"The Libertarians have a few years to get their shit together. Is it still too much to ask that they -- when there's greater opportunity than ever to elect a Libertarian -- put forth a candidate with both a personality and a clue?"

Start winning races at the local and state level. Build a real party, or co-opt one of the two existing ones, and in 20 or thirty years, you might have a shot.

The Democratic party looks very ripe for the picking these days, but the socialists have a huge head start on you with their base.

Until then, dream on.

Hillary would have been a god awful diaster. Especially for libertarians who support the Second Amendment. (Which should be all of them)

I'm quite happy with Trump as the lesser evil.

"Every day, the incoherence deepens: He's going to cover "everyone," but he's going to push 24 million people off their health insurance."

This is simply more of the same fear-selling, because the maneuvering to get rid of Obamacare isn't even close to finalized. You know I'm opposed to anything using the "insurance" lie in a health care bill - I don't like anything the idiots have done.
Is there any motivation whatsoever for a media outlet to report news, as opposed to clickbait?

Note well that this whole article was predicted by Scott Adams - again. This is the step where Trump goes from "Hitler" to "incompetent" in the minds of those who have doubled down on their own fantasies about how a President, indeed a government, works. How good were these people at even predicting the election, again?

That Sullivan piece got a lot of attention given the modesty of its aspirations.

> How good were these people at
> even predicting the election,
> again?

What do electoral politics have to do with principle in politics? Mostly this suggests that you, perhaps like those who inflame you most deeply, are engaged by these matters as an ESPN competition of some kind, an ego-associative process of sports team loyalty bearing on nothing but your own teenage resentments.

It remains the case that Trump has never done a goddamn thing for another human being in his entirely life and has no demonstrable enthusiasms or concern with national or international events.

You think he's going to do great things. You never say what they are, and there's a reason for that.

But you chide "the minds of those who have doubled down on their own fantasies about how a President, indeed a government, works."

Are you a drinker?

I meant "What do electoral predictions have to do..."

But still.

The thing people want most from politics is too be flattered.

You're too needy-- You've made it too easy for your candidates.

Eli Lake shared a joke on the Welch podcast last week, paraphrased:

People who think Trump is flailing don't recognize his cunning. They think he's switching positions and blowing with the wind— But actually he's playing five-dimensional Hungry Hungry Hippos...

Sorry about the typos. I'm on the little boy, and the Holiday breakfast cafe has both cartoons on the TV and rock & roll on the loudspeakers. Disorienting. Gnorblfilcjkind.

"Is it still too much to ask that they -- when there's greater opportunity than ever to elect a Libertarian -- put forth a candidate with both a personality and a clue?"

Yes. Drugs and nude dancing aren't presidential.

"Of course, the last to admit anything even coming close to resembling an inconsistency in the man are those who voted for him. At least, many of those."

Not true. Many of those who've voted for him recognize that. They just don't care. So far he has exceeded the expectations of many of us.

Reminds me of a certain former president who was against gay marriage until he was for gay marriage. And a former senator who was or the Iraq invasion before she was against the Iraq invasion.

I'm figuring out that it is not useful to listen to what Trump says, because he says all kinds of stuff. Watch what he, and the people around him, do. I was surprised at the Syria thing too, but it turns out to have accomplished several positives. First of all, he rubbed Obama's nose in his "red line", taking the action that Obama promised to take but never did. That's important because Obama is still very active in Washington and is one of the leaders of the oppose-everything-at-all-costs leftists. Second, he put some teeth in the threats being made re North Korea, and it seems to have brought China back around to a (at least slightly) more conciliatory pose regarding that topic. And, it rattled Putin's cage a bit, which is never a bad thing at this point. Putin's protestations that chemical weapons weren't actually used were laughable, and he lost some international street cred with that.

The Libertarians have a few years to get their shit together. Is it still too much to ask that they -- when there's greater opportunity than ever to elect a Libertarian -- put forth a candidate with both a personality and a clue?

"Greater opportunity than ever to elect a Libertarian?" What opportunity? The Libertarian Party has done nothing to shore up a base, develop a party machinery, or prove it's a party that can govern.

As if one magical candidate is all the Libertarians need to win it all. To borrow from Crid's comment, this ain't a sporting event. A dominant player in the middle is not the answer to winning the championship.

The weakness of the Democrats and Republicans both should offer a real opportunity to a third political party that has done the legwork of establishing an actual political party (donor networks, campaign machinery, building a bench of lawmakers, etc.). The Libertarians have not. The Libertarians are a bunch of nerds crashing the prom and whining that they haven't been crowned Prom King.

A fat guy dancing stripping to his underwear on the main stage at the convention (not just any fat guy, but a fat guy running for party leadership) is not the way to convince serious people that your party should be allowed to govern, to hold the reins of power, to have your hand on the nuclear button.

The Libertarian party (small "p" - as in not-a-Party but a party) is a pot-fueled bacchanal pretending to be serious, like a teenager pretending to be an adult and protesting loudly when the pretense doesn't work.

It remains the case that Trump has never done a goddamn thing for another human being in his entirely life ~ Crid at April 17, 2017 4:39 AM

You're in danger of sounding like those liberals who measure a person's value to society by his charitable givings, his willingness to support government giveaway programs, and his being on the "right" side of social policy debates.

Trump has employed people (and paid most of them). He's developed existing real estate into higher-tax real estate. He's paid taxes, personal and business.

Is he a saint? No, far from it. He's cheated partners, stiffed vendors and customers, and taken advantage of bankruptcy laws to avoid debts. But he also hasn't spent his life in government, living off the taxpayers. The business he's done has put people to work. The wrongs he's done have remedies in law. He can be sued for damages. He's churned the social and economic waters of the country, helping to build wealth, both for himself and others.

