In Watch on the Rhine (1943; screenplay by Dashiell Hammett from a play by Lillian Hellman) the penniless Count remarks,

Blecher, we do not like each other.

But that will not stand in the way of our doing business.

Where we're headed? Two predictions:

(1) Trump will crush Clinton, as more and more people understand we are at a point of no return. One more Obama-style progressivist/collectivist anti-constitutional thug in the Oval Office and America will be on a path toward shattering into regional fragments. (The debates will be a gawdawful thing to watch as Trump rips like a chainsaw into Clinton's filth.)

(2) Clinton will get the nomination, but may not be the candidate. The Democrats covet power above all, and that means winning. They will not tolerate a loser. If Clinton looks like she is imploding, the Democratic Party may move rapidly to replace her with someone like Kerry, who might have at least some chance of winning. IMO, her choice of Tim Kaine as VP was partly made to forestall this possibility. He's not a national name, nor does he have a strong leadership presence, so he's not an obvious choice to replace her at the top of the ticket. The signal? Look for Kerry, Biden, or someone else with a national name to suddenly rise to new prominence.

> The debates will be a gawdawful
> thing to watch as Trump rips
> like a chainsaw into
> Clinton's filth

This will not happen.

No American public figure in my adult life has given an accuser or despoiler of reputation so much to work with as has Hillary...

...But never in his life has Trump studied for anything. Amy offered conjecture earlier that he's not read a book since college (and who knows what his grades were like.) He's not capable of thinking about anything but the transaction which consumes his immediate future: He works in the moment. He'll mock her clothes, her hair, and if he starts to lose interest, he'll mock her daughter and her husband. The audience will gasp, and lefties will weep salty, salty tears through inarticulate resentment.

And he may well draw blood: Democrats haven't yet figured out that all their professional oppo research (etc.) has no currency in this instance.

But no: This most golden of opportunities to expose and index her "filth" will undoubtedly be squandered. Trump has never been useful.

I won't bother to watch or listen.

"That's what this country is about -- tolerating people's right to do what they wish, and if they aren't harming you, hands the fuck off."

Unfortunately, that is what got us here.
Posted by commenter "Fiat_Lux" on the Augusta Chronicle Web site:

"People in America think that freedom means being able to do whatever you like that isn't against the law.

Freedom actually is the unrestrained opportunity to choose and do what is right and good without fear of persecution. You can't have genuine freedom if you don't have a moral and responsible citizenry.

Without that kind of people making up the nation, without goodness and at least basic agreement about what constitutes moral behavior as the standards for a society of people, laws must be put in place and enforced to make people do what their consciences and good judgement should have led them to do on their own.

It's amazing to under 30s-40s that we once lived that way among one another pretty much everywhere in this country. And it's incredibly sad that we just let it slip away by trying to be so "nice" and not make anyone feel bad for not living up to the basic standards of decency, morality and kindliness. We just let it go.

And look what kind of people we live among now."

The kind you get when you reward thuggery and selfishness.

------------

"...But never in his life has Trump studied for anything. Amy offered conjecture earlier that he's not read a book since college (and who knows what his grades were like.)"

Wow. Nice. Now I'm in high school, reading what the mean girls are saying - and they're clearly, obviously wrong.
Want to explain that whole billionaire thing, such that investors handed over their money to the illiterate punk you imagine?

Want to enumerate the literary achievements of Ms. Clinton now, perhaps extol the arduous training for the Presidency represented by being First Lady?
I have a plumbing problem... I'll call the plumber's wife. She has to have at least seen the equipment. She says she's qualified, and she's totally honest about that!

"who knows what his grades were like."

If he did better than a 'C' he is as good as most of our elected officials. We have a long history of not putting up smart people for office.

And he may well draw blood: Democrats haven't yet figured out that all their professional oppo research (etc.) has no currency in this instance.

But no: This most golden of opportunities to expose and index her "filth" will undoubtedly be squandered. Trump has never been useful.

I won't bother to watch or listen.

Crid at July 26, 2016 1:13 AM

I will be kind of surprised if Hillary even gets up on stage with him for a debate. Her handlers already know that the more people see of her, the less they like her, and her coaches don't seem to be able to moderate one of the most unpleasant speaking voices I have ever heard.

I suspect the debates will all be Pense v Kaine.

