Donald Trump

'Failing NRO Magazine' Is New Target for Donald Trump's Ire

Dilbert creator explains why Trump is so effective at dismantling his opposition.

|

This week, the conservative National Review (NRO) published a collection of anti-Donald Trump pieces aimed at taking down the Republican presidential frontrunner. (Read Matt Welch's coverage on the issue here.)

Trump of course took to Twitter to respond to NRO, calling the magazine a "failing publication": 

National Review is a failing publication that has lost it's way. It's circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2016

NRO is not the first to come at Trump, and it's dubious to assume their anti-Trump position will do anything to affect his lead in the polls just weeks before the primaries commence with the Iowa caucuses. 

Trump's ability to weather criticism and dismantle his detractors has become a case study in campaigning—the more negative news and insults that come his way only help to raise his poll position.  

In the video below, Dilbert comic creator Scott Adams thinks he knows why Trump has been able to escape criticism and explains why The Donald's skills at manipulation will win him the GOP nomination. 

Donald Trump has a way with words—and with people. Yet despite his popularity, he has been a mystery to the media, which have mostly derided his campaign as consisting of nothing more than random insults and ignorant bluster.

Scott Adams, prolific author, blogger, and creator of the massively popular comic strip Dilbert, has a different theory. He tells Reason TV's Zach Weissmueller that the media are being trolled by a skilled manipulator, or in Adams's parlance, a Master Wizard. So exquisite does Adams believe Trump's skills to be that he predicts The Donald will go on to win the presidency.

"What I [see] in Trump," says Adams, is "someone who was highly trained. A lot of the things that the media were reporting as sort of random insults and bluster and just Trump being Trump, looked to me like a lot of deep technique that I recognized from the fields of hypnosis and persuasion."

One such technique is what Adams describes as a "linguistic kill shot," in which Trump uses an engineered set of words that changes or ends an argument decisively. According to Adams, when Trump describes Jeb Bush as low energy, Carly Fiorina as robotic, or Ben Carson as nice, he's imprinting a label you already feel about these people. They're not random insults, but linguistic kill shots that you can never get out of your mind.

Similarly, where the media see random insults, Adams sees Trump creating a significant polling gap between those who attack him and those who compliment him, resulting in chilled aggression from his opponents. Trump, says Adams, uses "anchors," which are big, visual thoughts that drown out any other argument. Think, for example, of the billionaire's florid descriptions of a Mexican border wall.

Adams also describes Trump's use of "linguistic Judo," vagueness, and a carefully developed persona to defend himself against attack and promote the image he desires. "You see apple pie and flags and eagles coming out of his ass when he talks," says Adams.

NEXT: Revisiting the U.S. Constitution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So Adams has correctly identified Donald Trump as the anti-Christ.

    1. The Great and Powerful Oz.

      1. The Impetuous Vortex.

        1. Unfortunately, I believe Trump also channels Ming the Merciless, but none of the other candidates are Flash Gordon.

          And now Bloomberg is thinking about running as an independent.

          I blame it on global warming.

    2. A master sociopath, well honed in manipulative skill…

      1. He is a salesman.

  2. You know who else used “a carefully developed persona to defend himself against attack and promote the image he desires”?

    1. Agile?

    2. Everyone, dude. Everyone.

    3. Ric Flair?

      1. WOOOOOOOOOO!

    4. Teenagers?

    5. Cosby?

  3. Reason’s Anti-Trump blog posts are from a failing libertarian publication that has lost it’s way. It’s Hit and Run comment threads are full of trolls and is a hive of scum and villainy. They’ve lost any influence they never had anyway.
    Sad.

    1. The worst part about all of this is the its/it’s crap in the original tweet. When a presidential candidate can’t get that right, we are doomed.

      But yeah, for sure about the scum and villainy.

      1. Probably done on purpose. “He tweets just like me!”

      2. When a presidential candidate can’t get that right, we are doomed.

        More likely, we’re doomed because the flunkeys that a presidential candidate hires to run his Twitter feed can’t get that right.

    2. That’s only because Virginia Postrel left.

      1. I’m pretty sure we are not supposed to talk about Virginia. I don’t know why, though.

        1. LUCY DAMNIT!!! DON’T TALK ABOUT LUCY!!

    3. You were at New Republic. Suggest you go back.

    4. Slammer makes sound points about the collapse of Reason as force for liberty, instead now pimping for the States Rights Totalitarianism of Ron Paul and his cult of followers. But as far as Reason has fallen, to this 40-year reader, they’re still well above a psychopath like Trump and his low-information voters.

      Hissy fits are not governance. How can Trump achieve ANYTHING in a Congress filled with what he calls “losers and morons?”

      Trump proudly states that he’s never gone bankrupt. All those bankruptcies were his corporations, not him personally. And the low-information media misses the real issue. All those bankruptcies screwed the shareholders, his investors, the people who trusted him most. And he’s still throwing them under the bus. Yes, a psychopath, by definition, totally lacking in conscience. And almost always … charming. Imagine a black widow spider, with a beaming smile.

  4. Adams sounds like an overpaid consultant.

    Trump is simple. Attack your critics. Never admit a mistake or weakness. Extol how great your supporters are and how great it’s going to be with you in charge.

  5. Trump is an imbecile and anyone who would even consider casting a vote to make him the most powerful man in the world, is fucking insane.

    That is all.

    1. So, you’re a Hillary man or feel the Bern?

      1. Yeah because the only choices are

        The moron
        The corrupt aristocrat
        Or the guy who turned a Delorean into a time machine.

        1. Yeah because the only choices with a chance of winning are

          The moron
          The corrupt aristocrat
          Or the guy who turned a Delorean into a time machine.

          (assuming Trump gets the GOP nom)

          1. Do you get to cash in a 2 dollar ticket if you pick the winner? Or do you envision it is going to be a national tie and your vote is going to be the deciding factor? Unless it is one of those two who cares whether you vote for the winner?

            I will tell you one thing. If Trump is the nominee it is going to be President Corrupt Aristocrat or President Michael J Fox’s side kick and it will be by a landslide. Have you seen his polling numbers with independents?

            1. I live in OH. My vote counts.

              As bad as Trump would be, Hillary or Benito would be worse.. And with 2 SCOTUS seats to fill we will suffer from that for a generation.

              1. No your vote means nothing absolutely zero. It will have no impact whatsoever on the outcome. Certainly you recognize that? Personally I hate to say this but I would rather see any candidate from either party over Trump and almost every last one is a steaming turd of epic proportions. That tells you how incredibly awful Trump is.

                The red button would need to get a restraining order against him. Would you really want to give that guy the power to blow up the world?

                In any case it doesn’t matter. For Trump to get elected you would need the other candidate to be arrested as a serial killer 2 weeks before the election. If I am telling you I would prefer that half wit socialist over Trump it is a good indication of how awful he is.

                1. Rudehost nails it like a laser-guided hammer. Anyone who thinks Trump would be better than Hillary or has a chance of beating her is detached from reality.

                  1. I think it’s a push. Both in electability and in likely damage. And Sanders would be as bad as Hill. Hard to believe these are actual options.

                  2. I think it’s a push. Both in electability and in likely damage. And Sanders would be as bad as Hill. Hard to believe these are actual options.

                2. Lyndon Johnson won his first election by one vote.

                  That one vote went on to change the history of the world.

                  A close look at Hillary’s reign at State should convince the most ardent Trump hater that he would be better than somone willing to take bribes selling his/her office in the open while occupying a cabinet level position.

                  Trump already polled higher than Clinton and even Bernie beat her in a poll by Drudge asking a simle question. who would you vote for for President ? A poll with that clear question is biased only by those it is asked of. Since Bernie came in second only to Trump and ahead of Cruz I’m not thinking the polling base was pre biased toward a Republican.

                  He can win and is masterfull enough of the process to blast her out of the waters.

                  For good or bad.

                  1. “A close look at Hillary’s reign at State should convince the most ardent Trump hater that he would be better than somone willing to take bribes selling his/her office in the open while occupying a cabinet level position.”

                    No it wouldn’t. Hillary isn’t talking about Smoot-Hawley 2.0 and probably isn’t mentally ill in the way Trump probably is. America can live with corruption not Trump.

                    “A poll with that clear question is biased only by those it is asked of. Since Bernie came in second only to Trump and ahead of Cruz I’m not thinking the polling base was pre biased toward a Republican.

                    He can win and is masterfull enough of the process to blast her out of the waters.”

                    …what?

                  2. A close look at Hillary’s reign at State should convince the most ardent Trump hater that he would be better than somone willing to take bribes selling his/her office in the open while occupying a cabinet level position.

                    I have no difficulty seeing Trump doing the exact same thing.

                    Clinton and Sanders worry me less because they are known commodities. They’ll be awful in ways that presidents and politicians of all stripes have been awful for decades now.

                    Trump is an unknown commodity. He could end up being no worse than any of the other hacks, which seems likely, but he could also end up being all the worst things people say he is.

                    1. “I have no difficulty seeing Trump doing the exact same thing.”

                      Well you are postulating on what he might do.

                      With hillary we have proof as she has already done it. with the power of the oval office she would be just that much worse. She negotiates a trade deal and then next week our new trading artner donates 1 billion dolars to the Clinton Family Slush Fund. ?

                      No thanks.

                      Like the eloquent George Bush once said, ‘fool me once shame on you. fool me twice…won’t get fooled again”.

                    2. So we’ve established they are both awful, which is why I won’t vote for either.

                    3. In that case i will vote for trump only because that might make the press do their fucking job for the first time in a decade or more.

                      With Hillary we will have more sycophants, with Trump we might have some investigative journalism ala Nixon for a change..

                    4. I think I understand what you are going for, but *if* Trump magically made partisan hacks act in a way that is a little less hackish, it won’t be because they’ve suddenly seen the light on the abuse of power or the need to hold politicians accountable. It will be because they hate Trump. So we’ll have 4 years of that, with an extra vigorous culture war, and when it’s all said and done nothing will have changed, except that we’ll be worse off, yet again.

                      If your plan is to vote strategically for Trump because it will ______ , then you are going to be sorely disappointed. That’s true of most strategic voting.

          2. What the fuck does winning have to do with it? You’d vote for Stalin just because he’s not Hitler if they were the only two with a chance of winning?

            Cuz that’s pretty close to where we are at.

            1. I don’t see Trump as having any governing philosophy. He is just careening from issue to issue, saying whatever comes into his head. A random number generator, if you will.

              Hillary and Benito embrace wholeheartedly an evil philosophy.

              I’m willing to roll the dice with Trump rather than take a certain big loss of freedom with either donkey.

              1. He has made some very authoritarian noises. That seems to be the one common thread and one that should concern you outside of the stupid he wears proudly on his sleeve. In any case it seems naive to assume letting loose a rabid bull in a China shop is the least damaging option. I am not convinced he would not nuke some city because someone offended him. He is the only candidate I would put in that box.

                  1. This.

                    And that. Or this and that. Or maybe just that. Depending.

                1. rudehost: That’s absurd. If Trump were the sort of person who would nuke someone if he could, wouldn’t there be some evidence of that by now? Words and actions are different things. Trump likes winning, and clearly wants to be admired (like all politicians). Flinging nukes around for no good reason is not the way to win, so I seriously doubt he’d do such a thing.

                  1. “If Trump were the sort of person who would nuke someone if he could, wouldn’t there be some evidence of that by now? Words and actions are different things.”

                    Wow typically brilliant line of thought right there. “He hasn’t nuked someone so there’s no reason to believe that, after he gets the power to, he will nuke someone”.

              2. “I’m willing to roll the dice with Trump”

                See my original comment.

              3. BigT puts it well.

              4. “I don’t see Trump as having any governing philosophy. ”

                Then you haven’t been paying attention. He’s a nationalist/fascist. Even if he didn’t nuke anything, he’s nuke the economy with Smoot-Hawley 2.0.

                1. Since you don’t have a vote why don’t you go sit in the corner and shut up.

                  You have your own worries up north that you don’t seem to be handling very well so why don’t you fix your own problems before telling others how to handle theirs.

                  1. “Since you don’t have a vote why don’t you go sit in the corner and shut up.”

                    I don’t know. Watching you have a fit over someone calling out your bullshit is pretty amusing so Imma stick around.

                    1. There ya go buddy.

                      Focusing your attention on me rather than your obsession with the US is is a good thing.

                      That’s an improvement for you.

                2. Hopefully when President Trump does S-H 2.0 it destoys Canada’s economy so that your mom has up the number of tricks she turns by an order of magnitude and forces you out of her basement for good.

                  1. LO fucking L

                  2. That was directed at Cytotoxic.

            2. You’d vote for Stalin just because he’s not Hitler if they were the only two with a chance of winning?

              Have you forgotten WW2?

              1. HE CLEARLY FERGOT MURICA.

              2. No, I haven’t forgotten WW2, and I’d prefer not needing to remember WW3.

        2. There are always other choices. You might not like them, they may be more effort than you’re willing to exert, but there are always other choices.

        3. Yeah because the only choices are

          FdA’s already admitted that he’ll vote for Hillary if Trump is the R nominee.

          1. Then he’s smarter than I thought and smarter than a bunch of the posters in here.

            1. People who would vote for Hillary because they’re scared of what Trump would do are completely unhinged. Putting aside all of the day to day evil that is Hillary, she is undoubtedly compromised – she took bribes from foreign governments and most likely was hacked while SoS. Plus, she would get to appoint a couple of leftists to the SC.
              Hillary as Pres is a non-starter for anyone who cares about this country.

              1. She is awful but still better than Trump. There is no reason to believe that Trump wouldn’t appoint awful judges and Hillary doesn’t want mass deportations as far as I know. If she’s compromised maybe someone smarter than her or the doofs in charge for the last few decades will be calling the shots.

