I do not agree with your assertion that $Hillary is sane or competent, nor with your assertion that Donald trump is insane, incompetent, or corrupt.

You are sorely lacking in proof and objectively. You are also supporting a candidate who does not support the causes you talk about often on this blog.

Who are you and what have you done with Amy Alkon?

I'm really, really not for Hillary -- she's just the lesser of two evils.

And sorry -- I have to go to bed for a deadline day tomorrow. I'll have to let other people explain to you why Trump is so unstable, unable to govern, and corrupt.

As I keep saying, Hillary, also disgustingly corrupt, is at least a corrupt adult. We'll get more of the same. Which sucks, but which probably won't blow the markets and our respect as a nation or start a nuclear war.

Wait -- I just remembered a piece from The Federalist:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/29/5-reasons-every-american-should-oppose-donald-trump/

"And sorry -- I have to go to bed for a deadline day tomorrow. I'll have to let other people explain to you why Trump is so unstable, unable to govern, and corrupt. "

Duly noted, but I should point out that that hasn't been happening much on your blog lately.

One thing you have yet to respond to is, do you feel $Hillary supports the things that matter to you?

I'm used to a more factually, reasoned position from you, as demonstrated by most everything else you do (even when I don't agree with you,) which is why this is irritating the fuck out of me. Best regards.

"Wait -- I just remembered a piece from The Federalist: "

So Putin, is a democratically elected official and now, suddenly, he's a tyrant? To quote you, "And sorry -- I have to go to bed for a deadline day tomorrow. I'll have to let other people explain to you why the federalist article is mostly BS." You can tell us what part is not BS in your opinion.

As indviduals Clinton is indeed the lesser of two evils.

Figure in both of their penchants for ignoring the rules, and the fact that liberals dont care when liberal politicians break the rules, and the fact that the media cover for liberal politicians in a way they never would a conservative.

Plus the fact that conservative politicians despise Trump if they arent jockeying for a bureaucratic Admin appointment

Just look at how the MSM ignored Obama doing the same damn thing they all derided Bush for.

And as a sitting president Trump becomes the lesser of two evils.

Plus his assinine aproach will burn the system down that much faster

> I should point out that that
> hasn't been happening much
> on your blog lately.

It has been our experience that you (et al.) weren't listening the first time, and that your enthusiasm for this candidate appears to be an expression of teenage popstar enthusiasm rather than a thoughtful review of events past, patterns present and probabilities future.

It's boring to talk to people who can't take a point without getting pissed off.

You heard a speech short on anything but baseless claims, and now you want to vote for the man-who stands for almost everything you despise-who gave it. Hmmmm. Seems like maybe you posted something about that phenomenon recently.......

Clinton will do as she likes, and no one will even mention it. The media carries her briefcase, she controls the DNC, and when someone is rightly outed for corruption, Clinton hires them.

Trump won't get us in a nuclear war (?!?!?!?!?! Really, Amy??)-he couldn't launch even if he wanted to. Clinton, however, will intentionally import people who would love nothing more than to detonate a dirty bomb in LA or New York. As to our "standing" in the eyes of the EU and others.....who gives a fuck. We provide their military safety. When they grow up and stop expecting us to be the world's police, they can have an opinion on us.

You heard a speech short on anything but baseless claims, and now you want to vote for the man-who stands for almost everything you despise-who gave it. Hmmmm. Seems like maybe you posted something about that phenomenon recently.......

I want to vote for Bloomberg because he is an adult and not a disgusting corrupt person, as far as I can tell.

That's what it's come to in this country -- voting for the person who is not a total degenerate.

Crid puts it right, Matt -- and I posted the Federalist link to at least answer your question. But you don't seem to really take in the info on Trump. (This is called confirmation bias.)

And the truth is, I have been working seven days a week, insane hours, for quite some time, and trying to hold it together while finishing my next book, a big talk I'm giving, and doing my column. I also just finished editing a researcher's book for Penguin in the evenings. Sometimes stuff falls through the cracks, like the spelling of Cory Booker's name (which I got wrong because I only heard him on CNN while I was doing other things).

If I turn in the book on time, I'll be a human again in September.

I read the piece above and could put the Clinton's in on every point (of course they have been around a long time and use their Foundation as a slush fund so ...)

Tagging Trump as a Hitler wannabe is a stretch. Clinton is a much better fit.

She has MSM in her pocket, a political machine (The Democratic party plus the Clinton machine) the likes of which our has not seen on a national level, and a demonstrated ability to get away with stupid reckless acts that reek of a petty spoiled corrupt nature.

Tell me know of this is true. Show me when she did something not in her own interests. Show me when she stated a policy/stand, was challenged on it, and did not immediately state an apology. The only thing consistent about her are her lies.

