What, have you lost your mind?

Do you really think that Hillary hasn't flipflopped on every issue she has addressed?

It's a feature, not a *bug*, of every political figurehead in the last 50 years!

Still waiting for evidence of this "adult" you mention...

This race has completely devolved into "two wrongs" defenses by most people. Damn.

"How do you Trump supporters explain this away?"

After thirty years of watching policians say one thing, and then turn around and do the exact opposite, you think we really ought to pay attention to and argue about these high school debate sound bites?

Bottom line. Trump is a terrible candidate. Hillary is even worse.
One of the two will be the next president of the US.

One of them will be constrained by the press, congress, and the bureaucracy. The other won't. Guess which one?

I don't vote based on what politicians say. I vote based on how much damage I think their party will do to the Constitution and the rule of law.

With the dems it is a one way ratchet to an identity spoils system, the collapse of the entire US economy, into unsustainable debt, (we may already be there) and the gutting of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

However futile it may be, I am voting against that.

Trump is a horrible combination of Asberger and Tourette syndromes: whenever he gets bored, he sets himself on fire.

In between, he goes full retard.

Jeff Guinn at August 11, 2016 11:07 PM

☑ Affirmed.





I found this tweet absolutely liberating:

Dear Trumpistas,

Don't come cryin' to me… YOU'RE the goofballs who brought such a weak candidate to the forefront of the Republican ticket. Carly having dropped out so very early, I despised both Cruz and Rubio; I nonetheless would have felt compelled to support them against Hillary. But you're eagerness to express teenage nihilism has relieved me of the burden to support the GOP in any contest.

If she wins, it's not because of me. Your fault; not mine. Don't come cryin'.

Uncle Cridmo

Here's another catalog of his incompetence.

3 wives, five kids, squandered fortunes.... Is there any human being personally engaged with the slurry flow of this man's life who hasn't been gravely disappointed?

Where are the business partners from these several decades who should be singing his praises?

Donald: random destruction.
Hillary: continuation of Democrat's systematic destruction.

I'll vote Gary Johnson. At least my conscience will be clear.
If Gary Johnson loses, prepare for accelerated destruction.

They are both awful candidates, but I did reach the opposite conclusion Amy did.

One important factors in my support of Trump (more a rejection of alternatives) is Trump is far more likely to be held accountable by the media and by both parties in Congress.

Both looking down all important issues, from Supreme Court appointments, to Obamacare, to the border, to immigration, etc., there is a chance Trump will do the right thing, but it is an absolutely certainly Hillary will do the wrong thing.

Isab and Trust said it better than I could.

Do you really think that Hillary hasn't flipflopped on every issue she has addressed?

Actually, she hasn't -- not in a way any sleazy politician wouldn't (like on gay marriage) -- which is probably why you don't support your statement.

I can't stand Hillary, but her policy flip flops are predictable, and she doesn't do a full reverse on every single issue, like Trump does (did you not watch the video?). She's a big government liberal and she's been one her whole life.

I think she's a terrible candidate but I think Trump is a disastrous one.

I wonder what our political landscape would look like if the press did their job as a watchdog, rather than an attack dog (against Republicans) and a lap dog (for the Democrats).

In any case, the press will expose every Trump misstep, and has proven their willingness to stretch everything into a scandal. He may be a jerk, but didn't kick a baby out of a rally, for example.

Another example of the lapdog/attack dog bias of the press: both candidates put up weeping parents at their conventions to trash the other candidate. Yet, the police mom has been ridiculed horribly by the press, while the press has taken the position that the muslim war hero's parents are beyond scrutiny. Now, anyone who speaks at a convention must be open to response and scrutiny, but the press has different rules for different parties.

On the other hand, they've sanitized Clinton news for a quarter century, and have all but become an Obama propaganda industry in the past 8.

After years of being called racist by the press for even the most reasonable criticism of the president's policies, does anyone really believe Hillary won't get the same protection by calling everything sexism?

No question in my mind that a President Trump would be far less dangerous. He will have far less power. The press will watch him like a hawk. He will be scrutinized by everyone in Congress and on the Supreme Court. Hillary would have a complicit press, and a Supreme Court to help bypass Congress.

1. We will put coal mines and coal miners out of work unless I'm in Penn. in which case I simply phrased indelicately.

2. We arrested that SOB that produced the video that was not the cause of the terrorist attack.

3. You get two for the price of one unless it's really only one you want.

4. What files? Oh, you mean the ones that showed up in the hall.

5. I'm a damned good investor because
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm but you can get special help too.

This is so easy. Keep talking Amy 'cause you are right. She is an adult and does adult stuff. It's just that no one else cares if it's right stuff or wrong stuff.