The only way a pres debate going to happen is if her poll numbers dip so low, the dems put her up there as a last ditch hurrah because they feel they are toast anyway,

I suspect Trump will do a lot better even with a hostile moderator, because he has lots of experience reading a script. I think he will be somewhat more disciplined now that he has the nomination, but I think it is pretty clear, after the Republican debates, no one is listening anymore anyway. They are just mad as hell, and getting ready to burn the place down.

One of the unintentionally smartest things Trump has done is ignored his handlers, which I Believe sank Romney in the second debate.

We could not elect a smart nice guy who deserved to be president last time, so now we get a not so nice, not so smart New York brawler up against a criminal lightweight with an unpleasant personality who I also personally believe is a willfully stupid, lazy liar, with substance abuse issues.

For me, frankly, there has been nothing said in any debate, (a fake dog and pony show if there ever was one) that would influence my vote.

@Ben,

Well, George W. Bush had better grades (by one point) that John Kerry.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384

We are closer to the brink than Pilon thinks. Here is a piece from City Journal about how De Tocqueville understood the destructive forces inherent within democracy. It is a nice companion to your other post, but I put it here because he explains how the rise of the administrative state and the collective will of the masses are a bad combination. I fear we are at this point already. The article is long, but very worth your time.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332.html

Well, Crid, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. You could try Canada, that worked for some of my peers.

property rights -- which are fundamental to a democracy and which Donald Trump shows little respect for (when someone else's property rights are getting in his way to make some money).

I've asked alleged conservatives who support Trump how they can square their unabashed support for someone who did that?

On the other hand, taking private property by agents of the state to be given to other private interests for development is a policy that has been advanced by people like Hillary.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (－‸ლ)

If memory serves Sixclaws Bush had better grades than Gore too. When a high C (77) is top marks it just shows how poorly our leaders do in school. And mind, that is at a school while hard to get in is very hard to flunk out of.

Personally I'm interested when Trump is going to stop attacking republicans and start attacking democrats. He's fought back when Hillary attacked but all in all he is still more interested in fighting with former rivals than his new opponent.

As for the love stuff. BLM is a really loving group. With all their desires to kill anyone they disagree with and wot not they are just overflowing with 'love'.

Emphasis mine (but I didn't copy Tyler Durden's emphasising). Not sure how I feel about all of this. I think, ultimately it will boil down to "not enough booze in the world" even if the current political class finds their cart overturned and on fire.

Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Nigel Farage and myriad other populist, right-wing leaders sprouting over much of the Western World, are being tagged by the political ruling class as an ill-conceived, hate-fest phenomenon; and often portrayed as the mutant offspring of fascism. Such interpretation, however, might be only serving as ear plugs against the loud, real voices of people who fear a real threat to their economic wellbeing or their cultural identity.

This mischaracterization could end up being the undoing of the now-ruling political class, not just in some European nations but also in the US. And, when there is no trip switch to prevent emotional blindness as fear holds hands with anger, an egomaniac such as Trump could easily become the hopeful savior to many, instead of the predatory con man his deeds point him to be.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-24/uncontrolled-refugeeism-will-be-undoing-now-ruling-political-class

"And, when there is no trip switch to prevent emotional blindness as fear holds hands with anger, an egomaniac such as Trump could easily become the hopeful savior to many, instead of the predatory con man his deeds point him to be."

If my memory serves correctly, havent Romney, G.W Bush, the Koch brothers and a host of other legitimate businessmen who made their money in other ways, other than taking bribes, and campaign donations from special interests always been portrayed as *predatory con men*?

Maybe, (like being called a racist so damn many times, I am now happy to own it) the voters aren't listening any more.

> you may not be interested
> in war, but war is
> interested in you.

What the fuck are you yammering about?

Maybe, (like being called a racist so damn many times, I am now happy to own it) the voters aren't listening any more.

There's a lot to be said for that.

I heard, but have not verified this, that a Politico writer submitted an article to the DNC for comment before sending it on to his editor. Which is proof positive that many (most? all?) journalists are simply Democrats with by-lines.

Ah, here it is: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back.

And more for your amusement:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/detailed-list-findings-wikileaks-dnc-document-dump/

Are you not entertained?

The trouble is, it's too easy to interpret the word "tolerance" as "putting up with something we find awful." Who wants to be "tolerated"?

So, it's interesting to realize that if someone else had said "we are not called to be a nation of tolerance, we are called to be a nation of love," it COULD be interpreted to mean "we will always try to work peaceably with you even if we never learn to like you."

(Which is precisely the sort of "love" that often exists between blood relatives, when you think about it.)

