1. Trump makes statement.
2. Media attack statement as outrageously false.
3. Trump statement proves accurate.
Rinse and Repeat.
Trump was also right about the voter fraud thing, but you knew that already.
The Internet home for American gay conservatives.
Sweden is also one of those countries that has stopped recording demographic characteristics of the perpetrators of crimes. Don’t ask, can’t tell.
This is my take: Trump watched the report on Fox News about crime rate in Sweden and then tweeted about it along with comments about terrorism. The Left reacted in a way that diverted from the legitimate crime problem by rather calling attention to the messy approach he took to the situation.
At this point, it would be wise for the MSM to smarten up here and stop lumping everything together. But I doubt that is going to happen.
So the MSM will continue to play dumb and divert. And 45 will continue with his messy approach. Now, of the MSM isn’t going to change, what if Trump did and cleaned things up a bit and stopped giving the MSM so much fodder. Wouldn’t that force their hand to, you know, have to actually report on what is being said?
Controversial I know. Otherwise this stupid cycle just continues.
Sorry. To be clear, he made the muddled “last night in Sweden” statement at the rally on 18 Feb. He clarified on Twitter 19 Feb that it was about immigrants and Sweden (the Fox News report he saw on general crime in Sweden). The riots happened 20 Feb before the rally, before the tweet.
He just throws stuff out there and the MSM goes apesh!t. Details aren’t his strength by any stretch of the imagination. He should have his team prepare thought-out, articulate reports that the MSM will have no other choice but to confront. Or this crap is just going to keep happening.
*sorry “after” not “before” x2
Or…here’s a thought…maybe the PRESS should stop trying to screw him and do their frickin jobs. Did you even, for one paltry second, consider that, CCP?
Al-Cray-da is woefully inept about bringing Muslims to justice, probably because he has wet dreams about those big intolerant swarthy men.
Regards,
Peter H.
It seems like old times:
When Bush Sr. was President, the Left-leaning reporters, and their Democrat pals couldn’t get him fired, or V.P. Dan Quayle fired, so- they smeared Bush by calling him a bully and a weakling, and they smeared Quayle, by calling him a dunce.
Today- The Left-leaning reporters, and their Democrat friends, can’t get Trump fired, so they smear him, by calling him- a possible-traitor who sold the USA to Russia.
And the foolishness goes on.
Today- an ex-aid of Hillary Clinton, said that [he thinks] that “forces in the FBI” helped Trump beat Hillary in the 2016 election.
Oh, so we, the American public, are supposed to search for [secret, sneaky, FBI bad guys], now, like we’re looking for “the fabled fountain of youth”? what in the world is that?
Hillary Clinton’s ex-election team, and Hillary Clinton, seem to be going into rowdy conniptions now, telling people strange things like-
These people cost us the election: the Democrats, the Republicans, the Russians, the press, Mr. Putin…EVERYBODY,…everybody, but US!
Hi V the K,
“Trump was also right about the voter fraud thing” [link to Daily Wire talking about the WP article]
“Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.”
Your source authors, Jesse Richman and David Earnest, have been severely criticized. And if you are going to make the claim, shouldn’t you actually explore it so as to ascertain whether it makes sense or not, or is supported by the evidence? Also, “The Monkey Cage” is a commentary BLOG in the Washington Post, not the editorial or news pages. Do you really have the evidence to make your claim stick? Extremely doubtful. There are reasons why the paper didn’t become a big news story–it wasn’t because of the biased media. I am sure that you read all of the problems with the paper for yourself. So, why bother making the claim, then?
To whit, just one of the critical responses suggests: “Highlights
• This paper investigates the perils of making inferences about low-probability events from large-N survey data.
• The authors show that a recent study purporting to demonstrate that non-citizens in the United States vote is almost certainly flawed.
• The article concludes that the rate of non-citizen voting in the United States is likely 0.”
Even so, I liked the authors willingness to acknowledge that much still needs to be done, and offers a rational way of approaching it:
“In both our article and blog post we have acknowledged the limitations of our analysis. We continue to welcome criticisms of our methodology and attempts to validate, replicate or refute our study. Knowledge emerges from debate, dialogue and critical examination of findings—processes that are intrinsically contentious. We trust that our colleagues share our appreciation of the value of this debate — and more importantly, of our willingness to engage in it.”
Pragmatically; since the Left claims large scale voter suppression caused by the commonsense requirement of a photo ID & can not & does not prove their theory – conversely, it’s not required of the Right to prove that because something can be done [voter fraud], it is indeed, done. All this aside, voting does need to be secured by identification, in every state & IS documented, in many places for all to see, is the record [images, video, written plans by Leftie activists] busloads of unverified people [California, New Hampshire, New York, etc.], not needing identification, barely speaking English – who vote.
Note: I do not need to source that which is public knowledge & in the public sphere. Pretending that criminal activity doesn’t happen, doesn’t change reality. I know this is a difficult thing for people on the Left to understand; nevertheless, it is so. Trump uses rhetoric. But it is backed up & the silly habit by the Left who now demand proof of “what is”, seemingly out of frustration that the Right uses facts, proof, commonsense & decency to make their various cases – is irrelevant.
Note: It’s also common knowledge that voter fraud is & has always been a tool of the Democratic Party, especially in Illinois.
When some people dare to say that there is no voter fraud, I want to become violent, but I check & remind myself that violence is also a notoriously famous tool of socialists, commies & Leftists of every rancid flavor. Force helps them accomplish the ideology that no one can & should do better than anyone else & the individual is nothing, whereas the collective is everything. Instead, those on the Right keep lists.
Jupiter must be in the 5th house or something, because Vince is making sense!
Anybody who has been beyond the usual channels of information knows that the Scandinavian countries are having massive problems with their migrant communities.
Sweden has a major problem on its hands and they’re being overrun. If Hillary would’ve stolen/won the election, this is what we would be facing as well. I really cannot understand how people here can look at Sweden and say bring refugees here! The liberal mind is a confusing, strange place.
I am curious if anyone here follows the gatestoneinstitute.org website and, if so, what is their opinion of the site. I believe it is a conservative leaning site, but the articles on what is happening with the migrants in Europe paint a very grim picture. I just wonder how accurate you think gatestone’s reporting is compared to what is put out by the press of those countries.
14. The “press” of those countries hide a lot or most of what is going on. In my experience it’s individuals putting out the truth.
If interested, gatesofvienna.net, is good info. I’m sure there are more.
Trump is now in the position of having incredibly detailed national security briefings which also list all of the whack-a-mole pop up stuff around the country and the world such as a riot in Sweden or cop shooting a black person in Peoria. Trump is a voracious scanner of information. When he retires to his White House digs, he is pretty much by his lonesome. He goes to bed late and rises early, He watches a whole lot of TV. I suspect that he actually listens to TV while multitasking. If he heard about the Swedish riots on Fox and it was something he read in a brief he would take note. And that is likely to come out in his “stream of consciousness” theme talks. He isn’t reporting news, he is making connections out loud. Malmo, in Sweden has been a no-go zone for years. Chances are strong that Trump has known a great deal about the problems in Birmingham, Bussels, Hamburg, Malmo, St. Denis, Cuenta, Syracusa, etc. for years. His association with the resort industry would have kept him informed where the burgeoning hot spots are.