                1. No she is not. Hilliary is a war mongering bribe taking known crook. Trump might not be good but could be no worse. There is a possibility he would be OK but no possibility with her.

                  Since you have no say in the matter and based upon the leader your own country just elected why don’t you direct you worries toward the stick in your own eye and let us US citizens worry about the splinter in our own.

                  Never in my life have I seen someone so obsessed with other people’s business, especially when their own house is pretty fucked up..

                  1. “There is a possibility he would be OK”

                    No there isn’t. This is just hope and anti-Hillary sentiment talking.

                    1. It is definately anti Hillary sentiment just as you post is anti Trump sentiment.

                      Hillary has already proven as Sec State that she is willing to sell out her country for personal gain. The potential of how much damage she could do holding the office of the most powerful and influential person in the world is staggering.

                      Trump is by no means my 1st choice and hillary is my last.

                      I think ted cruz is actually a statesman based on his pre election rhetoric and post election actions.

                2. She is awful but still better than Trump.

                  Trump hasn’t actually had classified information on a non-secure server in clear violation of information security law, so no, she’s not.

                  The fact that FdA is willing to vote for the bitch says he doesn’t really give a shit about the rule of law as long as the person he hates doesn’t end up in office.

                  1. Does it really need to be said that I was being facetious?

                    1. Yes it did but I am glad to know that you were.

                      It seemed to be in contradiction to my imression of you based on past posts.

                3. +1 Harriet Miers

              2. Vote for a moron to save us from a crook.

                Super logic.

                1. Fuck you, FdA–you know damn well that if you or I did the shit she did with classified information we’d be crucified. The fact that she’d have your vote says it all, really.

                    1. Write-in for Rand.

          2. I should too. Just to spite all the morons here voting for Trump. They certainly deserve it.

            But instead, I’ll likely vote for Gary or write-in Rand.

            1. Who here has said they are voting for Trump ?

              Certainly not me. i have made my position clear for some time now that i support Cruz based on his pre electioin rhetoric compared to his post election actions. They match exccatly and for me that is unique among politicians.

              If forced to chose betwenn Trump and Clinton I will vote for him though.

              Just the thought of rewarding a self serving thief who insults the entire country by asking with false innocence , ” you mean with a cloth” when asked if she wiped her illegal server turns my stomach.

              I would rather elect our own Turd than Hillary.

              1. If you vote for a conservative, you are part of the problem.

                If you vote for trump, see my first comment above.

      2. So, you’re a Hillary man or feel the Bern?

        Thanks! I forgot that Hillary, the Bern and the Donald are the only Presidential candidates this cycle.

        I’ve lived in Ohio, and somebody should recruit Kasich to run. Can’t always agree with him, but he’s the best qualified governor.

    2. A compelling argument.

      1. It’s not an argument. Simply a statement of fact.

    3. I bring you the the NTSB “Most Wanted List”. Among the items listed is that the states should change BAC limits to 0.05% and cars should come with automated braking.

      A choice selection:

      With more than 90 percent of transportation-related deaths each year occurring on our roadways, we look there first as we begin to define the problem.

      Well, I’m fucking sold. No room for argument there.

      Frank, my lad, most of the species is three bricks shy of a shithouse, and thinks the only serious problem today is that we don’t give in and join the madness.

      1. Ultimately, fatigue-related accidents can be avoided with a combination of science-based regulations, comprehensive fatigue risk management programs, and individual responsibility.

        Emphasis added. Looks like NTSB dropped the ball on this one.

        1. Ultimately, fatigue-related accidents can be avoided with a combination of

          science-based regulations: Top. Men.

          comprehensive fatigue risk management programs: Extensive regulation and crony busy-bodyism..

          and individual responsibility: And accepting the fact that it’s all your fault if this scheme fails…

          Sounds about right.

      2. I would be surprised if 90% of transportation related deaths weren’t on roadways. People drive a lot. Of course it would be better if fewer people died in car crashes. But that’s a problem with the absolute numbers, not the percentage.

        I always think it’s funny when people assume that because X is the leading cause of death among some group, X must be some kind of crisis. For example, if car accidents, or even drug overdoses are the leading cause of death of teenagers, that’s kind of a good thing (unless the numbers are really huge). At least it means that young people aren’t dying from violence or disease, but from their own stupidity or carelessness. Seems better than a lot of the alternatives.

        1. Tripping and falling on the way to the fridge is both an alcohol and transportation related injury.

          1. “Most Americans think we have solved our nation’s drunk driving problem. We haven’t come close. Impaired driving is a national epidemic. Every hour, one person is killed and 20 people are injured in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver. That adds up quickly to nearly 10,000 deaths and more than 173,000 injuries each year.”

            It takes some serious digging to find that “involving an alcohol-impaired driver” is code for “the driver with the BAC does not have to be the one at fault”.

            It takes no digging at all to determine that twenty years of compiled data and laws enough to choke a socialist, have had no measurable effect toward their stated goals. They come right out and admit that.

            1. By the time I graduated high school, I’d estimate that at least 10 of my friends had DUIs (CA has a .01 limit for under 21 drinking and driving). Half a can of Coors light = jail time. USA FOR THE WIN

              1. Because nothing ensures future success like a criminal record.

        2. because X is the leading cause of death among some group, X must be some kind of crisis.

          A *Population* Crisis?

        3. And since life is responsible for 100% of deaths perhaps we should not only legalize abortion but insist on it.

          maybe that would make the do gooders happy.

    4. make him the most powerful man in the world

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

  6. I can’t argue that Trump seems to have some kind of enchantment on the feeble minded in the Republican party but I don’t for the life of me understand how. The guy is an asshole and an empty suit. Everyone in the country (Independents,Libertarians, Proggies who granted hate almost everyone) consider the guy a joke. At the same time he has mesmerized about 40% of the Republican party despite a history that says they should loathe him.

    Someone needs to write a paper explaining this.

    1. “… All experience hath shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

      1. Yeah but I don’t think Jefferson claimed people would seek out new evils like extra toppings on a sundae.

        1. “Yeah but…”

          ….

          Sigh.

          1. Butt Yeah 1!!

    2. Mark Steyn went to his Vermont rally and analyzed a lot of his behaviour really well. The short version is that Trump comes off as a semi-honest anti-establishment candidate that has directly recognized the fears and issues of voters who both the Republicans and Democrats have either ignored or actively demonized. He comes off as far more human and ‘down to earth’ than politicians who are focused on consistently repeating their campaign promises and never going off message. He cracks jokes and interacts with his audience. Even when Trump is calling for heinous policies, he’s still being extremely optimistic, something that most other candidates completely lack. Trump isn’t repeating utter lies about how the recession is magically solved and America’s still wonderful, he’s actively accepting the views of many people who believe America is in decline (largely due to the decline in their own standard of living) and promising to fix it.

      This article is infinitely better than anything Reason has published on Trump because it’s less vapid hit piece and more ‘what, exactly, is this guy’s appeal?’.

      Note that Steyn’s probably a bit in favour of Trump, just because he’s been arguing for immigration restriction on Muslims for the last decade or so. But he’s not some populist, he’s old school Tory (I mean, he still uses the term ‘Mohammedans’ for Christ’s sake).

      1. But he’s not some populist, he’s old school Tory (I mean, he still uses the term ‘Mohammedans’ for Christ’s sake).

        True Tories won’t acknowledge him as one of them unless he also uses the term “Hindoos.”

    3. Trump’s popularity isn’t that hard to understand. For years now, the wealthy, most secular, urban-dwelling left have shown contempt for the poorer, Christian, rural right. It’s been pervasive in movies, TV, music, art, journalism (outside of talk radio and few other outlets), and academia (especially outside of more technical fields). To be fair, the right has shown plenty of contempt for the left, but the right has also seen its power and influence wane. When the Democrats still heavily relied on blue collar union workers, the contempt wasn’t as bad, but as that base has eroded its become more overt. Meanwhile, the left has held up as paragons of virtue classes that have generally been the opposite of how the conservative right at least likes to view itself (workers vs welfare recipients, traditional families vs new norms surrounding homosexuality and marriage, white vs minorities, etc.). The conservative right used to look to Republicans to defend their values and interests but there is now a realization that mainstream Republicans are not that much different than mainstream Democrats once rubber meets the road.

      1. So there is a huge constituency that feels hated by “elites” on the left and center-right and that feels like it has no voice and has generally been losing the culture wars. There is enough resentment built up there that they now want to get some contempt and hate and revenge of their own. So Trump comes along and pisses off all the right people, revels in the behavior that mainstream society has tried to marginalize, and tells people they should be proud of all those things that the elites have been criticizing them for. His appeal is emotional and tribal, so it hardly matters at all what his policies are. What matters is his attitude and how it appeals to a group that has felt disenfranchised for a long time.

        Which is all a long, drawn out way of saying that Trump is a populist. And that is worrying because populists tend to care little about liberty and are more than happy with authoritarians that serve their interests. The populist backlash isn’t usually pretty.

        1. And none of that is meant to absolve Trump’s supporters and to put the blame squarely on the left and establishment right. It’s just an observation about why he’s popular.

      2. “For years now, the wealthy, most secular, urban-dwelling left have shown contempt for the poorer, Christian, rural right.”

        And apparently it was 100% justified.

        1. A lot of the awful stuff coming out of the Right that Trump is taking advantage wouldn’t have been so bad had it not festered for years. Had the left felt marginalized you’d see them getting their hate on, too.

          Again, none of that excuses the blatant racism, xenophobia, and enlightenment attitudes that Trump is playing off of. My point is only that everyone has bad tendencies, and those tendencies only get worse when people feel like they are being ignored or betrayed by the current culture and power structure.

          The lesson here is to actually to listen to people, even if you don’t culturally align with them, and to try and address their concerns within your chosen philosophy.

          1. enlightenment

            Did you mean “entitlement”?

            1. Oh, I actually meant *anti*-enlightenment. Entitlement works too, though.

          2. Unfortunately we are past the point where libertarians can come along and win over Trump supporters with a consistent platform of liberty. There is just too much anger now.

            1. That assumes Trump supporters were interested in liberty in the first place, as opposed to animus against those they deem as “not deserving” of entitlements.

              1. I think most people are interested in 1) having the right moral buttons pushed, and 2) having their immediate concerns met. Liberty might not be high on the moral radar for everyone, but that doesn’t mean you can’t use libertarian ideas within another moral framework to address some group’s other concerns. Market environmentalism is a good example from the other end of the spectrum.

              2. …as opposed to animus against those they deem as “not deserving” of entitlements.

                I’ve found the most common Reddit political belief floating around is ‘fuck people on welfare and SJWs, but where’s my free university and healthcare?’

                Only the good volk get winterhilfswerk apparently.

    4. Lots of blue collar moderate/conservative Dems in the NE/MW are also part of the Trump fan group, not just feeble minded Repubs.

      1. Not to mention a significant percentage of blacks and Hispanics, who admire his success and aren’t thrilled with the open borders policies of both major parties.

        1. Trump is the candidate Hispanics hate most bar none.

          Trump is viewed unfavorably by 80 percent of that demographic, the group reported Tuesday. Of that total, 59 percent have a “very unfavorable” opinion of the real estate tycoon heading into 2016.

          http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo…..-hispanics

          I’ll take these poll numbers over Scott Adam’s psychobabble.

          No party hold open-border policies that is a product of your addled mind.

          1. OK, but what percent of the Hispanic vote did Romney get?

            Our policies aren’t pure, Cytotoxic-approved open borders, true. I was using shorthand. The point is that many blacks and Hispanics want immigration laws enforced, and both parties are very half-hearted about that, for different reasons.

            1. ” I was using shorthand. lying” -FTFY

              “The point is that many blacks and Hispanics want immigration laws enforced”

              I see not much evidence for this, and it’s moot anyway as is your question about Romney’s hispanic support. The point is the same: Trump is hated.

            2. Cyto completely buys the racist bullshit that the only thing ‘hispanics’ care about is unlimited immigration of more hispanics – because of racial solidarity or something.

              Anyone that has lived in proximity to actual hispanic Americans knows that is bullshit.

              1. Anyone that has lived in proximity to actual hispanic Americans knows that is bullshit.

                Like me? My wife is Hispanic. She (and basically every other Hispanic) don’t really care about the borders policy either way. What they DO care about is the racist rhetoric around it.

                1. Was there a real need in you to reiterate his point, or did you think you were refuting him?

                  1. Excuse me. I’ll seek your permission next time I post.

      2. Yup. The non-union ones, anyway.

  7. Since Trump’s rebuttal quiver consists of 3 flavors of ad hominem, it can be distilled to the “you’re a towel” tactic.

    Therefore, with great humility toward my fellow commenters, I would like to propose, henceforth, we refer to Trump only as “Towlie”.

    1. Donald wants to get high?

    2. Well a towel is the most massively useful thing any interstellar citizen can vote for.

    3. I’m game.

  8. If success can only be attributed to genius, then Adams must be a creationist, right?

  9. “Dismantle” is not the word use to describe what Trump does. Ridicule seems like a more appropriate choice.

    1. I would use. Stupid voice text.

  10. People aren’t listening to what Adam’ saying. If you know anything about marketing and advertising you kow humans are easily emotionally manipulated – but nobody will ever admit that they were emotionally manipulated, they will insist their decisions are the rational result of critical thinking. Homo sapiens is not a thinking creature, homo sapiens is a rationalizing creature. We make decisions based on feelings and then think up reasons to explain to ourselves why our decisions were the result of our careful consideration and not our feelz.