Trump is the least dangerous of the two except for the fear in your mind. A politician that can get away with lawless behavior is the most dangerous person alive.

Bob hit on it. As President, Clinton will be at the controls of a vast, taxpayer-funded political machine, the likes of which America has never seen and is not prepared to deal with. The Left dreams of their ultimate victory over American culture, and they now see themselves as very close. And a Hillary administration will not restrain them in any way, because it doesn't care, as long as it gets its cut.

If Hillary wins in 2016, there won't be a meaningful election in 2020.

BTW, there are very few issues where Bloomberg and de Blasio disagree. The only real difference between them is that Bloomberg, like Mikhail Gorbachev, thought there is a way to do "Communism lite". There isn't, and de Blasio knows this.

Talk about the authoritarian patriarchy. Bloomberg is pretty much the poster boy for that.

A man who has spent a great deal of his time and personal resources trying to dismantle the constitution, particularly the Second Amendment.

This man couldn't win an election outside of New York or California.

And I am pretty sure Hillary can't either. At least not a legitimate one without 150 percent turn out in Cleveland and Philly, all of them voting for Hillary.

The dems lost the working men and women, minorities, and whites, the police and the military over immigration and the gun issue.

I'm not sure they can cobble together a winning coalition with soccer moms, journalists, and crony capitalist billionaires.

Also, as much I hate to admit it. JD is on to something. If there is such a thing as the black hole of charisma, it would be labeled Hillary Clinton.

Pay attention to the increasing desperation and terror in every article in Slate, Huff Po, and the Economist.

As indviduals Clinton is indeed the lesser of two evils.

Figure in both of their penchants for ignoring the rules, and the fact that liberals dont care when liberal politicians break the rules, and the fact that the media cover for liberal politicians in a way they never would a conservative.

Plus the fact that conservative politicians despise Trump if they arent jockeying for a bureaucratic Admin appointment

Just look at how the MSM ignored Obama doing the same damn thing they all derided Bush for.

And as a sitting president Trump becomes the lesser of two evils.

Plus his assinine aproach will burn the system down that much faster

I think Trump is a slick snake oil selling charlatan. I know Hillary is a corrupt hack who has used her positions in power to enrich herself for over 30 years. The Clintons feel they are above any type of accountability that they are willing to risk lives to avoid FOI. Some choice we have. If Trump is elected, we will finally have an adversarial press again. Trump will also have to fight a significant segment of his own party to enact any legislation. If Hillary is President her life time pass from the press will continue. The press has never seriously reported on her malfeasance. If they did their job Hillary would not be the nominee. Personally I am going to follow Cruz's advice and follow my conscience. I'm not sure where it will take me. A vote for Libertarians may allow for matching funds which may help them next election. If this shit show continues I may vote for Trump ito give to America good and hard. One thing I know is that I will not vote for Hillary. I know everyone is going to have a tough decision. Good luck America.

"and I posted the Federalist link to at least answer your question. But you don't seem to really take in the info on Trump. (This is called confirmation bias.)"

As if that was unbiased journalism and not a hit piece. Confirmation bias right back atcha. I'm disgusted by the mental gymnastics the Left goes through in their attempts to vilify Trump. It boggles my mind.

One thing you have yet to respond to is, do you feel $Hillary supports the things that matter to you?

"It's boring to talk to people who can't take a point without getting pissed off."

It's pretty obvious you don't even know what I'm pissed about.

Hillary will consolidate socialism/fascism in the US. Trump will tend to break up that machine.

If Trump screws up, he will be easy to impeach. Let's not settle this time for the lesser of two evils. Let's have the impeachable of two evils.

Hillary will consolidate socialism/fascism in the US. Trump will tend to break up that machine.

If Trump screws up, he will be easy to impeach. Let's not settle this time for the lesser of two evils. Let's have the impeachable of two evils.
Andrew Garland at July 29, 2016 7:57 AM

If Hillary goes unpunished for selling state department favors, and ignoring federal law with classified emails, the rule of law is dead in this country.

I'm not just voting against Hilliary, I'm voting *for* the principles of the republic Itself, and the Rule of Law.

I'm willing to see if Trump can be a worse president than Obama:

Before the convention, Hillary Clinton herself launched an attack on Trump that blew past titters and giggles and straight into guffaw territory. Trump is terrifying enough with the power of social media, she intoned, but “imagine if he had not just Twitter and cable news to go after his critics and opponents, but also the IRS."

Yes, imagine a president who would abuse the powers of the IRS. Not to paint Clinton with the unfair and overbroad brush of guilt by association, but the administration in which she served as secretary of State, twice, accidentally, released the private taxpayer information of its political opponents at moments that, perhaps inadvertently, were politically damaging. And then there was the “targeting” of the administration’s Tea Party opponents by the Obama administration IRS while Clinton was coincidentally serving as secretary of State. For non-political reasons no doubt, the Obama administration is still fighting in court to keep the full details of those events from the public eye.

