Interesting: If You Want to Fight Demagoguery, You Have to First Restrain Your Own Doctrinaire Impulses

Very interesting article from Fred Bauer, excerpted at Hot Air.

Bauer goes back to James Fennimore Cooper to set up a struggle between two wicked sorts: demagogues, and the doctrinaire type.

I was just talking about this in the podcast. I mentioned that in the nineties, when Perot challenged Clinton on NAFTA, Clinton, at least, arranged for a debate on NAFTA. (Al Gore vs. Ross Perot.)

Give Clinton credit -- he was willing to debate the issue. He attempted to persuade people he was right. He briefed his Wooden Puppet Moron on some talking points and put him on Larry King Live to do this.

Public persuasion -- what an idea.

Where has that idea gone?

Anyone trying much of this on the right, lately?

Chiefly the form of "persuasion" one sees on these issues lately is ever more ghastly and baroque insults directed at the white working class.

The idea seems to be that if this cohort is insulted in even more vicious terms than the liberal ruling class did, they'll finally see the sense of supporting the right-side ruling class.

Apparently there is some idea aborning that the 10% of the country that constitutes the right-leaning urban upper-middle-class college-educated cohort (the Urban Haute Bourgeoisie, in Wilt Stillman's phrasing) is just going to form its own party and win a lot of elections with its huge one-tenth of the electorate.

One problem I have with the Establishment is that they simply YELL THEIR DOGMAS AND DOCTRINES LOUDER, AND WITH MORE SNEERING, rather than take the time to explain why the dogmas they favor should be favored.

This is usually a sign of one of two related symptoms:

1, they're lazy,

and

2, they don't actually know why they believe what they believe; they just know all the Right-Thinking People are supposed to believe it.

I think part of the sneering contempt, that emotional response, stems from the frustration that they actually can't explain why they believe whatever Cult Dogma they believe.

This is exactly the sort of posturing -- "argumentation" by mere assertion combined with sneering contempt for anyone who wasn't swayed by the third repetition of the same naked assertion -- that turned post-WWII liberalism into a desiccated husk.

I happen to think our open borders position with regard to both labor and trade ought to be subject to questioning -- and when questions are posed, they should be answered with actual answers, not huffy posturing and foot-stamping.

I've never been sold on this ultrafriedmanism. I've also not been strongly against it.

But I do know that a lot of the people who huff off when their ultrafriedmanite dogma is even challenged do not themselves know what the hell they're talking about, or they would simply answer questions. People love giving answers for questions they know -- everyone does. Everyone loves vaunting one's knowledge.

Ergo, when people just stamp their feet and shout louder, I strongly suspect they don't know what the hell it is they're talking about, and ergo cannot provide an answer any better than the foot-stamp.

The fact that this is now the preferred attitude of the alleged intellectual class -- which ought to be interested in the details and justifications of the ideas they claim to so firmly believe -- speaks to a basic rot in the intellectual class of the conservative movement.

Again, the selfsame one which afflicted the liberal movement in the 70s and 80s. An establishment which isn't questioned enough soon gets a bit lazy about answering questions, and ultimately finds it can't answer them, and that therefore the only way to respond to them is to create an uproar in hopes the questioner just goes away.

There may be good reasons to believe in strong-form open-borders-for-everybody-and-everything. If there are good reasons, I sure hope the people who are in possession of them get around to sharing them -- letting these reasons cross their own personal borders to the outside world -- at some point.

The foot-stamping tantrums are getting old, guys. And they ill-suit the people who are simultaneously posturing as the informed adults in the room.

Open Thread. Happy Friday.

By the Way: Even if Trump is beaten this election, that doesn't mean these questions go away. Trump has now demonstrated for anyone willing to see that it's very easy to win a Republican primary -- you have to just not be as grotesque a specimen as Trump and be somewhat informed on the issues, but otherwise you can run pretty much on the same issue/ideology profile as Trump and laugh your way to an early knockout win in a primary and have the whole thing wrapped up by Super Tuesday.

Trump may be beaten -- and probably will be. But he'll have been beaten for reasons having little to do with the issue profile he's running on. He'll have been beaten due to the mere circumstance of his utterly unsuitable character and unschooled mind.

But the next person to run won't be kind enough to cede these points to the Establishment.

So if the Establishment wants to ever win an election every again, it really ought to get crackin' on thinking why they believe all the religious dogmas they're so possessed by, and work out a way to explain these ideas to people who do not already share their convictions.

Otherwise, they're just an even less palatable version of Obama -- a narcissistic bunch who just thinks the country isn't virtuous enough or smart enough to receive their own received wisdom.

Managed Democracy: Similarly to Trump failing not because of his issue profile but because of his grotesque personality defects, Mario Rubio's (or Paul Ryan's) open borders agenda should not be implemented simply because they are educated men with handsome smiles.

This annoys me about the a certain style of thinking: We will avoid actually inviting the public into an open discussion (and permitted consideration) of our issue profile. Instead, we will manage them into agreeing to our agenda without every actually seeking their agreement, by simply deeming that only this guy or that guy is electable and physically attractive enough to be elected.

There seems to be a lot of avoidance of the discussion of actual ideas by the party which once upon the time styled itself -- no, really, it did -- as the "Party of Ideas."

Now ideas are passe and kind of dangerous. Now the idea is to hide ideas from the public, and just talk about pablum and loving American and loving grandpa, and having a handsome-but-not-threateningly-so guy deliver this pablum, and thereby manage the voters into giving up a vote without ever actually giving any consent.

You can't avoid the ideas you plan to implement and run on a variety of trivial distractions and then claim some kind of mandate to implement them later.

This isn't the consent of the governed. And this isn't treating the voters as peers worthy of respect.

This is the management of thugs, morons, scoundrels and various sorts of social inferiors who you plainly do not trust to do the right thing (or to believe the right things) by manipulating them by all means except honest persuasion and argument.

Conservatism used to have this sort of everyday egalitarian populism to it -- we trust the people to do the right thing when provided all the information. It's the dreaded liberals who wish to hide their agenda and thereby avoid any actual engagement with the electorate.

Where did that conservatism go?

Or was that always, like so much else, just a stupid faithless lie?

Was the argument always just about which fat, soft comfortable elites would be in control?

Proposed Debate: Let's actually have a debate on open borders, huh?

My nominees for the border security/restrictionist side are David Frum (yes, he's on this side), Mickey Kaus, Mark Krikorian, and Tucker Carlson.

The other side can nominate whatever Open Borders hucksters they like -- probably mostly from the WSJ editorial board and Jorge Ramos. Whoever.

And let's actually see what the public really thinks.

Posted by: Ace at 06:21 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 First?

Posted by: Weasel at April 01, 2016 06:22 PM (e3bId)

2 Yep. First.

Posted by: Weasel at April 01, 2016 06:23 PM (e3bId)

3 And second.

Posted by: Weasel at April 01, 2016 06:23 PM (e3bId)

4 And...... Well, you get the idea.

Posted by: Weasel at April 01, 2016 06:23 PM (e3bId)

5 It isn't a hat trick until it's 3 firsts

Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 06:25 PM (1J6E6)

6 This was the hard to achieve 'quatro'.

Posted by: Weasel at April 01, 2016 06:26 PM (e3bId)

7 Too many people make minimal use of their frontal lobes.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 06:26 PM (mR7Es)

8 O'bummer is giving us his wisdom live on Fox and I'm sure many others.

Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 06:27 PM (1J6E6)

9 I just giggled when I just now thought of the French pronunciation of a word spelled A-C-E.

Monsieur Ace.

Hehe. Hehe.

Posted by: juvenile chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 06:27 PM (dyaak)

10 7 I try to maintain minimal brain activity at all times. It'll last longer that way.

Posted by: Weasel at April 01, 2016 06:28 PM (e3bId)

11 The get upset because if they have to defend free trade, it becomes apparent that it's not the same as the thing that they want. When they're allowing cheap Chinese exports to flood the US market, but are perfectly fine with the Chinese restricting the import of US goods, then they're not really for free trade.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 01, 2016 06:28 PM (kqIMj)

12 Reset sock

Posted by: chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 06:28 PM (dyaak)

13
Ergo, when people just stamp their feet and shout louder, I strongly suspect they don't know what the hell it is they're talking about, and ergo cannot provide an answer any better than the foot-stamp.

You too easily dismiss righteous frustration, Ace.

Like stubborn children, Republicans refused to hear us. It is a quite normal reaction to raise our voices. And now comes the beating phase...

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 06:29 PM (P0DTV)

14 Well fuck other people, I only care about me.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at April 01, 2016 06:29 PM (zS+pH)

15 ace, as you've said yourself memorably in the past, the "intellecutal elite" is mostly neither.

Not doctrinaire and closed-minded and lazy (OK, those too, in most cases).

Not.That.Smart.

Of course they are generally towering giants of public policy wisdom compared to the repulsive shallow idiots on the other side.

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 06:29 PM (QDnY+)

16 * listens *

No, Barry, not the kind you eat.

* listens *

No, it's when you believe something but you can't really explain why.

* listens *

Look, I'm really busy right now. Why don't you go see if there's something on TV?

Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at April 01, 2016 06:29 PM (3GAnN)

17 He just spewed a bunch of crap he beleaves in, that he hasn't shown 1 day while in office.

Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 06:30 PM (1J6E6)

18 Basically I get tired of trying to explain stuff to dumbasses.

Posted by: freaked at April 01, 2016 06:30 PM (BO/km)

19
What we have today is a completely useless political party who often sides with our political enemies, and, quite frankly, with our mortal enemies.

What are we supposed to do? They cannot be reasoned with. You're right, yelling at them is also fruitless. The only recourse we have remaining is to banish them into the wilderness, i.e., out of public office.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 06:32 PM (P0DTV)

20 I am currently watching "The Civil War".

Should the South ever rise again, I will go with it, no matter the cause.

Yes. I love the South.

Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at April 01, 2016 06:32 PM (1zS3A)

21 20 we may all be watching the civil war, soon. Live.

Posted by: Weasel at April 01, 2016 06:33 PM (e3bId)

22 It seems they try to make everything too complicated so that they can appear to be sooper smart and intellectual. "The rubes just don't understand." Most of the problems we have have simple solutions.

Posted by: Infidel at April 01, 2016 06:33 PM (Z1SI2)

23 I am currently watching "The Civil War".
Should the South ever rise again, I will go with it, no matter the cause.
Yes. I love the South.
Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at April 01, 2016 06:32 PM (1zS3A)

Civil War: American Balkans Edition

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 01, 2016 06:34 PM (uURQL)

24 Plus, ace, you mention "shouting louder and stamping their feet", and "sneering". Yes, typical and pathetic elements of their non-response.