The problem with assessing Trump is that little minds still recognize him as a fellow little-minded fakir. Just how does anyone think a well-traveled, well connected billionaire who meets the moguls of power across the spectrum makes his way with only a mediocre mind? Such power brokers don’t need to associate with a “dummy” Trump. The man has learned the levers of negotiation and how to pull them. He is a “player” and entitled to the respect of being up to the job.
The problem for the little-minded is that Trump speaks simply and openly carries a big stick. Therefore, the little-mined “victim” class see him as a bully and a crude charlatan who is driven by wrong-headed dogma.
And that is how they paint him and that is how they try to fight him. They think they will wear him down and that he will emulate them and get into a hissy-fit and just quit the damned job.
I suspect that Trump has had more than one four-year battle with opposing forces coming at him from many directions in his building a golf course or building a skyscraper. He has done battle with a person at lunch and then had a prince charming rapport with him a few hours later.
The rules for swimming with sharks is to assume that everyone is a shark. Don’t get confused by trying to deal with ideology. When you do swim with sharks, don’t bleed. Counter any aggression promptly. Get out of the water if some else is bleeding. Employ anticipatory retaliation. Use diversion to confuse attacks. Set the sharks on the course of attacking one another. You can become expert at swimming with sharks if you practice these rules.
That is how Donald Trump rolls. If you think he is a babbling hair-do of blithering foolishness, he is just fine with you arguing with each other over just how dumb he really is. It keeps you busy while he keeps on truckin’.
What makes it even better, Heliotrope, is that you just explained what Trump is in very good detail. But they still won’t figure it out. LOL!!!!!!
Hi Heliotrope,
One of the cool things about leaks is that we get an idea of what goes on behind close doors in the Trump administration, when the public isn’t looking. The picture painted there does not look like the one that you speculate (and hope) to be true. You could still be right. I hope that you are. But this is also the guy who bankrupted companies, owed a tremendous amount of money, only to rise again. I am not so certain that such a gambler’s (or entrepreneurial?) mentality is what is needed as head of the most powerful country in the world. When he bankrupted his companies he had a legal framework that helped him get back on his feet. He was able to reduce his stake and negotiate better terms, and become successful again. I am not sure what the equivalent is if he decides on a course of action that leads to similar results while being CEO of USA Inc. Can he reduce our stake in USA Inc. if things go bust because of his actions? Hopefully, the other branches will step up to the plate in that case. Or maybe he will get to blame them for the failures if his vision does not succeed?
Cas, bankruptcy is part of the reality in huge business. It is not personal bankruptcy like little people go through when they overspend their credit. Enormous business bankruptcy almost always sticks a lot of speculators such as banks, bond holders and even municipalities holding the bag. Trump followed the rules and used the laws to get out of a mess. Anything you don’t like about that you can take up with the fat cats who built the whole structure of bankruptcy.
Are you requiring Trump to bat 1000? Is Babe Ruth over-rated because he didn’t hit a home run every time he came to bat? Is every Hollywood mogul required to match or outdo his great success? Is the master chef required to be a boffo success in every detail every time?
Trump has become a billionaire with all the bankruptcy included.
As you put it, how does that translate to CEO of the USA? How did that community organizing fresh faced career politician work out?
The people who elected Trump are sick to the gills with professional politicians and conventional wisdom from mediocre minded media opinion babblers. The people supporting Trump as tickled pink to finally hear a president call out the bullish*t pasture patty by pasture patty. They don’t really think he will build a perfect solution in everything he undertakes. Just fighting for the fixes out in the open and calling a rat a rat is refreshing enough to earn continued support.
Trump is not a chump narcissist with thin skin. If you decide to kick him you had better be prepared for him to hit back.
Can he fail? Certainly. Have you ever seen more people organizing and operating to cause a president to fail this early in his term? Now stay tuned, because Trump is not an establishment kind of person and he will not be cowed by the status quo artists among the Republicans.
My bet is that you still have no real understanding of the TEA Party and who these folks are and why they are bound together. This is not an intellectual exercise. If you can’t “feel” them, you are simply blind to a powerful reality that your reality can not absorb.
No one ever expected Babe Ruth to hit a home run every time he came to bat.
He did, however, have a .342 batting average.
Note that the New York Times misrepresented Trump’s comment as an attack on Sweden.
Nope. I only dream of you.
Hi Heliotrope,
Why do you think that the billionaire will work out any better than the community organizer you despise? The fact that he is a billionaire? So he has proven that he can enrich himself. Good. But can he enrich us? The record on that is mixed (as the bankruptcies show–it wasn’t just banks who got stiffed, but also plenty of the “little people” who he owed money to). And all those folks tickled pink with his progress so far, as you rightly point out–will they get their desires met? The question I asked is still relevant and unanswered: is a gambler the right person to be leading the country right now and what happens if Trumps gambles don’t pay off?
I agree that Trump is not a “chump narcissist”, but he still acts like a tough, smart, and conscienceless narcissist. The question is whether or not his narcissism will work for us as well as for DT. His opponents have consistently underestimated his appeal and his capacity to win. It is my hope that this will be marshaled to benefit the country. And for what it is worth, I do think that some of the blow-back he is getting is ridiculous. For example, his desire to accept whatever solution the Palestinians and the Israelis worked out together seemed to accept the reality of events as they currently are–and might actually open avenues to peace. Time will tell (its not like the policy it is replacing was having much success!).
Several years ago, I was working with a goober who was in a cubicle across from me. After a couple of years of generous [on my part] banter there had been a cosmological event that happened, can’t remember what it was. We were talking about it & he started talking about the order that god had given the universe. Still being generous, I kept my cool & suggested we keep science & religion separate so we could continue on. But he kept on, keeping on. Turned out he was convinced that the Earth was flat. I’d heard about these people, but had never encountered one. It wasn’t ideological or even religion based – this oddness of his. It sort of made any further “discussions” worthless. Last week, on Twitter, I was initially happy to follow someone who was saying all the right things, make America great again, that sort of thing. Always willing to include people in my sphere that are like-minded. He’d “liked” one of my tweets so it is my habit to find something I like & indicate it in return. Looking at his tweets I noticed something odd. There were science tweets that seemed a bit off. Weird references that seemed a little twisted. As it happened, I looked closer & discovered that he didn’t believe in gravity. Thought it was a conspiracy to influence or corrupt people. Quite adamant about it too. I’m sure a lot of people have run into or seen & read about their deal with the Twin Towers. That it was a conspiracy by the govt to create a reason for war. They have a whole deal about it, calculations as to how two giant airliners filled with jet fuel couldn’t have possibly brought down buildings that, while sturdy enough, were basically balanced structures relying on gravity & counterforce to keep them up & standing. Sort of flimsy if you think about it, they would be if a king kong were bent on making a mess. My point? When you find out someone is dense, understand that no matter how you explain something they just don’t get, that it’s worthless interacting any further.
