-election-day-worry-civil-rights-advocates-064413981--election.html

Timocrates said...

And for our non-American readers and friends, when American media speaks of "voting restrictions" they mean not letting people who aren't American vote in American elections. Requiring proof of American citizenship is considered a "voting restriction." In most States, a driver's license is all that is required, which is of course issued to even people who only have Visas to work here, for instance.

Timocrates said...

@ Tony,

Most conservatives are defending Trump against this obviously media concocted hit job and character assassination. He already revealed in print that he had done these things. This issues already came up in the Republican primaries. The media's feigning ignorance and only making an issue of it in October is proof positive they are immoral liars and arguably borderline treasonous.

Moreover, snooping on a private conversation between two American citizens without their consent is not only immoral, it is probably criminal. Someone obviously saved that tape for eleven years because they figured they could use it to blackmail Trump.

The Clinton campaign already made it plain they listened to Howard Stern's Trump interviews many months ago. That included his claiming to go back stage during, e.g., Miss Universe pageants. However, Howard Stern himself said that people are encouraged to engage in such rhetoric on his shows, especially celebrities. The Howard Stern show likes to mack a mockery of PC sensibilities. At the period in question (90s and early 2000's) men were still encouraged to be conquistadors, as it were, when it came to women. What Trump said did in public on radio did not generate a scandal at the time, which is the proof in the pudding of what it actually was and is.

If the media were honest, it would contrast Trump's Howard Stern interview with Hillary's pretended ardent defense of the sanctity of marriage during the same period.

If the media were honest, it would point out that Hillary laughed about getting a child rapist off the hook.

No True Conservative would allow someone who knowingly defended someone that person believed was guilty of raping a child anywhere near the White House. If you do and claim to be a conservative, stay the hell away from me and the people I love. That's pure disgusting.

Jon New said...

Regarding the claim about Hillary laughing about getting a child rapist off: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

Timocrates said...

@ Jon,

And any of that drivel is supposed to betray the fact she believed he was guilty?

Also, fact checking by reference to Hillary Clinton's book is just absurd. Hillary would herself question using, e.g., the Bible as a source of facts. Why would it be any better to use her own book? As if she's going to admit the truth that she knowingly defended a child rapist and laughed about it.

Moreover, the book betrays her. She obviously unnecessarily employed questionable means to get the defendant off the hook. Resorting to psychological exams of the child when there was physical evidence of the fact was a desperate and unnecessary ploy and strategem. In other words, she was obviously trying to get him off the hook.

Again. We know that Hillary had no scruples about defending people she knew to be guilty of wrong-doing. The whole world saw her doing it during her time in the White House.

Taken together, this builds a case against Hillary that she doesn't abide by the law of her own conscience and, moreover, is a hypocrite. If she actually cared about children's well being and rights she would never consciously and knowingly defend someone she believed guilty of raping a little girl. She couldn't bring herself to do it. She did it; therefore, she does not care about children or women, for that matter.

Hillary was scared when Donald threatened to launch a special investigation into her affairs. You can watch the debate and her reaction (which from what I have seen the cameramen filming it quite suddenly broke away for a moment from her or was cut out of the feed) because the look of shame was just too obvious. She didn't laugh it off like an innocent person would have or expressed anger or outrage. She expressed shame all over herself.

Jon New said...

Isn't having a solicitor to defend you to the best of their ability an integral part of the legal system? Wasn't she appointed?

Timocrates said...

@ Jon,

Was she a lawyer first or a woman - by her own claim - championing human rights, and specifically women's and children's rights? She can't have it both ways, Jon.

Jon New said...

Isn't a fair trial a human right?

Timocrates said...

A fair trial is for the sake of justice. Our adversarial system is only justifiable insofar as it is believed to be best or productive of justice, not to let child rapists off the hook.

She could say it was her duty as a lawyer, fine. But then she can't say she was first and foremost an advocate and defender of human rights, specifically women and children's.

Moreover, you can't reasonably ignore the fact that - by her own admission - she cultivated spurious and questionable means of defense for her client. That at least was not necessary. Why on earth a judge found such speculations to be even relevant is beyond me. If the man was ultimately convicted of fondling the girl, how on earth could the judge stomach listening to "experts" claim that young girls sometimes fantasize about "romantic" (as if there is anything romantic about being raped!) encounters with men? That is literally adding insult to injury!

Jeremy Taylor said...

One wonders what Russell Kirk or William F Buckley would have made of Trump?