But, ahemm ..... race-baiting and racism (if you're talking about the question of rule of law, er, sovereignty, er, common sense, er, having a border).

Economic, historical, and constitutional illiterates (some here, occasionally) love to try their teenage-level race-baiting ("nativism") when - as usual - they have nothing intelligent to say.

Mass illegal immigration of low-qualification people has no serious defense, no "upside" to justify any part of the extensive downsides.

Factor mobility (capital, labor) are at an all-time high, internationally. And will remain so if the only major industrial country with no real borders or immigration rule of law (guess who!) fixes those problems. "Friedmanesque" seems an unlikely description of anyone who seems so economically illiterate.

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 06:34 PM (QDnY+)

25 "I mentioned that in the nineties, when Perot challenged Clinton on
NAFTA, Clinton, at least, arranged for a debate on NAFTA. (Al Gore vs.
Ross Perot.)"

Wonder what all of the U.S. factory workers at Carrier HVAC who just watched their jobs disappear south of the border think now about Perot's "giant sucking sound" warning from the Nineties?

Perot didn't have the temperament to be President, but he was absolutely correct in his sizing up of the consequences of NAFTA, GATT, WTO, MFN and the rest of the "free trade" alphabet soup.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 01, 2016 06:35 PM (noWW6)

26 Ace, there is ONE adult in this race.

Oddly he is the youngest person running.

Nice post.

Enjoy your weekend sir.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 06:35 PM (g8Hfr)

27 The get upset because if they have to defend free trade, it becomes apparent that it's not the same as the thing that they want. When they're allowing cheap Chinese exports to flood the US market, but are perfectly fine with the Chinese restricting the import of US goods, then they're not really for free trade.

Posted by: Colorado Alex

Yes, and~ we do not have free trade.

Funding the Ex IM bank is the opposite of free trade.

Import bans on sugar is the opposite of free trade. Lookin' at you, Marco Rubes!

Corporate welfare is the opposite of free trade. Giving 22 banks free money in the Prime Dealer program is not fucking free trade.

The next motherfucker who proclaims that questioning 'free trade' is unconservative and unAmerica needs to take a seat.

WE DO NOT HAVE FREE TRADE.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 01, 2016 06:35 PM (A/3fN)

28
Ace, seriously consider uploading your podcast audio track to video of animals doing stuff, especially furry animals.

Listening to you rail about an issue or a candidate would be far more interesting if it was accompanied by, say, an otter building a dam.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 06:35 PM (P0DTV)

29 I've been wondering about your take on KW's Gorbutt article- Ace. Seems at least tangentially related.

Posted by: Farmer Bob at April 01, 2016 06:35 PM (mN+tK)

30 Let's see if I have this right. Doctrinaire- You will not speak out against 1,000 Syrian refugees relocated to your village of 6,500 and if you do you arel arrested. Dogma- You are required to adhere to all dictates of the state.

Posted by: Ben Had at April 01, 2016 06:37 PM (gdJkt)

31
Meanwhile, our State Media in cahoots with the State have yet to release shooter's name in the Richmond, VA murder.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 06:38 PM (P0DTV)

32 Listening to you rail about an issue or a candidate would be far more interesting if it was accompanied by, say, an otter building a dam.

Posted by: intellectual nudity

Your comments would be much more interesting if you wrote them from the inside of a Turkish prison toilet.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 01, 2016 06:38 PM (A/3fN)

33 Sort of related:
In apologetics, if you're discussing doctrine with a person of good will, it's always useful to get them to tell you their understanding of whatever, eg.
"So, can you tell me what you think the Immaculate Conception is?"

This lets you know what you don't have to cover, and what you might need to correct and where might be the best place to start the explanation/debate.

But to work well, it takes two people of, as I said above, good will.
Which is in short supply everywhere, it seems.

Posted by: Sal at April 01, 2016 06:39 PM (MRX6w)

34 Media occupies the extreme polarities reason is on life support.

The audience must be entertained.

And as soon as you use certain language you signal something

The sneering you speak of--it comes from a pundit most likely.

Posted by: Dire Straits at April 01, 2016 06:39 PM (mcm0N)

35 11 Posted by: Colorado Alex at April 01, 2016 06:28 PM (kqIMj)

There's a decided difference between Free Markets, and Freeloader Markets and we have the latter.

If ever there were a SERIOUS debate on Free Markets and a Global Economy then we'd have to hammer out a few things and a few realities would need to be acknowledged by the left.

1) You compete globally by having competiton on 1 of 3 planes.

a) labor costs

b) energy costs

c) infrastructure or logistical economies of scale.

That's it.

2) Every burden you place on private enterprise operating within your borders is a debit on the competitiveness of the aforementioned.

The EPA regulatory fiat undermines our ability to maximize economic activity.

The Democrats sans total control of the debate by their media allies would literally rather shit themselves than have to defend their idiocy on those two points.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 06:39 PM (g8Hfr)

36 Not sure, Ace. I think, to some degree, Clinton knew enough to debate.

I don't see that with the Left, now. They simply lie blatantly, because they lack the ability to even lie CONVINCINGLY, and the Media, their Propaganda Arm, just covers for them.

Can you imagine Obama (as an example) accomplishing even 1% of what he has without the Media hiding what a dolt he is?

Challenging Obama to debate doesn't work -- look what happened to Romney, Crowley LIED to protect the Precious.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see brilliant orators en masse on the Right, but they already start in the hole, whereas the Left gets a free ride.

Who can hold their tiny little cloven hooves to the fire and make them debate honestly?

Posted by: acethepug at April 01, 2016 06:40 PM (Z6yF/)

37 27 Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 01, 2016 06:35 PM (A/3fN)

Having a Federal Government ACTIVELY seeking to increase labor and energy cost to industry is not "free market" either...

it is "free loader" market.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 06:40 PM (g8Hfr)

38 We no longer have any open debates in this country. Truth must always be denied by those who wish to hold onto power as their version of "truth" is the only thing that matters.

Either your one with the body or the collectivists will destroy you personally through the MSM, social media or the court system.

What did Orwell say about a boot and someone's face?

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at April 01, 2016 06:41 PM (ej1L0)

39 The Establishment.

*BOO!*

Posted by: Dire Straits at April 01, 2016 06:41 PM (mcm0N)

40 Can't recall where, but not long ago read some things on Ryan I hadn't known before. Basically his childishly stupid theory that mass immigration was somehow needed for prosperity (or a stupid theory he and a bunch of others stupidly embrace).

Ask an "open borders" simpleton how it was that the greatest sustained economic boom in human history (the US, post-war to the 60s) occurred with *zero* immigration (effectively).

Blank looks, fidgeting ....... "racist! nativist!"

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 06:41 PM (QDnY+)

41 Good one, Ace. That's exactly why I have, with great reluctance, supported Trump. He's posing questions that cause the GOPe to stomp both feet like a 6-year-old having a screamfest.

I read National Review some but these days it's non-stop screaming and stomping. I gave begun to question some of my own doctrinaire positions, even, yes, my love of all things Friedmam (Milton, not Thomas).

The establishment house is truly rotten.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 01, 2016 06:41 PM (eXTZt)

42 I've been wondering about your take on KW's Gorbutt article- Ace. Seems at least tangentially related.
Posted by: Farmer Bob at April 01, 2016 06:35 PM

Hi Farmer Bob. See you here occasionally, where did/do you farm? I used to farm in N IL 32 yrs till Grandma passed and the kids sold the farm a couple of yrs later.

Posted by: Farmer at April 01, 2016 06:42 PM (o/90i)

43 36 Posted by: acethepug at April 01, 2016 06:40 PM (Z6yF/)

As got Diogenes Lamp banned...

the media, the media, the media...

75% of this fight is the US media.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 06:43 PM (g8Hfr)

44 If you hate Republicans and think the brand is ruined why not start your own party.

Posted by: Dire Straits at April 01, 2016 06:43 PM (mcm0N)

45
I think part of the sneering contempt, that emotional response, stems from the frustration that they actually can't explain why they believe whatever Cult Dogma they believe.

For some in the establishment, sure, I can see that. But I honestly think it's that most of them wholeheartedly believe that the vast unwashed masses should just shut the fuck up, pay their taxes and vote the way the elites want them to vote.

The sneering is because that's all they think we deserve, because toothless cousin-humping unpeople from Jesusland.

The frustration is from them realizing that they actually have to put in a little effort to come up with a Dogma that can be sold to the base.

The emotional response (tantrums) stem from the fact that the unpeople from Jesusland just won't get with the program.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 01, 2016 06:43 PM (o98Jz)

46 "So if the Establishment wants to ever win an election every again, it really ought to get crackin' on thinking why they believe all the religious dogmas they're so possessed by, "

Beyond maximizing some business' ROI, that is. I'm not sure there is another.

Posted by: That Guy at April 01, 2016 06:44 PM (J3UIw)

47 Dude, you're harshing our mellow.

Crumpet?

Posted by: The Establisment at April 01, 2016 06:44 PM (9KUj4)

48 I don't think there is a "right-side ruling class". The entire political class has moved far to the left of where it was 50 years ago.

Posted by: rickl at April 01, 2016 06:44 PM (sdi6R)

49 There's this thinking in the establishment that if they can somehow pull this out, get their guy front and center, everything will go back to normal and it's all good.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's over. The election almost doesn't even matter at this point because no matter who wins there's likely going to be violence going forward. A lot of people have kicked and twisted themselves into screamy pretzels and those emotions are going into the street. Hillary gets in and starts pushing that trade agreement and all the other nation busting garbage? Amnesty for illegals? You are going to see violence. Guaranteed.

On a lighter note I saw Dolly Parton doing something and isn't she great? I love Dolly Parton. Always have and I'm not that much of a country music fan. In fact, I've never heard anyone say anything negative about Dolly Parton. Not a single bad word.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 01, 2016 06:44 PM (4ErVI)

50 >>>Civil War: American Balkans Edition

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 01, 2016 06:34 PM (uURQL)

***

The yankees started it. We'll finish it.

Oh, and this time, all the military bases are in our part of the country.

Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at April 01, 2016 06:44 PM (1zS3A)

51 42- My family farmed in Curry, MN, until WWII. My last name is actually a bastardized version of the French term for tenant farmer, so Farmer Bob is actually just last name first, first name last.

Posted by: Farmer Bob at April 01, 2016 06:44 PM (mN+tK)

52 The Open borders situation has reduced lawn cutting rates and construction prices, and its reintroduced exciting new diseases not seen in the US for awhile.