True believers in the Narcissist Obama, & he was indeed a classic narcissist, will never accept the truth about their weakling, no matter how you put it to them. They do not have the capability of understanding conservatism, the orientation of keeping the best in society & opposing radical change. It’s impossible for these people. Some of them, quietly try to talk sense & reason into Conservatives, positing what they believe are rational points. Passive aggressive fools, who don’t understand the basics of agenda & why someone, who otherwise to them is revolting, is supported by anyone. They’re people that have no experience in life, they’ve not been around the block, they don’t know how a company works, they’ve never met a CEO or tycoon, they just don’t see the big picture & they blind to promises that are, even now, being kept.
They’re not stupid. They try to pick off those that don’t necessarily bite heads off of the deserving, right away. They avoid people like me, because I’m not necessarily the most patient soul on the planet & am more than willing to shred their snowflakes & glitter immediately.
However; to me, there is nothing more repellent than someone who is passive aggressive. Who thinks repetition takes the day. It doesn’t. People who parrot what are now becoming warm & rotten talking points – are the lowest forms of life.
I’m skeptical of anyone who basically says “the other side” is completely without merit with no redeeming value. They are basically saying “their side” has ALL the answers to everything, and they’ve had all the experiences in life and knowledge needed to make everything in the world as it should be.
Amen, CrayCrayPatriot
Yet, it’s the violent Left that constantly & continuously tries to shut down conversation. Because their flimsy ideology of the collective doesn’t hold up to the light of day & can be ripped apart so easily. Saying otherwise, doesn’t change the fact of the last 8 years of a weakling president, a subservient press & sickening social experimentation. The history of Democrats is seedy & revolting. Their civilians are nothing but parrots, like bent-backed comrades of Soviet Moscow, vomiting out the party line, so they can sleep at night & buy a piece of bread. Hypocrites & morons. Of course, the side that promotes commonsense & the individual is always, always going to be better & right in America. Warts & all. No one is perfect, but the Left is a sad joke. Their suffering has only just begun.
Who makes up the mobs in the street? Pooping out one false narrative after another, attracting anarchists, blaming everyone else but themselves for destruction. Who is it that wants to overturn a fair election, rip the country apart & assault those that love their country? The Democrats & the rest of the filth on the Left. Sad.
Yeah, let’s point fingers at “the other side” because the bad apples (however many there are) represent the “the whole side,” therefore they’re ALL null and void. They should shut up. They should rot. They all should die. Not one iota to contribute. Nothing.
Huh.
I wonder what it’s like to have all the answers. Must be nice. Oh well. I guess I’ll never know.
Yes, let’s pretend everything is exactly the same and engage in masturbatory bullshit false equivalence.
Reread #16.
Oh, and, I didn’t waste energy to “despise” Obama. I despise socialism and the morons who espouse it get bundled in.
Who are you responding to?
CrayCray @ #31: Cas at #23. My bad.
However, while you are paying attention: Can you flesh out your comment @31 a bit. I assume that since it follows my comment that it is addressed to me. Your bad. I am somehow missing the nuance of your retort.
I’m quoting and responding to “damaged justice” at #29.
Hi Heliotrope,
I read your missive at 16 (& 19). The point I raised is–again–why any of what you say will actually translate into something good for the country. You don’t address that issue, sorry. I am not questioning whether he is clever and can be a ruthless business man who can use the system to his advantage and become rich, “stiffing the little guy” in the process. Or that he can make deals–good AND bad. I grant all of that. He is a gambler with a strong possible up side and a strong possible down side.I don’t see how that necessarily makes him an effective President for this country, and you don’t explain. He could be good; he could be bad. His history shows both possibilities. Why embrace him? Faith?
Cas,
Why embrace any candidate for president? Faith?
Basically, only Trump and Hillary were the likely winners of the presidency. On that level, you had a life-long grifter, liar, political hack and failed Secretary of State who would continue the Obama direction toward socialist statism; or Trump. Hillary and her band of cronies were well known and understood; Trump was unknown save for his long string of actual accomplishments.
You are tacitly asking whether or not socialism and statism are superior to limited government and capitalism.
What are your arguments for statism and socialism? Why do you lack faith in freedom to the extent that you would turn free will over to government control? Do you believe that the government is smarter at spending your money than you are in making your own choices? Can you state the propositions for government control of healthcare in clear, unambiguous terms? Can you state the advantages to you of a global economy (instead of a national economy) in clear and unambiguous terms? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how the country can have free immigration and entitlement welfare simultaneously? Can you show us in clear and unambiguous terms the math of how dependent variables can be maximized simultaneously? (i.e. Bentham: The greatest good for the greatest number.) Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how someone receiving a free lunch should have the power to decide what and how much is being served? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how tolerance can simultaneously not tolerate those who do not tolerate what the official tolerance mafia defines? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how an ideal operating system of governing will not have the flaws of the current operating system which you abhor? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms why the government should be the decider instead of the referee? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how Social Security, Obamacare, Medicare, unemployment payments, etc. are not “Ponzi” schemes? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms why “equality” when put ahead of freedom will deliver the society to a higher standard of living, a more productive population and a harmonious society? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how socialism imbues everyone with the belief that he can live freely and productively without expense to anyone else? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how businesses pay taxes without passing them on to the consumer? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how socialism is not force, but voluntary cooperation and voluntary exchange? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how the government gets its money without first taking it from others? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how market efficiencies are not affected by government corruption or regulations? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms why society is responsible for bad behavior by individuals? Can you explain in clear and unambiguous terms how free will, individuality and freedom increase under socialism?
That should be enough for guiding you on the subject of Trump vs. Hillary.
Hi Heliotrope,
Thanks for the reply. The question you ask is a fair one–if we were talking about the pre-election situation. The state of uncertainty has collapsed to the certainty of Trump. The cat has sprung out of the box. Or, it is dead.
“You are tacitly asking whether or not socialism and statism are superior to limited government and capitalism.”
I don’t think so. You appear to assume that President Trump falls neatly on one side of the other of that divide. From what I have read of conservative voices on this website AND on other sites, there is a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty about where Trump stands and what he will do. I am not convinced that this is a simple choice between statism and limited government. We have Trump. And what he offers is quite unknown–something we both agree on. You are intrigued by Trump–that is clear. You admire his accomplishments. The means that he used to achieve those ends are things that worry me, as we both know. But we do not know what he will offer in the way of your two poles–my guess–a bit of both. And an healthy dose of authoritarianism. I hope I am very wrong about that, but the impulses I have seen reported about Trump from WITHIN his own administration/team/TV appear to work against “freedom,” “individuality,” and “liberty” as Hayek described and defined in The Road to Serfdom. Does that worry you? And if not, why? At what point would you begin to worry?
And when you ask me whether I can explain in clear and unambiguous terms a list of things that you mention, we shift the conversation to areas that are familiar and comfortable for you concerning socialism’s deficiencies, Heliotrope, and that move us away from asking the SAME questions about “Trump,” and what he will offer our country and us–which I think is a much more pressing issue than your approach. This is especially so, given the ascendancy of the Republican/conservative(?) control of the Federal Government. Will anything be served by engaging in that conversation about “socialism” now–as we have done in the past? Will it help illuminate the enigma called “President Trump”? I think it will likely increase the sound and fury of this thread; provide an “entertaining” screaming argument that mimics an idiot’s tale…
Cas,
1.) “You appear to assume that President Trump falls neatly on one side of the other of that divide.”