    Somebody trying to sell you something has to get you to believe he is not manipulating your feelz, you have to believe that buying this thing is a smart, logical decision. IOW – he has to be able to fake sincerity. A good salesman can fake sincerity enough that you don’t realize he’s faking – a great salesman can fake it so well you actually question whether he’s faking and conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s not faking.

    Adams is pulling back the curtain on Trump and showing you all the ways he’s manipulating you to get you to think you’re thinking the way Trump wants you to when you are simply reacting at an emotional level – Trump is a master of manipulation.

    1. BUT HE’S NOT – Adams is the manipulator. Adams can manipulate you into believing a clown like Trump is a master manipulator. And that’s the point of his blog – you are not a rational creature, you can easily be manipulated and the sooner you understand that you are a slightly-less-retarded baboon than a retarded baboon, but a retarded baboon nonetheless, the less-retarded you’ll be. He’s telling you to wake the hell up, accept that you are an idiot who will swallow poison if you’re convinced it’s candy and it’s very easy to convince you that poison is candy. Look how easily I can convince you a retarded baboon like Trump is a freaking genius, and I’m doing it while I’m telling you right to your stupid retarded-baboon face that you’re a retarded baboon who will believe any kind of shit somebody tells you!

      1. Apple is a case in point. Apple products cost more, they can’t easily be customized to suit the user, you have to go to Apple if you want add-ons, Apple deiberately makes it so you can’t add stuff because they insist they know better than you how to operate the equipment, it’s not compatible with the vast majority of other equipment out there, they regularly come out with new stuff to obsolete the old and make you buy new shit – in every conceivable way, Apple is an inferior product.

        And yet people will not only buy Apple crap, they will insist buying Apple crap is the intelligent thing to do. Apple has convinced people that Apple is a superior product but Apple’s superiority is such a subtle thing that only really smart, sophisticated, discerning, good-looking and sexually-desirable people are able to grasp the superiority. You buy Apple crap for the strictly emotional appeal of being seen as one of those superior people, but you insist you buy Apple products because it’s a logical choice and if I can’t understand the logic of buying Apple products it just means I’m a stupid, ugly, sexually-undesirable clod.

        Would you buy an Apple product if it prominently featured a Dell logo on the case?

        1. Apples are reliable as all fuck, they are far less prone to viruses and malware, and they have cool design.

          I’m typing this on a Dell laptop, but I’ve owned Apples before and if you like well made products and are willing to pay a steep premium for that, they can be a reasonable choice.

          1. “Apples are reliable as all fuck, they are far less prone to viruses and malware’

            Not to take sides in a pointless debate –

            but the Gen 1 macbook was an unreliable piece of shit 30% of which melted themselves from the inside because of poor ventilation and badly designed chip-management

            How many early iphones DIDNT shatter their screen?

            they’re only ‘less prone to viruses’ because there are fewer people using them doing unimportant shit. i assure you, if Goldman Sachs were all using Macs, you’d have all the same virii as everyone else.

            1. End result is no viruses.

              Apples are great for protecting retarded baboons from themselves.

          2. That was once true to some extent, but no longer. Windows has closed the gap in stability and OS X has gotten worse as resources have been diverted to iOS crap.

            Currently my Mac is more stable running Windows 10 in Boot Camp than the latest version of OS X (El Capitan). Which is fucking sad.

            1. My 4-year-old Mac is perfectly stable running El Capitan, so my pointless anecdote cancels out yours. Plus every new OS release is free, the developer tools are free, and the base OS is Unix. These are not trivial differences.

        2. One thing manipulators do when arguing against a particular option is describe the disadvantages of that option, ignore the advantages of that option, make up fake disadvantages of that option and then deflect from the possibility that other people might have different preferences than the manipulator by disparaging those people as logically inept.

          1. Clearly, you should continue to buy a product with planned obsolescence as the central business plan just to show people you are above their manipulative ways.

            1. You can’t have rapid technological progress without “planned obsolescence.” That’s one of the sillier gripes about Apple. “A year or two later they came out with something even better! Waaaah! Why can’t progress stop once I buy something?”

              1. When you can swap out computer components you can do something about that. Not with Apple.

                1. You can only do that if your computer is large enough to allow it. Technological progress and advanced design makes things hard for users to service. That’s just a tradeoff. Shade-tree mechanics can’t gap the spark plugs on a new BMW, either.

                  1. “You can only do that if your computer is large enough to allow it. ”

                    Which almost all of them are.

                    1. You swap out components from your phone, tablet, or laptop? Good luck with that. Yeah, you can do it with a beige box. And with a Mac Pro. But most people don’t do that, and don’t care.

            2. The entire smartphone industry is predicated on planned obsolescence. This is not an exclusive Apple trait.

          2. It’s perfectly legitimate to argue that a person’s different preferences are illogical.

            If you pay double for shiny plastic with a logo on it, and less flexibility of use, I’m going to call that out as illogical.

            1. What if that shiny plastic thing draws favorable attention from people you want to notice you?

        3. Jerryskids: I was with you at first, but you went off the rails. Yes, it is possible that Adams is manipulating everyone, but not to that degree. If he were, he’d be able to do it for any candidate, and he’d have been called out in his blog comments far more than he is. Also, his predictions about Trump have been dead-on for months. Nobody else was as correct as he was about Trump. So I can’t square that with him faking it about Trump.

          Re Apple, you are simply wrong. I’ve lived most of my adult life in the worlds of design and computers. Apple is doing many things different than any other electronics OEM. A lot of it comes from Jobs’ ex-hippie acid-head worldview, which I share to some degree.

          That doesn’t mean Apple products are perfect, or for everyone, or that there isn’t a lot of fanboyism around them. But their popularity is not some sort of marketing illusion supporting an inferior product. Scores of millions of happy customers can’t be so blithely dismissed. They aren’t all just hypnotized into liking their iPhones.

          1. “. I’ve lived most of my adult life in the worlds of design and computers. Apple is doing many things different than any other electronics OEM. ”

            Yes. They are far bolder in swindling stupid people. “You know what’s cool? Paying inflated prices for outdated hardware!”

            “But their popularity is not some sort of marketing illusion supporting an inferior product. Scores of millions of happy customers can’t be so blithely dismissed.”

            Yes it is and yes they can.

            “If he were, he’d be able to do it for any candidate, and he’d have been called out in his blog comments far more than he is.”

            …what?

            1. If you think the hardware in an iPhone is “outdated,” you’re either ignorant or deluded. As is often the case.

              If you had been reading Adams’ blog and the intense and often intelligent comments he gets, you would know that it makes no sense that he’s simply picked Trump as a way of proving “I can convince people that anyone is a Master Persuader.” He’s talking about Trump because he thinks Trump is one.

              1. That’s one phone, and it’s still not the best of 2015: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ew…..76c9373c1. Their computers suck.

                “I can convince people that anyone is a Master Persuader.”

                Except that wouldn’t work with other candidates because THEY DON’T DO WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT. As for his predictive capability: he was 1) lucky and 2) tuned in to how retarded GOP voters are.

                1. Yikes! Apple laptop revenue share exceeds Windows PCs

                  Measured as sales through the U.S. consumer retail channel, Macs reached rather shocking milestone during first half 2015, according to data that NPD provided to me today. Yes, you can consider this a first, and from lower volume shipments. By operating system: OS X, 49.7 percent; Windows, 48.3 percent; Chrome OS, 1.9 percent. That compares to the same time period in 2014: OS X, 44.8 percent; Windows, 53.1 percent; Chrome OS, 2.1 percent. So there is no confusion, the data is for U.S. consumer laptops.

                  Any list of “best laptops” will have MacBooks and MacBook Airs on it.

                  1. I’ve always been a windows over Mac guy, going back to the early nineties. But I’m finally sick of Window’s and Microsoft’s bullshit and will begin switching my computers to Macs as they need to be replaced. The final straw for me was I recently bought a new Windows 7 machine (which was surprisingly hard to find) and installed Office 16 on it. That product is a complete peice of shit, demonstrably worse than 07 or even 02.

                  2. I’ve always been a windows over Mac guy, going back to the early nineties. But I’m finally sick of Window’s and Microsoft’s bullshit and will begin switching my computers to Macs as they need to be replaced. The final straw for me was I recently bought a new Windows 7 machine (which was surprisingly hard to find) and installed Office 16 on it. That product is a complete peice of shit, demonstrably worse than 07 or even 02.

                    1. I’m not an evangelist on these sorts of things, but there are some excellent Linux distributions out there now. Installation is a breeze and they support 99.9% of the things the typical use will want to do on a computer. You can put both Linux and Windows (or Mac) on the same computer if you don’t want to completely switch over. Look into Linux Mint or Ubuntu.

      2. I like this theory. Adams has been pushing this for months in an effort to drive traffic to his blog.

      3. QUIT MANIPULATING ME !!!1!!

    2. How often do you see words in your alphabet soup?

      1. I see words in my alphabet soup all the time. Once they formed a random pattern that spelled out the words “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

        It reminded me that the over-riding principle of the Universe is that shit happens. There’s no rhyme or reason, no meaning and no purpose. And yet human beings are hard-wired to find meaning and purpose, to find patterns and explanations. They simply cannot accept that the meaning of things isn’t unknown because we haven’t yet learned the meaning, the meaning is unknown because there is no meaning. It’s why all peoples and all cultures throughout all of human history have found it necessary to invent God – everything is rational and explainable even if the reason and the explanation is only God.

        And that’s why people are eager to swallow any sort of nonsense you tell them if they don’t know the answer and you tell them you have it. “God is the reason” is no more or less persuasive than “Jews”, “Muslims”, “Mexicans”, “the rich”, “the GOP”, “the banks”….. As long as there’s a reason, as long as there’s somebody controlling things – no matter how malevolent – at least we can take comfort in knowing there’s somebody at the controls instead of confronting the horrifying reality that there are no controls.

        1. “I see words in my alphabet soup all the time. Once they formed a random pattern that spelled out the words “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.””

          You must be consuming a butt-load of Alpha-Bits.

    3. “Adams is pulling back the curtain on Trump and showing you all the ways he’s manipulating you to get you to think you’re thinking the way Trump wants you to when you are simply reacting at an emotional level – Trump is a master of manipulation.”

      It’s coming across as if he’s saying that because Tom Brady is excellent at throwing the ball accurately to his receivers, he must have an excellent understanding of physics.

      But if you gave F=ma to Tom Brady on a true or false test, his chances of getting it right or wrong are probably 50/50.

      1. It’s coming across as if he’s saying that because Tom Brady is excellent at throwing the ball accurately to his receivers, he must have an excellent understanding of physics.

        Don’t know if you didn’t see the rest of the post, but that is I think exactly what Adams is saying. But I suspect Adams doesn’t believe that for one second – he’s convincing a lot of people to believe it as a simple exercise in proving that it’s a piece of cake to convince people to believe utter nonsense.

        1. Trump’s fans want to believe that there’s a master plan.

          I’d rather disabuse them of that notion.

        2. If he wanted to convince people of utter nonsense, why pick Trump? Why pick someone widely regarded as a joke candidate six months ago, and predict he’d take the nomination and the election with 65% of the vote? It’s not as if Adams’ predictions had some sort of mass influence.

          1. “If he wanted to convince people of utter nonsense, why pick Trump?”

            Because that was the candidate that his ‘theory’ applied to. Duh.

      2. “But if you gave F=ma to Tom Brady on a true or false test, his chances of getting it right or wrong are probably 50/50”

        “Oh yeah!? WELL “F” YOUR MA!”

      3. But he knows all about PV=nRT.

        1. Heh

        2. Nice.

    4. Jerry,

      It is worse than that. Without emotions humans can’t think. The brain is an analog computer. You can train it to do sums (adjust the emotional potentials) but it ain’t natural.

      1. I seem to recall experiments where subjects are offered a choice of things and there’s a thought process whereby they weigh the options and choose the better option and afterward they’ll explain how they reached the conclusion that the chosen option is better than the other. But the actual evidence collected indicated that the choice was made prior to the subject thinking about it and that the thought process involved was not actually deciding which option was better, the thought process was the subject thinking up a rationale for his irrational decision. Same thing with hypnotized subjects, you can get people to do ridiculous things but if you ask them why they’re doing it they will come up with a reason to explain why what they’re doing isn’t ridiculous but in fact they have a very good reason for doing what they’re doing.

        1. I’m starting to see why there’s such thing as an autism supremacy ‘movement’.

          1. If those autistics want to be supreme, they’re going to have to get past us sociopaths first. We’ve spent a long time studying human beings and trying to figure out what makes them tick so that we can better pretend to be human beings, without them catching on to the fact that we’re merely mimicing them. It’s harder than you may think for us to pretend to be one of you humans because you so often act without thinking whereas we think about everything all the time and therefore actually have to think about acting as if we are acting without thinking.

            1. I am interested in your newsletter…

            2. In the great Sociopath-Autistic War I’d know who’s side I’d be betting on.

              1. Why choose when you can be BOTH?

    5. If you know anything about marketing and advertising you know humans are easily emotionally manipulated – but nobody will ever admit that they were emotionally manipulated, they will insist their decisions are the rational result of critical thinking.

      Yeah I’m reminded of the neuroscience studies a few years back showing that damage to the frontal lobe results in poor decision making.

      I experience this firsthand in my job as a designer. I’m always perceived by non-designers (who don’t know me well yet) as being no better than a silly emotional artist (while they are logical and practical with real jobs), yet their confidently stated views on design are rarely more rational than “I like it” or “I hate it”. Their decisions are no less emotional than how they perceive me to be, but the difference in titles and their inability to intelligently rationalize anything I do makes me the emotional one.

    6. If you know anything about marketing and advertising you know humans are easily emotionally manipulate

      Yeah, but the smart marketers know how easy it is to overcome.