The problem now is that tolerance is not deemed sufficient. One must celebrate whatever one is told to celebrate, and if not sufficiently enthusiastic, that is a thought-crime.
You can't merely tolerate gays you must say it is wonderful. You may not disagree with any BLM position (even though there are many) but just shout "BLM" joyfully. One must pretend that there are no dark secrets in your heart about any ethnic group (of course you can joke that Irish are drunks or Italians are mafiosi, since they are white).

Lenona, you have to love your family.

You don't always have to like them.

Here's what I was thinking of, in particular:

"Love is the extra effort we make in our dealings with those whom we do not like and once you understand that, you understand all. This idea that love overtakes you is nonsense. This is but a polite manifestation of sex. To love another you have to undertake some fragment of their destiny."

A prize if you can guess who said that, without searching. (I may have quoted it before.)

As I said, it's especially pertinent regarding relatives.

I suppose you have a point in there somewhere, Lenona?

So, "tolerance" is a bad thing? Should we be intolerant of tolerance because tolerance does not imply unconditional, self-sacrificing love and admiration?

Maybe with enough SJW conditioning, we can stamp out tolerance once and for all -- along with the other badzfeelz and wrongzthoughtz keeping us from a utopia of kumbaya kissie-face!

"Tolerance" DOES mean putting up with something that we find awful. It is positive -- in relation to the alternative. You don't want to be "tolerated"? Then accept the alternative.

> the voters aren't listening
> any more

Cosh.

I'm suggesting that people who need to make speeches make more and better use of their thesauruses.

"Common courtesy" might be a pretty good synonym, to start with.

And regarding a piece Amy linked to recently, maybe it's time to stop saying "honor killing" (after all, using the killers' own terms pulls others down to their level) and say "family execution" instead, as the author suggested.

Changes in vocabulary can be about dissembling - OR clarification.

Raddy, for fuck's sake:

> Wow. Nice. Now I'm in high school,
> reading what the mean girls are
> saying - and they're clearly,
> obviously wrong

You're three layers deep in sarcasm in the first line quoted above. You're so eager to piss that I have no clue what you want to be sincere about. Is it supposed to be a challenge to my comment? Do you recognize the context of the remarks you're responding to in any respect? Do you believe any other reader of them recognizes your position? You've been writing with this murk for YEARS. Why?

> Want to explain that whole
> billionaire thing, such that
> investors handed over their
> money to the illiterate punk
> you imagine?

I already did. Either you read those cites and disregarded them, or you didn't the first (and second and maybe third) time and won't now.

If you admire his performance as a business figure and feel it encourages faith in his ability to serve Americans, you should say so. You appear not to have gone even that far yet.

> Want to enumerate the literary
> achievements of Ms. Clinton now

So you missed the context of the comment in all respects.

Or you've not read my other comments about the contenders in this race.

Or --and I believe this most probably-- your perspective is so infantile and shallow, with so much ego on the line, that you can only imagine this race as a binary contest of good against evil, and you wanna be sure people see you out on the front line for your team, swearing allegiance and waving a flag.

Well, Muffin, we see you as you are.

Here's a fun passage!

The man is uninterested in anything he doesn’t understand. He is incapable of strategic planning, and he has a particular distaste for paying debts. Of course he doesn’t see any reason for the United States to fulfill its obligations to other countries and organizations—just as Trump personally wouldn’t fulfill his obligations to other people, or to organizations.

"Well, Muffin, we see you as you are."

You wanna hand that mouse in your pocket a crumb now and then. He hasn't anything else nearby to eat.

What
the
fuck
are
you
trying
to
say?

I read Crid's link to the Masha Gessen piece. In the second paragraph we get this:
"Trump is a thoroughly American creation that poses an existential threat to American democracy."

Toward the end of arguing with herself about a possible Trump-Putin nexus she starts using her imagination:
"The day after the election, the stock market will crash. "
". . . there will be large celebrations that will make your skin crawl. On the other hand, they will not be wearing black shirts,. . . "
" A fascist leader needs mobilization. The slow and deliberative passage of even the most heinous legislation is unlikely to supply that. Wars do, and there will be wars. These wars will occur both abroad and at home."

For the at-home wars she suggests the LGBTs, bicyclists, and people who studied a foreign language.

Good one Crid.

"... reason for the United States to fulfill its obligations to other countries and organizations ..."

I would bet we are spending more money than anyone else fulfilling NATO (not USA) interests.