Trump says mean things and uses the business system as best it benefits him and that's a bad thing (unless you are a Clinton, work for a Clinton and can keep you mouth shut, or want something from the Clintons).

Like most corrupt pols she's riding high but her emails have provided our foes w/her control points (deny it please).

"P.S. No, I'm not a Hillary supporter ..."

At least be honest. Yes, you are a Hillary supporter. You've spent numerous blog posts on why everyone should vote for Hillary instead of Trump. You repeated the same arguments over and over again. You are a Hillary supporter. Of that there can be no doubt. You are not a happy Hillary supporter. Guess what, most aren't happy Trump supporters.

"Actually, she hasn't..."

Three words: Trans Pacific Partnership, aka America's complete and total economic and security sellout to China. As SecState, she was not only for it, she was one of the prime movers of it. It would have died on the vine years ago without her support. Now she claims that she was always against it.

(To the extent that Trump has a coherent trade policy, he actually has the right idea here: free trade is good if it's actually free on both sides, but you can't have free trade with a country that manipulates its currency and its domestic economy.)

We have one operative dead in Iran, who is probably dead because Hilary blew his cover with her hacked server passing Top Secret emails to Putin. How many others will there be? Between that and the complete exposure of the Office of Personnel Management's SF-86 files, our entire covert intel community has been burned. We'll have to rebuild it from scratch, a process that might take a decade or more. What does Hilary have to say about it? Other than reassuring us that the FBI was totally cool with what she did, nothing. And nobody in the media is asking her about it, because they're all in her corner. That is the biggest part of the problem.

"P.S. No, I'm not a Hillary supporter ..."

At least be honest. Yes, you are a Hillary supporter. You've spent numerous blog posts on why everyone should vote for Hillary instead of Trump. You repeated the same arguments over and over again. You are a Hillary supporter. Of that there can be no doubt. You are not a happy Hillary supporter. Guess what, most aren't happy Trump supporters.

Ben at August 12, 2016 6:21 AM

Amy's jounalista liberal friends have convinced her that a vote for Hillary is the *sane adult thing* to do.

Once they put the case in those emotional compelling terms, Amy stopped listening to the actual evidence about Hillary.

Hillary is an interventionist. Trump is an isolationist. Which one do you think is more likely to get the country into a shooting war?

Hillary has never made a payroll in her life. Trump has cheated more employees and business partners than Hillary has ever had.

Hillary made her money using a phony charity to sell access to foreign actors while sitting atop the State Department. Trump made his money from inheritance and questionable business dealings. Which of these constitutes treason?

Hillary lied about violating State Department rules and exposing US classified data to foreign actors. Trump lied about seeing a video. Which one of these constitutes a danger to the country?

Hillary refuses to release he medical records. Trump refuses to release his taxes (under audit, he says). Which of these tells us more about a candidate's potential performance in office?

Hillary has the 100% backing of the Democratic establishment (even conspiring against her primary opponents). Trump is despised by the Republican establishment (conspiring to defeat him). Which of these candidates do you think will get a blank check from the party establishment once in office?

Hillary's health problems and ethics problems are being ignored by the major media. Trump cannot ask the time without the media reporting his chronological ignorance. Which of these candidates do you think will have feet held to the fire by the media once in office?

I'll vote Gary Johnson.

Mr Gary "I agree with TEH BERN 73% of the time" Johnson? that Johnson?

At least he doesn't appear to be corrupt. And he does appear to be in good enough health. But still, Sander's policies?

How are any of them are libertarian? maybe he "short circuited" when he said that?

Here's your handy list of the major candidates:

• a liberal crony capitalist;
• a liberal corrupt crony capitalist;
• a libertarian who agrees with TEH BERN 73% of the time;
• and a greenie

So, varying levels of socialist, and expect ever increasing deficits in yearly budgets and ever increasing levels of debt. Status: screwed.

We have one operative dead in Iran, who is probably dead because Hilary blew his cover with her hacked server passing Top Secret emails to Putin.

Interesting. Perhaps Hillary chose to have her own server so that she could pass information onto Putin in a covert fashion. And builtin plausible deniability.

It is the electronic version of a dead drop. But then I suspect that the Wikileaks drips of her emails is a reminder that once Putin buys you, you stay bought.

"Hillary is an interventionist."

Not only that, but she's the worst sort of interventionist: the kind who will send in troops with a vaguely defined mission, burdensome RoE, and field commanders stripped of their authority. Those troops wind up being sitting ducks, unable to even protect themselves, much less take the fight to the enemy. Inevitably there's a Black Hawk Down moment and then our guys are ordered to retreat with their tails between their legs, and once again the United States' status is lowered on the world stage. It's happened so often over the past four decades that it's nearly impossible to believe that that isn't the Washington establishment's intent. I'm not an isolationist, but I'll take isolationism over that.