Posted by: Dr Spank at April 01, 2016 06:44 PM (SUCxV)

53 41 Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 01, 2016 06:41 PM (eXTZt)

From a Trump Agnostic:

1) Duh Donald is a retard, but a patriotic useful one

2) Hillary is a retard with a blood oath against 48% minimum of America

3) National Review is chock full of retards who cannot grasp they are in the 48%

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 06:45 PM (g8Hfr)

54 Impotent rage!!!

Posted by: wooga at April 01, 2016 06:45 PM (fJyjM)

55 Having a Federal Government ACTIVELY seeking to increase labor and energy cost to industry is not "free market" either...

it is "free loader" market.

Posted by: sven10077

yep, yep, yeppity-yep.

I could go on and I shall.

Price controls.

How are price controls a part of free trade? Of course they aren't, you will say.

Setting the prime interest rate is the ultimate in price controls. It is quite literally the price of loaning money.

This is in no shape or form a free trade regime. WE DO NOT HAVE FREE TRADE.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 01, 2016 06:45 PM (A/3fN)

56 Trump has exposed other things--you are not looking at both sides of the equation.

Posted by: Dire Straits at April 01, 2016 06:46 PM (mcm0N)

57 OT to Chi because Willowed...
190 I read that as AmeriDan unmasking as the reincarnation of AmishDude...

Not trying to pick a scabs, just saying what I thought I saw.
Posted by: Chi

No, not AmishDude at all. I get you seeing AmishDude and AmeriDan as a play on nics, but I've had this nic for at least ten years.

Couldn't stand what AmishDude became. Seriously, he compared his self to Churchill!

I'm a Trump and/or Cruz guy.
Posted by: AmeriDan

Posted by: AmeriDan at April 01, 2016 06:46 PM (X/2JY)

58
Ward Churchill?

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 06:47 PM (P0DTV)

59 The thing that boggles my mind is that as much as we know anything in politics, we know that Mexican immigrants and their descendants vote 70-30 Democrat. In a good year for Republicans, 60-40.

It's not because they are stupid or brainwashed. The polls show that their policy preferences just line up with the Democratic platform.

With all of that being true, how can the Republicans be in favor of adding 10+ million of them to the voter rolls? Just as a matter of survival?

It's almost like they don't give a shit about the ideas they profess to support...

Posted by: Jake (not officially a regular) at April 01, 2016 06:47 PM (WjT3h)

60 Fuck you. I won.

Posted by: Emperor Clusterfuck I at April 01, 2016 06:47 PM (YFFpo)

61 Ace, I don't think Milton Friedman was in favor of open borders for the US. He said that theoretically he would support it if there was no welfare state which an unlimited number of immigrants could take advantage of. And y'know there was/is one.

Posted by: Roger Ailes' Cat at April 01, 2016 06:48 PM (Pm+du)

62 Thank you Ace! A good post that explains why, for all Trump's faults, his bloviating, his buffoonery, and his churlishness, he is raising issues that the Establishment won't honestly and effectively answer.

But might I suggest to you reason #3, namely, that this globalist right-side elite KNOW that their dogmas and doctrines are not good for the nation as a whole and the right-side rank-and-file, and they are in on the scam?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 01, 2016 06:48 PM (ujg0T)

63 Friday news dump to,be lost in the weeds...

STATE DEPT SUSPENDS REVIEW INTO 'TOP SECRET' CLINTON EMAILS

Wellllllll no shit.

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at April 01, 2016 06:48 PM (hlMPp)

64 60 Posted by: Emperor Clusterfuck I at April 01, 2016 06:47 PM (YFFpo)

Fuck your legacy motherfucker, I win.

//Math

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 06:48 PM (g8Hfr)

65 Ergo, when people just stamp their feet and shout louder, I strongly suspect they don't know what the hell it is they're talking about, and ergo cannot provide an answer any better than the foot-stamp.

^^^^

This is true, ace, but I would amend the paragraph following to basically indict society as a whole of this type of faulty argumentation. The fact is, it ain't just the "elites" or the establishment types that do this garbage. It's pretty prevalent everywhere. I think maybe it's just a bit more disappointing when it comes from the people we think of as elite, because in times past the upper classes were well educated, and not just degreed or pedigreed but most went through a pretty rigorous journey of the Western Canon, logic and dialectic and debate, and were capable of developing quite sophisticated arguments for their ideas.mits a damn shame that's been lost in favor of the various grievance studies group think bullcrap that passes for being educated nowadays.

Posted by: Mandy P. (Not Patinkin), lurking lurker who lurks at April 01, 2016 06:48 PM (KkVB6)

66 Jug Ears McFuckstick.

There I said it, haven't seen it spelled out for awhile. Just listened to his speech after the joke of a "Nuclear Security conference". WTF, if that guy isn't on a teleprompter it's all ummms and ahhhs. It's downright painful.

I have to speak in public on a regular basis and I can do a heck of lot better job at public speaking than this idiot. Guess that's not saying much tho.

Posted by: Farmer at April 01, 2016 06:49 PM (o/90i)

67 With all of that being true, how can the Republicans be in favor of adding 10+ million of them to the voter rolls? Just as a matter of survival?

Republicans are Dem-lite.

It explains all the failure theater. All of it.

And once you get that, you get that the GOPe must die. Starring Donald Trump as Uma Thurman.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 01, 2016 06:49 PM (uURQL)

68 Ward Churchill?
Posted by: intellectual nudity

No, I don't think that AmishDude was Native American. ;-)

Posted by: AmeriDan at April 01, 2016 06:49 PM (X/2JY)

69 You're giving Cruz short shrift. He's always willing to discuss and try to persuade. And he is articulate. The problem is, we have become a 13 second sound bite culture, which allows Trump to say," It'll be great!", " We'll hire smart people", and people nod and move on. It's not a willingness to discuss and inform that's the problem. It's a lack of willingness and facility to be informed..

Posted by: macleod at April 01, 2016 06:49 PM (Qf5bp)

70 I had to yell at my dogma this morning. He ate one of the chickens.

Posted by: Colonel Bernie Sanders at April 01, 2016 06:50 PM (Dwehj)

71 Every country illegals and legals come from are socialist goverments, most want more of what they left.

Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 06:51 PM (1J6E6)

72 Trump won't be beaten, Ace. He'll be rolled and left in an alley with his pants down to his ankles and a condom hanging out his butt. And that's how Hillary does America.

Posted by: Eromero at April 01, 2016 06:51 PM (zLDYs)

73 Everyone remembers the GM CEO's comment a while ago that he "runs a health plan that makes cars on the side". The point stands and is key.

Proposed "free trade" experiment.

Put aside all the additional forms of rent-seeking and govt. control that are popular for so many (tariffs), which mostly just add another non-market element to the huge crowd already deep into everyone's pockets.

How about full-court press on addressing two yuuuuge and largely malleable elements in the equation (noted by another above): cost of labor and energy.

Regulation. Regulation. Regulation. It's not just a stifling poison that Europeanizes the culture, deadens the soul, and empowers the worst elements in society - it is absolutely key to competing internationally.

There *are* jobs that will be lost due to actual comparative advantage. Shipbuilding jobs that left the US initially to Japan didn't stay there - they went to Taiwan - then to Korea - now to China. For good reasons.

But given the (still existing) US advantage in technology and capital-per-worker, simply returning sanity to regulation and energy prices - alone - would allow so much more prosperity to occur (note I didn't say would "create jobs") that the reality and the political pressure on trade might change dramatically.

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 06:51 PM (QDnY+)

74 65- Amen Mandy! I think James Taranto is the only one publicly doing the yeoman's work of exposing fallacy, and the WSJ usually puts him behind a paywall.

Posted by: Farmer Bob at April 01, 2016 06:51 PM (mN+tK)

75 I have a dog I named Matt Damon, I no longer feed it.

Posted by: Dr Spank at April 01, 2016 06:51 PM (SUCxV)

76 I never would have thought that the GOP agreed with me to burn it all down before, but apparently they do. Win? Or not.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at April 01, 2016 06:52 PM (zS+pH)

77
With all of that being true, how can the Republicans be in favor of adding 10+ million of them to the voter rolls? Just as a matter of survival?

My Golden Parachute theory might explain it. Republicans today are pretty much a gang of lobbyists carving out the best deal they can for themselves. Republicans of today do not care neither about the future of the Republic nor the future Republicans.

What we are witnessing is the most elaborate smash-and-grab pillaging in history. I wouldn't be surprised if all Republicans already had digs set up in Costa Rica or Belize, etc.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 06:52 PM (P0DTV)

78 69 A perfect example of this is the conversation Cruz had with a guy in Iowa about ethanol subsidies. It was a thing of beauty. No yelling, no feelz, just a straight up conversation. It was refreshing to see from a politician. He may have actually turned the guy around.

Posted by: Infidel at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (Z1SI2)

79 i've added a lot to the piece. please give the 2nd half a look, if you're interested at all in any of what i'm talking about.

Posted by: ace at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (dciA+)

80 The yankees started it. We'll finish it.

Oh, and this time, all the military bases are in our part of the country.

Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at April 01, 2016 06:44 PM (1zS3A)

If you think another Civil War is going to be a North-South rematch, you are full of shit. It will be the Center versus the coasts and if you want to take it a further step, all those Military Bases in the South will have to be neutralized before anything actually gets done. Who do you think those people on those bases are going to obey. The people who cut their pay checks or those who want to cut their pay to zero?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. A last degree brown belt in snark fu. at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (WVsWD)

81 61 Posted by: Roger Ailes' Cat at April 01, 2016 06:48 PM (Pm+du)

That would be correct.

The followers of Keynes, Hayek, and Friedman in the political class have so distorted their works I sincerely believe if any of the three were alive their response would be:

Keynes-HOL-EE GAWD I CAN GET MARRIED AND WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING WITH FREE MONEY FOR 25 FUCKING YEARS IN A ROW!?!

Hayek-HELL yes FREE MARKETS but Risk pools for public services are not evil!!!!

Friedman-HEY DUMBASSES I NEVER SAID PUTTING POTENTIALLY 7 BILLION NON WORKING PEOPLE ON PUBLIC AID WAS THE KEY TO GROWTH!

Keynes believed in frugality during prosperity.

Hayek believed in catastrophic medical coverage

Friedman said "open borders or welfare...can't have both"

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (g8Hfr)

82 If we get a chalkboard here at the HQ I will happily demonstrate why free trade is good and protectionism hurts the protectionist side.

People get hung up on "fair" as if putting a tariff on goods from Zanzibar is fair because they put a tariff on ours. It isn't. Putting a tariff or a quota on something shifts benefits from out consumers to either the government or the trading partner, respectively.