Hillary is a terrible candidate. Maybe I'm wrong but, surely, even someone as polarising as Ted Cruz would have had a very good chance of winning. Yet Trump seems to be losing. The Republicans actually seem to have thrown away the election, when they could have had a solid conservative for once.

Timocrates said...

Trump seems to be losing for one only reason and everyone knows that reason. Merely pointing this out might be a bit of a wake up pill for a lot of people. The point should be made that there are almost limitless equal and better reasons to be shaming Hillary about, but we don't see it.

Anderson Cooper - and "the establishment" generally - made a huge mistake in the second debate. Firstly, Cooper is borderline iconic with the media. It blows my mind that they were so stupid as to choose him to interrogate Trump over the tape. Ignoring that the tape itself is fruit of the forbidden tree, Cooper's using it as a basis to even accuse Trump of sexual assault was egregious and should have generated serious suspicion. In my mind, at least, it is proof positive that he was already aware of the existence of the would-be accusers (the lame excuse that they are only coming out now because of Trump's public denial notwithstanding). No one in their right mind - who has any sense of career or future - would dare accuse someone who might be your next President of sexual assault otherwise. Can anyone seriously believe Cooper would take that risk unless he was confident his accusation would be justified by the forthcoming accusers? And what does that mean?

Now when Trump began promising investigations, I assure you men like Cooper took it very seriously. Either way, the media's credibility was definitely leveraged and damaged by Cooper's playing interrogator.

Wesley said...

I just can't believe the republicans nominated Trump. Bush, Cruz, Christie, even Paul, would all be wiping the floor with Clinton given all the scandals that have just come out. And I don't claim the media is unbiased, but Trump is just that absurd that all conservatives can do now is try to stop the bleeding.

Bob Kohn said...

Right on. Professor!

Timocrates said...

@ Wesley,

Trump won the race by pure force of votes, which in the RNC are generally counted. The Republican top brass fought him hard.

The Trump coalition is a winner if he can keep it together. Blue collar Dems, steal what's left of the union and working vote from the Dems. Hence rail on trade, jobs and NAFTA hard. Economic security.

SAFETY: Safe schools, streets and communities for all Americans. This will help shore up the woman vote too.

Taken together, this is a winning program and message and helps break through the traditional divides between Republican and Democrat. We can do a lot more than stop bleeding.

Michele Arpaia said...

Trump is our Constantine.

Don Jindra said...

Trump is solid evidence that the "conservative" moral crusade of the past 35 years was never that serious.

Step2 said...

Be honest: if it weren't for these alleged scandals of Donald Trump, it would be transparently obvious he was going to sweep the nation in the vote (which he will anyways). They need some sort of plausible denial of this reality.

I have no idea what reality you are living in. There has been only one time this entire election when Trump held a statistically significant lead in the polls, which was right after his convention. There have been another three times when the polling was close but Clinton maintained a small lead on average even then. There was never any scenario where Trump was predicted by polling to win the election by a landslide and it is delusional to suggest there was.

Moreover, snooping on a private conversation between two American citizens without their consent is not only immoral, it is probably criminal.

I must have missed all those times Republicans have complained about Wikileaks releasing illegally hacked email conversations.

In other words, she was obviously trying to get him off the hook.

Clinton was assigned the case by the court, she even asked the judge to be removed from the case, but once she was stuck with it she did what defense attorneys are supposed to do. The case was complicated by a third party, another juvenile who had sex with the victim. It was reported the victim’s mother, somewhat understandably, was adamantly opposed to going to trial in order to keep her daughter from having to testify about the trauma. Furthermore, the laws at the time weren’t as protective of rape victims as they are now, so some lines of question were within the bounds of legal ethics back then but thankfully no longer are.

The Republicans actually seem to have thrown away the election, when they could have had a solid conservative for once.

The worst part is the supposedly family values party has shown itself to be deeply unprincipled. I don't know how they recover their moral authority after nominating and endorsing a charlatan like Trump. The Republicans had so many decent and qualified pro-life candidates who got trounced by the apricot rageaholic.

Timocrates said...

No Don. Trump is the proof of the need for the moral imperative however you cut it. Trump is at worst proof of how vitally necessary and justified that crusade was and is.

As Feser points out, you have to overlook the insane hypocrisy in the establishment Left's feigned outrage over Trump's shockingly egregious banter. They tolerate the same and much worse every day; even defend people's rights to say and promote it in song and music, for example. It's freedom of expression, then. Or better: art.