Trump is NOT going to erase all aspects of state socialism. He has promised to “fix” social security, the VA health problems and to replace Obamacare with a viable alternative.
One of the quirks of “conservatism” is that it “protects” the status quo. Trump has promised to fix what ails the status quo: a rusty and ill equipped military; enforcement of existing immigration laws; over regulated commerce; treaties which cripple US commerce; national government intrusion into state powers; a lagging and declining economy; and bring crony capitalism between professional politicians and economic power brokers into the daylight.
2.)“I am not convinced that this is a simple choice between statism and limited government.”
You are correct. Trump did not say or imply that he will make the US government as tiny as he possibly can. That takes a Whacky Doodle sort of hell-bent ideologue and that is not Trump.
State socialism is a creeping virus which eventually overwhelms the status quo and infects every nook and cranny of daily life. We have plenty of it and conservatives are fighting to stem the tide. Dismantling it is for another generation to decide.
3.) “We have Trump. And what he offers is quite unknown–something we both agree on.”
Yes, but not really. Every candidate who becomes president is an “unknown.” If that is your observation, then we agree. However, you tacitly imply that the “unknown” aspect of Trump is something sinister.
4.)“And an healthy dose of authoritarianism.”
Enforcing existing laws on immigration? Building a wall that was passed and funded by Congress years ago? Undoing selected Executive Orders which Obama wrote? Looking for ways to legally stop the gang murders in Chicago? Proactively examining folks who wish to enter the country? Stopping the US bumbling in exacerbating the “Arab Spring” fiasco and the recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood as SPCA level do-gooders? What authoritarianism?
5.)“the impulses I have seen reported about Trump from WITHIN his own administration/team/TV appear to work against “freedom,” “individuality,” and “liberty” as Hayek described and defined in The Road to Serfdom. Does that worry you? And if not, why? At what point would you begin to worry?”
Whew! What you have “seen reported” is what stirs you up and therefore is effective propaganda on you. The anti-Trump press is throwing everything they have got at Trump. Somewhere, somehow, you would think that something would stick, wouldn’t you? So, Cas, force yourself to be more specific about what ails you concerning Trump.
Hayek’s “Freedom, Individuality and Liberty” are not at risk under anything Trump has put in his Executive Orders. Unless, of course, you are thinking of the “right” of the government to curtail the freedom, individuality and liberty of snowflakes to have safe places and curtail the freedom, individuality and liberty of those with whom they disagree. Or if you are uncomfortable with letting the local government or state government handle the social conservative/social liberal conflicts. Or if you somehow believe the the US Constitution automatically applies to non-US citizens no matter where they may be in the world. Or if you believe that the US Constitution is under the powers of the UN or PETA or the Enlightened Elites of Equality and Equivalence on Earth.
6).“…. the ascendancy of the Republican/conservative(?) control of the Federal Government. Will anything be served by engaging in that conversation about “socialism”…
Trump is a means to the end. The Republican party is chock-a-block full of professional politicians who are getting fat off of crony capitalism with the lobbyists on K Street. They need to be gelded and sent out to pasture. Neither you nor I can succinctly define what constitutes federal government conservatism in 2017. What you likely are missing (along with most of the press) is that the TEA Party finally has its president. If they get some large per cent (60% ?) of “satisfaction” from Trump, they are way ahead of the game.
Sarah Palin and The Donald are mocked unmercifully for their syntax, their gawking delivery, their looks, etc. What they have in common, is that they understand the TEA Party and middle America and they speak the words which we knuckle-dragging Neanderthals have longed to hear. Plain Speaking, you might say. Do we believe they can deliver 100%? Heck no. Do we believe that they might go down trying? Yes. Will we stick with them through thick or thin? As long as they fight the good fight, yes. But as soon as they say “Read my lips…” and then do the opposite, they are toast. Got it?
And socialism is a mental disease. Trotsky wrote Communism and Syndicalism in exile in 1931. He understood capitalist countries and he understood how to undermine them: infest the bureaucracy, infest the unions, train the populace to think differently, form cliques, permeate the entertainment culture, define human dignity, fight the church, direct the language of the schools, make the socialist revolution a permanent revolution. Anything less than the Utopian ideal is “just” criticism and evil.
How does Trump or anyone else, for that matter, fight the insidiousness of militant socialism? Your charges of “authoritarianism” is well played. You have the permanent socialist revolution ideology so deeply implanted that you can not see otherwise.
Hi Heliotrope,
Thank you for your reply. A lot to digest, so let me start with the decision you made to focus on the Executive Orders. On the whole, I agree with you that these are not “authoritarian in scope;” in this, he is just exercising the power he has inherent in the Constitution–just as Obama did when he found his way blocked by an hostile Congress. One exception for me was the botched decision to deny entry to folks who had already received visas and held green cards and were returning to the States. That was just stupid and only reinforced the perception of authoritarian and arbitrary impulses. I respect your disagreement.
“So, Cas, force yourself to be more specific about what ails you concerning Trump.”
The problem I have with your rhetorical approach is that it focuses on Executive Orders, as if this is THE power of the President. Your comment: “Hayek’s “Freedom, Individuality and Liberty” are not at risk under anything Trump has put in his Executive Orders,” being a case in point. I don’t think Spielberg’s Lincoln says: “I am the President of the United States of America! Clothed in immense power!” refers solely to his Executive Order writing! Article Two offers a list of the President’s powers, but there is wide agreement as to the importance of the non-constitutionally useful powers including the bully pulpit. Donald Trump is THE topic of national conversation currently, and his actions AND comments lead national discourse–understandable given the office, DT’s charisma, and his willingness to speak his mind. And here, he has been quite active and in my opinion–showing an impulse that is authoritarian. I think you know where I am going with this, given your comment–I think that Chapter Eleven, “The End of Truth” is quite pertinent here. You gently chastise me for being taken in by propaganda, “What you have “seen reported” is what stirs you up and therefore is effective propaganda on you.” Of course, the claim you make, I think can be handed back to you–just as gently, I might add! And that is the basis for that sense that something “sinister” (as you put it), might be unfolding.
Examples I think are useful: branding judges as “so-called” (something his own nominee was concerned with); using the language of being the only person/entity who can “fix things” (the legislative branch be damned) which would just be a case of overblown rhetoric apart from the clear perception that he believes it; the factually challenged claims over rigging, etc of the election AND its impact omniscience’s the respect for the US democracy; the decision to actively antagonize the main-stream media over that estate’s willingness to call bull-shit on what are clearly incorrect statements and/or factually challenged claims (I grant that the media doesn’t always get it right, but DT is a big target not only “for [his] syntax, [his] gawking delivery, [his] looks” but also for the times he makes claims that have little if any evidence (e.g., the three million illegal voters-; size of his electoral win; size of the crowds at his inauguration, etc-we can discuss that in another thread, if you would like) that he repeated over and over. I get that there is an active alternative “news” network of websites along with Fox that offer narratives more consistent with DT’s view of things, which actively disputes the mainstream press’ take on things. But the preponderance of the news investigatory reporting resources favors a more questionable understanding of events than DT’s and his media supporters’ views. You and I will disagree about that claim–I accept that, but the point I make is that even as every President has had his issues with the Press, can you name me one who excluded reporters from news organization from a PREVIOUSLY scheduled briefing for the full White House Press Corps? And if so, how common was this move so EARLY in a President’s office? Along with calling many organizations in the mainstream media “fake-news” these are moves that I think Hayek would automatically see as attempts to divide, cow, and bend the media he dislikes to the will of his leadership, to provide a more compliant and “propaganda” friendly cover for the leadership’s action.