That said, yes, we would all do better by an airing of views and arguing the merits. This cycle is so much shouty and so little persuasion.

Everyone, on each side, is slicing up the electorate into perceived policy preferences and trying to pander to those.

I've said many times that I don't want a candidate to pander to Martian issues. Go into the Martian community and say "free markets are good for everyone", and "a sound defense policy protects you and that's important."

I yearn for a politics of reason and persuasion.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (1xUj/)

83 Great post,

I do think you're right that if a figure comes around that just runs on the same issues as Trump as, he'll win easy.

I honestly believe Trump had the potential to not only win but win a landslide on an American First economic policy with trade and immigration, and de-emphasizing social issues.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (L2qHr)

84 an otter building a dam.

the fuck?

Posted by: the beavers at April 01, 2016 06:54 PM (G6viA)

85 I've never heard anyone say anything negative about Dolly Parton. Not a single bad word.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis
___________

Ahem.

OK, but then I got over it.

Posted by: Zombie Porter Wagoner at April 01, 2016 06:54 PM (3GAnN)

86 Posted by: Colonel Bernie Sanders at April 01, 2016 06:50 PM (Dwehj)

There is a house less than 1/2 mile away that has a "Sanders" sign on the front lawn.

I know that it isn't filled with college students, because they couldn't afford it.

So....would it be rude to knock on the door of the house and just stand there looking at whoever answers the door?

Because I am damned curious what an existentially stupid person looks like.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2016 06:54 PM (Zu3d9)

87 This was the hard to achieve 'quatro'.

When I was 14 there was nothing I wanted to achieve more than Suzi Quatro.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 01, 2016 06:54 PM (1xUj/)

88 I will pop in and check later, ace. Five o'clock bell is ringing.

*cheers*

Posted by: Infidel at April 01, 2016 06:55 PM (Z1SI2)

89 73 Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 06:51 PM (QDnY+)

Yes...

The GOP is either the greatest collection of retards on Earth or in on the gag....

The hyper-regulatory feral Federal Govt IS the problem.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 06:55 PM (g8Hfr)

90 78 69 A perfect example of this is the conversation Cruz had with a guy in Iowa about ethanol subsidies. It was a thing of beauty. No yelling, no feelz, just a straight up conversation. It was refreshing to see from a politician. He may have actually turned the guy around.
Posted by: Infidel at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (Z1SI2)

I saw that video. But do we know for certain that the guy wasn't a plant? We're always talking about plants at Hillary rallies.

Posted by: rickl at April 01, 2016 06:58 PM (sdi6R)

91 Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (1xUj/)

Some of that is driven by the incredible access to information that the campaigns have, and the processing power to analyze it in 17,000 ways.

But the bigger issue is the shift from campaigns whose stated goal was to unite the country, to campaigns whose behavior is explicitly designed to create barriers between demographics, so that they can be manipulated with whatever targeted information is needed.

And if that means talking about how Whitey is keeping you down (and the thousands of variations on that theme), then that's okay with them, as long as it generates votes.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2016 06:58 PM (Zu3d9)

92 With all of that being true, how can the Republicans be in favor of adding 10+ million of them to the voter rolls? Just as a matter of survival?
**

Because it's not about the GOP or the Dems. It's about Washington and keeping the Hive alive. Let's say a miracle occurs and the FedGov shrinks to 10% of its current size. What are all of those folks going to do? Go put on a vest and work at Lowes?

The GOP's role is to play John Spartan to the Dems' Simon Phoenix. As Ace coined it, it's Failure Theater.

Posted by: Azathoth at April 01, 2016 06:59 PM (XN0hD)

93 Excellent post. The issue is tribal beliefs. Ask a "pro-science" liberal to explain the science of global warming to you and the best you'll get is "95% of scientists..." Explain to them that's not science but an appeal to authority logical fallacy and it won't register. Likewise every time GW Bush said he wanted to cut taxes because "I think you can spend your money better than the government can" I wanted to stick an ice pick in my ear. A simple statement of economic principle like "Jobs follow capital, we pursue policies that lead to capital formation, we'll create jobs" is straight forward and has the added benefit of being right. The policies that flow from that: cutting corporate taxes, capital gains taxes etc. can no longer be "tax cuts for the 1%" as they are "tax cuts that lead to capital formation, and jobs follow capital." Arguing principle inoculates conservatives from populists arguments. And the idea that middle america is too stupid to understand these ideas is insulting.

Posted by: scofflaw_x at April 01, 2016 06:59 PM (y9ZJX)

94 But the bigger issue is the shift from campaigns whose stated goal was to unite the country, to campaigns whose behavior is explicitly designed to create barriers between demographics, so that they can be manipulated with whatever targeted information is needed.

Well yes, and I am doing all I can to fight it. By which I mean wallowing in despair and posting on a blog.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 01, 2016 07:00 PM (1xUj/)

95
There is a house less than 1/2 mile away that has a "Sanders" sign on the front lawn.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2016 06:54 PM (Zu3d9)

RoundUp works damned well out of a lawn sprayer. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 01, 2016 07:00 PM (o98Jz)

96 When the airhead "establishment" (or fascist, er liberal airhead) gets past "racist!", ask him to compare today's welfare situation with that during America's mass, transformative legal immigration periods (later 19th century, early 20th).

Oh, right. No comparison. There wasn't any welfare then (effectively). Family support, or church support, were in way comparable, and in in the former case appropriate and continue to be reflected in immigration law ("affidavit of support", for those who have immigrant relatives/spouses).

The double-whammy that started to ruin America was the combo of mass immigration lawlessness (failure to implement 2/3 of Simpson-Mazzoli) and exploding welfare (made much worse by idiotic court rulings - another area where the unelected legislatures for dummies, the courts, are way out of their lane and wreaking havoc on the country, culture, and economy).

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 07:00 PM (QDnY+)

97 > if the Establishment wants to ever win an election every again, it really ought to get crackin' on thinking why

I am hoping Trump completely DESTROYS the existing Elitist Establishment!1!!

Would't that be fun?

Posted by: Mr Lizard, Ted Cruz at April 01, 2016 07:01 PM (+wjl1)

98 I think the most frustrating part of communicating with Trump supporters is conveying that on the big pictures issues (trade and immigration), I'm on their side. I also have no love for the Establishment.

It's like there's no way they can understand that me not wanting to make Trump the nominee, doesn't mean I want Amnesty.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:01 PM (L2qHr)

99 Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 01, 2016 07:00 PM (1xUj/)

If you don't have alcohol in that mix you're doing it wrong.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2016 07:01 PM (Zu3d9)

100 78 69 A perfect example of this is the conversation Cruz had with a guy in Iowa about ethanol subsidies. It was a thing of beauty. No yelling, no feelz, just a straight up conversation. It was refreshing to see from a politician. He may have actually turned the guy around.
Posted by: Infidel
-------
First, Hi.

If you're talking about the conversation I saw, he DID convert the guy. The dude later said he would be voting Cruz.
Lizzy (I think) linked a video of Cruz talking to a abortion protester that was shouting him down at a press conference. Talking To being the key words. He was calm, eloquent, definitive - in other words, Presidential.

Now, if he would've been given the 24/7 TV coverage he needed, the whole country would be All Aboard the Cruz Ship by now.

Posted by: Chi at April 01, 2016 07:02 PM (LUPlG)

101 I commented to Missus Muldoon earlier today that one thing I see with the modern "news" media (cable, internet, blogosphere) is that branded pundits jobs consist of giving their opinion. Because of the feeding frenzy of "what are we talking about today" that comprises the news cycle there is a push to get that branded opinion on-the-air or posted on-line right NOW!

This begets an immediacy that leads to poorly thought-out opinions, often on subjects of which the opiner has little actual knowledge or experience. This leads to lots of sloppy presentation that tends to fall back on ideological or dogmatic foundations.

A good example of this is someone like Juan Williams, but of course there are many others.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at April 01, 2016 07:02 PM (NeFrd)

102 Where did that conservatism go?
Or was that always, like so much else, just a stupid faithless lie?

I don't think so. Once upon a time, there were men and women in the political arena both domestic and foreign (Thatcher, for example) who had an inkling of what was to come and genuinely hoped to avert the catastrophe that now unfolds before our very eyes.

Posted by: Sober Sock at April 01, 2016 07:02 PM (Dwehj)

103

Because I am damned curious what an existentially stupid person looks like.>>

It is the same person from Marin County CA who said when their insurance premiums got jacked "I was all for everyone getting health insurance, I just didn't know I was going to have to pay for it."

Posted by: scofflaw_x at April 01, 2016 07:02 PM (y9ZJX)

104 Nice essay.

But misses the bigger point.

Then next wave of yelling isn't going to be yelling at all. But it will be loud.

Because when it comes to not being able to walk the streets, for fear of being assaulted by races and religions that are protected, by design, to do exactly such ...

... well, then who really gives a shit about carefully rationalized lines of thought as to why that is or isn't justified ?

It's Tribal Loyalties all the way down.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 01, 2016 07:02 PM (fiGNd)

105 Because it's not about the GOP or the Dems. It's about Washington and keeping the Hive alive.
Posted by: Azathoth

The Hive being slave labor and (somehow) propping up Social Security. Never got the math on that, though.

Posted by: AmeriDan at April 01, 2016 07:03 PM (X/2JY)

106 44 If you hate Republicans and think the brand is ruined why not start your own party.

Posted by: Dire Straits at April 01, 2016 06:43 PM (mcm0N)

Because the history of American politics is FULL of failed 3rd parties. A third party can only succeed if the #2 party completely tears itself apart, as the pre-Civil War Whigs did.

Meanwhile, every other significant 3rd Party either (1) ended when the Leader Cult Of Personality did, or (2) was co-opted by one of the two main parties.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 01, 2016 07:03 PM (ujg0T)

107
But if you enable or even merely tolerate a contested convention in which the party selects a nomimee, You.Will.Get.Amnesty.

And you'll get, automatically, whatever else the Left wants.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:04 PM (P0DTV)

108 >>>Posted by: Tim in Illinois. A last degree brown belt in snark fu. at April 01, 2016 06:53 PM (WVsWD)

***

Where does the US military come from?

Where are the coalitions?

Where are the cultural unities?

It's the South. If this country is going to ocme apart, the Old South is the most coherent entity available.

California fight for America? Arizona? You have to be kidding. They're Mexican, all the way. And Texas is going that way.

The Old South is clearly Christian, patriotic, and willing to fight - that's bred in the blood. The rest of the country? Invaders or vegetarians.

Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at April 01, 2016 07:04 PM (1zS3A)

109
Let's send Ace to Cleveland!

Come on! It will be fun. He can be our man on the street/convention floor.

Be there or be square, Ace! If there are no hotel rooms, I'm sure someone can put you up gratis!

Who wants to see Ace report from the floor of the convention center?

Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it!

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 07:05 PM (iQIUe)

110 Paging Kevin Williamson : Darwin is happy you apply his doctrine to the people who help build this nation. You and you're National Review distinct class can go to hell.

Posted by: mike191 at April 01, 2016 07:05 PM (XKC1/)

111 Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at April 01, 2016 07:02 PM (NeFrd)

The sad thing is that our candidates feel the same pressure to generate that pithy and brilliant-sounding comment, so they often say shit that has normal thinking humans scratching their heads and thinking, "He can't possibly be that fucking stupid!"

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2016 07:05 PM (Zu3d9)

112 Now, if he would've been given the 24/7 TV coverage he needed, the whole country would be All Aboard the Cruz Ship by now.
Posted by: Chi

____________

Cruz has gotten a LOT better, but his biggest flaw is he seems to talk to voters in a way where he thinks they're already conservative.

I do worry if he'll have the ability to talk to voters not already in the conservative tent. But I still like my chances a lot more with Cruz than Trump

Reagan had that magic ability to connect conservatism with shared common sense values.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:06 PM (L2qHr)

113 Who wants to see Ace report from the floor of the convention center?

Honestly ? I'm good for a $50 dinner ... as long as I get to write one question.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 01, 2016 07:06 PM (fiGNd)

114 110 Posted by: mike191 at April 01, 2016 07:05 PM (XKC1/)

Taylor "Wounded" Mallard SWEARSIES Big Kev is misunderstood...

of course given they look like matching Kewpie dolls and Mallard states "Big Kev has a Buckley-esque mastery" of the language I am not certain how we rubes could misunderstand Big Kev...

unless of course the implication is Big Kev is Chris Buckley and not William F.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 07:07 PM (g8Hfr)

115 I'll be working in Cleveland for the next year or so.

I will offer comments.

Posted by: An Poc ar Buile at April 01, 2016 07:08 PM (1zS3A)

116 i'm not going to that shit-show.

Posted by: ace at April 01, 2016 07:08 PM (dciA+)

117 People don't want to debate when they know their arguments are not persuasive. They just want a bigger hammer.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at April 01, 2016 07:08 PM (Ao68V)

118 82 If we get a chalkboard here at the HQ I will happily demonstrate why free trade is good and protectionism hurts the protectionist side.

However, national security and national sovereignty are more than just cost-benefit analysis.

Does it really make sense to build up the coffers of Red China, who prop up the savages running North Korea just to taunt us and are likely to be our next Big Enemy after the Muzzies?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 01, 2016 07:09 PM (ujg0T)

119 @19: "and, quite frankly, with our mortal enemies."

Except very few people are willing to treat mortal enemies (foreign or domestic) like mortal enemies. At most, they are treated like people who we think have a point that we kinda more or less disagree with.

Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 01, 2016 07:09 PM (rznWS)

120 Our biggest problem is that we have run out of frontier where people that got tired of the bullshit could go to and get away from it all. Now we are trapped together like bugs in a Mason jar.

My biggest desire of government is to just leave me alone.

Posted by: Dogbert at April 01, 2016 07:09 PM (fz1Nv)

121 But might I suggest to you reason #3, namely, that
this globalist right-side elite KNOW that their dogmas and doctrines are
not good for the nation as a whole and the right-side rank-and-file,
and they are in on the scam?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 01, 2016 06:48 PM (ujg0T)

How many million$ would you need to bank before you could not care less about your nation?

Posted by: Burnt Toast at April 01, 2016 07:10 PM (T78UI)

122 Cruz still thinks he is in a beauty contest.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 07:10 PM (mR7Es)

123 I can summarize this essay pretty quickly ...

... why won't the sheep just work with the system, and debate the wolves ?

Answer - because the sheep are armed now. And some things just ain't open for debate.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 01, 2016 07:10 PM (fiGNd)

124 117 Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at April 01, 2016 07:08 PM (Ao68V)

Witness "Black Lives Matter" aka "Shut up and pay me or I burn your town down"...

We either FORCE the matter to debate or get forced to tribe up and go feral ourselves....

this supine butt thrust shit is for the birds.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 07:10 PM (g8Hfr)

125 But if you enable or even merely tolerate a contested convention in which the party selects a nomimee, You.Will.Get.Amnesty.

And you'll get, automatically, whatever else the Left wants.
Posted by: intellectual nudity
_______________

What do you think we'll get when Hillary wins 40 states and the Democrats own both Houses of Congress?

The mother of all amnesties.

The issue of illegal immigration will be the central issue and because Trump is so fatally flawed, he'll lose badly and Hillary will have a mandate on this issue.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:10 PM (L2qHr)

126 109
Let's send Ace to Cleveland!

Come on! It will be fun. He can be our man on the street/convention floor.

Be there or be square, Ace! If there are no hotel rooms, I'm sure someone can put you up gratis!

Who wants to see Ace report from the floor of the convention center?

Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it!

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 07:05 PM (iQIUe)

Only if we can make him wear one of those oversized headsets like Dan Rather wore when he got his ass handed to him back in 1968.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 01, 2016 07:10 PM (4ErVI)

127 Once upon a time, there were men and women in the political arena both domestic and foreign (Thatcher, for example) who had an inkling of what was to come and genuinely hoped to avert the catastrophe that now unfolds before our very eyes.

Enoch Powell, more so.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at April 01, 2016 07:11 PM (6FqZa)

128
Sheesh! Why so negative? Conventions are fun. There is always something crazy going on. Plus, there is a strong possibility you'll get laid.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 07:11 PM (iQIUe)

129 So, they have a new Barber Shop movie out. What's the chance that they have a tranny show up for a trim?

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at April 01, 2016 07:11 PM (zS+pH)

130 Seamus, have to disagree, I think.

I distinctly recall, years ago, when I'd first started working for an elected sort, being shocked when the paper flow brought me an op-ed from the WaPo or NYT, with a request to give the boss my thoughts on it.

I talked to the staff director, expressing my shock that the boss would even read that sort of drivel. This was the 80s, before cable, internet, etc.

Though there are exceptions, and even some of the lessers occasionally find an acorn, in general I'd say the quality of punditry has been very, very low forever. It's not about time pressure, or competition - OK maybe it partly is, but while Juan Williams is particularly dumb (though a nice guy personally), he is not unrepresentative.

All of which is neither here nor there.

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 07:11 PM (QDnY+)

131 112
Cruz has gotten a LOT better, but his biggest flaw is he seems to talk to voters in a way where he thinks they're already conservative.

I do worry if he'll have the ability to talk to voters not already in the conservative tent. But I still like my chances a lot more with Cruz than Trump

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:06 PM (L2qHr)

I've been saying all along that I thought Trump had a better chance in the general election because he can appeal to LIVs and Cruz can't. Let's face it, there are are a hell of a lot of them.

Trump has been imploding lately and I no longer think he can win in the general, mainly because his unfavorables among women keep getting worse and worse. I still don't think Cruz can win.

And there is no one else I find acceptable.

Posted by: rickl at April 01, 2016 07:11 PM (sdi6R)

132 @22: " Most of the problems we have have simple solutions."

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man, no problem."
- Me

Posted by: Joseph Stalin at April 01, 2016 07:12 PM (rznWS)

133 128 Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 07:11 PM (iQIUe)

I've seen Cleveland Gals...

it's called the "Dog Pound" for a reason...

Import some out of city talent at a minimum...and *somehow* our convention orgies make national news as compared to Team Jackass'...

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 07:12 PM (g8Hfr)

134 Are you going to the Cleveland affair?
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme,
Remember me to one who lives there
She was once a true love of mine

Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 07:13 PM (1J6E6)

135
What do you think we'll get when Hillary wins 40 states and the Democrats own both Houses of Congress?

Am I to understand that you believe inserting Kasich or someone other than Trump or Cruz will be a winning strategy for 2016?

btw, Democrats already have both chambers in Congress, except in title.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:13 PM (P0DTV)

136 Plenty of hobos in Cleveland. Just sayin'.

Posted by: AmeriDan at April 01, 2016 07:14 PM (X/2JY)

137 134 ... I like the Johnny Cash / Bob Dylan version.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 01, 2016 07:14 PM (fiGNd)

138 135 Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:13 PM (P0DTV)

You're welcome...

//Steve "Dick" King

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 07:14 PM (g8Hfr)

139 Managed Democracy: Similarly to Trump failing not because of his issue profile but because of his grotesque personality defects, Mario Rubio's (or Paul Ryan's) open borders agenda should not be implemented simply because they are educated men with handsome smiles.

^^^^

Oh thank you! The whole idea that putting a "fresh face" (ie, some young dude that's easy on the eyes) on the stale ideas the establishment has been pushing on us is somehow magically going to change everyone's mind ticks me off to no end.

I don't care how handsome Marco Rubio is, or how dreamy Paul Ryan's eyes are, the ideas they're pushing for dealing with immigration- both legal and illegal- are non-starters for me and you would think that damn near three-quarters of the country polling at, "Not just no, but HELL no," on amnesty for the last decade plus might have given them a clue about that. But no.

Posted by: Mandy P. (Not Patinkin), lurking lurker who lurks at April 01, 2016 07:15 PM (KkVB6)

140 Bernie wins Wisconsin things in the "Democrat " primary might get interesting. I'm starting to think the drip,drip,drip of Hildabeast's problems are working against her.

Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 07:15 PM (1J6E6)

141 What do you think we'll get when Hillary wins 40 states and the Democrats own both Houses of Congress?

The mother of all amnesties.

The issue of illegal immigration will be the central issue and because Trump is so fatally flawed, he'll lose badly and Hillary will have a mandate on this issue.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:10 PM (L2qHr)

You're right. We should throw out all of the primary votes and put up Mitt Romney as our candidate. It worked out so well before.

Question for people who are aghast at Trump's boorishness: what did you think it would look like when somebody punched back at the media? Did you expect there to be some PC way to fight PC?

Posted by: Jake (irregular) at April 01, 2016 07:16 PM (WjT3h)

142 137 134 ... I like the Johnny Cash / Bob Dylan version.
Posted by: ScoggDog at April 01, 2016 07:14 PM (fiGNd)

You're thinking of "Girl From the North Country", which has much the same melody. Probably from an old folk song.