  11. “A lot of the things that the media were reporting as sort of random insults and bluster and just Trump being Trump, looked to me like a lot of deep technique that I recognized from the fields of hypnosis and persuasion.”

    This isn’t necessarily evidence of calculation.

    Manipulative and abusive spouses tend to use the same kinds of techniques that mind control cults use when they “brainwash” their believers. Abusive spouses tend to disturb the sleep patterns of their victims, cut off their victims’ contact and support with friends and family, and convince their victims that they can’t trust their own judgement. Illiterate, hillbilly, wife beaters don’t use these sophisticated techniques because they’ve thoroughly researched the academic literature and understand the psychological process of mind control. They simply go with what has worked for them in the past (maybe what they saw dad do to mom), and learn that when you do X, you tend to get certain results.

    1. Why are they illiterate hillbillys ? Couldn’t they as well be educated lawyers from New England ?

  12. Donald Trump has spent 30 years in the tabloids, manipulating the headlines, experimenting with results both of what has worked against him (which he directs at other people) and what has worked for him. He knows what works and what doesn’t. It isn’t that Trump is using the techniques of hypnosis and persuasion to get what he wants. It’s that the legitimate techniques of hypnosis and persuasion get results, on the one hand, and Trump also knows how to get the results he wants on the other. Like an effective street fighter, who couldn’t explain the forces of physics behind an effective punch to save his life but through experience knows how to throw an effective punch, Donald Trump seems like a genius at what works in the media.

    But just because what Trump is doing is effective doesn’t mean that it isn’t random insults and bluster and just Trump being Trump. Illiterate wife beaters can effectuate mind control. It doesn’t mean they understand psychology.

    Butterflies can make it from Canada to the same grove of trees in Mexico where their grandparents were born. That doesn’t mean they understand the principles of navigation.

    1. Donald Trump has spent 30 years in the tabloids, manipulating the headlines, experimenting with results both of what has worked against him (which he directs at other people) and what has worked for him.

      It’s honestly baffling that so many people in the media don’t understand this. Maybe it’s because a lot of journalists today are millenials who don’t remember Trump’s marriage scandals, the USFL thing, or his roller-coaster financial history (the latter of which they only vaguely understand through other people mentioning it in passing). But he’s been in the spotlight for a looooong time, and has an intimate knowledge of how these conglomerates operate, particularly in his own backyard. It’s a big reason why he’s such an effective troll.

    2. Effective in a tactical sense maybe. Not in a strategic sense. He’s really messed up his brand with all this.

      He is forever going to be labeled a racist and misogynist.
      He’s never going to get a network TV show again.
      He’s not going to be able to do business with high-powered execs anymore.
      Any business associated with him is going to suffer for that association.

      And he has no chance of becoming president. He would lose the Hispanic and female vote by the biggest margins in history, and whatever gain he might make among white males would not be enough to counteract that. This is assuming he gets the nomination, which is itself dubious.

      The past year has been great for his ego, but once it’s over he’s going to be much worse off for what he’s done.

      1. I think you’re wrong. He hasn’t destroyed his brand. And yes, he has a very good chance of becoming president.

        1. “And yes, he has a very good chance of becoming president.”

          Not in this reality.

          1. I’ve offered to bet you, and you’ve ignored it. I say if it comes down to Trump vs. Hillary, or Trump vs. Bernie, Trump wins. Wanna bet?

            1. If I had money to spare I might. In any event I am uninterested in indulging internet-dwelling peons in such a manner. Or most any manner.

              1. Your flailing is pitiful. I build corporate websites for Silicon Valley money. I believe you wash test tubes somewhere. Of course you have no money to spare.

                How about this: loser has to change screen names here, and stop being an insulting asshole. (I admit I have no risk with that second part, because I’m only an insulting asshole to people like you, who are that way to me first.) But that’s my offer.

                1. Crickets….

                  How about winner picks the loser’s screen name?

                2. (lol)

                  He says this:

                  and stop being an insulting asshole

                  and this:

                  Your flailing is pitiful …. I believe you wash test tubes somewhere. … Of course you have no money to spare….. this loser …. stop being an insulting asshole

                  And they vote. And build websites!

                  I’ve been building websites since 1994 ,,,, but I never realized that would justify me being a foul-mouth hypocrite. Anyone surprised he or she is also a Trump supporter? Nobody could invent anything funnier!

                  (Except maybe a pissing match between Cytotoxic and Papaya.)

                  1. You should know by now that Cytotoxic can barely make out a grocery list without an ad hominem attack. Yes, sometimes, in response to his insults, I insult him back. So sue me.

              2. You have no money to spare on a bet to back up your predictions yet you refer to those who do as peons ?

                That’s interesting.

                Drudge just took a poll of who would vote for whom for prez, no party mentioned.

                Interestingly enough Trump was 1st but Brenie was 2nd. Cruz was third by a significant margin so it wasn’t just conservatives voting.

                Hillary was towards the bottom.

            2. Unless you’re betting in Bitcoins or BisonBucks or whatever, the Canadian dollar is so poor right now that it’s hardly worth it.

              1. Perhaps that explains his obsessive compulsion with US politics.

                It allows him to focus on someone else’s problem rather than face his own.

        2. His negatives are too high among swing voters to win the Presidency.

          Trump just wants to be on television.

          He wants to be President because it means he’ll be on television a lot.

          As long as he draws eyeballs and viewers, he’ll still be able to find a show somewhere.

          But if he wins the nomination, a Democrat will win the White House.

          1. Or Bloomberg. Maybe.

          2. I’m not so sure Ken as far as the television think goes.

            He’s been on the tv. He can be on tv all he wants. Been there done that.

            I think he has set his sights higher than TV.

            I think he wants to go down in the history books as a US president.

            1. Then why does he act like such a blooming asshole?

      2. “He is forever going to be labeled a racist and misogynist.”
        -He’s running as a Republican, this happens irrespective of what he says.

        “He’s never going to get a network TV show again.”
        -Are you sure he wants one?

        “He’s not going to be able to do business with high-powered execs anymore.”
        -Spoken, I guess, as an intimate in the world of high powered execs.

        “Any business associated with him is going to suffer for that association.”
        -If so, there should be evidence of that right now. Let’s watch for it.

        1. Homple is correct.

      3. He’s a lot more popular among the women I know than the men. It’s a small sample group sure, but most people don’t give a shit about the ex-wives. Especially considering how common divorce is today.

  13. “””National Review is a failing publication that has lost it’s way. It’s circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!”””

    That is all true.

    1. I like many of the articles, but they get no revenue from me.

      I like Williamson and Cooke. I often enjoy Goldberg. I liked VDH for years, but now he mostly talks about dangerous Mexicans in the California Central Valley. Even if I sympathize, I don’t really care.

      VdR is good, but how many times can I read about Ex-Im?

      1. “How ancient Greece would have responded to the Brown Horde invasion”

  14. Trump essentially repeated this on Face the Nation a few minutes ago.

    A Bernie Sanders interview followed where I learned that the United States is the ONLY nation without paid family/medical leave.

    1. I get paid family/medical leave, and I *think* I live in the United States, but I guess I could be wrong…

    2. It’s the only thing stopping us from competing with the economic juggernauts of Greece, France, and Venezula!!1!!111!!!

    3. Seriously though, explaining that we have the only government that doesn’t COMPLETELY feel it has a stake in what compensation I choose to sell my labor for should be a point of pride (or at least tell us how much of a nightmare everywhere else must be to anyone who’s paying attention to our government).

    4. All those countries with worse economies have X. Therefore we must also have X.

  15. Listening to NPR blare in the background…a bunch of TED talks on the seven deadly sins.

    Some rich guy from Seattle who doesn’t know exactly how many houses he has…but he knows we need a higher minimum wage (he sponsored Seattle’s), and he knows that rich people face a choice: Support minimum wages and other policies against inequality, or face the wrath of the poor, like the aristocrats of the French Revolution.

    Then a segment on envy, or at least all forms of envy other than socialism.

    1. Or at the rich guy also put it – either raise the minimum wage and support higher taxes, or admit you don’t care about inequality and sit around on your yachts waiting for the poor people to come with their pitchforks.

      1. Of course, another possibility would be to build a big-ass underground compound with killer robot guards and move there when things get hairy.

        But that’s just me thinking outside of the box.

      2. They would come with pitchforks if they had not traded away their pitchforks for a new cell phone and if Maury Povich wasn’t having a “whose the daddy” marathon that week.

        1. Awesome:)

    2. While I disagree with his hypothesis that we’re anywhere near the pitchfork stage, at least he’s coming at it from a pragmatic angle, rather than the nebulous “fairness” angle.

      1. The French Revolution was the exception, not the norm.

        For most of human history, people have been quite happy to avoid revolution and tolerate massive wealth and power inequalities.

        The data showing that poor people inevitably rise up and kill the rich just isn’t there. It’s not there in many places around the world today, and it’s not in history, either, save a few, notable exceptions that some people feel compelled to treat as the only possible outcome.

        1. What the Seattle prick pointedly omits is that people like him, not the poor, are nearly always the ones to lead these “people’s” revolutions.

        2. For the most part revolution doesn’t happen until peope are hungry.

          Let them eat cake 1111!!!!

          1. The world has seen its fair share of peaceful, starving people, who go quietly into the night.

    3. If you raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, you’re going to get wrath from the people who already are making $15/hr who would be pretty displeased about being on the bottom of the income ladder.

    4. I too used to think that keeping The Poor quiet with lots of welfare was a good idea. I think that was around junior high school?

    5. Solution for dumb rich guy: Sell a few houses, and pay your employees more than the current minimum.

  16. Trump will be the nominee barring some kind of historic collapse. Whole swaths of the Republican Party are coming to terms with a Trump nomination. Even supposed libertarians on these comment boards are starting to say “hey, he’s not that bad; he’s likely all bluster and we can likely work with him” (you know who else that was said about? Seriously).

    Consolidation of executive power has been a threat, not just because of the potential for abuse or damage from well-meaning idiots, but because that power could someday end up in the hands of a dangerous demagogue. Trump is such a dangerous demagogue. There is no evidence that he can be worked with or guided if he becomes president; the amount of power America has willfully given the president will mean he can implement his plans — whatever those may be — without input from anybody.

    1. “Even supposed libertarians on these comment boards are starting to say “hey, he’s not that bad; he’s likely all bluster and we can likely work with him”

      That isn’t my read at all.

      Somethin’ happened to John over the holidays, and he went all anti-Muslim.

      Is that what you’re talking about?

      I went so far as to suggest that Trump might be better than either Democrat by virtue of not being openly hostile to capitalism, but that’s about the limit of the enthusiasm I’ve seen for Donald Trump from libertarians around here. Oh, and in that same thread, I repeatedly referred to Donald Trump as a wanna be strong man and a shithead.

      Just because I think Trump might be better than one of the Democrats doesn’t mean I think we can work with him. I expect to oppose President Donald Trump on almost every single thing he tries to do from the first day he takes office.

      Saying, “Donald Trump is better than Hillary or Sanders” is a polite way of saying “Fuck Donald Trump”.

      1. If Hillary becomes president, the Rupublicans in Congress will oppose her.

        If Trump becomes president, everyone will oppose him: all of Team Blue and all the establishment GOPers.

        Gridlock FTW.

        1. I expect he’ll make common cause with each of those constituencies on whatever issue comes up.

          “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons”.

          Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102

          http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel…..ontrol.htm

          1. He does live to make deals

          2. He’s even more of a narcissist than Obama. At least BO has some principles, but Trump would go in whatever direction stroked his ego the most.

        2. You mean the establishment GOP that is falling in line with Trump?

          If you want gridlock Hillary’s your girl.

          1. That and Hillary is a small time crook. Donald thinks in much bigger numbers.

        3. The President doesn’t need Congress to do squat. That precedent is already being set with BO.

          1. Yes, all those happy progs with their pens and phones will be in a world of hurt if someone with the same attitude toward Presidential power but a different letter after their name wins the White House.

    2. Even supposed libertarians on these comment boards are starting to say “hey, he’s not that bad; he’s likely all bluster and we can likely work with him” (you know who else that was said about? Seriously).

      Hugo Chavez.

      The Trump Rise has been useful in sorting out who has a brain from those who don’t. Not ONE of the people claiming Trump ain’t that bad has given a reason why beyond John-level clairvoyance/mind-reading.

  17. I’m disappointed at the lack of enthusiasm for making America great again.

    1. If Murika is great again, that means less orphans free to polish stuff, so why would libertarians want it?

      1. I thought great meant more orphans?

  18. It’s idiots like NRO who are making Trump’s poll numbers just go up, running stupid shit like this:

    Trump = Iranian Mullah

    1. Well that, and the establishment GOP is starting to support him because they hate Cruz

      “The bottom line is many people around here think Cruz would be worse for our chances of keeping the majority,” said a senior Republican senator, who requested anonymity to speak about Cruz frankly. “He’s so polarizing, it could be a wipeout.”
      Trump is by no means a favorite within the Senate GOP conference, but lawmakers feel he has more crossover appeal with independents and swing voters. And even while they find many of his comments annoying, they like him more than Cruz.

      1. I don’t know much about Cruz, but that claim seems pretty amazing to me. Cruz is more polarizing that Trump?? Trump has crossover appeal??

        1. They are completely insane. If Trump is their nominee, they may never reverse the damage completely.

        2. Yeah, I don’t get that either. Cruz is widely disliked and would be a terrible general election candidate, but he’s not really polarizing.

          1. Cruz has a chance and wouldn’t tarnish the GOP forever. Trump doesn’t and would.

          2. He is polarizing among GOP Senators.

            1. No, he isn’t. They all hate him.

        3. Cruz took concrete steps towards actually reducing government spending. Even when people called a meanie-head. Can’t have that, makes everybody look bad.