"Interesting. Perhaps Hillary chose to have her own server so that she could pass information onto Putin in a covert fashion. And builtin plausible deniability."

Don't go tin foil hat IRA. Hillary's server was about avoiding FOI requests and trying to hide her corrupt deals. Nothing more and nothing less. But acting like a criminal often exposes you to other's criminal activity.

I agree with you that Putin's drip drop is either a message to stay bought or even he just can't stand her. Hillary does have that effect on people.

I can't stand Hillary, but her policy flip flops are predictable, and she doesn't do a full reverse on every single issue, like Trump does (did you not watch the video?). She's a big government liberal and she's been one her whole life.

I think she's a terrible candidate but I think Trump is a disastrous one.

What Amy said, x1000.

I have been a Libertarian since 1973. I will not be voting for Gary or Hillary. I believe that at this time in our short history, a patriot has to vote to protect the Constitution by voting to prevent the Supreme Court from going farther left.

I'm voting Trump. I hope he wins.

He is Monty Hall's Mystery Box with two hard points:

1. He'll build the wall.
2. He'll stop the importation of unverified fighting-age men from ISIS-held territories that have raped and displaced many a German in the last year.

He is the logical conclusion of the desire to vote the entire government out.

Trump and Clinton are opposites in their approach to things: Mr. Trump will fire off five statements within fifteen minutes as he figures out his position, probably because he's used to speaking his mind and, through talking, determining what he wants. Mrs. Clinton will have an array of handlers focus group the position and release a statement about 8-10 hours after the fact. This is how it has played out with every "Workforce Violence" incident that has involved shouting Akbhar in the last year.

I prefer action to paralysis. Mrs. Clinton failed her own 3 am test for leadership.

Mr. French has his own failed presidential candidacy weekend abortion, doesn't he? Will you next ask for Ted Cruz's position?

K'm voting Trump, BECUASE of the media.

Recall when they accused Romney of forcing his daughter to kidnap, I mean adopt, a black baby as part of a Machiavellian scheme to use it as a shield against accusations of racism for when he would one day run for president?

Recall when they condemned Bush for free speech zones, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for signing statements, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for executive orders, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for troop surges, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for extraordinary rendition, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for GITMO, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for military tribunals, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for bail outs, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for drone strikes, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for NSA spying on americans, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

Recall when they condemned Bush for his cash wasteful vacations, but said nothing about Obama doing it?

The press has shown itself to be a willing part of the democratic political machine.

They didnt care about Clintons email server, they didnt care that the director of the god damn mother fucking FBI admitted she violated the law and anyone else doing what she did would be subject to prosecution, but for some ephemeral reason she, just this once(and none of her staff), would not be.

Thats why I'm voting for Trump. A republican in the white house is the ONLY time liberals pretend to care about the rule of law or constitutional restraints on government

The idea that "the media" (a term about as precise as "the church") is somehow in the bag for HRC is as risible as the notion that Trump hates the media.

Trump ADORES the media. Always has. He's curried their favor and obviously follows every word written about him. All his stunting about how much he hates the press is about as authentic as a wrestler's bombast. Just this morning we found out that he spent 20 hours with reporters from his avowed enemy, THE WASHINGTON POST, so they could do a book about him.

HRC, on the other hand, hasn't had a press conference in months and seems to treat reporters with the same disdain she treats ... well, just about everyone else. Any press "availability" to her is tightly controlled and meticulously scripted.

Support Trump, support HRC, support Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or Mickey Mouse -- I don't care, but the popular notion that Trump and "the media" loathe each other is 180 degrees wrong.

The idea that "the media" (a term about as precise as "the church") is somehow in the bag for HRC is as risible as the notion that Trump hates the media.

95 percent of them are Democrats.

Truth is,the media gave Trump all sorts of favorable coverage before he got the nomination because they thought he would be the easiest candidate for Hillary to beat.

In that respect, they were in agreement with a lot of conservatives.

However Hillary is proving to be a really difficult candidate to drag across the finish line.

When you have to buy the FBI to keep your candidate from being indicted before the election, you have a problem,

When you have to buy the FBI to keep your candidate from being indicted before the election, you have a problem,

"The media" bought the FBI?

When you have to buy the FBI to keep your candidate from being indicted before the election, you have a problem,

"The media" bought the FBI?

Kevin at August 12, 2016 1:01 PM

No, the democratic party power structure did. The media are just part of that. A large part, and neither objective nor disinterested in shaping the outcome of the election and dragging Hillary across the finish line.

"The democratic party power structure" bought the FBI?

Golly. Silly me. Wonder how much that cost?