If you actually don't like it, then voting conservative and voting Trump is the proper course of action because he's the only candidate who would even consider seriously doing something about it on the cultural level that doesn't involve the inherently totalitarian PC methods of the Left.

Timocrates said...

@ Step2,

I have no idea what reality you are living in. There has been only one time this entire election when Trump held a statistically significant lead in the polls

Based on 2012 likely voter samples. Trump's momentum in the primaries showed we was drawing in huge support from first time voters or people who had not voted for a long time. That changes the likely voter: this is definitely not 2012.

I must have missed all those times Republicans have complained about Wikileaks releasing illegally hacked email conversations.

These emails and these people are directly relevant to public officials and public policy. Scarcely the same as snooping on an obviously private conversation between private citizens.

Clinton was assigned the case by the court

Wholly freaking irrelevant. My point is that she threw a 12 year old girl under the bus who she knew and believed to have been raped. She can be a lawyer first or a an activist for children and women's rights and justice first. She can't actually be both.

The worst part is the supposedly family values party has shown itself to be deeply unprincipled.

The Democrat Party has been busted plotting a 'Catholic Spring' against the Catholic Church. These are the tactics of the Communist Party. I can't seriously believe you want to get into issues about principle, when Free Willy Billy is about the receive a million dollar "birthday gift" from his pals in Qatar.

Or to talk about principle when Hillary Clinton is on record again and again vowing to oppose gay marriage; but now promotes its contrary as an inherent American Constitutional right.

Jeremy Taylor said...

Timocrates,

The candidate you describe above (October 16, 2016 at 10:40 AM) sounds a lot like Pat Buchanan - which is good, it makes a change from the usual neoliberal shills and interventionists (like McCain or Rubio) that the try to lead the Republicans - except Trump is no Pat Buchanan. Trump really is a buffoon and a demagogue who will say anything to get elected and has the thinnest skin imaginable. Almost any other Republican candidate would have been in with a very good shot at beating Clinton, but Trump is now trailing by double digits in the latest polls.

I can understand preferring Trump to Hillary - if I were a Yank I probably would (and Hillary is almost as bad simply as a candidate, leaving aside her policies and the Supreme Court). But I can't understand being enthusiastic about him. As I said above, that William F Buckley and certainly Russell Kirk would have felt much the same.

Of course the media is is biased and hypocritical, but that doesn't really change the truth about Trump. The problem is not that Trump is being hounded for what he said but that Bill Clinton and others were not hounded for similar things.

Step2 said...

Based on 2012 likely voter samples.

Uh, no. Pollsters base their likely voters samples upon asking potential voters if they will be voting.

These emails and these people are directly relevant to public officials and public policy.

If Paul Manafort had been illegally hacked you would be cool with releasing all of that material, right? Besides, Trump first ran for president back in 2000 as a Reform Party candidate so anything he's said or been involved in since then is, by your own loose standard, relevant to public policy.

My point is that she threw a 12 year old girl under the bus who she knew and believed to have been raped.

The only type of knowledge that counts is knowing beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if she believed the girl was probably raped, which is a reasonable interpretation of her later statements, she still had to provide a defense of her client unless you are saying she was obligated to abandon the legal profession entirely rather than defend a criminal - a criminal who did plead to a lesser charge it should be noted. If you are upset by the result then most of the blame has to go to the girl's mother who didn't want it to go to trial, therefore the only legal alternative was a plea deal of some sort.

She can be a lawyer first or a an activist for children and women's rights and justice first.

She was a lawyer first and then she was an activist for children and women's rights later in life. This isn't difficult to figure out.

Or to talk about principle when Hillary Clinton is on record again and again vowing to oppose gay marriage; but now promotes its contrary as an inherent American Constitutional right.

I'm not voting for Hillary, she is much too beholden to special interest for my taste. She isn't as corrupt as LBJ or Nixon but she is too heavily influenced by lobbyists. I'm fervently hoping Utah gives its electoral votes to a third party candidate and that whoever does win overall receives no more than 45% of the popular vote. If this election doesn't demonstrate the structural problems of a two party system I don't know what will.

Timocrates said...

@ Step2,

Pollsters base their likely voters samples upon asking potential voters

Who are they.

so anything he's said or been involved in since then is, by your own loose standard, relevant to public policy.

You can't be serious.


The only type of knowledge that counts is knowing beyond a reasonable doubt.


"Which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughs]"

Thanks Step2 for this conversation. It was enlightening.

Anonymous said...