And I understand why he is antagonizing the Press. The leaking to the Press going on in the Trump administration is breath-taking in its scope. “The anti-Trump press is throwing everything they have got at Trump. Somewhere, somehow, you would think that something would stick, wouldn’t you? ” The news media isn’t just hitting him with “everything.” They are hitting him with leaks from his own administration that are incredibly embarrassing because they do not support his view of events, and, which he then complains vociferously about damaging national security by trading in secrets before incoherently arguing that they are also fake. And don’t you think some of it would stick if Democrats had one part of the legislative branch? Maybe, maybe not… But Democrats are currently powerless, and Republicans are thankful!
“But as soon as they say “Read my lips…” and then do the opposite, they are toast. Got it?” I get it! And good on them for holding him to account. The question is–will they like what DT gives them? One of the things I picked up from TEA Party activists is that they are not against entitlements that they think are earned–for folks like them. But they do not like entitlements for the folks they think have not earned them. What will be interesting will be whether DT can deliver on their hopes to strip away entitlements from those they think don’t deserve them whilst also NOT taking these same entitlements from the virtuous ones who deserve them. And I think that if he (& the Republican Party) messes that up–then again, TEA Party folks will turn on him (and on the Republican Party) for that as well.
“How does Trump or anyone else, for that matter, fight the insidiousness of militant socialism? Your charges of “authoritarianism” is well played. You have the permanent socialist revolution ideology so deeply implanted that you can not see otherwise.”
Your claim serves a rhetorical purpose, but I doubt that you fervently believe this, Heliotrope. If this was so, you would not be talking to me–why waste time on a socialist drone after all? There is no useful point to doing so; its not even entertaining. No, its clear that you like things about Trump, but you also recognize some of the potential downside of what he does, but you certainly wouldn’t share this with a “Gasp! Horror!” librul. You are more optimistic about him than I am, Heliotrope. I just hope you are right, because there are good things to admire about him and his approach.
My question for you–what moves could he make that would worry you that he is taking a more authoritarian approach? A red flag(s), if you will, that would give you or other TEA Party folks pause? If it worried you, then I would know that I should be worried as well! 🙂
Be well.
Cas
Cas,
You seem to have moderated your certainty about Trump’s faults.
The news media in the US has so fouled their nest that they are less trusted by the people than is Congress and used car salesmen. Trump didn’t cause that to happen. The TEA Party didn’t cause that to happen. The press did it to themselves. They gave in to thinly veiled opinion journalism and censorship by failure to report. US News and World Report, Newsweek and Time died. (Time is back on a resuscitator.) The NYT, the WaPo, and hundreds of small papers have shrunk to mere skeletons of their former selves. ABC, NBC, CBS are just three channels among the hundreds of others and no better garbage than the rest. They have no cache.
So, when you speak of the “press” as having some sort of fourth estate integrity, you are hallucinating. People simply have ignored them for headline “news” which flash by on Yahoo, Twitter and YouTube.
The judicial branch has been politicized by placing highly liberal judges on the bench who operate on instincts not supported by the Constitution. Judge shopping has become a practiced art of the lawyer class. Therefore, the sanctity and dignity of the law has been seriously undermined by those sworn to uphold it. The system suffers from the exact same disease we “discovered” when the automobile industry was in charge of automobile safety standards. The judicial branch is so divided from within that is can not cure itself. It has largely become a money making racket for the entire legal industry.
The Executive Order is not a feature of the Constitution. It is the outgrowth of lazy, incompetent and partisan legislative sloppiness. Power abhors a vacuum and therefore the Executive Order rose from the ashes of legislative nonsense.
The Trump “phenomenon” is not much different from the rise of FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh. Many people find speaking the truth to be highly satisfying. You should note that the left, in every case has called Trump an “authoritarian/fascist/liar” and FoxNews has been labeled FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar. Do you see the trend?
Well, it has been almost 30 years of Limbaugh and no liberal-type of Limbaugh has arisen to match him, let alone take the wind from his sails. FauxNews just keeps winning the viewers and Rachel Madcow is the lone also-ran from the left. And the poor, mealy-mouthed left is sputtering about impeaching Trump 40 days into his Hitler regime, but they can’t quite name a high crime or misdemeanor for the charge. And, pray tell, are they so stupid that they can’t do the Constitutional math for leveling the charge and holding the trial????
Cas, Read this thoroughly. It is mostly a polemic by a fairly goofy “journalist” but it does finally reach a point of conclusion for the poor dear. My recommendation is based on some fairly accurate information about what Edward Bernays (not mentioned in the polemic) said about the quirk of people’s minds when it comes to public relations:
The author of the polemic goes on to report about the liberal media thus:
As do all good weak-minded folk proceed, the author smells an evil conspiracy. It dare not be that the evil right wing is actually bigger and seeking more and more education about their views. NO WAY !!!! It has to be money, fascists, Goebbels, Dr. Evil, Goldfinger, and dystopia. The sheeple are being propagandized by Big Brother and, upon command, they willingly drag their knuckles down to the square carrying pitchforks and torches.
Cas, you just don’t dare to believe that The Donald is an idea who’s time has come. He simply must be destroyed for the good of the establishment. It is downright “conservative” – isn’t it?
Hi Heliotrope,
Thanks for the reply. As you can imagine, I don’t quite understand things the way that you do!
“You seem to have moderated your certainty about Trump’s faults.”
I know this will sound strange, but I don’t think I have. I agree with you that overall, the left has lost a teeny-weeny bit of its marbles (well, considerably more I grant) concerning Trump. I think this is in part because Trump didn’t fall to events that would have slayed an earlier candidate (remember the days when Hart/Edwards got eviscerated for having a mistress/affair!) during the election cycle and because he says things which are demonstrably false/misleading. But a big chunk is that Trump viscerally pushes buttons that the left can’t stand to get touched. As for me, I like SOME of what Trump has said–the mess in Iraq, the need to tame hedge fund manager capital gains, etc. There is some stuff I dislike, and you can guess my views on those things, apart from his treatment of the Press.
” The press did it to themselves.”