"The new Pentagon budget aims to boost spending on operations in Eastern Europe, specifically known as the European Reassurance Initiative, or ERI, from about $800 million this year to $3.4 billion in 2017, "

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/02/more-troops-deploying-europe-2017/79693680/

I skimmed that nybooks piece and I have one question. Is it something in the water or do they hand out special cigs or what? Talk about your full on hallucinations.

Also, if a nation fails to fulfill it's obligations to NATO why should it be allowed to remain a member?

> Toward the end of arguing
> with herself about...

That's an interesting characterization of a column that has more than one sentence.

> Talk about your full on
> hallucinations.

Who does? Who talks about such "full on hallucinations"? You guys are so eager to be sarcastic that it becomes difficult to see what you sincerely care about. For example:

> I would bet we are spending more
> money than anyone else fulfilling
> NATO (not USA) interests.

☑ Affirmed. I'd say that's almost certainly true... With only Estonia and Greece meeting the (minimal!) 2%-of-GDP-for-defense standard, this is an important and consequential concern.

But is it Trump who brought you to this awareness? Some of us have been talking about it for years.

Mostly I'm appalled by those of you who sincerely believe that he's a good businessman, despite the voluminous and well-documented evidence to the contrary—— Despite the plain calculation that had he merely invested his inherited wealth in hands-off index funds, he'd be worth billions(!) more than he is today, without ever having been to bankruptcy (or any other) court.

Between this presumption of competence and reflexive sarcasm, we get the sense that Hillary-haters are more interested in blowing things up than in demanding righteous government servants. Or that they're swirling in a welter of hero-worship. Either way, the fog snark is almost European in its irresponsibility.

Gessen is quite hallucinogenic Crid. All of these fascist daydreams are just that, daydreams. If you want to talk about reality, I agree with you Trump is a terrible businessman. His main motivation appears to be a desire to be famous. His name on building, being on TV, these are the things that drive Trump. Running a nation, making money, controlling people aren't part of his character. Yes, he is a narcissist. But he isn't a fascist. Yes, he is shallow and stupid. But what else is new in american politics. He isn't any more narcissistic than Obama and he certainly isn't dumber than Gore.

The sad reality is Trump is a centrist Democrat from the northeast. That the Republican party couldn't even put a Republican up for president is sad and pathetic. But that is all.

Now, if Gessen had replaced Trump with Obama her piece would be somewhat grounded in reality. And that is the root of Gessen's fears. She worries the other side will use the same tactics her side used. It is an effort in projection and wish fulfillment.

Mind, Hillary is not Trump and she certainly isn't Obama. Hillary is all about money and personal power. Unlike Obama she doesn't really care about institutional power. If Hillary isn't calling the shots she really doesn't care. She doesn't want to fundamentally transform America. Hillary just wants to get paid. So Gessen's fever dreams don't even apply to Hillary. Quite frankly she doesn't have the charisma to pull them off or even the desire to try.

So there are your choices.
Trump - A presidency driven by how he thinks he looks. A man who will sell you out to sell his name.
Hillary - A presidency up for the highest bidder. A woman who will sell anything and everything no matter the cost to anyone else.

But hey, you keep stumping for Hillary Crid. It looks to be a relentlessly negative campaign. There really isn't much positive to say about either one.

Brownshirts for Hillary is quite humorous. Her greatest support demographic is old single childless women. Depends wearing harridans just don't strike the right cord of fear when you aren't related to them. So Brownpants army maybe, but Brownshirts no.

> But hey

Anything but sincerity.

> you keep stumping for Hillary

If you regard anything I've said as "stumping for Hillary," whether or not you've made a grown man's appraisal of the totality of my commentary even across a single day, it's difficult (as with so many Trumpians) to regard you as anything but childishly simple-minded. You want cardboard enemies: You've selected me. This judgment does not sting.

Keep deceiving yourself Crid. Look at your own posting record. Every once in a while you complain about Hillary. And the rest of the time (oh 99% of it) you complain about Trump. But yes, lets work on that "grown man's appraisal of the totality of my commentary". I guess that comes to 'Crid is a cranky old man who loves to write words'.

You don't know how to read.

"laws must be put in place and enforced to make people do what their consciences and good judgement should have led them to do on their own."

I understand the sentiment (not saying I agree with it, but I understand it). The problem with that is that law doesn't have the capacity to actually do that. Law cannot substitute for morality. When it tries to, the least bad thing that happens is that the citizens wind up having to deal with a bunch of DMVs; all other possible outcomes are downhill from there.