Then on Thursday night in her big speech, Clinton attacked him again. She rightly pointed out that all a foreign leader has to do to get a rise out of Trump is launch a malicious tweet. God save us when Trump can respond to digital provocations by replying with megatons instead of megabytes. No tweet would ever get a response from Clinton. She doesn't respond unless she gets served with a subpoena; engraved in stone; in triplicate.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/07/29/trump-polls-winning-clinton-democratic-convention-speech-column/87700524/

Perhaps Trump supporters think Donny will summon a bold new era of Junior High irrationality, returning us all to the 7th-grade bubblegum mentality they recall so well... That last year when they felt they might have mastered the world through whining, dishonesty and closed-mindedness... Y'know, just before sexuality kicked everyone into the adult context of real-keeping.

They miss those times! Maybe Donald Trump can bring them back!

Is Clinton competent? According to the FBI she is not, after all she was told dozens of times what she was doing with the email server was wrong, yet still did not have the mental capacity to "knowingly" break the law

Perhaps Trump supporters think Donny will summon a bold new era of Junior High irrationality, returning us all to the 7th-grade bubblegum mentality they recall so well... That last year when they felt they might have mastered the world through whining, dishonesty and closed-mindedness... Y'know, just before sexuality kicked everyone into the adult context of real-keeping.

They miss those times! Maybe Donald Trump can bring them back!

Crid at July 29, 2016 11:23 AM

Crid, I love you dearly, but you keep putting up those straw man arguments implying that we are voting for Trump because like his supporters, we are under some kind of delusion that it will be rainbows and unicorns again.

It never was, and it won't be again.

We all just think that Hillary and her one way socialist ratchet, and criminal organization (which will continue to pad the voter rolls with their supporters) using not only our current income, but also our rapidly eroding savings:

is a far worse bet than a blowhard populist who doesn't even have the support of the broken Republican machine (not that the Republicans have ever had much of a machine to begin with)

The republicans are like Charlie Brown and the damn football.

We tried a nice guy who was an upstanding businessman, and the democrats painted him as Hitler.

Now we have a not so nice guy, and a less ethical businessman, but at least the Hitler screaming seem to be falling mainly on deaf ears.

We'll see how it goes.

Bad things are going to happen, sure, but if the last eight years are any indication, it can't get much worse for Americans who have jobs, and savings and it could get a little better.

I keep trying to flip the party script for comparisons, and it's like the Republicans nominated some ultimate status-quo insider like Jeb Bush, while the Dems nominated Roseanne or Cindy Sheehan -- a nutty TV creation who seems to be fundamentally unbalanced.

Like Amy, I'll have to go with the one I think is less likely to tank the markets, cause harm to our allies or cuddle up to people like Putin and Mugabe. And - also like Amy - I'm no Bloomberg fan, but I'd probably choose him over either of them.

"Like Amy, I'll have to go with the one I think is less likely to tank the markets"

News for you cupcake. The markets aren't going to save your pension. That's already gone to unsustainable debt, and to pay for the current massive employment base of the public sector unions.
Hillary will just be kicking the can down the road for a few more years until the total economic implosion occurs on someone else's watch. (They hope)

The democrats have not so cleverly hidden the extent of the financial liabilities in this country, that can never ever be paid off, which is why they are being inflated out of existence.

Your pension and savings will go with it.

"it's like the Republicans nominated some ultimate status-quo insider like Jeb Bush"

Jeb has a history of corruption and high crimes? He always seemed pretty boring to me. You think you know someone and there they go surprising you.

But I can't dispute your characterization of Trump. TV is his life.

As for Bloomberg, seriously? You think anyone outside of New York considers him a Republican? I mean seriously? So he couldn't win in the Democrat primary and decided to run on the other side. But that's it. But I must admit he does make a classic Republican president. After all who else have the Republicans nominated:
Mitt Romney - Rockefeller Republican
John McCain - Rockefeller Republican
GW Bush - Compassionate Conservative aka Rockefeller Republican

When exactly did the Republican party nominate a small government tea party type candidate? When exactly was conservatism alive for it to have died recently? So sure, Bloomberg makes a great Republican nominee for president. So does Al Gore.

As for Bloomberg, seriously? You think anyone outside of New York considers him a Republican?

Not particularly. I'm not sure what about my statement would lead you to believe that I do, or that I even would find it significant one way or the other. I'm not a member of any political party.

When exactly did the Republican party nominate a small government tea party type candidate?

Certainly not since the modern Tea Party movement began in 2009.

That wasn't directed at you in particular Kevin. More at the topic at large. Sorry for the confusion.