Sure. I am sure that you read or know of The Daily Howler, wherein is basically set out the clownish nature of our mainstream press. And yet, everything you say can also be said about Fox News & Rush Limbaugh (Breibart, etc., though I don’t consider them mainstream; I have listened to RL by the way–a good friend of mine is pretty conservative and we have chatted on occasion while he works making high quality bike frames–subjects range all over the place, and politics is in there when Rush is on!). It regularly trades in its own brand of bias, etc. The difference is that Fox supports Trump, and supports the world view of those who oppose the rest of the mainstream media. And so many agree to let it go, because these sources are the “good guys.” For me, Fox is “among the hundreds of others and no better garbage than the rest.” Of course, I expect that you disagree–but I agree–the trend is the same–crap on each others “news and commentary” sources. It is one reason why I sometimes look at commentators’ sources when claims are made on this site. It is almost always the case that the real story is way more complicated than what it is judged to be. To my mind, folks are often willing to trade in the same sort of actions that you have rightly pilloried those on the left for.
“And the poor, mealy-mouthed left is sputtering about impeaching Trump 40 days into his Hitler regime, but they can’t quite name a high crime or misdemeanor for the charge. And, pray tell, are they so stupid that they can’t do the Constitutional math for leveling the charge and holding the trial????”
No argument from me. It is EMBARRASSING, and makes lefties look like–whatever. Clinton lied under OATH. That is a crime. If President Trump grabs a woman’s private parts on film, and its clear that it is not consensual, than he can go down for sexual assault (he said, she said won’t cut it–indeed his own words did not eventually condemn him). But otherwise… Or if he can be shown to have explicitly traded the influence of his office for economic favours… Or, if we have a clear conversation of him coordinating with Vlad the Impaler to hand over the nuclear codes, then … 🙂 But how likely is that? I don’t get the sense that Trump is going to sell out the US, but I do wonder if the Russians have something on him.
“The Executive Order is not a feature of the Constitution. It is the outgrowth of lazy, incompetent and partisan legislative sloppiness. Power abhors a vacuum and therefore the Executive Order rose from the ashes of legislative nonsense.”
On that, we can agree to disagree. The Executive has to enforce the law, and legislation cannot be expected to think through every contingency. So, there is a place for EOs, in my opinion. The question is rather, are they being used in a way that is constitutional by not abrogating the authority of Congress? I expect that the same arguments that were used against Obama will be brought to bear against Trump. I expect many conservatives to defend Trump, just as many libruls defended Obama, with about as much credibility. The big difference–Congress is in Republican hands–for the moment (probably four years at least?).
As for the link? Thanks, it is a bit full-on, though I get your point about one man’s propaganda being another woman’s education. But the point that people can be targeted with “information” that has a particular slant, or is even out-right false that appeals already to biases is not a fantasy–and that can be a problem. We have evidence of that from the last election cycle. I am sure it will get worse. That is not education, that is pollution. It doesn’t need a web-wide conspiracy. Just people doing what they always do. And if you have some BIG players, so much the better for the side you support. The question I have is whether or not it is any more prevalent than in earlier cycles? My intuition is that the ubiquity of the WWW as well as computer generated information sifting analytics makes its spread easier to happen. Again, I think that Hayek would look at this and say–hey–the marketplace of ideas is OK and you fight it out there. But, if it moves into the realm of the government doing this deliberately (or coordinating with individuals or groups) than I have a problem–and I think that Hayek would also have a real problem with that. What say you? Do you agree with my take on what Hayek would use to draw a line? If not, what do you think?
And that draws me back to my earlier question–where do you draw the line? You have told me that the press gets what it deserves, but that didn’t really answer the question about the authoritarian impulse. Is it if Trump calls Fox fake news? Or some other action or actions? When do you begin to worry?
“Cas, you just don’t dare to believe that The Donald is an idea who’s time has come. He simply must be destroyed for the good of the establishment. It is downright “conservative” – isn’t it?”
Just remember, Heliotrope. In four years–depending on how things work out with Trump and the Republican Congress, you could end up with a populist on the left who more carefully approximates what a majority of people yearn for–especially if the current occupants frak things up. Will we then say together, that individual “is an idea who’s time has come”? Will we end up saying: And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
be well
Cas
Hayek will have to speak for himself. Considering his current state, I suspect that won’t happen. I have no right or even any presumption to stand in for him. He had his concept of purity and like all evangelists, he depended on the flock to adopt and fight for it.
Trump is unique in the lifetime of any living memory of the presidency. He is the oldest man to be elected to the office and with two terms, this will doubtlessly be his last great accomplishment. Why did he seek the job? For the prestige? He mastered in prestige. For the grandeur? His plane was not up to Air Force One, but he wasn’t flying around on a ruptured duck. For the sport of it? His campaign schedule was a rough and frenetic as they come? To feed his ego? He took a continual licking and kept on ticking. Why did he draw those enormous crowds? Why did the loons who supported him drive so far and stand for so long on the mere chance that they might get inside and be close enough to actually see him? Who is this guy? The opposition has no clue. So, being DemonizingRats, they demonize him. He is a propaganda spouting, Svengali/Rasputin with delusions of consequence and relevance; a pied piper of lemmings, malcontents and misfits; a charlatan, mountebank and con-artist; a braggart, liar and self-aggrandizer.
Fine and dandy. That is what they have got. The same was thrown at Clinton and Obama. Now we can look back and see what the two boy presidents accomplished of lasting importance. And Trump will have his record of accomplishment as well.
One rather refreshing aspect of Trump is that he is not being continually painted as stupid. Not like Reagan was or the father and son Bushes were.
The DemoningRats are in a pickle of their very own making. They have a veto proof control in 5 states and control the legislature is another 8 states. The Republicans have a veto proof control in 17 states and legislative control in another 15 states. In 2018, 33 Senate seats are up for election and the DemonizingRats hold 25 of those seats. 10 of those Democrat seats are in states carried by Trump. I am not a prognosticator, but unless the DemonizingRats catch lightning in a jar, things look pretty bleak for them after the 2018 elections. Naturally, any president would be reading these tea leaves.
This election brought a lot of folks out who are sick and tired of the establishment professional politicians, the establishment liberal bias of the media, the lousy state of the economy, the mystery of why illegal immigrants will be our salvation, the truth about Obamacare, the dirty politics inside the IRS, the bias of the Department of Justice, the phony stuff about race and gender and marriage and safe places and all other manner of derangement syndrome weeping and wailing. And, generally speaking, they do not see government run salvation as any sort of answer. And, they do not see how open borders and entitlement welfare can do anything but speed up our economic decline.
So, since the DemonizingRats and the liberals/Progressives have no appealing alternative agenda, they demagogue and demonize and hope Trump eviscerates himself or something unmentionable neutralizes him. Some program that is. Stir up the deranged and throw gasoline on the fire.
Meanwhile, Trump does things his way. He is a master planner and he builds a master team who layout the process. He is not an ideologue and he pays no attention to appeals to ideology. He settles his path and he moves forward. He has Pence to coach them on Congress and generals to coach them on the Pentagon and Tillerson to rewire State and dump the dilettantes and Haley to stiff arm the UN and so forth. Trump is the chief of state and they are his division commanders. Its not rocket science, but it is also not recently seen in establishment politics. Quick, name Obama’s cabinet people. Or those of the Bushes or Clinton.