Posted by: rickl at April 01, 2016 07:16 PM (sdi6R)

143 What fucking difference would it make if we lost both houses of congress, at this point?

Posted by: NCKate at April 01, 2016 07:16 PM (A/qli)

144 It took this weird 2016 election to prompt a post that lays out the best way forward even if Trump never was a thing.

Even if we don't "win" debates on the major issues, even playing to a tie is a win for a marginalized movement as ours.

I don't give a shit about politicians spouting conservative talking points. All I care about is "Who did you persuade today?" If you ain't persuadin' you ain't no use to me .

Posted by: CJ at April 01, 2016 07:17 PM (UjWEn)

145
Steve King is one of the few good ones. Are you thinking of the rotten turd Peter King of New York who might as well be a D?

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:17 PM (P0DTV)

146 Swingline, huh?

"Mandate"? Such things, if they exist at all, are rarely attached to specific policies (one could say Dubya's re-election in 2004 - pathetically and narrowly - was a mandate at least not to be as idiotic and irresponsible as the Dems).

Why did amnesty get squashed in 2006?

Why did it get short-circuited in 2015?

Same reason "gun control" never seems to go anywhere on the Hill.

No "mandate" can emerge for a policy that the public over-whelmingly rejects. Doesn't mean it can't happen (O-care). But the GOP has been - barely - the very unwilling, terrified weak link in the amnesty machine (some Dems too).

If we get amnesty it is because what some call the "uniparty" will cram it down the country's throat, not because of Hillary being president.

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 07:17 PM (QDnY+)

147 @36: "Clinton knew enough to debate. I don't see that with the Left,
now. They simply lie blatantly, because they lack the ability to even
lie CONVINCINGLY, and the Media, their Propaganda Arm, just covers for
them."

Uh, given that we can not only defeat you, but utterly destroy you, *WITHOUT* having to debate you, why would we ever debate you? It simply wastes time and energy better employed in continuing the prison rape of all you hold dear.

Posted by: The Left at April 01, 2016 07:18 PM (rznWS)

148 I heard Kasich pulled a leftist saying Islamic terrorists were hijacking the religion of peace and weren't true Muslims

Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 07:18 PM (1J6E6)

149 Post114: You are correct. For those people who lack an effective crease in the pants- you might as well be a pigeon playing ping-pong with Skinner.

Posted by: mike191 at April 01, 2016 07:18 PM (XKC1/)

150 Nice strawman argument, there, Ace. Did you win?

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 01, 2016 07:18 PM (5f5bM)

151 Whether it's been mentioned or not already, the other reason Gope chooses not to debate their supposed voters on this topic is that it's part of an overall view that for years and years they have had to mouth things like opposition to abortion, to appease their ignorant voters.

Many of them view this as their one issue on which they want to be obeyed, no questions asked, because they feel like they've EARNED it after having put up with us mouth-breathing, God-botherers for so long.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 01, 2016 07:18 PM (TOk1P)

152 145 Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:17 PM (P0DTV)

Peter *is* a Democrat...IIRC though Steve has helped "pass by donkey vote" a few times.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 07:19 PM (g8Hfr)

153 The word vulgar and its derivatives are a tell.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 07:19 PM (mR7Es)

154 This is why you're indispensable ace

Posted by: Phone of kari at April 01, 2016 07:19 PM (2Pzcg)

155 112
Cruz has gotten a LOT better, but his biggest flaw is he seems to talk to voters in a way where he thinks they're already conservative.

Posted by: Swingline
--------------------
I disagree. I always got the impression that he talked to the masses as if he believed they were intelligent. Or at least smart enough to understand some of the Constitution.

This was where he failed, I think. He's too damned smart to connect with too many of the voters.

Posted by: Chi at April 01, 2016 07:19 PM (LUPlG)

156 Whether it's been mentioned or not already, the
other reason Gope chooses not to debate their supposed voters on this
topic ...

Posted by: BurtTC at April 01, 2016 07:18 PM (TOk1P)

By "this topic" I mean the illegal mexican love stuff.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 01, 2016 07:20 PM (TOk1P)

157 How many million$ would you need to bank before you could not care less about your nation?

Posted by: Burnt Toast at April 01, 2016 07:10 PM (T78UI)
_____

I dont think i takes any kind of bribe when the people believe anyway. Look at the reaction Trump got for the "Muslim ban". It was inconceivable for many on the right to put the interests and security of Americans before the non-existent claim to our rights of foreigners.

What Trumps candidacy really exposed is that a lot of Republicans are way too internationalist.

Posted by: Dixie Wetsworth, Florida at April 01, 2016 07:20 PM (boZoo)

158 When you cannot talk to members of your own family about political issues, there is no way to have any other discussion. Ignore it or come to family splits, this country has come to those who have and those who don't. Meaning those that have the gov't teat and those that pay for the others.

Posted by: Ben Had at April 01, 2016 07:20 PM (gdJkt)

159
Why did amnesty get squashed in 2006?

Because people like us shouted and stamped our feet. Contrary to Ace's thoughts above, it worked. Our message was received loud and clear.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:20 PM (P0DTV)

160 143 What fucking difference would it make if we lost both houses of congress, at this point?
Posted by: NCKate

Would love to disagree... but I got nothing.

Posted by: AmeriDan at April 01, 2016 07:20 PM (X/2JY)

161 I see obama made a fool of Himself at the Nuclear summit today flashing the peace sign for the group photo....

Posted by: donna at April 01, 2016 07:20 PM (O2RFr)

162

Really? Et tu, Steve King?

Is it an Iowa ethanol thing?

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:21 PM (P0DTV)

163 You're thinking of "Girl From the North Country", which has much the same melody. Probably from an old folk song.

Yes I was. Good catch.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 01, 2016 07:22 PM (fiGNd)

164
A lot of partying at conventions. Free booze, free food. Free entertainment. Riots if that is what you are into. What's more enjoyable than seeing leftards getting face planted by the cops?

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 07:22 PM (iQIUe)

165 There are a number of possible reasons that aspiring members of the conservative wing of the ruling class might not know the reason that conservatives generally believe the things we do. I will start with a generous explanation. They may be poorly educated. They either inherited conservative attitudes or membership in the conservative tribe from their parents but never paid much attention to the reasons and they were never exposed to either teaching of the logic of conservative positions from their uniformly leftist teachers or from debate since leftists don't debate any more.

The less generous explanation is that they are ambitious and to them if looks like there is less competition on the right. That is why Bloomberg originally ran for mayor of New York as a Republican and why he renounced the party shortly after the election.

Liz Mair strikes me as being that sort of ambitious and cynical nihilist. Maybe nihilist is not the right word. Perhap narcissist is more accurate.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at April 01, 2016 07:22 PM (MpvuV)

166 You're right. We should throw out all of the primary votes and put up Mitt Romney as our candidate. It worked out so well before.

Question for people who are aghast at Trump's boorishness: what did you think it would look like when somebody punched back at the media? Did you expect there to be some PC way to fight PC?
Posted by: Jake (irregular)

______________

Such a straw man.

But if Trump is the nominee, we're going to WISH we had a candidate that 48% of voters could support.

I guess we have to go in a batshit crazy direction because a conventional candidate couldn't close the deal.

To capture that extra 2% of voters, you have to go full retard.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:22 PM (L2qHr)

167 162 Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:21 PM (P0DTV)

Yup, he also helped pass "Bearf*ckers 3-Boehner's Revenge" budget that Paul Ryan shat out.

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 07:23 PM (g8Hfr)

168 a debate on open borders,

If it's open it isn't a border. I win. Where's my cookie?

Posted by: DaveA at April 01, 2016 07:23 PM (DL2i+)

169 What fucking difference would it make if we lost both houses of congress, at this point?
Posted by: NCKate at April 01, 2016 07:16 PM (A/qli)

Exactly....I am currently a Producer but over the next few years I will be collecting my Ponzi-Madoff SS check and a few of my retirement funds and I will officially become a Moocher and I will be ruled over by the Looters.

Hopefully my SS check will cover my ammo purchases, beer and the occasional lady of the evening. Ain't welfare grand?

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at April 01, 2016 07:23 PM (ej1L0)

170 Though there are exceptions, and even some of the lessers occasionally find an acorn, in general I'd say the quality of punditry has been very, very low forever.
Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 07:11 PM (QDnY+)

*****

You're probably right. Maybe it's just the sheer numbers of opinionated talking/blogging heads. Oh so many outlets for oh so few actual thoughtful or original thoughts.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at April 01, 2016 07:24 PM (NeFrd)

171 What fucking difference would it make if we lost both houses of congress, at this point?
Posted by: NCKate

Would love to disagree... but I got nothing.
Posted by: AmeriDan
___________

Scalia's replacement would be getting confirmed right about now.

And the Republican House is the only reason Obama didn't get an Amnesty bill on his desk.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:24 PM (L2qHr)

172 By the way, for those of you who think the podcast was all Trump bashing, you're wrong. Ace and Drew were brutal on the establishment and fake elite.

Podcast is good.

Posted by: chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 07:25 PM (dyaak)

173 Hopefully my SS check will cover my ammo purchases, beer and the occasional lady of the evening. Ain't welfare grand?

Ha! *fistbump*

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at April 01, 2016 07:25 PM (Ao68V)

174 intellectual nudity, I knew the answer - which you yourself gave.

My point was that "mandates" are actually quite rare, and amnesty does not look like an issue to which that concept applies.

I forgot to include, for emphasis, that the Dems, with control of all levers for two years, didn't even consider bringing up amnesty. Do people not recall, or realize the significance, of this? It wasn't done because it might have blown up the Dem situation ever worse than O-care ended up doing (though Obama, inexplicably, survived).

O-care was crammed down despite widespread unpopularity. Amnesty could be, too. But it will have nothing to do with "mandates".

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 07:25 PM (QDnY+)

175 Boy howdy, strike with damage against the Wall Street Journal.

That newspaper has become disposable to me for anything pertaining to immigration, legal or illegal.

Everybody in that rag, except for the rare and remarkable dissent that might make the editorial page, hews to the Olsen Johnson 'Aw, prairie shit...Everybody!" philosophy of admit them all and let God sort 'em out, because they ain't a takin' MUH job!

Even to the point of actually ( I'm looking at YOU, Daniel Henninger!) proposing John Kasich as the only rational Republican candidate, that whole 'nobody'll vote for him outside of Ohio' thing aside.

Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at April 01, 2016 07:26 PM (XdbLA)

176 A peace sign at a nuclear summit is- or should be- hypocritical. So of course he made a peace sign.

Posted by: AmeriDan at April 01, 2016 07:26 PM (X/2JY)

177 a debate on open borders,

If it's open it isn't a border. I win. Where's my cookie?