The sad thing is Trump is facing the weakest possible candidate the Democrats could have nominated and he is still going to get destroyed in this election. If someone like Romney or even Gingrich was running right now I would wager that they'd be up big on Clinton. The Republicans also decided to nominate a terrible candidate. It's pretty sad that I long for the days of Romney!

Tony said...


Uh, no. Pollsters base their likely voters samples upon asking potential voters if they will be voting.

No, pollsters have a name for polling that rely on this simple method: wrong.

The report offered some clues as to why likely voter models using official records for voting tended to provide a more accurate picture of the future electorate. The study confirmed a longstanding challenge of asking about vote likelihood: Many people who say they will vote don't actually show up, and some who appear unlikely to vote eventually do cast ballots.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/why-the-likely-voter-is-the-holy-grail-of-polling/

In fact, the methods used typically look like these:

The CBS/New York Times variant, which is similar to the Gallup approach except that rather than select specific respondents as likely voters, it weights all registered voters up or down based on their probability of voting.

The use of two or three questions to simply screen out voters at the beginning of the interview that say they are not registered and not likely vote.

The application of quotas or weights to adjust the completed interviews to match the pollster’s expectations of the demographics or regional distribution of likely voters.

The application of quotas or weights to match the pollster’s expectations of the party affiliation of likely voters. I break this one out separately because it remains among the most controversial likely voter “modeling” tools.

Sampling respondents from lists that draw on official records of the actual vote history of individual voters, so that when the pollster calls John Doe, they already know whether Doe has voted in past elections.

Finally, many believe that the use of an automated, recorded-voice methodology rather than a live interviewer is itself a useful tool in obtaining a more accurate measurement of the intent to vote.

Some pollsters use a few of these methods, some use nearly all, so there are probably as many likely voter “models” out there as there are pollsters.


In all cases, however, the identifications are statistical estimates and educated guesses, not ACTUAL determinations of who will be voting.

The only type of knowledge that counts is knowing beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, the pollsters do not actually know who will be voting.

Timocrates said...

@ Anon,

The DNC paid those women to come forward. It was their October surprise.

NO ONE supports Hillary. NO ONE.

125 American newspapers endorsed Hillary.

1 supports Trump.

But NO ONE wants Hillary. None. SHE HAS NO SUPPORT. NONE. NOWHERE.

SHE PAYS PEOPLE TO SUPPORT HER.

America is being goof'd hard. HARD.

The Wikileaks is for law enforcement; not the voters. It's to shame people into finally doing their jobs.

Common sense is for the voters.

Robert said...

'She isn't as corrupt as LBJ or Nixon...'

Seriously? What did Nixon do? Possibly have his secretary destroy a few tapes that were evidence...try and fail to convince lawyers that worked for him to stay quiet...use extralegal means to investigate leaks of classified information...try and fail to get the IRS to audit political opponents.

Isn't there publicly available evidence that the current administration and Hilary have destroyed 10,000s of subpoenaed documents, perjured themselves, suborned the FBI director, illegally given millions to terrorist proxies, weaponized the IRS, gotten lawyers that worked for her to cover-up said destruction of subpoenaed documents...

Timocrates said...

Liberal media washed conservatives need to stop letting themselves be shamed. Ask the person talking crap about Trump: WHY ON EARTH DO YOU WANT HILARY TO BE PRESIDENT?

SHE. HAS. NO. SUPPORT.

Anonymous said...

The polls are all lying, right?

Timocrates said...

@ Anon,

The polls were all lying too when they said Trump had no chance in the Rep. primaries. Doomed. Toast.

But praise ye polls.

Timocrates said...

U.S Newspapers for Hillary: 125
U.S Newspapers for Trump: 1

Totally not just ground for claiming the media is fixed, especially when Trump is a ling long freaking Democrat.

Spoiler alert. Reality check. Fixed; Adults only.

Timocrates said...

*life long

My bad for spam correction!

But I'm still looking for someone who votes for Hillary. Because we all want grandma in the White House fixing Catholic Springs because abortion and shtuff is so uber important for murica. Y'uh.

Timocrates said...

Just an aside, I've seen Catholic Forums down for registrations for four years now. It can't be because of my IP (I've moved all over in the time).

Anybody know what's going on with catholic.com? Should we ditch and replace?

Anonymous said...

You sound deranged.

Timocrates said...

@ Anon,

You sound retarded but you don't see me pointing it out in public.

<<<--- Grew up before PC police protected you on the interwebs.

Anonymous said...

Good reading:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/an-attack-on-founding-principles-at-the-claremont-institute/499094/

Timocrates said...

@ Anon,

No, that's just bad revisionist writing.