Just exactly what do you expect the likes of Chris Wallace, Matt Lauer, Chuck Todd, Racheal Madcow, Whoopi Goldberg, Bob Woodward, Bill O’Reilly, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Seymour Hersh, Diane Sawyer, Chris Matthews, Tom Friedman, Ted Koppel, George Stephanuplegus, Judith Miller, Ed Henry, Jon Stewart, David Remnick, Christiane Amanpour, etc. to drill down on Trump besides political theater side-show crap? Trump has arranged a serious crowd of doers who have plenty of experience swatting at gnats and putting up with fourth estate unearned pretentiousness.
Will he succeed? Take your question to a bookie and put your money where your mouth is. That is the stuff that finances pay-day lender loan sharks.
Until the DemonizingRats can come up with actual matters of fact to lay on The Donald, they are whistling past the graveyard of their own creation. They have to come up with a definition of “divided” which does not translate to “my way or the highway.” What compromise are you offering from the left?
Hi Heliotrope,
Thanks for your reply.
“Hayek will have to speak for himself.” He does–in his texts and in our thinking about what he wrote. The question I asked is what you think of Trump’s actions in the face of Hayek’s ideas about creeping authoritarianism and the role of propaganda / education in this process. What would actually make you think twice about DT’s intentions? I get that you like the man and his accomplishments. You appear to see nothing exceptional about his approach, and yet, I suspect that if someone on the left were President now and acted the way that DT is in moving forward, you would be a most unhappy camper. And I don’t think I could argue against you on that front, if you did decry it (e.g., Obama’s use of drone strikes against US citizens overseas; continuing escalation of the security-surveillance state, etc).
I guess, from reading your reply that you don’t worry about Trump and the moves he makes in terms of the Press, etc. What matters is that he not betray the ideals that you hold as a TEA Party member. Is that right? As long as he does that, other actions that he takes that could be widely construed as having an authoritarian impulse or damaging to the democratic process would be acceptable to you. If I have misconstrued your views, please let me know.
“What compromise are you offering from the left?”
I would imagine that Democrats in Washington DC will offer the same willingness to compromise that Republicans offered Democrats when Democrats held the Presidency these last eight years. Or do you understand it differently, Heliotrope?
Cas,
Indeed I would. You seem impervious to the divide in our country.
The 2016 election was the most crucial election since Lincoln. The “left” is not just an extension of the right. The left is anti-Constitution and hell bent on statism, the nanny state, the government as progenitor of the culture, full blown S•O•C•I•A•L•I•S•M.
Obamessiah added more national debt in his eight years than all of the national debt accumulated from Washington through G.W.Bush combined. He and his Harry Reid-ites ceased having budgets and slopped along on continuing resolutions and created skyrocketing new debt along in spite of record high tax receipts. They busied themselves adding new rooms to a burning house without so much as a tea-cup of water thrown on the flames.
2016 meant that we continue on this downward slide to national insolvency and our posterity can just suck on it, or we find someone — anyone — who will fight the dragon —- and with all good luck — S•L•A•Y H•I•M.
Here is the thin line that divides us from being the longest continuous government in the history of the world and becoming a socialist bureaucracy of tax and spend corruptocrats: Adherence to the Constitution.
Cas, it is the socialist state which masters security-surveillance. Our Constitution guarantees enumerated protections against government intrusion. Liberals have so screwed that up, that we could possibly now have to move toward a national identity card which would be necessary for identification including voting. Certainly, there would be leftists screaming KGB, Gestapo, and all other sorts of references to socialist states run amok. But, when the rule of law becomes so selective that “sanctuaries” spring up to protect criminals, the greater good must prevail, because the crooks and liars won’t honor the code of justice.
Droning “US citizens” who are working to overthrow the Constitution is a nuance without a distinction. Shoot them, throw them in a military brig, drone them, or whatever, not every circumstance in the rule of law is cut and dried in terms of ethics. And with the leftist bent for moral relativism and situation ethics, I far more mistrust a liberal than I do a conservative. Hell’s bells and peanut butter, the womb is supposed to be a safe place, yet liberals get all stumpy-foot over how lobsters are treated and are perfectly fine with having a human life torn apart and sucked out. They even wear pink hats to prove their point.
Absolutely not, if they are not Constitutional.
You know, Cas, you live and breathe on conditional terms and imprecision. “Widely construed” and “damaging to the democratic process” are judgment phrases without authority. No constitution is written with many of those terms because they are the devil’s playground. We have some in our Constitution: “due process,” “cruel and unusual punishment,” etc. But your “conditionals” are steeped in some sort of consensus of righteousness.
What, pray tell, constitutes an authoritarian impulse? Would that be ramming Obamacare through in such a convoluted manner that no person can explain the Constitutional process employed in a simple paragraph or two in a civics textbook?
We the People are going to take our government back from you the emotional basket cases and restore it to firm Constitutional footing. California is toying with having their own state healthcare system. That is how it should work under the Constitution and good luck to them with that. When the people of Oregon slip over the “border” to leech off the taxpayers of California, I am certain the LaLaLanders will be of good cheer and throw in a fruit basket as a door prize.
I have never had a productive back and forth with a modern liberal. They simply can not obey the rules of logic. It is as if their brains are infested with need to rely upon ambiguity, equivocation, obscure/slippery definition, false dilemma, etc.
If Trump fails and the socialists re-group, the country is so closely divided between “what can we do for ourselves” and “what can the government hand over to me” that the threat of socialist Statism looms over us.
For Trump to succeed, he has to greatly reduce the authoritarian regulatory bureaucracy, restore the fact of the rule of law, establish control over our borders, and root out corruption in the government, industry, banking, and wherever it preys on the people. He must also weed out the courts of those who legislate from the bench. And Congress must be made to quit their ingrained habits of sloppy and imprecise legislating. How is it that we “need” to create evermore laws? Every law curbs freedom. Trump must restore lost freedoms by loosening the insidious grip that vague and capricious laws have on the lives of ordinary citizens.
You are a statist. I wholeheartedly oppose statism. You are happy with the statism you support. What is there to “compromise?” You fight against freedom, individuality, free will, and liberty. I fight to preserve them. If this were a typical socialist vs. freedom war, your side would have inquisitions, a stasi, a KGB, a gestapo, disappearances, or any other police force working in secret against the government’s “opponents.” You love to believe that Castro, Mao, Stalin, and the rest were horrors of the right. In fact, your socialist statism is designed to control the food source, the income, the housing, movement within the country, the health care, the livelihood of every man, woman and child. Socialism trades freedom, individuality, free will and liberty for lessening some of the misfortunes of risk. Charity evaporates in favor of public care.
Marx was not big on altruism as a guiding force. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is a formula, not an inspiration. It may sound high-minded, but it is merely a statement of the concept behind the distribution and redistribution of wealth.
A study of welfare in Rhode Island found that a non-working single woman with two children would receive $6,648 a year in cash; $6,249 in SNAP (food stamps); $12,702 in housing subsidies, Medicaid (worth $11,302 in health insurance premiums in 2015); $275 in heating assistance; $300 in Emergency Food Assistance; $1,156 in WIC food subsidies. This is equivalent to a mother with two children working and paying Social Security taxes earning $43,330 a year, or $20.83 an hour for a 40 hour week.
At what salary does it begin to make sense for a woman with two children to get off of welfare and take the risks involved in supporting herself?