          1. Cruz took concrete steps towards actually reducing government spending.

            It’s called playing to the voters. Done by all of then, even to submitting bills that will never see the light of day. Few take it seriously.

            Likewise, Cruz wanted to shut down the federal government to defund Obamacare, with no credible alternative/ Probably why virtually the entire Senate hates his guts.

      2. Yes, Trump is bragging about how the establishment is lining up behind him. Seems like a shift in his campaign strategy, but Dole, Lott and other establishment types prefer Trump because they can make deals with him. So much for Trump the Anti-Establishment candidate. The establishment detests Cruz.

    2. Seeing this idiocy too often: “Trump is awful, but don’t criticize him because it helps him.” BS. Besides, trumps base doesn’t know nor care enough about the current and historical basis for conservative, classical liberal, progressive, etc ideologies, much less read publications devoted to their exploration. They’re just “mad”, damnit!

      1. It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

      2. “Trump is awful, ….. criticize him because it helps him.”

  19. Love Trump, hate Trump, indifferent about Trump (I personally can’t stand the guy), you have to admit the man is a master of manipulating the media and spinning even negative coverage to his advantage. He’s going to leave the sclerotic National Review battered, bruised, and regretting they didn’t keep their heads down. They haven’t been an effective torchbearer for conservatism since William Buckley was put in the ground and the rank and file Republicans don’t get their cues from them.

    1. Keep in mind that National Review actually criticized Reagan during his presidential run for not being a “serious conservative candidate”. They were ultimately right in some respects, but not for the reasons they ostensibly thought.

  20. One of the essayists was Glen Beck, so yeah, the publication of William F. Buckley has indeed lost its way. The party that gave this guy cover when he was spouting insanity about Obama deserves all that they get from him now. Have fun!

    Oh yeah, Election Betting Odds still has him with a 12 point lead over Rubio. Cruz is dropping like a rock. Enjoy!

    1. “” Enjoy!””

      I guess this is your way of compensating for the shame of Hillary?

      1. No, no, no. He *hates* Hillary, you see. He just likes to tell us about how much he hates Team Red just that much more, for some reason.

        1. You are correct, sir, on all counts. Reason? This website is Team Red.

          1. “”This website is Team Red.””

            Yes, you can just tell by all the partisan-Republican discussion going on here. “THE PARTY!! THE PARTY!! LOOK WHAT THE TRUMP IS DOING TO OUR BELOVED GOP!!”

            1. JnA using accusations of Team Red as an insult is proof that he knows we’re not. Carry on

            2. You have to embrace Socialism and The State to be a true Libertarian. Otherwise you’re team red.

            3. Oh please. This website posits weekly the rantings of neocon Harsanyi, Gillespie constantly tells us the great points neocon Eli Lake makes. In fact, it’s funded by the Koch’s and the Koch’s make possible the success of all kinds of Team Red candidates. Tell me how many commenters here turn out to be apologist for Team Red.

              And please don’t use as an excuse the occasional complaint here about a Republican. Sean Hannity complains everyday about some Republicans. Is he Team Red? You couldn’t be any brighter red, so occasional criticisms hardly defines you as neutral.

              1. This website posits weekly the rantings of neocon Harsanyi

                JOOZ! JOOZ EVERYWHERE!

                JET FUEL CAN’T MELT STEEL BEAMS!

                HARSANYI DID 12/11!

              2. Jackand Ace|1.24.16 @ 2:01PM|#
                “Oh please.”

                Poor shitstain Jack can’t find his echo chamber here! Let’s all wish him a long and painful death.

              3. That’s OK. I assume that the pletura of team blue talking points that you issue on a daily basis establishes that you’re a paid team blue hack, and that all your motives are questionable at best, and vile evil at worst. Therefore, I automatically assume that everything you say is a lie.

                Really, can you prove you’re not a team blue hack? Unlikely, meaning that all my judgements about you are absolutely correct. QED.

          2. “Teh Stupid Party” = term of endearment

        2. Pretty much.

          You can tell that they’re animated by hatred for team red, rather than a love of team blue.

          And that’s the way democrat pols like it. It’s much easier to “not be a republican” than it is to “have ideas, make promises, deliver on said promises, etc.”

          1. Isn’t what you advocate the enantiomer of what you accuse above?

            1. Since you pay so close attention, tell me what I advocate.

              Feel free to go on a team red rant, if you feel compelled to do so. It’s all the rage with some people.

              1. 90% of what I post here is criticizing right-wingers and how we shouldn’t as libertarians align with them at all. As in never– under any circumstance. You seem to go Defcon 1 in response. What is it about you? Rand Paul on the brain? Yeah, I think he sucks too.

                  1. Please, you were in the middle of explaining how exactly right I am.

                    1. And here I thought it was YOU explaining what motivates commenters here who dare to criticize the right. Let me read it again…yeah, you were.

                    2. Whatever your point is, I’m missing it.

                      Diagrams, perhaps?

    2. I haven’t listened to Beck for a while, but I generally don’t think he is all that bad. On some issues he’s actually pretty good. And his radio antics generally amused me.

      1. He’s gone full on cookoo for cocoa puffs in the last 2-3 years.

        1. Yeah, you remember that batshit crazy stuff he was saying about extremist Muslims wanting to start a Caliphate? Crazy talk.

  21. I will be voting for whomever will be the Libertarian nominee, for all the friggin uselessness of voting in a Presedential election. But on that first Tuesday in November I will be much more disgusted to see the Hilldog smiling triumphantly and holding up Dances with Lies (or Julian Castro’s) hand in victory. At least Trump has entertainment value and at least a possibility of not foisting a truly horrible SC Justice upon us.

    1. VERMIN SUPREME FTW

    2. And of course, the fact that he will less likely be able to get anything done than Queen Bee.

      1. Cthulhu 2016

        1. Time to start reading your Lovecraft.

          1. Jackand Ace|1.24.16 @ 12:06PM|#
            “Time to start reading your Lovecraft.”

            Time to fuck off, slaver.

        2. “Why choose the *lesser* evil?”

          1. I align with the greater evil. I have been promised a cut.

    3. My candidate is way better than yours.

      H/T to whichever of you magnificent bastards gave me the link, and trust that my appreciation is in no way lessened by forgetting the handle.

  22. I don’t much care whether Hillary or Trump or Bernie gets elected – although I’m still blindly going with President Joe Biden – because I realize that the same country that produced John F. Kennedy also produced Lee Harvey Oswald. There’s an odd balance in Good and Evil, neither one gets too far ahead of the other and you can’t always tell which side is winning and sometimes you can’t even tell which side is which.

    1. While agree with the assessment that JFK was evil, I’m not so sure that Oswald was good.

      1. “While agree with the assessment that JFK was evil,”

        You hate lower taxes?

  23. My response to Trumps antics is similar to that of watching a WWE commercial. All the bluster, the banality, the insults, the self-promotion, the phonieness of it all. So ridiculas. Yet, I recall stopping in a bar one night where a bunch of WWE fans had it on TV. While I could barely retain my laughter they were eating that shit up. It was kind of sad really. I mean we all have our low brow guilty pleasures but it was all so negative. This has that same feel.

    1. I used to be a WWF fan back in the late 90s early 00s, when Stone Cold and The Rock were at their prime. I was never under any illusion that it wasn’t scripted, but that didn’t make it less fun.

      Watching it nowadays, though, is just painful. They lost a lot of talent both on stage and behind the scenes, and it shows.

      1. I can see the entertainment in it, just not taking it seriously.

  24. I’m tired of reading about the loudmouth and Jack’s innane comments; here’s some New York Values:

    “Officials: 3 New Yorkers died shoveling snow during blizzard”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..779609.php

    Growing up in the snow belt, it was axiomatic that after the first big snow, some old fart would try to save the $5 that the kids charged, head out with the shovel and keel over.

    1. What’s the snow belt? Tahoe?

      1. “What’s the snow belt? Tahoe?”

        We rented a cabin for her folks up there one winter so they could figure out they didn’t want to buy up there. First decent snow and it was ‘Honey, did you buy some wine?’ ‘Uh, oh.’

        1. Yeah, but Nevada income tax. I can’t tell you how many people I know that have “relocated” to South Tahoe when it’s time to sell their business.

    2. Ban shoveling?

      1. A tax will do nicely.

      2. I believe New Jersey has already covered that. Temporarily suspended for reality mind you but still on the books.

    3. Kids don’t shovel snow anymore.

      1. No wonder those coots are flopping!

  25. Scott Adams thinks he knows why Trump has been able to escape criticism and …

    Jeez-us, the very next sentence describes the criticism he supposedly isn’t getting: “the media, which have mostly derided his campaign as consisting of nothing more than random insults and ignorant bluster”.

  26. My prediction: If the GOP runs with Trump, he’ll be trounced. The GOP will split in the aftermath of their defeat. A White Nationalist faction will emerge and the rest of the GOP may join the Democrats, remain in whatever’s left of the GOP, or form a new party.

    1. Well, you’ve been so smart about everything else, I can’t possibly see how you’re wrong about this.

      1. That made me laugh:)

    2. The future alignments are going to be nationalism vs. globalism, not liberalism vs. conservatism. Trump’s candidacy will likely just help speed that along.

      1. “The future alignments are going to be nationalism vs. globalism, not liberalism vs. conservatism’

        Check out Sam Huntington Jr. over here.

        1. You disagree?

          1. not really. see below. the point was that this same argument was famously made in ~1993, and extended into a book everyone criticized but few actually read.

            It was sort of like the “Closing of the American Mind”. something people bought to put on their shelf and impress people when they had them over for cocktails.

            1. I read the shit out of it, mostly as an antidote to Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, and to be honest, I never got the fanfare as it seemed Huntington was merely expressing a truism. Then again, sometimes truisms require close to 400 pages of heft to smash into people’s skulls.

              1. ” I never got the fanfare as it seemed Huntington was merely expressing a truism. “

                Yes. people wanted to pretend what he was saying was controversial, but it was actually how much of pre-modern history actually worked. he was just saying that the conflicts of “ideology” of the 20th century were actually the real historical outlier, and we would go back to the ‘old ways’ lacking any international bi-polar ideological framework

      2. Not mocking – huntington’s main thesis was that the end of the cold-war was the “end of ideology” and the revival of the far-older political dynamic which is all about defining the borders of your “culture” and fighting wars against outside cultural forces that provoke change in your own.

        basically, he saw the conflict between “Islam and the west” and “Latin-America vs. White America” stuff coming 2 decades before it got all Cucktastic.

        no one actually read his book, is why

        1. I’ve read the book. There is no conflict between Islam and the West. The West’s leading power, the US, is in alliance with Turkey, probably Islam’s most powerful military force. The US is in strategic partnership with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islam’s only nuclear power, as well as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The US is also in strategic partnership with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca, the centre of the Islamic world. There is no conflict between the West and Islam. The focus of the conflict that fuels Trump lies within the USA and is broadly speaking, a reaction to the rising influence of feminism and other manifestations of id politics.

          1. There may be no conflict between Islamic governments and the West, but there sure is a hell of a lot of conflict between the Islamic/Arab “Street” and the West.

            1. “There may be no conflict between Islamic governments and the West”

              I also think this is debatable. though i don’t recall if sph said anything about it.

              Islam’s ‘states’ don’t do government the way the west does it. The West declares wars (in theory). We engage in open conflicts. we engage in actual genuine multilateralism.

              Islam doesnt play that shit. they do proxy war, they do bribery, they do assassinations. they do “play people off one another”. they play gadfly and play victim. its just not the same.

              and is the ‘government’ of pakistan really who’s in charge? Is the ‘government’ of the Saudi kingdom reflective of anything other than a rich cabal of bloodsuckers?

              1. Islam’s ‘states’ don’t do government the way the west does it. The West declares wars (in theory). We engage in open conflicts. we engage in actual genuine multilateralism.

                Islam doesnt play that shit. they do proxy war, they do bribery, they do assassinations. they do “play people off one another”. they play gadfly and play victim. its just not the same.

                I don’t think that has to do with Islam per se as much as open conflict is a luxury of more stable and powerful states. Not to mention that we have always proxy war-ed, bribed, assassinated, etc. in the region as well, but we just have the burden of hiding it out of a need to maintain a certain facade of moral superiority. However, if there is currently a lack of conflict between Islamic government and the West, it’s because we’ve decided to squander the hard-won victories of the Barbary Wars and start paying jizya in the form of foreign aid and whatever tomfoolery we allow them with the oil bourse.

                and is the ‘government’ of pakistan really who’s in charge? Is the ‘government’ of the Saudi kingdom reflective of anything other than a rich cabal of bloodsuckers?

                My point exactly. Which leads to the question, “Is Trump the vanguard of an ‘American Spring’?”

            2. “but there sure is a hell of a lot of conflict between the Islamic/Arab “Street” and the West.”

              Not that much conflict between your “Arab Street” and the West. The focus of conflict is within the Islamic world between Muslims. Look at Syria for example. This parallel what’s happening in the USA where whether or not you support Trump is about what’s going on in American society. Islam has little to do with it.

              1. Islam has little to do with it.

                Except that a sizable portion of Muslims in the region believe that the proper course for their society entails a government that adheres strictly to Islamic religious law as interpreted by Athariyya Salafists.

                1. “Except that a sizable portion of Muslims in the region…”

                  That’s true, and it’s also true that a sizeable portion of Trump supporters are hostile to all things Islam. Still, I maintain that the focus of conflict in the ME today is between Muslims and not between Islam and the West. And the rise of Trump can be put down to cultural conflicts within West that Islam doesn’t really play much of a part in.