Amusingly, this story popped up in my feed in the last few minutes. Here's how much love HRC has for the press:

One of Hillary Clinton’s first sitdown interviews since the Democratic National Convention was conducted by a self-described supporter who has been hired by the campaign to host the Democratic nominee’s official campaign podcast. ...

“She's taking a page from President Obama's playbook -- using in-house videos, blogs, photographs, etc. — to tightly control his message,” said Democratic strategist Lis Smith, a former top adviser to onetime presidential candidate Martin O’Malley. “Where she deviates — and where it should be troubling for the press and public — is that she has massive trust issues that could be addressed with more transparency, and she refuses to hold press conferences.”

The new podcast is not the only way the campaign is trying to tell its own story by seeming to attempt an end-run around the reporters who cover it.

For months, the campaign has been relying on its in-house videographer, Julie Zuckerbrod, to film closed-to-the-press meetings and personal moments Clinton and other top campaign officials share with supporters and staff. The most flattering moments are often turned into slick web videos and ads released by the campaign, rather than reported on by the press.

"The democratic party power structure" bought the FBI?

Golly. Silly me. "

Your are more naive than I suspected. Jon Corzine mean anything to you?

Thought not.

These people are above the law because they control the justice system.

Just to be clear because you are being willfully dense Kevin:
1. Hillary does hate being in 'the media'.
2. Trump does love being in 'the media'.
3. 'The media' are all democrats (99% or so).
4. 'The media' loved Trump until he became the GOP nominee. Once that happened he became enemy number one (surprise surprise).

Hillary obviously broke the law. There is no question of fact about it. The FBI laid out a clear and well documented list of her crimes. They ended the press release saying they won't recommend prosecution because . . . reasons. (Her husband secretly (or so they hoped) meeting with the head of the justice department right before the press release wasn't corruption. Nope nope. Not a smidge. Had to fly out and talk about babies off the record. Absolutely had to be done. And remember to wipe your server with a damp cloth to keep the FOI requests away.)

How will Hillary run the White House ? Look at the way she runs the Clinton Foundation: You give her money, she will do you a favor.

'The media' loved Trump until he became the GOP nominee. Once that happened he became enemy number one (surprise surprise).

Really? Because I don't remember that much adulatory praise for Trump before he locked the nomination.

Anybody see any reasons for voting for Clinton other than it's not voting for Trump?

I mean she's been in politics for decades so she must have done something really really memorable while a first lady or thereafter.

Silence.

You have a very short memory Kevin.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-study-as-trump-won-media-coverage-turned-sharply-negative/article/2596199

Even the hacks at Harvard noticed.

Anybody see any reasons for voting for Clinton other than it's not voting for Trump? ~ Bob in Texas at August 12, 2016 3:50 PM

That's what this election is. Pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

The voters know Hillary. They've known Hillary for years. She's not going to gain any new supporters with her speeches, ads, or campaign promises. Love her or hate her, voters already know her.

She gains by tearing him down. She has to go negative because efforts to highlight her positives fall upon those ears that have already accepted her (preaching to the choir) or those that never will.

He doesn't gain by tearing her down, on the other hand. He needs to spend his campaign efforts building himself up. He doesn't seem to understand that.

Jim Simon at August 12, 2016 2:50 AM

☑

I ask and ask and ask:

DT has essentially never come through for another human being in any context, business/family/social/charitable; how on Earth are you able to construct these fantasies in which he'll do what you want done with respect to matter X, Y, or Z?

1. But Hillary!

2. ____________

IOW, props to AA for this post, whatever her ballot.

You can fact check this Crid but the same thing can be said of Clinton esp. since there are a lot of deaths that are associated w/them.

It's obvious that this vote is truly a "less" evil one which stll does not explain why voters "fear" Trump more than Clinton.

Jeez, look at her "accomplishments". Their scandals alone have cost the taxpayers tremendous amounts of money (how much for Hillary's emails alone).

http://ijr.com/2015/11/461306-these-5-acts-of-kindness-reveal-theres-more-to-donald-trump-than-just-his-celebrity-persona/

I've heard people on both sides say comments similar to the following:

"Please give me a good reason to vote for Trump other than him not being Hillary."

AND

"Please give me a good reason to vote for Hillary other than her not being Trump."

Sad fact is, one of these two will be president. Neither is worthy on their own merits, but they must be considered against alternatives.

This notion that Hillary is more of an adult than Trump is preposterous. Her convention speech painful to watch, made more painful by the fact that people actually cheered it. To call her speech immature and childish is an insult to children.

"has essentially never come through for another human being in any context, business/family/social/charitable; how on Earth are you able to construct these fantasies in which he'll do what you want done with respect to matter X, Y, or Z?"

This is your strawman Crid, not mine.