You going to make a point at some point?

Nope. Because Gen Fail is in for the slip and run.

And being Anon.

Timocrates said...

Good reading:

Trump will remove the censorship threat on Churches.

Trump will put sane people on the Court.

Trump will not wage a wage on private American religious beliefs.

Trump will uphold American's (massively envied) right to defend their lives, family and property with lethal force, if necessary.

Trump will cut taxes, reducing America's highest (in the Western world's) Corporate tax and reducing American middle class taxes.

Trump will stop the flood of illegal aliens into America who are reducing further America's wages


... Hillary will like, be a woman in the White House. And a grandma.

Sobieski said...

https://d1sb17b1leotpq.cloudfront.net/rigging-election-video-i-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-incite-violence-trump-rallies.html

Timocrates said...

@ Sob,

It's because the DNC knows they are busted. They are blowing their Catholic Spring. Hard.

We are going to enslave them. It's okay, most of them are white ;)

Must suck hard to be a Democrat these days. You can enslave a white person and people figure they deserved it.

Mr Ecks said...



Don't concern yourself with polls too much.

Over here in the UK the cultural Marxist controlled media produced endless polls showing Brexit was 10 points behind the Remain gang.

The idea is to make folk think they might as well stay at home as their cause has no chance.

Then just before the vote they show the polls to even up slightly in the hope of turning more of their gang out on the day.

Most of your MSM are controlled by middle-class leftists and are in the tank for Killery.

Take no notice. Get out and vote for Trump. Because whatever his failings he is your best chance to stop your nation being fully turned into a leftist rathole.

Don Jindra said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for posting that "good reading" link. I preferred to go right to the source, though. The hyperbole is typical and is a big part of the problem, imo. I also enjoyed the fact that when issues are discussed, we're asked, "But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?" So Straussian. The answer is even more Straussian: Read carefully, there is no answer. There is only the superficial answer of, Vote for Trump! That is, vote for the one who is a symptom of that "heart of our problems." I especially loved this: "the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows ...less traditionally American with every cycle." Considering the fact that "Publius Decius Mus" is obviously "less American" than his political targets, the irony is amusing.

DNW said...

"Considering the fact that "Publius Decius Mus" is obviously "less American" than his political targets, the irony is amusing."


That's pretty cryptic. What with all the quote bracketing, it is difficult to make out who is less American, why, or in what sense; much less to appreciate what if any irony there is.

Jeremy Taylor said...

Mr Ecks,

I don't think Brexit was down as far as Trump is, not this close to the actual voting. I certainly agree the polls are not reliable, especially as, like Brexit, some won't admit they are voting for him to pollsters. If Trump is within three points in enough battleground states, maybe even five points, I wouldn't write him off. But if he is down by more in many of them, I doubt there will be some grand upset where he wins. At the moment, he is certainly on tract to lose, and I don't think the polls can be dismissed. He is just a terrible candidate.

Step2 said...

The polls were all lying too when they said Trump had no chance in the Rep. primaries. Doomed. Toast.

No, nearly all of the polls were correct; everyone misinterpreted them. They were interpreting Trump’s initial core support of 35-40% of the Republican primary voters as his ceiling but he was able to attract above 60% after the New York primaries. There were only two primary states, if memory serves, where the polls were actually wrong. Caucuses are much harder to poll, especially in a crowded field, so some of those were also wrong.

Liberal media washed conservatives need to stop letting themselves be shamed. Ask the person talking crap about Trump: WHY ON EARTH DO YOU WANT HILARY TO BE PRESIDENT?

That’s easy, because Trump would be so erratic and dangerous as president. I wouldn’t trust him to be dog catcher much less entrust the nuclear codes to his grabby hands. Obviously my trust in Hillary is not great either, but her instincts and temperament aren’t nearly as wild as his.

SHE. HAS. NO. SUPPORT.

She has plenty of support, even if it is only of the mild "lesser of two evils" variety.

Isn't there publicly available evidence that the current administration and Hilary have destroyed 10,000s of subpoenaed documents (no), perjured themselves (possibly), suborned the FBI director (no), illegally given millions to terrorist proxies (new conspiracy I’ve never heard of), weaponized the IRS (no), gotten lawyers that worked for her to cover-up said destruction of subpoenaed documents (no)...

Trump will not wage a wage on private American religious beliefs.

When given the opportunity Trump chose against private religious beliefs during the Kim Davis situation.

Mr Ecks said...