                  1. ” I maintain that the focus of conflict in the ME today is between Muslims and not between Islam and the West. And the rise of Trump can be put down to cultural conflicts within West that Islam doesn’t really play much of a part in”

                    None of which undermines SPH’s point at all. In fact he goes into depth about how intra-civilizational conflict was going to be as prevalent as cross-civilizational conflict.

                    What you’re failing to grasp is that the existence of disagreement within islam does nothing to lessen the actual existence of a cultural-bloc called “islam”, and its fundmental conflicts with the west, which are not lessened in any way by the ‘focus’ you want to highlight.

                    as already noted, it seems like you got nothing from your claimed reading.

                    1. the actual existence of a cultural-bloc called “islam”

                      Islam is a religion. It is not a bloc. It is not a civilization. Pretending otherwise is the work of a hack.

                    2. The West is not in conflict with the OIC which is simply a talk shop like the UN. The OIC has no army and its leadership has little or no sway over the Muslim world.

                    3. The West is not in conflict with the OIC which is simply a talk shop like the UN. The OIC has no army and its leadership has little or no sway over the Muslim world.

                      You’ve consistently attempt to redefine terms whenever you’re rhetorically backed into a corner. (Not to mention outright lying.) You realize that with all your goal-post shifting that Scotsman will eventually become true again.

                      Again, you mistake my interaction with you as a “debate” or an “argument” when, in reality, I am educating you. Do think so? Explain why @ 2:27 I modified the term “Salafist” with “Athariyya” and it’s import. Considering that such an explanation will take only 2 to 3 sentences you have exactly 2 minutes to reply before it is deemed that you are attempting to Google the answer like the ignorant and mendacious little shit you are.

                    4. And as predicted, mfalseman shows himself to be an insufferable and entitled little techie who thinks that just because he can hack some Python, he can participate in a high-level debate concerning the geopolitics of Islam. Now, have some dignity and quietly exit the thread. Afterwards, you are welcome to rejoin the conversation if you approach it with the sense of humility your ignorance of the subject mandates.

                    5. “And as predicted…”

                      My prediction: If the GOP runs with Trump, he’ll be trounced. The GOP will split in the aftermath of their defeat. A White Nationalist faction will emerge and the rest of the GOP may join the Democrats, remain in whatever’s left of the GOP, or form a new party.

                    6. “I modified the term “Salafist” with “Athariyya” and it’s import.”

                      I haven’t been discussing the various beliefs of the Islamic world, which I know little of. I’m arguing against the contention that the West is in conflict with the Islamic world. I see a great deal of conlfict within the Muslim World and it’s typically between Muslims. Same goes for the culture wars within the USA. Muslims don’t play an appreciable role. If you believe the OIC to have some important role in a civilizational clash between the West and Islam, then by all means educate me.

                    7. Islam is a religion. It is not a bloc. It is not a civilization. Pretending otherwise is the work of a hack.

                      Only a hack would pretend that a civilization is definitively monopolar.

                    8. Today we are all cultural legatees and historical heirs ? whether we can recognise it or not ? of the great “polemic over Muhammad” and of Europe’s defining denial of him. Out of that historic refusal, “Europe” and “the West” were born. On both sides of that great historical schism, we are all today heirs and legatees of that fateful rejection.

                      Yet, all religious questions aside, in political terms and those of civilisational survival Europe had to do exactly that.

                      To have accepted its adversary’s claim, to acknowledge Muhammad not merely as a front-rank historical figure but as their own religious leader exactly as Muslims did, would have been not just to surrender religiously, to “submit” to God in a certain way. More, it would have been to capitulate politically and culturally to the world of Islam, to accept its civilisational ascendancy …
                      … [cont.]

                    9. “The polemic over Muhammad” has been the crucial defining issue, the original source of antagonism. It had been one of the key defining axes of world history for centuries. The world had endured a millennium of contention between Christians (and their successors) and Muslims, between Christianity and Islam, that had originally been focused ? and which thereafter long turned ? upon the issue of the acceptance or rejection of Muhammad, of the authenticity of his prophethood. Upon its continuing, long-term implications.

                      Christendom, and then Europe and then the West ?? after all, what is Europe, and what now is “the West”, other than “post-Christian Christendom”? ?? rejected him, they denied his followers’ claims vehemently. While for Christian Europe the question had been about whether Muhammad was to be accepted or not, for the world of Islam the challenge was what to do about Christian rejection, and often scandalising repudiation. [cont]

                    10. In response, Muslims, and the world of Islam, rallied to the defence of Muhammad, of his prophetic authenticity and his human and historical reputation.

                      On both sides, it had all been at its core about Muhammad. On both sides, that was the issue on which doctrinally everything turned. Here lay the division between two developed, mature civilisations. Until the modern era. Then new issues and dimensions to their longstanding civilisational rivalry were added.

                      Emeritus Professor of Sociology & Anthropology Clive Kessler intellectually tearing mfalseman a new one.

                    11. “On both sides, it had all been at its core about Muhammad.”

                      This is clearly irrelevant. The biggest political upheaval in the ME recently, the one with the broadest implications, has been in Egypt between the military dictators and the ‘Arab Street.’ It had very little to do with the role of Mohammed. Likewise, the rise of Trump in the USA has nothing to do with controversies over Mohammed.

                    12. This is clearly irrelevant.

                      No, you’re just too ignorant of the subject to grasp its relevance. Again, retreat from the conversation and approach when you possess the sense of humility that your ignorance of the subject mandates.

                    13. And one final comment before I wash my hands of you. I can only surmise that you, presumably a native speaker of English, seem to possess such poor reading comprehension because you are willingly reading and interpreting in bad faith all evidence given against your ipse dixit proclamations.

                    14. “I can only surmise that you”

                      Don’t sell yourself short. I’m sure you can surmise a lot more than that if you put your mind to it. But I understand, you’ve got hands you’re eager to wash.

                    15. “It is not a civilization.”

                      You say this, and yet you claim to have read Huntington?
                      we’re not using some arbitrary definition of the term – we’re using his.
                      If you intended to criticize his conception, at least you could pretend to have first understood it?

                    16. “You say this, and yet you claim to have read Huntington?”

                      I disagree with his definition. And I’d like to point out that there’s greater diversity within his civilizations that there is between them.

                    17. “I disagree with his definition'”

                      You’ve never showed that you actually understand the first thing about what he wrote. Its sort of hard to ‘disagree’ with things you are entirely ignorant of.

              2. Not that much conflict between your “Arab Street” and the West.

                Ipse dixit!

          2. “….Unfortunately, said Huntington, Islam had no core state, which he saw as problematic. “The core states of civilizations,” he wrote, “are sources of order within civilizations and, through negotiations with other core states, between civilizations.”

            The Ottomans, of course, were the core of Islam for centuries prior to World War I. But then Turkey became what Huntington called a “torn country”?a nation with a single predominant culture that places it in one civilization while its leaders seek to shift it to another civilization. That is the legacy of Ataturk, and Turkey is thus “the classic torn country” because its leaders since the 1920s have wanted Turkey to look West and become more Western in outlook and sensibility. It worked for a time, particularly during the Cold War, when Turkey’s interest in keeping Soviet Russia out of its sphere of influence converged nicely with the West’s interest in stymying Soviet advancemen… But, as Huntington knew, the end of the Cold War would bring an inevitable divergence in how Turkey and the West saw their interests…..Hence, Turkey helped the United States in the first Gulf War but refused to allow its territory to be used for staging U.S. troop deployments in the second war. Hence, whereas the old Turkey hungered for European Union membership, the new Turkey isn’t sure it cares anymore.”

          3. You didn’t read the book, or you were too stupid to understand anything you read. as noted in above, you get everything wrong in your claim that Turkey is either an ally of the West, or that its even a central part of “Islam” as conceived by SPH

            1. “that Turkey is either an ally of the West”

              NATO is indeed an alliance and both Turkey and USA are members of it. Turkey is currently headed by an Islamist party and her population is overwhelmingly Muslim.

              1. Now i can see why you had such trouble w/ huntington. you can’t read.

            2. The modern ME was formed because England decided to keep battleships it built for Turkey, then the Turks commandeered German battleships. Turks then sided with the Germans in WW1, after that the die was cast.

          4. That the USG foolishly chooses to pretend that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are ‘allies’ does not make it so.

            1. “That the USG foolishly chooses”

              Every US administration for over 50 years has made that same choice. Same goes for the various Kings, presidents, dictators etc that make up the Islamic side of the partnership. There’s gotta be more to it than foolishness.

              1. the motivation for most of those 50 years was, “the other guy” (russia).

                the motivation now is sort of “another guy” (china)

                neither is a case demonstrating any shared interests that make either Saudi, Pakistan, Turkey, etc. natural “allies” of the West.

                1. “natural “allies” of the West”

                  I never claimed anyone was a natural ally. I’m saying that the focus of conflict in the ME today is between Muslims, not between Islam and the West. I’m also claiming, similarly, that any conflict in the US arises out of cultural divisions within the society and that Islam doesn’t play a significant role.

                  1. You’re just claiming that intra-civilizational conflict is “more significant”

                    its just your stupid way of pretending cross-civilizational conflict doesn’t really matter. Nothing you say either counters any points SPH made, or even seems to understand his argument in the first place.

                    1. “its just your stupid way of pretending cross-civilizational conflict doesn’t really matter”

                      Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t say that any conflict doesn’t really matter. It’s a matter of intensity, the costs in loss of life and treasure as they say. In the ME today the conflict between Muslims is most intense. In the US, the conflict within society is most intense. Actually conflict between the West and Islam is not so great.

                      “Nothing you say either counters any points SPH made”

                      Then what exactly is your objection to what I’ve been saying? Other than I’m stupid, can’t read and so.

                    2. “I don’t say that any conflict doesn’t really matter. ‘

                      (looks to first thing same moron said)

                      “I’ve read the book. There is no conflict between Islam and the West.”

                      My objection to what you’ve been saying is,

                      a) you’re wrong
                      b) if you actually read “Clash”, you apparently misunderstood everything about it.

                      If i make fun of you, its because of your continued insistence that you have any value to offer here.

                    3. Additionally

                      re: “In the ME today the conflict between Muslims is most intense”

                      As further evidence of your non-reading of anything Huntington ever wrote…

                      – SPH pointed out that the main causes of inter-civilzational conflict was when the spread of one civilization’s values *provoked conflict within another*.

                      i.e. the most pungent evidence that there is a fight between “the West” and “Islam”…. is the fight within Islam itself.

                      I pointed this out in the very first mention of his work above =

                      “…the far-older political dynamic… which is all about defining the borders of your “culture” and fighting wars against outside cultural forces that provoke change in your own

                      The fight within Islam (*as a civilization) is about whether it is going to become ‘more like the West’ – i.e. pluralistic, democratic, modern, etc.’ – or whether define itself in opposition to those things.

                      The point here is that you opened your case with the statement that you’d “read his work”… then proceeded to make a series of arguments which demonstrate absolutely zero understanding of even the terminology he used.

                    4. “i.e. the most pungent evidence that there is a fight between “the West” and “Islam”…. is the fight within Islam itself.”

                      I already pointed out that the most dramatic events in the ME today, Egypt’s Arab Spring, had little to do with Islam:

                      “The biggest political upheaval in the ME recently, the one with the broadest implications, has been in Egypt between the military dictators and the ‘Arab Street.’ It had very little to do with the role of Mohammed.”

                      And this quote here is nonsense:

                      “and fighting wars against outside cultural forces that provoke change in your own”

                      To claim that Trump is in ascendency thanks to the fight with outside cultural forces is laughable. In fact, it’s all about inside forces.

                      I have read H’s work, though not recently. I believe I understand it, but I haven’t let it shape my view of these issues. I disagreed with it in general.

                    5. “To claim that Trump is in ascendency thanks to the fight with outside cultural forces is laughable”

                      As if that were actually the claim being made anywhere.

                      And it wouldn’t really be so laughable …. even if it were. You don’t think things like Paris Attacks, San Berdoo shootings, Military-base shooting in Chattanooga, attacks in Garland Texas,… all which happened in 2015…. Had NO effect on people’s support for the most vocally-anti-muslim candidate? You’re even dumber than i thought.

                      The point i actually made was in rebuttal to your argument that the current strife within contemporary Islam was in any way inconsistent w/ SPH’s points about civilizational-conflict and how it works.

                      Your whole involvement in this conversation was predicated on your own claim to have some knowledge of SPH’s work. Which you then proceeded to repeatedly demonstrate complete ignorance and misunderstanding of. Par for course for you, i suppose. You’d be blocklisted if Greasonable were working.

                    6. “As if that were actually the claim being made anywhere.”

                      It comes from your quote:

                      “which is all about defining the borders of your “culture” and fighting wars against outside cultural forces that provoke change in your own”

                      I think the Trump ascendency is due almost entirely to domestic factors. Although anti-Islam feelings play some part in it. Just like anti-Mexican feelings. Trump is a reaction to the influence of feminism and id politics. That has very little to do with what goes on in the ME.

                      “Your whole involvement in this conversation was predicated on your own claim to have some knowledge of SPH’s work.”

                      This is untrue. Here is my original contribution to this article:

                      “My prediction: If the GOP runs with Trump, he’ll be trounced. The GOP will split in the aftermath of their defeat. A White Nationalist faction will emerge and the rest of the GOP may join the Democrats, remain in whatever’s left of the GOP, or form a new party.”

                      No mention of Huntington. He is someone you brought into the conversation. Sorry if you are disappointed in my take on Huntington. But his notion that conflicts within US society are about the fight between ‘whether to become more like the ME or to do the opposite.’ It’s nonsense. To see this, just switch the names around.

            2. You look at the world in terms of the West vs. Islam. It’s so late 20th century.

              I would encourage you all to open your minds and your reading to include a multi-dimensional perspective.