If you can't stand Trump, Amy, why not vote for Gary Johnson? He's on the ballot in all 50 states and better represents the ideas that you stand for.

I believe that Hillary would be a truly awful president. She could not get a federal security clearance if she were looking for a job in the government, and yet she could be our President. She basically got away with the crime of gross negligence regarding our national security when James Comey decided not to charge her. (Bet that did wonders for morale among FBI agents.) Plus she will continue the usual deficit-mongering leftoid government of Obama, undoubtedly with the acquiescence of Congress. She is simply no good.

So, if you believe Trump is too evil to vote for, and Hillary is too evil to vote for, why not vote for Johnson? Even though I don't plan to vote for him at this time, he does seem to be mature enough.

"I'm A New Yorker, And I Know A Con When I See One"

I loved that line.

Long weekend, more on this thread at some point....

Bloomberg, a fine example of a liberal who will protect the natural rights of the people (as guaranteed by the US Constitution):

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/bloomberg-gun-controlnypdincarceration.html

"What really irks Bloomberg about the right to bear arms isn’t the red herrings we throw around in the gun rights debate, such as hunting or self-defense. Rather, he hates its foundation in popular sovereignty. It’s easy to forget that when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, the founding fathers took for granted that the United States would not field an army during peacetime. With the enumerated rights to association and the press — as well as arms — they attempted to place the tools of 18th century revolution (and thus American sovereignty) permanently in the hands of the enfranchised public. Militias weren’t supposed to be local armies, they were supposed to be the Army. As Rep. Samuel Nasson wrote to Rep. George Thatcher in 1789, “Spare me on the subject of Standing armeys in a time of Peace they allway was first or last the downfall of all free Governments it was by their help Caesar made proud Rome Own a Tyrant and a Traytor for a Master.”

"There’s no doubt America needs to curb gun use and possession. The question is, whose guns? There are 34,500 members of the NYPD, and in 2012 they fatally shot 16 people. That gives Bloomberg’s army a rate of over 46 shooting deaths per 100,000, killing people at a clip that dwarfs any civilian level in the country. To put it in perspective, Chicago — an American city known for gun violence — hit its peak murder rate of 34 per 100,000 in 1992. American law enforcement is increasingly militarized — as Radley Balko reports in his book “Rise of the Warrior Cop”: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield.” And this army takes a lot of prisoners: While gun violence has markedly declined following heightened crime in the ’90s, incarceration rates haven’t returned to earth, nearly quintupling since the early ’70s, making Americans the most imprisoned people in the world.

While Bloomberg is squaring up to spread fears about armed Mormon cattle ranchers gone wild, we should be more worried about guns in the hands of the police. To further his agenda, Bloomberg is counting on the public’s unwillingness to look beyond the flashiest proximate cause of surprise violence, as well as liberal stereotypes about rural Americans who own guns. But the biggest, most violently irresponsible gun owner in the country isn’t some left-wing caricature redneck or a deranged teen plotting a massacre from his basement. It’s the state."

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

"When the taste for physical pleasures in such a nation grows more speedily than education or the habit of liberty, a time occurs when men are carried away and lose self-control at the sight of the new possessions they are ready to grasp. … There is no need to wrench their rights from such citizens, they let them slip voluntarily through their fingers. The exercise of their political duties seems to them a tiresome nuisance." - Alexis de Tocqueville.

Mrs. Clinton, the hag, is no better than Bloomberg nor Obama. But I guess you blame soda for the people of Walmart too.

From the Urban Dictionary:

Hag

An unattractive, middle-aged (or slightly older) woman. The term is commonly used to describe hysterical or ugly women in positions of power.

> > implying that we are voting
> for Trump because like his
> supporters, we are under some
> kind of delusion that it will
> be rainbows and unicorns again.

I would never have implied such a thing. I don't think Trump's supporters have, or are capable of, any meaningful foresight about his performance in an executive capacity of public service whatsoever. Their eagerness to accuse others of being shills for Hillary betrays the childish mechanics of their enthusiasm. They want to be really right about this all the way right now this very second, and imagine that political upheaval and corrupted public service can restore them to that last glorious summer before girls grew tits and the voices of boys who don't talk to them anymore dropped an octave.

GD typos....

I think it's weird that one of the most beloved NF authors of his generation wants to make a podcast that sounds like a typically shitty NPR story....

But Gladwell touched on some of this in this program. So very, very many things have to go right for a child, gifted or not, to receive the love and support necessary to succeed that chatter regarding "luck" is pointless.

Yeah, luck: We could all have died from cancer at age three.

Aarrgggh .... Wrong thread. It's late, okay?

Sure it's okay! You come across as a drunk idiot! As usual. Par for the course, you're good. *Thumbs up*