Posted by: DaveA at April 01, 2016 07:23 PM (DL2i+)

Why waste money on an armed force when you just let millions of unarmed peasants wander in.

Posted by: Burnt Toast at April 01, 2016 07:26 PM (T78UI)

178 Netflix has "John Stamos-Human Being" preiering on the 31st...

THANK GOD my calendar only goes to 30...

Posted by: sven10077 at April 01, 2016 07:27 PM (g8Hfr)

179 Trump is not a Conservative. He is a big government Republican/Democrat. The government under Trump will be Yuuuuuger than ever before.

Posted by: redridinghood at April 01, 2016 07:28 PM (7GQM/)

180 Things can get a lot worse.

Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 07:28 PM (1J6E6)

181 Yes, Donna

Obama did make a fool of himself but the Spanish phrase"sin verguenza" meaning without shame was invented for people like him.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at April 01, 2016 07:29 PM (MpvuV)

182
179 Trump is not a Conservative. He is a big government Republican/Democrat. The government under Trump will be Yuuuuuger than ever before.
Posted by: redridinghood at April 01, 2016 07:28 PM (7GQM/)

Nothing can stop the growth of government except collapse.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 07:29 PM (mR7Es)

183
Not sure if this is true but Clooney is divorcing Anal and Julia Roberts her husband. Clooney and Roberts are hooking up.

http://blindgossip.com/?p=77563#comments

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 07:29 PM (iQIUe)

184 Things can get a lot worse

Yep ... but they won't get any better until they do.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 01, 2016 07:30 PM (fiGNd)

185 If you hate Republicans and think the brand is ruined why not start your own party.

Posted by: Dire Straits

Coupla more Trumps and they're wee little heads will just pop. Then we'll just pick up the Elephant and drive off.

Posted by: DaveA at April 01, 2016 07:31 PM (DL2i+)

186 My point was that "mandates" are actually quite rare, and amnesty does not look like an issue to which that concept applies.

Posted by: rhomboid

Immigration has never been a major issue in an American Presidential election in the last 100 years.

But it WOULD be the central issue with Trump, and if Trump BADLY loses, how do Democrats not say the American people spoke on this issue?

Already Ace was showing how support for a wall is dropping like a rock. Trump made the issue unpopular.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:31 PM (L2qHr)

187 The 'Party of Ideas'? That's crazy talk.

I actually supported Buchanan back in the day over unfair trade and runaway immigration. But Gorgeous George Trump--no way.

I member when i became a conservative--it was Wm. F. Buckley. Reagan's hand-written radio stuff. Von Mises. Burke. Federalist Papers. Dr. Sowell. P.J. O'Rourke, Kemp, Steyn, etc.

The Manufactured Consent of the Governed is also the beef against the Supremes. "Hey, remember when you people ratified the slavery removal amendments? Well, you were really agreeing to let grown men use the showers with schoolgirls, cos we've got Secret Constitution Decoder Rings that tell us so.'

Speaking of manufacturing consent, I just heard Barky claim the Israelis were thrilled. thrilled at how great the Iran deal is. Denier, please.

Posted by: The Wolf Who Cried Boy at April 01, 2016 07:31 PM (Ndje9)

188 Cruz like others before him would fail to shrink government.

A Conservative is the last thing the USA needs right now.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 07:32 PM (mR7Es)

189 Cruz also did a fantastic job with the Code Pinkos who disrupted one of his rallies. He debated then them respectfully, allowed them to have their say, and addressed the things they said. Without losing his temper.

That must be have been hard, to engage civilly with Code Pinkos.

Posted by: chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 07:32 PM (dyaak)

190 Such a straw man.

But if Trump is the nominee, we're going to WISH we had a candidate that 48% of voters could support.

I guess we have to go in a batshit crazy direction because a conventional candidate couldn't close the deal.

To capture that extra 2% of voters, you have to go full retard.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:22 PM (L2qHr)

The claim was that gosh, we don't like that mean old Donald Trump because he's going to lose us the election. As if everything was rolling along so well for Republicans up until now. The Republicans have won the popular vote one time in the last twenty four years. That win required the twin advantages of incumbency and John Kerry.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump. Pretending to be able to foresee the future and refusing to acknowledge decades of evidence that electable candidates don't get elected is the least persuasive. Well, second least persuasive after the outright insults.

Posted by: Jake (irregular) at April 01, 2016 07:33 PM (WjT3h)

191 Scalia's replacement would be getting confirmed right about now.
And the Republican House is the only reason Obama didn't get an Amnesty bill on his desk.
Posted by: Swingline

Yeah there's plenty still on the line. Cheer up: things can always get worse.

Posted by: Phone of kari at April 01, 2016 07:33 PM (2Pzcg)

192
You're afraid of the Left doing what they want?

That's the best possible scenario for the Right!
When the Left is allowed, all on their own, to overreach, the repercussions are fantastic for the GOP. Except with this particular lot of Republicans.

When obama and the Democrats jammed obamacare through (even some of the D's were afraid of doing it), the instant result was the election of Republican senator from Massachusetts!

And then landslide wins in 2010. Supposed to be the Senate, too, but Republicans are too stupid not to fuck up a free lunch.

We had obama on the run in 2011. 2012 was a sure thing for Republicans. obamacare was gonna be overturned. And then the Republicans happened. They shit the bed and turned rotten. The whole plan went to shit.

If the D's take everything in 2016, they will overreach. And again a golden opportunity will present itself in 2018 and 2020 for major change. But today's Republican party will blow it again, if they're still around.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:33 PM (P0DTV)

193 A Conservative is the last thing the USA needs right now.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 07:32 PM (mR7Es)

I'm not sure I understand.

Who else wants to shrink government but conservatives? Or are you saying government doesn't need shrinking?

Posted by: chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 07:34 PM (dyaak)

194 I'll tell ya, I'm going to laugh my ass off when Cruz denies Trump the nomination and the GOPe returns the favor.

Thanks Cruz, now buzz off, we got this.

Posted by: Kreplach at April 01, 2016 07:34 PM (YzgWc)

195 Nothing can stop the growth of government except collapse.

Yet, eman. We are told daily that AGW will be the end of us.

EBT will crash first.

Posted by: Golfman at April 01, 2016 07:34 PM (48QDY)

196 193 A Conservative is the last thing the USA needs right now.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 07:32 PM (mR7Es)

I'm not sure I understand.

Who else wants to shrink government but conservatives? Or are you saying government doesn't need shrinking?
Posted by: chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 07:34 PM (dyaak)

I am saying it can't be done except via collapse.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 07:35 PM (mR7Es)

197 There are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump. Pretending to be able to foresee the future and refusing to acknowledge decades of evidence that electable candidates don't get elected is the least persuasive. Well, second least persuasive after the outright insults.
Posted by: Jake (irregular)

Trump's unpopularity across the board is not my only reason for disliking him.

I honestly cannot believe what a retard he is when asked to talk about real issues. It's just hurling insults.

Even apologists like Ann Coulter are starting to have 2nd thoughts.

Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:36 PM (L2qHr)

198 Megyn Kelly accuses Donald Trump of bullying journalists and says he could be stopped if he was banned from TV while hitting out at CNN and Bill O'Reilly for not doing more when he attacked her
===========

I say ban Megyn Kelly from television. She has lost her mind.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 07:36 PM (iQIUe)

199 I know Ace disagrees, but this "shut-up peasants" attitude is why-

Our Betters must be fed Cruz.

And if Cruz can't make it...and, unfortunately, it looks like he may not.

Then they must have The Donald crammed down their mewling effeminate throats with them gagging and choking all the way like....

....well, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec-AEmNLkbk

(the fun starts at 4:00 in)

It is imperative that the Stompy-Foot Elite be forcibly shown who is the boss. And the boss is their voters.

As Friedman himself said (more or less):

"It's not about getting the "right people" in office so much as it is,

providing disincentives for them to be complete dickwads to their voters."

Posted by: naturalfake at April 01, 2016 07:36 PM (2rmvw)

200 If we are going to have a Caesar, I want a better one than the Donald.

Humungus/Toady2016: They will end this horror.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie! at April 01, 2016 07:36 PM (Ao68V)

201 What fucking difference would it make if we lost both houses of congress, at this point?
Posted by: NCKate

Would love to disagree... but I got nothing.
Posted by: AmeriDan
___________

Scalia's replacement would be getting confirmed right about now.

And the Republican House is the only reason Obama didn't get an Amnesty bill on his desk.
Posted by: Swingline at April 01, 2016 07:24 PM (L2qHr)
***************
The burn it down crowd don't seem to realize that we can at least try to stop the train from going off the cliff.
Cruz will fight this battle he get's how the game is played. Trump doesn't and I could just see him being schmoozed by Schumer & saying, 'Yes Chuck that sounds reasonable.'

Posted by: redridinghood at April 01, 2016 07:37 PM (7GQM/)

202 Oh, eman, I see that you said we need collapse.

I'm not so optimistic about collapse. How many empires rise again?

I think if there's a collapse, everything is done for. The US was a unique experiment among men. I'm not sure it will be duplicated if everything completely falls apart.

Posted by: chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 07:37 PM (dyaak)

203
A lot of Trump's unpopularity stems from Republicans who vow to never vote for Trump!

They are a self-defeating lot. Then they turn around and say See?Trump is gonna lose!

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:39 PM (P0DTV)

204 Already Ace was showing how support for a wall is dropping like a rock. Trump made the issue unpopular.
Posted by: Swinglin

Nope.

Posted by: AmeriDan at April 01, 2016 07:39 PM (X/2JY)

205 180 Things can get a lot worse.
Posted by: Skip at April 01, 2016 07:28 PM (1J6E6)

They certainly can and most likely will. We've only just begun to scratch the surface.

When Obama was elected, I said we were on the road to civil war, for the simple reason that you can't have half of the population trying to ram Communism down the other half's throats, not without bloodshed.

Since then, we've had Ferguson, BLM, and so forth. The white middle class is being targeted for destruction. Rampant immigration is destroying our political and economic power. The Dems are split between Hillary and Bernie. Then there's the vitriolic fight between the Trump/Cruz/GOPe factions. I'll be amazed if there isn't violence at one or both conventions this summer.

The country is coming apart at the seams and splintering into factions. And the factions increasingly hate each other.

Posted by: rickl at April 01, 2016 07:40 PM (sdi6R)

206
How can be all OMG We're Gonna Lose To Hillary and be all like NeverTrump?

This is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:40 PM (P0DTV)

207 Swingline - not going to bird-dog this thing, but ncKate's question is not answered the way you appear to think it is by saying a GOP House prevented amnesty this last time.