              I have no doubt that you will discover ideas that I consider which you do not, and this makes me seem learned and profound.

        2. That is very interesting and does describe what’s more or less happening. I can’t say that’s a good thing-this is retrograde and makes me happier to be in Canada.

        3. The book came out in 1993. The year that al-Qaeda bombed the WTC and drove US troops out of Somalia, two years after we fought a war in Iraq.

          It’s not like he was sticking his neck out predicting a conflict between Islam and the west. It was the most obvious enemy after the collapse of the USSR.

    3. You should write for New Republic.

      1. I mourn the demise of the Old Republic.

      2. “You should write for New Republic.”

        Wouldn’t mind getting in with the house organ of ARAMCO, KSA’s national oil monopoly, once at least the highest paying magazine for freelance work. Met someone a while back doing a feature on ‘Flat breads of the ME’ for them.

  27. Biden = Ground War in Syria Already Planned

    A U.S. official later clarified that Biden was talking about a military solution to Islamic State, not Syria as a whole

    That sounds as plausible as saying you just want to eat the chocolate-chips, not the cookie.

    Maybe they want to start a war so they can “oppose” it while out of power.

  28. If Adams is adept with linguistic killshots as he claims, why does he call Trump a Master Wizard instead of a Grand Wizard?

  29. My prediction:
    Sanders wins the early races, including Iowa, but, as the election moves to big states, Hillary wins in delegate upsets, and clenches the nomination. Sanders runs as an independent, splitting the outraged democrats.

    For the republicans, Marco Rubio is the surprise winner, taking Iowa early, and starting a momentum avalanche. An outraged Trump runs as an independent.

    The voters split and give Trump a questionable victory.

    On April 1, 2017, Trump initiates a nuclear exchange with China, which activates the Communist Prime super doomsday bot, which, by itself conquers Alaska, the west coast, and much of Canada, before a tenuous truce is reached.

    This is immediately followed by the Second Civil War of 2019, during which New England attempts to become an independent nation.

    It’s all down hill from there. I have charts, if you want to see.

    1. But who wins the Super Bowl?

      1. There is no winner. Islamic terrorists attack the game, and it’s never concluded. This leads to an invasion of the ME, in which the region is split between factions allied with the USA, Russia, and China, setting the stage for Trump’s nuclear war.

        If you only look at the available cherry-picked facts, as well as assertions and claims that I make with only mild justification, then it’s all perfectly clear.

        Start prepping.

    2. “”clenches the nomination. “”

      She’s been kegelcizing

    3. When does the brotherhood of steel come in?

      1. Two words: yun yions.

        1. I hate funions

    4. Which ‘parts’ of Canada?

      Asking for a friend.

  30. In the local paper today someone pointed out that Trump played “Sympathy for the Devil” at one of his rallies. Because of a Rolling Stones song, the author concluded that Trump is the anti-Christ.

    I wish I was making this up.

    1. This was a letter to the editor if that wasn’t clear.

  31. It seems to me there might be an easy way to subvert Trump – viciously attack him for being too patriotic and too intelligent and too wonderful. If I know Trump, he will immediately attack you for suggesting he’s at all patriotic or intelligent or wonderful.

  32. It’s just so damn depressing to think that we’re dealing with the thought of eating the poisonous shit sandwich of Trump/Hillary/Bernie that we’re praying for a delicious non-poisonous shit sandwich to show up on the dinner table.

    1. remember when jeb was the worst? good times.

      1. I’m old enough to remember when Jeb!’s daddy was the worst. Sure was glad when Reagan beat him – and then that fool turned around and made him VP. That’s when I started thinking those weirdo libertarians might not ever get any power, but if getting power is the sine qua non of the GOP then fuck ’em and at least being libertarian gives me an easier conscience.

        1. I’m old enough to remember the rumor that Nixon was going to put hippies and protestors into camps, which are being built out west at this very moment!!

      2. No .

        It was Jeb!

        You left off the exclamation point in which we all believed,

    2. Michael Bloomberg, save us. ::barf::

      1. Aragorn and company did not feel so much despair in front of the Black Gate.

    1. I doubt he cares. This is pretty much an opportunity for him to pretend that he’s really smart and learned. Buzzwords ahoy!

      1. Adams was always the monster he sought to slay.

    2. Heroic Mulatto|1.24.16 @ 1:46PM|#
      “Someone needs to inform Adams that neuro-linguistic programming is pseudoscience on par with astrology and dowsing.”

      Yeah, I pretty much ignored his comments once I found out he was a devote’ of ‘hypnotism’. Uh, does that cause chemtrails?

      1. Hypnosis is real thing. So is NLP. That doesn’t mean that they all-powerful, or that the explanations for their mechanisms of action are correct, but both “work” to some extent by utilizing non-rational aspects of human psychology.

        1. “but both “work” to some extent by utilizing non-rational aspects of human psychology”

          Indeed the most highly paid and respected members of the academy today, I’m talking about college football and basketball coaches, rely on these kinds of techniques.

        2. the new NON loaded term for NLP is CBP, Cognitive Behavioral Psychology

    3. Adams isn’t doing himself any favours with that pseudo scientific stuff. All he really needs to do is point out that Trump is first and foremost a salesman. Americans generally like to see lawyers, doctors and teachers running for executive office. Now, for whatever reason they’ve got a very competent salesman, one who knows all the tricks of the trade.

  33. “What I [see] in Trump,” says Adams, is “someone who was highly trained. A lot of the things that the media were reporting as sort of random insults and bluster and just Trump being Trump, looked to me like a lot of deep technique that I recognized from the fields of hypnosis and persuasion.”

    What I see in Adams is a high-performance bullshitter who hasn’t read the polls recently. The polls make it clear that, barring a bizarre turn of events, Trump is never going to be president.

    1. By the time the primaries get closer Trump will be well out of it. There is no chance of him being taken seriously as a candidate.

      *6 months ago*

      1. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Visit Nate Silver’s 308 section. He has an article about Trump popularity with normal people or lack thereof.

        1. Past performance does not guarantee future returns

          You (and some other commenters here) used this line about Fiorina too, and her campaign’s going down the toilet.

          1. True. So?

            1. So it’s about as valid a prediction now as it was back then.

      2. Except he was leading the GOP polls 6 months ago and just had to hold on.

        He’s getting clobbered in the general election polls by both Sanders and Clinton now. What’s going to change that will allow Trump to close a 10-15 point gap?

        http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..s_general/

        General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 51, Trump 41 Clinton +10
        General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Cruz 45, Clinton 49 Clinton +4
        General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Rubio 46, Clinton 47 Clinton +1
        General Election: Trump vs. Sanders NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Sanders 54, Trump 39 Sanders +15

        1. But clearly Americans want a president that incoherently rags on minorities, insults disabled people and women and everyone else, has terrible hair, no real policies, etc. -Oh especially millennials! They love racism and paranoia! It’ll work because he’s the MASTER PERSUADOR /area yokeltard

        2. To give an idea how awful that poll is for Trump, no presidential candidate has gotten 54% of the popular vote since Reagan in 1984, and that was the only time it happened since Nixon in 1972. When Bernie Sanders would beat you in a historic landslide, you’re a terrible candidate.

          1. I’d like to thank you and the other sane people here for existing. Please continue. My mind could not take much more sustained TRUMPA GONNA WINNA BECUZ MASTER PERSUADA bullshit from the yokeltards and other people I had thought were somewhat intelligent.

            1. I always try to continue existing. Admittedly my track record is a bit mixed in this regard.

        3. Most voters aren’t even paying attention to the election yet.

  34. Is there anyone else who, like me, thinks Trump has been just plain LUCKY? I really can’t see him in a room, with advisers, discussing the zeitgeist and devising ways to take advantage of the psychology of the current republican voters. He toots his own horn a lot, but as Forbes stated recently he has, for the last couple decades, underperformed the S&P 500.

    1. I really can’t see him in a room, with advisers, discussing the zeitgeist and devising ways to take advantage of the psychology of the current republican voters

      Why not? There is a shitload of (individual and cultural) psychology involved in casino design. That’s why they take care to avoid windows and clocks, perform studies of room flow, redesigning the entrance to the MGM Grand when Asian “whales” felt uncomfortable (they viewed being “swallowed” by the Sphinx as a bad omen)”, etc.

      1. Didn’t Trump’s casinos lose a lot of money?

        1. Indeed, but that may be due more to financial mismanagement than the profitability of the business.

      2. No, I don’t see him in a room discussing casino designs, either. Why would he? He hires professionals for that. From what I’ve read, he’s hired few political experts. He’s winging it (so far).

    2. He is a great self-promoter. “His” golf courses are highly regarded, but I believe he has very little to do with them. His brand matters, or it used to.

  35. Trump is not “manipulating the media” by a long shot. The MSM and Trump share the same goals.

    1. The mainstream media wants the Democrats to win the election.

    2. Trump being the GOP nominee all but guarantees a Democrat win in November.

    3. Even if he’s not the nominee, the longer Trump is the frontrunner, the more time the serious, actually conservative candidates have to spend attacking him rather than scrumming against each other to see who is the strongest. The GOP candidate will thus be weaker and less vetted than would otherwise be the case, which makes a Democrat win more likely.

    1. 2. And every November beyond that. Seriously, the GOP and conservatism will be skunked and reduced to ashes.

      1. The GOP, sure. But it depends on what conservatism means. The GOP’s brand of endless war, huge spending, and pearl-clutching moralism doesn’t strike me as particularly conservative.

        1. Conservatism means whatever the MSM wants it to mean. Most people still think the Bush administration was all about deregulation and free markets.

        2. Conservatism means whatever you want it to, which is why it fails. I’m happy to see it die but only if it’s replaced by something better. The aftermath of Trump will involve sole dominance by Liberal Hegemony and some alt-right creeps scurrying around the remains of The Right.

          Wake up and smell the ashes Mr. Freeman.

          Oh Jesus. Trump IS the Resonance Cascade and Hillary is Breen. Or the weird worm-creature thing. That’s how the Combine DNC takes total power.

          I’ll do what I can to make sure Canada has open arms.

      2. Never mind all of the GOP control of governorships and state houses …

        Demographics and a hostile media have made a GOP candidate a tough Presidential sell since Bush II.

        1. Hell actually since Bush I.

  36. Trump = Corbyn. Both were put in power by a retard surge and both have a zero percent chance of gaining power. Corby might get ousted by his own party before the election which supports the idea that parliaments are better than the American setup.

    1. Your argument would be stronger if you didn’t have an idiot leftist PM unrestrained by any checks and balances in said parliamentary system.

      The US system was set up to blunt the impact of tyrants or retards getting elected. Too bad most of those protections have been bulldozed over the course of two and a half centuries in the name of “do something!” That’s not the system’s fault.

      1. “The US system was set up to blunt the impact of tyrants or retards getting elected. ”

        And now instead of at least some accountability by election, you have a vast administrative state that embiggens the executive. Further, the House-Senate divide has backfired horribly: you may not be able to pass stuff but there’s no undo for what HAS been passed! Canada cut spending in real terms –before inflation-in the ’90s. This included entitlement cuts that would NEVER pass in America.

        I like Heinlein’s idea of a chamber for passing laws with 2/3 majority and another for repeal with 1/3 vote. Other than that, I don’t think the bicaramel government is a winner.

        1. If somebody already let the murderer in through the front door, you’re worse off if you have bars on the window. That doesn’t mean bars on the window are bad at protecting you from murderers.

          There is a lot of terrible legislation that the House-Senate divide (and the filibuster) has prevented. How are your gun laws, speech laws, health care system, etc doing up there?

          1. Those things are worse here in Canada but the justice system is better, cops are less thuggish, and the federal government ain’t gonna go broke anytime soon (although some provincial ones will). Tax code is also less insane. Granted a bunch of that may have to do with America just having too much democracy compared to Canada-elected Attorneys and judges and lieutenant governors and elections too often.

            1. Really? I always feel we don’t have elections often enough in the US, so that officeholders can break their promises immediately after winning and hope everyone forgets in the years before the next election.

              If it were up to me we’d have recall-type elections, thumbs up or thumbs down, every year. And if you get thumbs down, there’s an election the next year for your replacement and you can’t run in it.

              1. No no no no NO. Breaking promises is NOT a bad thing usually because those promises are usually bad! The People are stupid and need to be kept in their place. Too much democracy has brought ruin to America. There’s always an election coming and it’s keeping the background derp permanently elevated.

        2. What you did there.

  37. A elderly retiree who looked as if he had gone full militia bumped into me at the commissary yesterday. We were in the coffee.

    He apologized, and encouraged me to vote for Trump, or there won’t be any social security or medicare for our children and grandchildren.

    I was too nonplussed to even retort that SS and medicare are shit programs that need to die.

    Who the fuck are these people? What do they see when they look at Trump? What do they hear when he speaks?

    1. The same rank and file registered republicans who have, for decades, swallowed the mendacious rhetoric and promises of their leaders are now applying the same critical thinking skills to a bloviating narcissist that’s promising to solve all their problems.

      1. That’s fucking depressing.

    2. They’re (often racist/anti-Muslim/’alt right’) retards who want a strongman to live out their angry power fantasies. They are too dumb to even hold wrong ideas. They hear what they want to because they lack any critical thinking skills.

      You should have told him what you wanted so he’s hopefully die of an aneurysm. Actually that’s why I hope Trump gets crushed by Clinton: so these people will commit mass suicide or die of CA/aneurysm.

      1. Trump absolutely will get crushed by Hilldog, of that I have no doubt. Nothing will motivate Dem voters like the spectre of President Trump.

        1. I find it absolutely incredible that anyone would think otherwise. Where have these trogs been for the last 30 years? Do they leave their homes?