Im not constructing any such fantasy. I think and hope that he will be relatively toothless with lots of gridlock. In my mind the job of the next president is to be the whipping boy when the last 50 years of government social programs and social security insolvencies hit.

Hillary will be allowed and encoraged to keep digging with our savings and our retirement,in the hope that the crash when it does come, can be pinned on the republican party, and the next occupant of the white house.much as they blamed Hoover during the depression.

Just because the two choices are poor doesnt mean that one doesnt look a little better than the other.

> but the same thing can be
> said of Clinton

In other words, you're with group #1. You could have just said "#1," and we'd all have known where you were headed.

> This is your strawman Crid

There's nothing "strawman" about it... You can't list a single achievement demonstrating trustworthiness as a human being or businessman.

(And what's with this new adoration of that word by commenters? A few years ago people were obsessed with ad hominem, and just as inappropriately.}

You seem to think that somehow the authority of the position would be rescinded upon his entrance to the Oval Office, because after all it's Donald Trump. So you're going to vote for him.

This does not make a lick of sense. The powers that office, of that branch of government, aren't wielded from a single chair but by surrounding technocrats.... Literally millions of them. Eventually one of them is going to be clever enough to get Trump's ear and manipulate his authority, or simply run amok with avenues of execution which Donald Trump isn't smart or well-read enough to recognize.

Trump voters are mostly expressing an urge to blow things up in a childishly petulant way.

I don't think they need to be indulged.

Eventually one of them is going to be clever enough to get Trump's ear and manipulate his authority, or simply run amok with avenues of execution which Donald Trump isn't smart or well-read enough to recognize. ~ Crid at August 13, 2016 11:34 AM

Not unlike the current administration's manipulation by White House insiders with an agenda.

==============================

Trump voters are mostly expressing an urge to blow things up in a childishly petulant way. ~ Crid at August 13, 2016 11:34 AM

Unfortunately, that's the reason I hear Trump voters give most often for voting for Trump, "he'll blow up the system."

The system does not need to be blown up (and replaced with what, by the way?). It needs to be re-booted. It's a good system. Somewhere along the way, the moochers and parasites figured a way to clog the pipes.

And a vote for president deserves more thought than the expression of a petulant grievance.

It doesn't make a lick of sense because you refuse to read Crid. Isab never made the argument you are attributing to her and other Trump supporters.

"think that somehow the authority of the position would be rescinded upon his entrance to the Oval Office, because after all it's Donald Trump. So you're going to vote for him."

The powers of that office have been so abused by Obama and his army of government lackeys, and media enablers, that most Trump voters feel anyone in opposition will be fought tooth and nail.

Then there is the whole issue of not rewarding a criminal with the presidency.

> Not unlike the current
> administration's manipulation
> by White House insiders with
> an agenda.

Dear Commenters:

May we all break the habit of using the word "agenda" as if it portended some remarkable capacity for evil? Because I think it makes us look insufferably naive.

Yes; political players and enterprises are full of people with interests they intend to pursue with only as much attention as is helpful, on schedules which will not be published on the front page of the Washington Post. It will always be like that... We ought not be intimidated.

Thanks,

— Cridmo

Here are a couple of samples from August--

And I am not a Trump fan, but a vote for him, is a vote for the rule of law, and not politicians and crony capitalists above the law.

— Isab at August 1, 2016 11:58 AM



A Trump presidency will result in a voting block that despise him: all Congressional Democrats and 1/2 of the Congressional Republicans. Thus the Congressional co-equal branch of government will make the Trump presidency ineffective.

— Nick at August 8, 2016 8:54 AM



[A] patriot has to vote to protect the Constitution by voting to prevent the Supreme Court from going farther left.

— Dave B at August 12, 2016 10:57 AM

Props to AA for wanting to vote for someone.

I honestly don't know what to say to you Crid. It's like talking to a mental patient. Yes, that is what Isab and most reluctant Trump supporters here are saying. What of it?

"You seem to think that somehow the authority of the position would be rescinded upon his entrance to the Oval Office, because after all it's Donald Trump."

That is not what any of them said. Actually read the words on the screen you so happily copied.

"Props to AA for wanting to vote for someone."
-Crid
"P.S. No, I'm not a Hillary supporter"
-AA

AA want to vote for someone? Can you read?

"Every other expression for support for Trump is offered as an expression of distrust of Hillary ("#1," above.)"

Duh! And the same applies to Hillary. To requote the Amy

"P.S. No, I'm not a Hillary supporter, but as I keep saying, at least she's a corrupt adult. We know who she'll sell out to and how, and it's pretty much corruptocracy as usual. There's safety in that, though it makes me hurl and hurl on top of that."