Trump is erratic and dangerous compared to a leftist traitor and member of the elite who is talking about open attacks on Russia before her fat backside even gets into the Oval office?

Everything you say of Trump is a projection from your own ghastly choice who, in addition to exposing your country's secrets to every half-competent hacker on Earth has killed hundreds of thousands in the mid-east with her political antics and who--with her vile sex attacker of a husband--has probably ordered more murders personally than Al Capone.60+ mysterious deaths is FAR too many to be co-incidence.

Leaving aside the great Haiti rip-off and the colossal fraud and tax fraud that is the Clinton Foundation.

You are either deluded or an extremely evil man yourself.

I pray that the American people can find the will and courage to destroy this witch and hopefully the entire corrupt leftist MSM who are shilling and lying for her in a breathtakingly outrageous style.

Anonymous said...

This is the worst election for the American people in a LONG time--maybe forever. Both of the choices are horrible. If Clinton is elected and the Republicans keep the Congress, I think it will just be a continuation of the last 8 years, but with the awful additional fact that Supreme Court positions will need to be filled. Absolute hell we are in as a country having to pick one of these two.

Don Jindra said...

DNW,

Being cryptic may be the safest thing to be in this year's political environment. Maybe the worst thing to be is a moderate, although almost nobody will allow a person to be a moderate anymore. But from my moderate position I think I could make a pretty good case that the extremes on both left and right are anti-American. From week to week and person to person I admit sometimes I can't decide who is worse. Nevertheless, I'm an incorrigible optimist. Maybe the fever will break after this election and people will start talking rationally to each other again, American to American, citizen to citizen, sans the stupefying ideology.

Jeremy Taylor said...

I'm more an The Imaginative Conservative and Chronicles guy than National Review one, but I have to admit Jonah Goldberg really nails it in this piece:

http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/441092/donald-trump-operation-destroy-gop

DNW said...

"Don Jindra said...
DNW,

Being cryptic may be the safest thing to be in this year's political environment. Maybe the worst thing to be is a moderate, although almost nobody will allow a person to be a moderate anymore. But from my moderate position I think I could make a pretty good case that the extremes on both left and right are anti-American. From week to week and person to person I admit sometimes I can't decide who is worse. Nevertheless, I'm an incorrigible optimist. Maybe the fever will break after this election and people will start talking rationally to each other again, American to American, citizen to citizen, sans the stupefying ideology.

October 19, 2016 at 9:19 PM"



Hi Don,

Yes, I certainly agree.

Naturally assuming of course that we are limiting moral peer status to other conservative leaning libertarians.

But like I said, I quite agree.

Crude said...

People aren't going to 'start talking to each other again'. They can't; it requires having a certain amount of values in common. The minimum requirement is close to entirely gone.

The moment after the election, whatever side wins will rub the other side's nose in it. Loudly, unceasingly, on every bit of media and social communication around. Then they'll insist that they have a mandate to do things, particularly the things the other side despises and has gotten so worked up over during this election precisely because they're fighting against it. This time around, they'll have the added benefit that whoever wins - guaranteed - is hugely unpopular with not just their opponents, but most of the country, period.

Add in the fact that Clinton has been benefiting from such obvious bias and rigging (from protection from her entirely obvious crimes, the quid pro quo, the blatant media bias and support - moreso than ever), and if she wins, it won't be without basis that people question the legitimacy of the entire event. If Trump wins, it will be viewed as some bizarre underestimating by the polls. Conspiracy theories will be invented out of whole cloth if necessary.

Add in the fact that Trump's rise has stirred a political awakening that is both powerful and inconvenient among a significant portion of the population.

The odds of things suddenly getting calm are low. They are going to get worse. In fact, let me dabble in a little bit of prophecy.

There's going to be a brutal politically motivated event of some kind eventually. Someone, on some side, is going to get up and beaten savagely on camera. Maybe with a minimum of provocation. It's going to get reported far and wide, likely with the unspoken hope that whatever one's convictions, *this* act was absolutely going too far, and deplorable.

And you're going to see that a third to a half of the country thinks the person getting beaten had it coming, and are pretty happy it took place. A third to half of the country will be mortified, and angry, that anyone could possibly think that way. And that's when things are going to be ratcheted up to a very interesting notch.

Anonymous said...

This is it!



HILARIOUS!!! The video Hillary Clinton Does Not Want You To See. Must Watch! Hillary Clinton tried to ban this video! But Hillary Can't Hide THIS Anymore! http://cnn.com/breakingnews/Top-10-Things-Hillary-Clinton-Doesn't-Want-You-To-Know