Yeah, well, we don't have that choice now.

Romney's candidacy proved the point that Ben Shapiro so-often makes, that people vote for the President with their hearts, not their heads. Romney was all about calm and mature analysis of our major issues, with carefully-crafted plans about how we might address them. Obama was all about how we are moving into the hopey-changey uplands of wonderfulness, gamboling about among the herds of unicorns, and how the Republicans were all dog-killing, cancer-infecting woman-haters who wanted to drag us back into the Dark Ages. And it worked.

Trump proves this point perfectly. He doesn't have a single policy plan that passes the smell or math tests. But - just like the Democrats - his platform is a mish-mash of vague promises of general wonderfulness and hopeful amazery - just tuned to a slightly-more Right-wing audience - and the voters lap it up.

Look at the string of Republican hopefuls we had going into the race. For concentrated skills of governance and general policy wonkery, they could not be bettered. Paul Ryan could bore you into a coma talking about tax policy. Cruz and Rubio had the social and political issues at their fingertips, they could have driven back the Mongol hordes with their machine-gunnery of data and studies. Even the latecomers and lightweights like Carson and Fiorina had substantive plans. And what do we end up with?

Trump, who knows little about the issues, cares less, and changes his positions like he changes his socks.

Because the presidential races is about hearts, not minds, and Trump captures people's hearts, while requiring them to leave their minds at the door.

llater,

llamas

All well-put, llamas. Any one of those Republicans would be better than Trump by far.

Romney was all about calm and mature analysis of our major issues, with carefully-crafted plans about how we might address them.

I remind you that one of those plans was a prototype of Obamacare, which Romney implemented in Massachusetts when he was governor there. I can't fathom Amy's enthusiasm for him in light of that.

Ah, but he was the second coming of Hitler, or the Klan or something.

Didn't you get the memo? and he hates dogs.

Soon, enough the last remnants of the Old Republic will be swept away forever.

Too bad you didn't feel that way when you could have voted for him-maybe we wouldn't be here in this mess now.

"I can't fathom Amy's enthusiasm for him in light of that."

The fact that he isn't on the ballot is a lot of that.

Remember the trope about how Catholic (Mormon?) boys were taught not to masturbate, because those millions of sperm were potential babies who'd lose the chance to experience God's benevolent love in human form? Or whatever?

Voting is apparently like that... Amy says "A vote for Clinton is a vote against Trump." So each ballot is a kaleidoscopic fractal of quasi-real outcomes.

Let's talk some more about the election!

First of all, FUCK THE OPINION OF ANYONE READING THESE WORDS FROM ANOTHER NATION. Handle your own beeswax. Patrol your own borders. Defend your own international trade. Fund your own finances.

Okay, more later.

Ben, you went to a school in the Southeastern Conference, is that right?

I must admit I had to google that Crid. I'm not much of a sports guy. But apparently not.

You really do get obsessed over irrelevant things.

Incidentally do you know of any good sources on voltage mode switch power supply loop stabilization? Type III in particular. I've never been much of a power supply guy but it looks like I'll have to become one. Unfortunately the default calculators don't cover the temperature range I deal with. So it looks like I'll have to figure things out myself.

GED?

If you vote for someone, you're voting for that someone, not against her opponent. At least the outcome will register that way. Hillary will get your vote, not some anti-Trump spot on the ballot.

If she is voted in and turns out to be a disaster, it won't matter that your vote for her was a protest. You voted for her.

A vote for her still means more activist SCOTUS justices who will be hostile to the First and Second Amendments (part of the anti-Heller and anti-Citizens United litmus tests she has repeatedly said she'll apply to her SCOTUS picks). Get ready for more wise Latina women.

A vote for her means a continuation of ObamaCare with its high premiums and low coverage.

A vote for her means an interventionist foreign policy with more military involvement overseas for an already stretched to the limit US military, but no budget increase to pay for her adventurism.

A vote for her means increased budget deficits as her tax-the-rich policies fail to pay for the social programs she will expand at the behest of her liberal base (she's already promised free college for the middle class to get Bernie voters on her side; as well as expanded parental leave and subsidized daycare).

A vote for her means the continued politicization of executive branch agencies like the IRS, the FCC, the SEC, and the FBI.

A vote for her means amnesty for illegal aliens, expanded immigration for unskilled laborers, and voting rights for felons and illegals.

A vote for her means an increase in the activism of BLM, La Raza, NOW, and other groups intent upon dividing us by race and gender.

A vote for her means a continuation of the politics of partisanship and exclusion that characterized both ObamaCare and HillaryCare.