I.e. In Amy's eyes Hillary sucks, but just a bit less than Trump. Personally I can accept Amy's opinion. I disagree with it but whatever. It's her vote. She can do what she wants with it. Now, how is that any different from Isab, Conan, et al? All the candidates suck. You pick the least sucky one from the lot. But you neverTrumpers can't seem to figure that out. You guys are too busy wallowing in your own anger.

"3 wives, five kids, squandered fortunes.... Is there any human being personally engaged with the slurry flow of this man's life who hasn't been gravely disappointed?

Where are the business partners from these several decades who should be singing his praises?"

Now do Hillary. Oh, wait, Crid doesn't care about Hillary. It's only Trump that has his panties in a wad. I don't know if he shot your dog, fucked your wife, or maybe his awful hair gave you an aneurysm. But get over it. For your own mental health if not for ours.

> Oh, wait, Crid doesn't care
> about Hillary

Ben, sarcasm is all you've got. I've made plenty of posts describing my thoughts about that woman, but you apparently don't have brain space to read them or consider them. This is not a new problem... Today, it seems you want to be simpleminded. I point out that your only perspective is "...but Hillary!," and your reply is "...But Hillary!" What thrill do you get from such superficial, obnoxious engagement? Could you imagine that it's persuasive?

Today, it seems you want to be simpleminded. I point out that your only perspective is "...but Hillary!," and your reply is "...But Hillary!" What thrill do you get from such superficial, obnoxious engagement? Could you imagine that it's persuasive?

Why not? You seem to think your cries of "...But Trump!" are persuasive.

On the way home tonight, I realized the problem with Trump is not just that Kayne will think himself fit for public service in 2020. It's with his voters, too: Socially unripened individuals throughout our society will now presume that being an 8th-grade, illiterate asshole helps civilization's project move forward.

It doesn't.

"On the way home tonight, I realized the problem with Trump is not just that Kayne will think himself fit for public service in 2020. It's with his voters, too: Socially unripened individuals throughout our society will now presume that being an 8th-grade, illiterate asshole helps civilization's project move forward."

We've already been there.

Kanye is Obama without the fake academic credentials, and sharp pant leg creases.

At least respect him for his authenticity.

Isab, have you noticed Crid's voluminous writings on Hillary? My googlefu is weak I'll admit. But I've looked and I've searched. I think there were one or maybe two.

Crid, Of course my response is 'But Hillary'. Can't you read? There is no good reason to vote for anyone. The only reason to vote for Hillary is Trump. The only reason to vote for Trump is Hillary. The rest of us get it. It seems like you are still lost in rage and grief.

Honestly Lujlp I'd be happy with persuading Crid to come up with something new. Mostly I'm just tired of the same old worn out complaints repeated over and over and over again. They weren't new the first time and they certainly aren't new the 100th time. And they clearly haven't move anyone.

It's like reading the same knock knock joke over and over again.

Then don't read my comments. I don't think you're very bright.

And there it is. The heart of my complaint. You've gotten boring Crid. I miss the old Crid who while not always insightful was at least entertaining. Instead you've been reduced to juvenile complaints. What's next? Your daddy can beat up my daddy? Is my mama so fat? Poopyhead?

May we all break the habit of using the word "agenda" as if it portended some remarkable capacity for evil? Because I think it makes us look insufferably naive.

Perhaps I should have made it clear I was referring to the current legion of presidential advisors implementing an agenda via regulatory agency, rather than going through Congress as was intended, and spelled out in plain language in the Constitution.

Trump will not be the first president to be a figurehead for a group of determined advisors acting on their own. Grant and Harding come most immediately to mind. And the country survived them, despite being swamped in scandal by both.

Obama is overseeing an explosion of the unsupervised regulatory state; a trend that will only gain momentum under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

It is unlikely that Trump will be able to continue the trend as both parties will be watching him closely. Clinton will get a blank check from the Democrats. And, if the Dems gain the majority in the House or Senate, that will spell trouble for limited government and the nation in general as the government grows in size and spirals out of control ($19 trillion and counting). Unless you think Nancy Pelosi will be a good watchdog and taxpayer advocate.

What kind of SCOTUS justices will Hillary appoint? She'll have at least two appointments: Scalia and Ginsburg. One a liberal replacing a liberal and the other the appointment that switches the Court from literal interpretation to activist, potentially for decades.

I don't like Donald Trump and cringe at the thought of him as president. I think his business practices are questionable at best, crooked at worst. However, I think Hillary's actions at State constitute treason. And if she gets elected president, expect all those FBI investigations to be shut down immediately and the few remaining honest heads at Justice to roll.

The last thing you do is put the fox in charge of henhouse security. Yet that's what we'll be doing if we elect Hillary president.