          1. I think that, by and large, they are low-info people who have a depressing amount of faith in the wisdom of guys in suits.

            I think “too dumb to hold wrong ideas” is pretty good. I’d add ignorant. And angry for vague reasons of brown people and jerbs and whatever. They want King President and Trump is promising them that.

            1. “they are low-info people who have a depressing amount of faith in the wisdom of guys in suits.”

              I think the opposite-they are the caricature Warty made. They think book lernin’ is fur liberal faggots. They think my link to a high-quality Cato study is outweighed by a link to NutJob.com or a blurry YouTube video or some claim by some guy in government. To name names I mean people like John or PapayatardSF but most of them are much dumber. They are too dumb to competently think and conservative big-wigs have coddled them for too long. It is high time they were marginalized and ridiculed into silence. They should have been scraped off the bottom of America’s shoe eons ago and in this election, if no other good comes of it, they will be,

              1. By ‘the opposite’ I mean they hold people in suits as gay book-lernin faggots who hate Merica.

                1. Not all pussies are book-learned pussies.

          2. I find it absolutely incredible that anyone would think otherwise.

            Of course you do, because you know very little about the American political landscape. Trump is Democrat lite and has already begun to attract their voters.

            1. Trump has the highest negative amongst Dems of all the candidates. The few he attracts will not outweigh the many he repels to the ballot box.

              I sure as hell understand the American electorate better than most here apparently. Again: incoherent xenophobia is not a winner. Ever.

              1. Parroting MSM bullshit =/= understanding the American electorate.

        2. Nothing will motivate Dem voters like the spectre of President Trump.

          Seriously? You know that plenty of Dems will vote for him, don’t you?
          Hillary would have to commit enormous amounts of voter fraud or Trump would have to run as an independent for her to have a chance. Even her own party doesn’t like her.

          1. No, I don’t know that. Which segment of the Democratic Party will vote for Trump?

            1. These ones:

              His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It’s a coalition that’s concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm.

              Basically, the same people that the Democrats have been pissing on for about 40 years now, who used to be among their most reliable voters.

              1. That doesn’t mean those people exist in great enough numbers to give him the election.

                This is just a dying gasp of bluecollar unionized know-nothings. They have been shriveling for a long time and the Dems really don’t depend on them anymore.

                1. They have been shriveling for a long time and the Dems really don’t depend on them anymore.

                  No, they just bitch about how these types “vote against their interest.”

          2. Well, nobody really likes her.

            I confess I don’t know anything about what you said. I don’t consider Trump to be a Republican or a Democrat, or liberal, or conservative, or anything. He’s just ranting and raving.

            Is it unions who would vote for him? People with a monetary interest in economic protectionism, nativism, and crony capitalism?

            1. http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2573359

              I think he’s going to get some major support from a lot of different voting groups. I think he can grab large portions of the latino and especially the black voters.

  38. I find it funny to read here that Trump’s vast numbers of supporters are merely “angry,” considering the frothing that can accompany any hot topic. You’d think every puppycide, every violent moron Darwin Award winner who dies from a cop’s bullet, was the end of the world.

    Better to ask: why are people angry? There’s usually some validity to it. In Trump’s case, people are ticked off about having their country transformed by massive amounts of immigration that they never had any say about. They don’t like giving welfare to poor foreigners who’ve managed to get here illegally. They dislike political correctness, and think it’s bizarre that we are importing Muslims while Muslims have been fueling nearly every violent conflict on Earth for decades. They’re ticked off that Obama doesn’t care about white working people, and that establishment Republicans and conservatives have ignored or betrayed them. Plus you’ve got a big chunk of blacks pissed at Obama, and just because someone is Hispanic doesn’t mean they want all of Latin America to move here, either.

    Yes, Trump is hugely problematic: trade protectionism, eminent domain, etc. But he’s not the worst choice. Bernie the Socialist would be. Even Hillary, not quite the socialist Bernie is, would be worse. At least Trump has some level of basic understanding about what this country is, and how markets work. Trump is also not guaranteed to make terrible SC appointments. I’m not a fan, but I think he’s inevitable.

    1. A lot of what you say here is true. But if the Trumpsters were thinking instead of emoting, they’d be rallying behind Cruz, not Trump.

      1. LEADER LEAD ME

      2. Libertarian: That is true to some degree, but I think that within the GOP, yes, Cruz is already their second choice. Cruz, though, hasn’t been taking on the MSM the way Trump has, and Cruz is not the showman Trump is.

        1. “Taking on the MSM” -you mean the one that’s actively promoting him?

          1. Yes, that MSM. He is both taking them on, and getting them to fund his campaign with the massive amounts of publicity. It’s historical, really. Very judo.

      3. One good reason that I can think of to vote for Cruz: the establishment absolutely loathes him. That’s worth something.

        Cruz isn’t my guy, but for a socon looking to buck the system, he could be.

        1. Cruz has a lot of problems but any libertarian with a brain should see that we need to support him if it comes down to it.

          1. Why would a libertarian vote for a Republican?

            1. Because he’s the least worst option in many ways and pretty good in other ways ex ending EtOH subsidies.

              Please leave us out of your team orange moral posturing. From what you’ve told us of your weight, there’s only room for you on your high horse.

              1. That’s it…BE the problem. Why would the GOP need to move toward libertarianism…they’ve already got the “libertarian” vote tied up?

                1. The US didn’t become the bankrupt, semi-socialist mess because the Socialist Party won elections. We got here because the socialists infiltrated and took over the Democratic Party, and worked incrementally.

                  My vote, of course, doesn’t really matter. Nancy Pelosi is my congresscritter. So I vote Libertarian most of the time, when I can. But CA recently changed rules and now an LP candidate is not likely to not even be on my ballot. So I end up having to vote Republican, or for the least obnoxious Democrat, or I just skip that part of the ballot. I also never vote for anyone who is the only person running.

          2. I couldn’t. Cruz is smart, but he has, as far as I can see, zero tolerance for libertarian ideas.

            1. I couldn’t. Cruz is smart, but he has, as far as I can see, zero tolerance for libertarian ideas.

              There is nothing libertarian about him. s/s010_090.gif”He’s a hardcore conservative.

                1. Cruz said, “When a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride that’s a statement and it’s not a statement I agree with.”

                  Wow, what a dick.

              1. Holy shit, ain’t that the truth. He may not get along with any of his fellow Rs in the Senate, but he’s about as libertarian as Jerry Falwell.

    2. “. In Trump’s case, people are ticked off about having their country transformed by massive amounts of immigration that they never had any say about. They don’t like giving welfare to poor foreigners who’ve managed to get here illegally. They dislike political correctness, and think it’s bizarre that we are importing Muslims while Muslims have been fueling nearly every violent conflict on Earth for decades. ”

      IOW they’re as misinformed and ignorant as you are.

      Online these “people” aren’t even cogent enough to hold wrong ideas.

      “I find it funny to read here that Trump’s vast numbers of supporters are merely “angry,” considering the frothing that can accompany any hot topic. ”

      I find it funny but totally predictable that you don’t understand that the anger isn’t the problem, it’s having nothing but anger and usually over foreign people dat trek R jerbs.

    3. If Trump gets the nomination, Michael Bloomberg will probably take up the Ross Perot mantle and run as the independent billionaire.

      As much as I hate Bloomberg, he may be the least bad candidate for liberty against Trump and Hillary. He’s an anti-gun nanny stater but so are the other two. At least he’s a pragmatist on taxes and the economy.

      1. That’s what I said and an area moron said I was ‘proggie neocon’ for making that choice.

        The thing with guns is I see that battle as pretty much secure for the good guys. Not all the ground is taken but I don’t think we’re going to see an outbreak of gun control with the odd bit slipping past here and there. Like abortion, this pretty much locked down and Prez Bloomberg isn’t going to change that.

        If things get worse for Hillary and Bb holds up, I am pretty sure the DNC will shift en masse to him. Otherwise, Trump is Hillary’s get out of fail free card. She must be delirious with joy.

        1. I don’t share your optimism on the gun rights battle. We’re one SCOTUS appointment away from the second amendment being completely neutered. Kennedy and Scalia aren’t going to live forever.

          Right now the democratic processes are on our side in most states, but that can change in the blink of an eye without constitutional protection.

          But Trump or HRC would be just as bad as Bloomberg on guns.

          1. You are of course right about the SC but the politics are on our side-for once! We can lock this down pretty well. EO’s can and will be disobeyed en masse.

          2. I thought Trump was good on the 2nd amendment? Am I wrong on this?

          3. I thought Trump was good on the 2nd amendment? Am I wrong on this?

            1. Yes, you are wrong. Trump was cool with gun control until he started running.

              1. He is not, and has never been AFAIK, as gung-ho on control as Hillary.

      2. As much as I hate Bloomberg, he may be the least bad candidate for liberty]

        Are you fucking kidding me?

  39. For literally decades, I’ve been predicting that we’d see a fascist in the White House, eventually. I always pictured it being someone like Guilliani — I never suspected a cross between Guilliani and President Camacho.

  40. Hey, cosmucokletarians, I will give you two reasons why I am voting for Trump:

    -he schlongs chicks.
    -he is winning.

    Voting for a winner makes me a winner.

    1. I am adding this tweet from our Savior, Future Leader and Overload himself as reason number three.

    2. You joke, but this is a factor in elections. People like to vote for winners. Polls after elections regularly show that more people say they voted for the winner than actually did. This works in Trump’s favor, as does a version of the “shy Tory” syndrome.

      1. That is why it is good satire. Everyone one thinks they are more intelligent than everyone else, and yet their logic is that he is winning, so that is why he will receive my vote.

      2. “Shy Tory” syndrome sometimes happens sometimes not. It happened in Britain but not in Canada. It’s not going to happen for Trump at least not nearly enough to win an election.

    3. Also, Trump is against ISIS.

      1. That’s the kind of outside-of-the-box thinking this country needs!

      2. It’s about time SOMEONE took a stand against them.

  41. There is so much pants shitting in this thread that its spilling over the belt.

  42. Libertarian Moment: Observation: it’s happening at the state level but not at the fed level. The latter involves much more populism and ‘mass engagement’ than the former. Conclusion: more people does not equal better. Most people are semi-lucid sacks of flesh that we have force freedom on. Gather enough people to advance freedom and engage enlightened pols/power centres or ones that need solutions to problems. We provide the solutions.

  43. Question & Comment Time with Cytotoxic: how do libertarians-in and outside of America-prepare for and mitigate the damage of the aftermath of the Trump run? Hillary or Bb will probably be prez but more importantly the GOP might lose either the senate or house and will be RUINED for future elections. The Conservative movement will be a burnt out wreck. What do we do? How do take advantage of this crisis? I think someone should search the Appalachians for Mark Sanford and get him to run as an Independent Republican. Not to win but to reduce damage.

    1. I’ve been hearing about this “end of the GOP” since the mid 2000’s. It hasn’t happened. Some minor demographic trends actually favor Republicans.

      http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/1…..ats-doomed

      You hate Trump for his immigration policies, so much that you think it’s smart to vote for a woman who dragged us in the the middle east and possibly mismanaged sensitive emails. Or perhaps even Bernie Sanders?

      If he wins, he won’t have enough support anywhere to deport thousands of people at his whim. Meanwhile Obama has already rammed through ACA and bombed several nations without cooperation congress. What do you think will happen if either Clinton or Sanders becomes president?

      Trump’s “our country first” rhetoric is a gigantic draw for whatever homeland immigrants in America hail from. The Chinese would foam at the mouth if the Japanese took over even 10% of their workforce. Vice versa. And most immigrants here aren’t activists who have a dog in the amnesty fight. A lot of them are unemployed and couldn’t care less about illegals.

      I don’t live in a vacuum. I read Asian language newspapers and watch their news. Right now, economic populism SELLS. Everywhere. And mistrust of radical islam is growing. No one in nonwhite parts of the world wants to massively import refugees. Trump is too much of a buffoon to appeal to minorities, but if he wins and slaps 20% tariff on Chinese imports or clamps down on guest worker programs, will that really bother non whites here? No.

      1. “You hate Trump for his immigration policies”

        And so much more.

        “I’ve been hearing about this “end of the GOP” since the mid 2000’s. It hasn’t happened. ”

        True. This is different. This is self-immolation writ large.

        “if he wins and slaps 20% tariff on Chinese imports or clamps down on guest worker programs, will that really bother non whites here?”

        Yes, because then everything will be more expensive. Smoot-Hawley 2.0. Christ are you people religiously ignorant?

    2. It’s possible the Senate might tip back to the Dems, but the House? No way.

  44. Regardless of who wins, the real power is still going to be the bureaucracy. Don’t know if it was covered here re: the DoL issuing a ukase that 2-employer employees are still your employees. Just because you got so fed up with the DoL that you threw up your hands and decided to just go to some staffing service to get your workers on the theory that all the hassles of hiring and firing workers now fell on the staffing service rather than you – don’t think you’re slipping the leash that easy. If your staffing service doesn’t hire the legally-proper mix of the legless, the dickless, the brainless and the boneless – and by-god document that in triple-excruciating detail – we’re coming after you. If the DoL were a subversive organization sworn to the destruction of the American economy they could not do a better job of smothering it beneath an avalanche of rules and regulations and paperwork.

    And the DoL is just one agency – the EPA and FDA are having their own little competition to see who can kill off more human progress than the other.

  45. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $17581 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website

    ???????========[] http://www.Jobstribune.com

  46. In the video below, Dilbert comic creator Scott Adams thinks he knows why Trump has been able to escape criticism and explains why The Donald’s skills at manipulation will win him the GOP nomination.

    Did the video get removed? I don’t see it.

  47. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  48. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  49. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  50. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.