You socialists, can not answer that, because you have no metrics for measuring the forces of human nature. But silly old common sense tells you that some people might not settle for a welfare level standard of living, while others can grow quite used to it. George Sand noted: “Charity degrades those who receive it and hardens those who dispense it.” But, socialism is an entitlement and so is doesn’t so much “degrade” as it numbs and establishes a sense of a “right” owed to you just for being an organism being rewarded by society for nothing more than the fact that you exist. Under that rubric, you own nothing in return.
Hi Heliotrope,
Thanks for your reply.
“Here is the thin line that divides us from being the longest continuous government in the history of the world and becoming a socialist bureaucracy of tax and spend corruptocrats: Adherence to the Constitution.”
At last I have the principle that you would use to help you draw your line with regard to DT’s actions. If he sticks within the confines of the Constitution, than you are on board. Have I got that right? If so, I am utterly confused by your argument that follows. To whit:
“Droning “US citizens” who are working to overthrow the Constitution is a nuance without a distinction. Shoot them, throw them in a military brig, drone them, or whatever, not every circumstance in the rule of law is cut and dried in terms of ethics. And with the leftist bent for moral relativism and situation ethics, I far more mistrust a liberal than I do a conservative.”
Since when is the adherence to the Constitution a matter of ethics alone (apart from the duty to adhere to the law of this country or accept the consequences of that disobedience)? What authority does the President appeal to when he makes that call to go outside the Constitution? It ain’t the Constitution! So what is that authority? Working outside of or with a disregard for the law–hmm, how is THAT for a starting basis for “constituting” an “authoritarian impulse”? You trust the moral relativism and situational ethical decision making of conservatives and their nuances. Good for you. Would you concede that that looks as arbitrary a set of behaviours as the other side you detest? The whole point of the Constitution and why we follow it is exactly because men are not angels. The Road to Hell, as you well know, is paved with good intentions.
It interests me that conservatives and libertarians think that Hayek speaks only to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am enjoying my discovery of his ideas. Hayek believed in the power of constitutionalism (flawed as it might be) exactly because of this claim that this “is a nuance without a distinction.” Do you really believe that only “statists” can try to impose their will on others? Hayek talked about TECHNIQUES of encroaching authoritarianism. Those are not used alone by “statists.” You rightly hammer leftists for this kind of thinking. How can you argue for a “limited government” when you apparently support a government’s ability to transgress the limitations the Constitution places upon them in order to achieve its ends? Why support it for your own side–because they will exercise this discretion to violate the Constitution better? How could you possibly know? There were plenty of scandals in the Reagan administration …
“Cas, it is the socialist state which masters security-surveillance.” Do you think the security-surveillance state was the product of Democrats alone? I seem to recall the active participation of the other side, and I am dead certain that President DT will be a VERY enthusiastic supporter of more intrusion–for the greater good and to keep us safe–of course! Do you really believe otherwise? Or is this example where the conservatives doing it is OK because their hearts and intuitions are in the right place so they will respect citizens’ right better than the libruls would?
“Liberals have so screwed that up, that we could possibly now have to move toward a national identity card which would be necessary for identification including voting.” Hmm, an identity card. So, it is the libruls’ fault that the government needs to have one? Sorry, I don’t buy it. Are the actions of states (as part of a Federalist Constitution I might add) in providing “sanctuaries” unconstitutional in your book? If they are, there is a remedy–a remedy that (in the case of voting restrictions) the courts have been loathed to side with the more numerous conservative state administrations, because–these proposed laws violate the Constitution! If these city actions are not unconstitutional, what is the point of this claim of yours apart from increasing centralized control of the citizenry and augmenting the surveillance-security state you clearly dislike?
“You fight against freedom, individuality, free will, and liberty. I fight to preserve them.” You are entitled to your opinion on that claim Heliotrope, but I am not the one who is OK with governments working outside the limitations imposed by the Constitution or who is OK with a national identity card–even if it is for what you think is the greater good.
I hope you found my views unambiguous and clear enough.
Be well,
Cas
Cas,
It isn’t.
Now you taking a specific and making a generalization.
The droning of a US citizen (your example) is about killing a US citizen who has gone over to the terrorist to aid them in overthrowing the Constitution. The Constitution gives no guidance, the Geneva Conventions have no guidance. This is a Commander-in-Chief war time decision, even though the “war” is undeclared since there is no sovereign country to declare war upon.
Sanctuary cites are walking on thin ice. If they are going to circumvent the rule of law for their own reasons, then they have no compelling claim that the rule of law from outside of their control should protect them. That is to say, the entire gamut of police powers of governments beyond their sanctuary borders can be denied them. The entire concept of picking and choosing which aspects of the rule of law that will be respected and which areas will be ignored is entirely outside of two hundred years of experience under the Constitution, save when the southern states attempted to leave the union.
This has gone way far afield in the manner in which you dragged your whims around in days gone by.
finis
Hi Heliotrope,
Thanks for your reply.
You and I both know that you will come back and read this reply even if you won’t feel comfortable acknowledging it. Its OK; your sense of curiosity will bring you back–that is something I like and respect about you. It is my hope that you realize that I have been signaling to you that I am not going to go off on you, even if you try to provoke me with the nonsensical “statist” crap, et al. Some habits are unhelpful; its simplistic and beneath you. One day, you are going to have to take a chance and risk really engaging with folks like me.
“I have never had a productive back and forth with a modern liberal. They simply can not obey the rules of logic. It is as if their brains are infested with need to rely upon ambiguity, equivocation, obscure/slippery definition, false dilemma, etc.”
I call bull shennanigans on this obviously self-reverential claim, your lame final “finis,” and raise you a “you have to be joking.” You want a dialogue, you are going to risk having one–not lecturing me on the inevitably correct vision that you hold. I am broadening my horizons by reading your foundational texts–not to critique alone but also to LEARN. What are you doing?
You have to recognize that this claim of yours is very weak sauce:
“The droning of a US citizen (your example) is about killing a US citizen who has gone over to the terrorist to aid them in overthrowing the Constitution.”
No, its about an extra judicial killing of someone that some folks THINK is guilty of a crime. Or worse… Government has never been wrong, and killing a US citizen who may or may not be involved as collateral damage is just okey dokey. You cannot possibly believe that! Its beneath you and the principles that you have espoused consistently (your love of the Constitution being Number One) ever since I stumbled upon this motley bunch at GP.
The reason why you couldn’t get me off my game in this conversation is because you know–instinctively–that there is a real problem in this country at the moment. That the folks that are in charge are not really conservatives in the mould you relate to, and that there is something very suspect going on. We both know this. Why deny it? The contradictions–one of which you held and which I pointed out to you–are too great to ignore. You have too much integrity to allow this game to continue.
We are not each other’s enemy, Heliotrope. It is my hope that one day you will understand this, take a chance, and open up to REAL dialogue. You are a smart guy, and I have learned a lot about conservative principles from you. I will piss you off, but I will always do my best to understand and respect your position. I expect the same consideration. We are going to need good faith and that kind of respectful and rational dialogue in the future. Its going to be a rocky time for this country. And it will need people who really love it AND its Constitution to see us through.
Please give it some thought.
Be well,
Cas