And yes, my argument is against Hillary and not for Trump. Try making any argument for either of these candidates. Just one. Any argument. And "at least she's a corrupt adult" is not an argument for her.

Trump's business dealings may be suspect, crooked, or downright dirty. But that's business and anyone doing business with him can do research on him beforehand or avail themselves of the proper civil litigation remedies afterward. And, at least, they did not rise to the level of meriting an FBI investigation. Hers did.

His marriages may be many and tawdry. His ex-wives, persons with the most incentive to hate and distrust him have all come out in favor of his candidacy and presidency. Hillary's marriage, on the other hand, consisted of covering up for a philandering husband and a possible rape or two.

Clinton's selling influence to any tin horn Third World despot with a checkbook is much worse that Trump refusing to pay a contractor. That she's exposed herself to blackmail by any foreign actor with a modestly talented computer hacker on staff is stupid and, sadly, predictable. That she successfully maintains (and actually believes herself) the fiction that "everyone else did it" is duplicitous at best and frightening at worst. We'd be stupid to elect her, even if the alternative is Trump.

Sorry, I don't by the Hillary-as-adult scenario. She lives in Hillary World, where she never hears anything counter to what she wants to hear. Where her closest associates and advisors are fawning sycophants. Where rules to not apply to her (Obama specifically told her not to hire Blumenthal and she did it anyway, off the books - 'cause "what rules?").

Her delight in military interventions also frightens me. She's happy to send troops anywhere, regardless of the lack of actual US interests in the area or the dispute. Bush may have been a "cowboy," but Hillary is a petulant Olympian playing dice with Troy's fate, just to spite Zeus or put one over on Aphrodite. The cost in human lives is irrelevant to her ("what difference, at this point, does it make?"). Just send more sons and daughters of the poor into the meat grinder; Chelsea's safe in Washington.

Hillary, like too many of our elites, is close to no one with a son or daughter in harm's way. And even if she was, like Al Gore, Sr., she'd just have the offspring of the connected assigned to a safe job behind the lines and not ever realize that doing so is dirty and unethical. Because her moral compass doesn't work that way; it points only to her and what she wants.

Hillary shares the progressive love of elite military units and believes that entire conflicts can be won with only special forces. Trump's isolationism is a continuation of Obama's campaign promise to not use American boots on the ground in far flung conflicts with no relevant US interest. Instead, he's sent thousands of special forces troops to fight in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Cameroon, and other Third World hell holes. Look for more of the same with Clinton.

In summary (too late), Hillary is dangerous, Trump is reckless. Reckless can be tamed, dangerous cannot. Both choices suck.

Let's talk about the candidates' corrupt business practices.

The FBI is looking into corruption at the Clinton Foundation.

Not that any of this matters. Trump's campaign is dead. He's blown it already.

The Republican establishment need to pick new candidates and try to salvage something or put their support behind Gary Johnson, Republican Lite. Otherwise, we're getting Hillary by default and she'll claim a mandate.

"Not that any of this matters. Trump's campaign is dead. He's blown it already."

Thats what they kept saying about him last March.

Im not so sure. Long time before the election. A lot of things can happen, and nobody is very excited to run out and vote for Hillary.

Black Lives matter seems to be working hard to elect Trump.

>You've gotten boring

After all your intensely personal insults, after literal years spent reading just enough of my writings to maintain the illusion that you're paying attention, after all this rabid effort to affirm that you've bested me in some un-described context of logic, it just doesn't make sense that you'd complain about not being entertained. I think you need me pretty badly. You're counting on me for too much, little muffin.

You know, over the years I've gotten feedback from a lot of the people reading these comments. Setting aside the generalized flattery that's characterized two-thirds... That last third of correspondence has painted a rainbow in specific hues of fulfillment which I hadn't even intended! People have taken from my words important measures of meaning in almost every walk of life: Politics, the sciences, music, entertainment, travel & athletics, literature, romance... And even eroticism. And I'm terribly moved when readers of these comments write to me for personal suggestions about how these intimate areas of their life can be improved. I do my best to come through for all of them, maintaining boundaries of dignified privacy.

But your complaint has a "heart."

Well, don't read my comments anymore. You're on your own now, little feller. Vote for whoever you want. Nobody will ever, ever GAF... Certainly not strangers on the internet.

Thank you Crid. That's the man I was looking for. That is a true Crid word flower arrangement. It may all be bullshit but at least it isn't boring. Stop letting Trump steal your mojo.

"The Republican establishment need to pick new candidates and try to salvage something"

It's too late for that Conan. This is the candidate. The chance for someone else ended several months ago. No David French delusions are going to work. It's Hillary or Trump. Kinda makes you all nihilistic doesn't it?