Unless you are conceding that "controlling" the Senate doesn't necessarily make a difference - since the GOP "contolled" the Senate when this happened.

Also, this leaves aside the issue of how much the "GOP House" was opposed to amnesty, and why.

Sure, a Dem House/Senate/WH would almost certainly be "worse" than the current situation. But not worse to the degree, or for all matters, as most breezily assume it would be.

Amnesty is the clearest example. Rejected (by groundswell of outrage) under GOP WH, carefully sidestepped under Dem WH/Sen/House, rejected again by GOP House (by likely groundswell of outrage). Three of the possible permutations of "control" produced the same result - on that issue.

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 07:41 PM (QDnY+)

208 202 Oh, eman, I see that you said we need collapse.

I'm not so optimistic about collapse. How many empires rise again?

I think if there's a collapse, everything is done for. The US was a unique experiment among men. I'm not sure it will be duplicated if everything completely falls apart.
Posted by: chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 07:37 PM (dyaak)

I agree that the chances for a good recovery are small.

Sadly, the certainty of collapse is not connected to what happens after.

I don't want it to happen, I just think it can't even stopped.

Posted by: eman at April 01, 2016 07:41 PM (mR7Es)

209 And as a Christian, I know Democrats are just champing at the bit to make our lives hell. Forget about being Christian. They will make decent people who just want to live in peace and mind their own business live in an atmosphere of fear. They are incredibly delicious and they want to destroy Society.

There is no way I am going to try to hasten that no matter what I think of the feckless and craven and Republicans.

Posted by: chique d'afrique at April 01, 2016 07:42 PM (dyaak)

210 The burn it down crowd don't seem to realize that we can at least try to stop the train from going off the cliff.

The cliff we flew off a few decades ago? It's Let It Burn, not Burn It Down.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 01, 2016 07:44 PM (uURQL)

211 i'm not going to that shit-show.

You could do a Hunter Thompson from a walleye boat off the Rock + Roll Hall of Fame.

Well, maybe a 1/3rd an HST, wouldn't want to cause permanent fur loss.

Posted by: DaveA at April 01, 2016 07:44 PM (DL2i+)

212
1. Republicans aren't protecting you from anything.

2. The Republicans are not standing between you and the Left. Republicans are holding the Left's coats as the Left has its way with you.

Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:45 PM (P0DTV)

213 They are a self-defeating lot. Then they turn around and say See?Trump is gonna lose!
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 01, 2016 07:39 PM (P0DTV)

If they succeed, next election cycle they will talk up the need for moderates.

This after tarring Trump as a big liberal Democrat.

Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 01, 2016 07:45 PM (uURQL)

214 The gopes and leftists have achieved their goal; America is thoroughly Balkanized. The electorate is way past the point of an intelligent conversations.
If Trump loses, the pc police will be back with a vengeance. All of the progress against the pc police will unravel. Trump - as faulty as he is - is the reset button.

Posted by: jacke at April 01, 2016 07:46 PM (i8Shl)

215 I didn't weigh in on yesterday's odd post about Trump allegedly changing a core policy preference of the over-whelming majority of voters (no amnesty). It seemed silly.

If it's true - and there we get into very legit survey issues - then there is literally no hope. A populace with enough residual sense to say "yeah, there needs to be a border, duh" that can *change* their minds about this fundamental issue because of a single candidate's public persona is not one that will be (or should be?) rescued.

If it's untrue - as is more likely - then there we are.

Trump has done a spectacularly poor job of pushing even his signature issues - it's more that the desperate poverty of the political scene meant that someone merely (finally) addressing these huge questions, however crudely, was bound to get support.

This is not so much a criticism of Trump (though it is that), as a statement about, again, the utter poverty, the wasteland of dumb unresponsive irresponsible stupidity, that is the "mainstream" political class policy sense, on huge issues.

Posted by: rhomboid at April 01, 2016 07:48 PM (QDnY+)

216 i'm not going to that shit-show.
Posted by: ace at April 01, 2016 07:08 PM

Aww, come on it could be fun. First contested convention in 40 yrs should be interesting. BTW, thanks for a great post, thought you were quitting early today.

I'm really tired of Trump's whining that if he has the most votes but not a majority that he should be given the nomination.

That's not how this works. If so we could just skip a convention and anoint the one w/ most votes in the primaries. But that's never been the case, you have to slog thru the convention and win it there.

Posted by: Farmer at April 01, 2016 07:49 PM (o/90i)

217 NAFTA and other similar agreements are not "free trade." They're not even close. They're really just a harmonization of government interference in the economies of the signatory nations. It's the nations saying "let's put aside our nationalist central planning and work together to plan the international economy." It's not a free market. It's just changing the scope of the centrally planned market.

Part of the reason you never get a good argument for free trade and immigration from the people you're listening to is that they aren't the right people. You're not talking to free-market economists. Even Milton Friedman was far from a true believer in totally free markets. His son, David, is much better.

Here are a couple of good articles to get you started:

Only the Private Sector Can Determine the "Correct" Number of Immigrants: http://tinyurl.com/jbbwekz

To Oppose Free Trade Is To Embrace Violence: http://tinyurl.com/hfawaoh

Posted by: rfichoke at April 01, 2016 07:51 PM (vLCft)

218 Trump has a women problem and it is growing daily.
The Asian nail technician at the nail salon asks me out of the blue who I was voting for. I said, "Well I am definitely not voting for Hillary... she would be a disaster." I told her I was a Cruz supporter. She then told me that she was a Republican, but did not like Trump because he is mean.

Posted by: redridinghood at April 01, 2016 07:52 PM (7GQM/)

219 They will make decent people who just want to live in peace and mind their own business live in an atmosphere of fear.

Yes, that has become acutely apparent the last seven-plus years.

Posted by: Sober Sock at April 01, 2016 07:54 PM (Dwehj)

220 Oh, man, I reported this guy. It's an ISIS account with violent videos of heads being sawed off and being shot point blank in the head. Ugly ugly ugly.

If you are on twitter, please report it.

https://twitter.com/Marry_isnl

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 07:56 PM (iQIUe)

221 I'm so engrossed in the comments right now this is phenomenal reading

Posted by: Phone of kari at April 01, 2016 07:56 PM (2Pzcg)

222 Fer Fk Sakes! I look at these isis accounts and see other accts posting in their time lines. Since these assholes use these accts to communcate with each other, I've been trying to report hem all and get the acct suspended but there are hundreds of them.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 08:04 PM (iQIUe)

223 A little isis shit at Boston U. Figures:

https://twitter.com/BlackFlagsDaq

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 01, 2016 08:08 PM (iQIUe)

224 @95: "RoundUp works damned well out of a lawn sprayer. I'm just sayin'."

Nae, laddie. Ye use Scot's fairtilizah.

Watch the weather forecast for one night with rain, followed by three days of sun. Before it rains, sneak onto the lawn and spell out your favorite swear word in fertilizer, the let nature work its magic. They'll have a nice, lush green "ASSHOLE" or whatever on their front lawn for the entire summer.

You know....hypothetically speaking.

Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 01, 2016 08:13 PM (rznWS)

225 @108: "The Old South is clearly Christian, patriotic, and willing to fight - that's bred in the blood."

Yeah, and after it secedes again, it will only have to liquidate all of its major cities, and a few counties in each state. There's an ample Fifth Column in every state in the South, sadly.

Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 01, 2016 08:16 PM (rznWS)

226 The immigration problem has nothing to do with lacking a wall, and building a wall won't have an effect.

Our problem is lawless government. Will building a wall change that?

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at April 01, 2016 08:22 PM (eHpnh)

227 Phone/Ghost of kari, I think I liked you better before your radical change of personality (almost schizophrenic to be honest), from someone telling people to clean the sand out of their vaginas because TrumpTrumpTrump, to this obsequious suck-up.

Posted by: Pastafarian at April 01, 2016 08:22 PM (pCf+a)

228 @179: "Trump is not a Conservative. He is a big government Republican/Democrat.
The government under Trump will be Yuuuuuger than ever before."

Pro Tip: If ANY Republican wins, the government will still be bigger than ever before. At most, it will just be slightly less bigger than ever before than if a Democrat wins. Neither party has any interest in shrinking government. They only disagree a little bit on the rate of expansion.

Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 01, 2016 08:23 PM (rznWS)

229 btw, as for debating immigration; We've never had an administration like this one. The Obama/Clinton position is the tacit abolition of the Border Patrol function, and of borders and citizenship as concepts.

It's not just un-American, or anti-American; it is literally dis-American and de-American.

Posted by: The Wolf Who Cried Boy at April 01, 2016 08:31 PM (Ndje9)

230 Very good post.

Thanks Ace.

Posted by: Cluebat at April 01, 2016 08:39 PM (9WTDY)

231 Who's a narcissist? See WZ.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks at April 01, 2016 08:47 PM (Nwg0u)

232 212 yep, the GOPe leadership wants the same thing the dim fascists want. Only reason they haven't succeeded in shoving CIR down our throats is they don't have the votes, yet. And if they use more dim-o-rats as crossovers to pass the bill, well, the next step is a doozy.

And they could give a damn about SCOTUS. Convenient issue to be used at general election time. I'm 100 percent convinced any run of the mill pinko would be confirmed by now if we were fresh off an election.

Posted by: Cooldawg at April 01, 2016 09:36 PM (1pHN8)

233 Does anyone play bridge anymore? Ace?????????

The highest ranking card in bridge is the Ace of Spades. Newspapers (remember them?) used to have bridge columns, and crosswords, and chess.
Now we have people playing political bridge, laying down their cards. It might be the "race card" or the "woman card", but it is like an episode of 'Will & Grace' to see who has the most grievance cards, a public chance to prove who is 'The Biggest Loser' in life's lottery.

It is just a great big PITY PARTY.

Leslie Gore has a lock on them.

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to!

Posted by: MachiasPrivateer at April 02, 2016 02:36 AM (EMi53)

234 The added content to this essay makes it much, much better.

Posted by: ScoggDog at April 02, 2016 07:57 AM (fiGNd)

235 The inherent flaw in your argument, Ace, is the ruling class already knows what we think. That's the reason for the obfuscation and avoidance you otherwise accurately described.

We live in a post-constitutional, post-democratic republic. It already hasn't ended well. I will gladly vote for Trump, and Cruz if he gets nominated, solely to watch the powers-that-be just formalize the coup. Because make no mistake, America is a failed state ruled by a junta.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at April 03, 2016 01:44 PM (pq97T)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0314 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0103 seconds, 244 records returned.
Page size 157 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.