A vote for Hillary Clinton will not be registered as a vote against Trump, but as a vote for her, no matter the rationale of the pro-Hillary voter. You can tell yourself you voted against Trump all you want, you voted for her.

> If you vote for someone, you're
> voting for that someone, not
> against her opponent.

Clarity! ☑☑

Not a power supply guy either eh Crid?

I will admit I had to take the GRE twice. I did terrible on the math section that first time. I hadn't done anything like that for five years. But I guess you have to dumb things down and then check for edge cases when you are doing a generic test. Education majors and engineers don't work with the same types of math. But it does make the text rather irrelevant for technical degrees.

'Rather'!

I voted for Romney and would do so again.

But, that ship has sailed.

Romney was nice, he was the good guy. And how well did that turn out?

Trump, whom is NOT my first, second, or even 10th choice, has been giving Hillary and the news media a good run for their money.

THAT is why I'm voting for Trump. He is, right now, the only real choice against the established political elites and the only real choice to take down the Clintons and their corrupt liars, rapist enablers, and downright disgusting pigs.

But, then who else would this bitter clinger, tea-bagger, basket of deplorables vote for?

I'm hoping Trump wins, and wins big to shut up once and for all those who piss on the rest of America.

I liked math. Plane geometry was very useful when aligning mortar tubes without an aiming circle.
And trig.... triangulating back azimuths. O frabjous day!

Another thing about this is--- From now on, when younger people say the Baby Boom generation was a bunch of coddled, self-regarding twats who fucked everything up, we have to sit there and take it.

I mean, it's not like they, of Generation X or Generation X + (Z), will ever have any better acclimation to the discipline, courage, and integrity that made this country great.

But they won't be wrong when they say the Baby Boomers --white, black, male, female, gay & straight & disabled & healthy & rich & poor & conservative & liberal-- are a bunch of coddled, self-regard twats. Who fucked everything up.

But they won't be wrong when they say the Baby Boomers --white, black, male, female, gay & straight & disabled & healthy & rich & poor & conservative & liberal-- are a bunch of coddled, self-regard twats. Who fucked everything up.

Crid at November 7, 2016 6:42 PM

This is one of the reasons that I am not in favor of classifying everyone into a *group* for the purposes of collective blame, or praise for either achevements or condemnation for fucking the country and the world up. (And this includes Muslims)

We are all individuals, operating most times on incomplete information, and our emotional biases.

Baby boomers as a group didn't cause this mess, and Gen Xers arent going to save us. If anything they are more coddled than the baby boomers, at least half of which were at least subject to the draft.

The system will eventually have to reset with maximum damage to the productive classes and the responsible retired. The rich as usual will float above it all, and point fingers, and the poor dont have very far to fall. (But there will be riots in the streets)

And altruism, and poltical fixes funded with other people's money, as you have so correctly pointed out, deserve nothing but derision.

I never cared for Romney Charles. But I still voted for him. I thought he would be a bit better than Obama. Trump was my roughly my 15th choice. (I quite despise Jeb at this point.) But similarly I think he will do better than Clinton so he got my vote. You try to pick the best option available. And some years you say hey, they all look the same to me and stay home.

Crid, you don't like the word rather? Honestly I misspelled test as text. But it kinda works.

Don't mind Crid and me Richard. Crid is trying to prove I'm stupid and hurt my feelings or something. It is some sort of revenge for pointing out 'Touched by an Angel' is not an authoritative source for Christian ideology or mythology.

llamas: Romney's candidacy proved the point that Ben Shapiro so-often makes, that people vote for the President with their hearts, not their heads. [. . . ] Look at the string of Republican hopefuls we had going into the race. For concentrated skills of governance and general policy wonkery, they could not be bettered. [. . .] Because the presidential races is about hearts, not minds, and Trump captures people's hearts, while requiring them to leave their minds at the door.

I agree with Shapiro -- a variation on that theme is: people vote for the candidate they'd most like to have a beer with -- but my feeling is that there's much more going on than that with a lot of Trump supporters. They have this fervent belief that he's somehow going to "smash" the existing political system; be a modern-day Messiah and cast the political elites out of the temple; lead pissed-off, laid-off factory workers to some nebulous Promised Land.

I think he's captured their fantasies far more than their hearts.

Isab: The system will eventually have to reset with maximum damage to the productive classes and the responsible retired. The rich as usual will float above it all, and point fingers, and the poor dont have very far to fall. (But there will be riots in the streets)

I think the line between our country as it is and our country spinning out of control, with massive spasms of violence, is quite thin.