> the current legion of presidential
> advisors implementing an agenda via
> regulatory agency, rather than going
> through Congress

Well, yeah. In one of the Kagan YouTubes he talks about that transition with respect to Foggy Bottom... How post-Eisenhower (-LBJ? -RMN?), the apparatus of foreign affairs began to inflate real estate prices in DC environs, because technocrats weren't leaving after four or eight years: They were making careers out of it. (Kagan and his missus, he would readily concede, are part of the problem.

> Obama is overseeing an explosion
> of the unsupervised regulatory
> state; a trend that will only
> gain momentum under a Hillary
> Clinton presidency.

I have to believe it will then collapse that much sooner, no later than by whatever ameliorations one imagines(!) —or incompetency one foresees— from a Trump presidency. We are out of fuckin' money.

Thats what they kept saying about him last March. ~ Isab at August 14, 2016 4:33 PM

Every time I defend Trump as a marginally better choice than Hillary, he or his campaign does something stupid. Now, his campaign is claiming Hillary and her allies in the media are baiting him into making controversial statements.

It doesn't matter if he's a better choice (however marginally), his campaign is lurching badly toward defeat. It's one thing to rouse a disaffected partisan base to make you the nominee, it's another to convince an electorate to make you the president. Hillary doesn't have to defeat him now, she only has to maintain the appearance of a calm candidate and outlast the FBI investigation.

The lever in this election is Trump. His support will go up or down. Hers will stay the same. If she (or he) convinces enough voters not to vote for him, he'll lose. If he convinces enough voters to vote for him, he'll win. Right now, he's doing her job for her.

I have to believe it will then collapse that much sooner, no later than by whatever ameliorations one imagines(!) —or incompetency one foresees— from a Trump presidency. We are out of fuckin' money.

Crid at August 14, 2016 6:19 PM

I have no doubt that the democrats can drag it out for years. They will time the final collapse to fall on a Republican adminstration, while they walk away pretending they had nothing to do with it(and promising to fix it, if you just elect them again)

And yes, the majority of voters are such economic illiterates, they will fall for it.

"Socially unripened individuals throughout our society will now presume that being an 8th-grade, illiterate asshole helps civilization's project move forward."

Who is the "8th-grade, illiterate asshole"?

How many thousands of people have licensed your name, bought into your investments and executive prowess -- to make you a billionaire? How many, overseas, across every sort of governmental structure?

How do you think CNN et al would portray Cridmo, despite his immense skill with prose?
I suggest that they will be inaccurate, and less flattering than I!

I'm still waiting for the CNN fact check:

"Fact Check: False Trump says he's going to the little boys room. Truth: He was going to the bathroom. No little boys were involved."

Conan,

I agree that the election is Trump's to win or lose. Hillary is static. I can't tell what will happen on election day. I wouldn't be surprised at a landslide either way. I still rate things 50/50. But the polls are worthless. Even more so than usual this year. Especially with how terrible Trump is few people are willing to admit to a random stranger on the phone they will vote for him. I don't believe the polls that show Trump way up but I don't believe the ones that show him way down either. I'm also not sure they know who is going to vote. So polls of 'likely voters' are probably unrealistic as well.

I'm not pooh poohing your concerns. Just saying things are unpredictable. I agree that if Trump would just repeat his slogan for the next few month he would do better than letting every moron thought fly out of his mouth. But Trump is a grown man. He's been this way for a long time. It would take an act of god to change him.

Crid,

Actually we've got quite a bit of money to keep the ball rolling for a few decades. It's not a good idea but it can be done. The world economy is a reflection of the US election. The US economy sucks. No question about it. Sub 3% annual GDP growth last happened in the great depression. 7% annual GDP growth is normal and 10% when coming out of a recession. So by any real measure the US economy sucks. No question about it. Buuuut everyone else's economies suck even worse. Europe? Sub 1%. Russia, same. China, hard to say. Their numbers are crap. But they've hit a wall as an exporting nation. South America? Africa? Crap and more crap. So the US government gets to print money and export it's inflation not because they are good but because while they suck they just don't suck quite so hard as everyone else.

Some people claim it's turtles all the way down. I say it's crap and even stinker crap all the way down. I'm a real ray of sunshine I know.

You don't understand things, and it makes your attempts at participation annoying. You should stop

Couldn't counter a single point Crid? All you can do is pointless personal insults? And so short. No word topiary for Ben. I'm sad.

It was the the overwhelming Democratic Congressional majority and Barack Obama that passed and signed Dodd-Frank, creating the Consumer Finance Protection Agency and making it exempt from any Congressional oversight. Even its budget is financed from the Treasury Department budget, and not from a Congressional appropriation.

How many similarly exempt agencies will a Hillary Clinton administration create?