Trump is not an ideologue. He has no political philosophy. Is that dangerous? Perhaps. He doesn't have an internal idea of the role that government needs to play in the lives of the governed; a mental red line behind which government needs to be held.

Obama had a political philosophy and the economy still dealing with the aftershocks of his big government approach and regulatory overreach. Could Trump morph into another Obama? Yes, unfortunately. Could he morph into a limited-government Goldwater conservative? Yes, it's to be wished.

But Trump has proven to have been the better choice in the 2016 election. He put Gorsuch on the Court, preventing it from becoming an activist Court. We don't need another Warren Court.

And I think the world is rediscovering the value of having the stick of a crazy American president. When a US soldier was describing dealing with an Iraqi tribal elder during the occupation, he described an intransigent elder who refused to work out a deal with a rival tribe. Until the soldier pulled out his cell phone and announced he was calling Donald Rumsfeld. Then, the elder begged him not to and quickly worked out a deal with the rival tribe.

The Chinese refused to rein in Kim until Donald dropped 59 missiles on the Syrians and a really big bomb on the Taliban. Now, the Chinese are putting pressure on Kim to knock it off.

Putin did not respect Obama and his staff, especially Hillary ("reset" button notwithstanding). Putin measures himself against his opponents. In Trump he has an American president he thinks he can measure himself against.

Will Trump bomb North Korea? It's possible. But it's the not knowing if he will that will help drive a diplomatic solution to the crisis, a diplomatic solution driven by the Chinese, the Japanese, and the South Koreans, if Kim can be held by a diplomatic solution.

Damn it! We need an EDIT function.

"But you chide "the minds of those who have doubled down on their own fantasies about how a President, indeed a government, works."
Are you a drinker?"

Nice shade you're casting there.

It remains that although you, like many others, have no idea whatsoever what problems a professional machinist may face, what life on a ballistic missile submarine or B-52 crew may be or how a professional surgeon inures himself from the suffering that may attend his work, you continue to pretend you know a billionaire President intimately based on media coverage.
You have fantasies. Your job - which I gather may be that of a video editor based only on this blog's traffic - is one dependent on performance; no one would employ you if you did not put out. Yet Peter Drucker was talking specifically about you, in that you're transferring the delicate and insightful nature of your work to the miasma of "facts" presented by others - as if they were accurate.
If only you had a complete film of The Donald's life in front of you...

You don't. Double down...

Your hero looks especially enchanting in that bright red cape!

I like the part where the Clintons aren't pertinent.

> You're in danger of sounding
> like those liberals who measure
> a person's value to society by
> his charitable givings,
> his willingness to support
> government giveaway programs,
> and his being on the "right"
> side of social policy debates.

No. What I'm saying is, he's never done a goddamn thing for another human being in his entire life.

Yeah... In fact, I *do* judge people by their charitable giving. Actual truth, genuine word, that's a fact.

But I don't understand how that's followed immediately, in the same sentence, by "willingness to support government giveaway programs."

It's like people can't *imagine* any engagement in the lives of their fellow citizens that doesn't involve government.

But personal interaction and kindness is the only kind that ever helps anyone.

The 21st is one weird-ass century.

> you... have no idea whatsoever what
> problems a professional machinist
> may face

The fuck? Look, we can't make you be smart, but we can ask you to be coherent. Why exactly are you expecting voters to have an interest in the deep interior lives of these randomly-scattered personages?

> you continue to pretend
> you know a billionaire President
> intimately based on media coverage

Raddy, Honey, as Dustin Hoffman asked of Rachel Weiss in that one movie, who hurt you? Why the fuck do you think I should know, or care, what this "billionaire's" life is like on an "intimate" basis?

I just can't understand how you could —in the middle of your own adult life, nowhere near the playful social sampling of childhood— have selected this shallow baboon as a figure for your own interpersonal identification. You are not seven, and he is not Batman. You are not ten, and he is not Catfish Hunter. You are not thirteen, and he is not Jimmy Page.

I'll never comprehend your seemingly metaphysical, though entirely baseless, certitude that this famously corrupt and incompetent business fuckup should not merely be favored in comparison to loathsome Hillary but should actually be admired, heard and trusted by any policy pretext whatsoever... Let alone the office of the Chief Executive.



Well, duzzenmadder. This is your fault, not mine. I didn't vote for the guy. His repugnance registers clearly in my heart each and every day for each and every scandal, because I know he never deserved any support.

It's a twisted psychological thing you've got cooking there, a clumsy but apparently fulfilling masochism. But No Cryin' In Baseball, okay? As his descent (and wretchedness) continues to burden us all, bring me ANYTHING but your tears.

This would be a good time to stop with the ludicrous personal defenses of someone you've never met and start writing a list of uncomplicated, if fraudulent, excuses.

I can imagine Trump staying up late humming the lyrics to "Bird on a Wire.
The Neville Brothers version is good.

Hey Crid, I saw you in the funny papers last week:

https://m.arcamax.com/thefunnies/pearlsbeforeswine/s-1945238

> saw you in the funny papers

We understand each other perfectly, Muffin.

"Why the fuck do you think I should know, or care, what this "billionaire's" life is like on an "intimate" basis?"

Well, there's the blind spot...

Because you presume to know what he says, means and thinks.

That clear enough for you?

I appreciate that you have more to express than you can get on a page here swiftly, and that thoughtfulness and eloquence does carry the day for you most of the time - but that should never make the voices in your head drown out what others are trying to say to you...

...such as: if you cannot appreciate the details and thoughts of those in other professions, HTF do you pretend to be an authority on The Donald?

This is why Trump was elected, and why we should be glad he was.

We don't need another big government justice on the Supreme Court.