> for the purposes of collective
> blame, or praise

Well, not sure how collective it is... Some very specific demographics have lost sight of the need and duty to generate wealth... Even as they've honed their skills at merely accruing income to a ferocious new sharpness, with concurrent expansion of their social distance from the less-adept. (See again Caldwell, or Google Noonan's "How Global Elites Forsake Their Countrymen.")

We should be as blunt about this as we possibly can. There's no reason not to hurt people's feelings: They haven't done much for mine, either.




> you don't like the word rather?

You have sincerity problems.

> for pointing out 'Touched
> by an Angel' is not an
> authoritative source for
> Christian ideology

... And reading comprehension deficiencies.

Remember this and that.

> Even the latecomers and
> lightweights like Carson
> and Fiorina had substantive
> plans.

I think Carly was anything but a lightweight.

> Even the latecomers and
> lightweights like Carson
> and Fiorina had substantive
> plans.

I think Carly was anything but a lightweight.

Crid at November 8, 2016 12:00 AM

I agree. I think Carly would have been the ideal candidate to go up against Criminal Clinton.

"Ben, you went to a school in the Southeastern Conference, is that right?"

Just wondering – what college has the most academic All-Americans?

I hope you are asking Crid, Rad. Because I haven't got a clue what that even means.

I agree. I think Carly would have been the ideal candidate to go up against Criminal Clinton. ~ Isab at November 8, 2016 1:20 AM

Nah, Carly would have been Romney 2.0, bringing a knife to a gun fight. For all his deficiencies, and they are legion, Trump brings a nasty gutter fighter to a nasty gutter fight.

The Dems tore apart Romney's outstanding business record with lies and innuendo. Carly had a less-spectacular business record than Romney; was polite and preferred to discuss issues rather than personality; and would have been eviscerated with her tenure at HP (although I challenge the Dems to find anyone who could have succeeded with the dysfunctional HP board of directors looming over their shoulder).

When the Republicans lost Lee Atwater, they lost their best street fighter. They have yet to find a replacement. Karl Rove showed promise, but he's a data wonk (another job the Republicans need but cannot seem to fill), not a street fighter.

The Republicans need another Atwater because the Dems excel at political street fights; they fight dirty and at the same time claim the moral high ground. If you then use a low blow against them, they claim you went dirty and call you a racist, sexist, homophobe, or xenophobe. Romney was a deer in the headlights when the Democratic street fighters were through with him; when his record of saving bankrupt businesses was turned against him with charges of offshoring American jobs and laying off American workers.

"THAT is why I'm voting for Trump. He is, right now, the only real choice against the established political elites and the only real choice to take down the Clintons and their corrupt liars, rapist enablers, and downright disgusting pigs."

Seriously? The man with ties to Russia, and the mob, who routinely stiffs contractors, who's being sued for rape is such a shining beacon of purity to you?

I didn't love Romney, aka Mr. People ARE corporations, my friend, but I'd much rather have him than Trump.

I forgot to mention that total scam Trump University and his Trump Foundation.

Again, this is the man people think is less corrupt?

I remember the last time we elected a man who was an outsider, who was supposed to clean up Washington. His name was Jimmy Carter, 'nuff said.

Yeah, sure. You're a paragon of virtue when you offshore a company's jobs, laying off workers while taking millions for yourself.

"Again, this is the man people think is less corrupt?"

Shockingly enough JoJo, yes. He is less corrupt. It's a crazy world we live in.

Kurt Eichenwald: The top 129 findings from my investigation of Trump

Washington Post: Mitt Romney and Bain: A Fact Checker collection

Yeah, sure. You're a paragon of virtue when you offshore a company's jobs, laying off workers while taking millions for yourself. ~ Patrick at November 8, 2016 8:42 AM

Better he had let the companies fail and all the employees lost their jobs? Because make no mistake, the companies he rescued were in trouble, and the jobs created by those companies even after Bain was no longer in charge, would simply not have materialized if the companies had been allowed to fail.

JoJO: "shining beacon of purity to you"

Nowhere did I say that. Maybe, JoJo, you should learn to read.

And, yes, Trump would be better than Billary.

I didn't love Romney, aka Mr. People ARE corporations, my friend, but I'd much rather have him than Trump. ~ JoJo at November 8, 2016 8:08 AM

Thing is, Romney's not running. He lost 4 years ago. Your only realistic choice in the election at this point is Trump vs. Clinton.

As such, nobody cares who would rather have Romney over Trump. You play the cards you're dealt and those cards are a corrupt kleptocrat and a vainglorious narcissist.