Open Thread

The Justice Department has given a grant of immunity in the Hillary case…grants of immunity are usually only given to someone who is guilty but willing to spill the beans on someone else. My guess: beans will be spilled on Someone Other Than Hillary. This way we get a prosecution while Hillary can be given an allegedly clean bill of health on the whole matter. Only question is who get thrown under the bus.

But is Bernie playing his hand in a manner to ensure that no one else can step in if Hillary is indicted?

Mitt Romney is going to give a speech tomorrow – some expect a Rubio endorsement, everyone expects some sort of attack on Trump. I don’t think an attack on Trump will do much – the sort of people backing Trump will treat Romney’s words with contempt. On the other hand, endorsing Rubio might help. On the other other hand, endorsing Cruz would be quite the unexpected thing – and probably be most useful in stopping Trump, if that can still be done.

Related: Lindsey Graham suggests it might be time to rally around Cruz.

For an alternative GOP view on Trump, Roger L. Simon appears unfazed by Trump’s enormities:

…With all his victories, however, many Beltway Republicans are obviously still tremendously upset by Donald’s success. It’s hard to tell how big the #NeverTrump crowd is, but you will excuse me if, in plain English, I don’t know what the Hell they’re talking about.

Do these people want to lose? Would they prefer Hillary Clinton be president? Are they looking for a perfect candidate? Has there ever been one? Donald Trump may actually be expanding the Republican Party. Isn’t that good? … For that group I would recommend a reading of Hugh Hewitt’s “Six reasons Trump is still better than Clinton.” If Hugh can write that after Donald famously dissed him for low ratings at the last debate, a lot of other people can swallow their pride too and get on board…

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg isn’t having any of it:

…Trump says he gets along with everybody and will unify the country, even as he suggests that an inconvenient judge is biased because he’s Latino, vows to ban all Muslims from the country, insists his Central Intelligence Agency will torture people, and boasts that he will declare war on disloyal journalists.

When your opponent is that unreasonable, the reasonable response is not surrender.

I don’t know whether Trump will win the nomination or the presidency. But I am fairly certain that if he does, a great many people will one day say, “My God, what have I done?”

13 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. bardolf2 March 3, 2016 / 9:21 am

    Sad News

    1. A criminal with close ties to Obama will get off and win the nomination. Even if Hillary has a stroke the Democrats it remains unchanged that the live off of crony capitalism largesse. Zero chance that a commie gets the nomination.

    2. Mittens is going to try to make himself look even more pathetic by explaining how to successfully run a campaign, just like the one he did against Obama.

    3. Lindsey nobody who got 0 percent when running and who helped pull Jeb down too is now hoping his anti-magic will work for Cruz. Since Cruz is smart he’ll hopefully embrace Lindsey from a distance.

    4. Jonah Goldberg and the rest of NRO already came out as anti-Trump in January so he can’t add anything new. The old guard of conservative writers is passing and Jonah will be washed away too.

    Happy News.

    1. Zerohedge, which used to be pretty popular around this blog, is actually increasing GOP membership by doing smart, in-depth analysis of economics and the ongoing neocon neoliberal fiasco that is foreign policy.

    2. Genius Ben Shapiro, who is more pro-Cruz than anti-Trump, is taking on liberals in their home stadium along with the dangerous faggot Milo Yiannopoulos. Look to to take over where National Review left off, i.e. with readers under 65.

    3. The great Ben Carson, like Rand Paul, is suspending his campaign so that GOP voters can focus on a candidate that will beat Hillary. I think his endorsement would be an honest plus to any campaign.

    • Bob Eisenhower March 3, 2016 / 3:09 pm

      Is “dangerous faggot” a phrase associated with Milo or are you simply calling him that?

      It seems a term out of left field for this context.

      • bardolf2 March 3, 2016 / 5:15 pm

        that’s the name of his college campus tour

      • M. Noonan March 4, 2016 / 12:06 am

        He calls himself that – as he’s gay and the left just despises him. He’s quite the iconoclast…he got in trouble on Twitter for starting the hashtag #FeminismIsCancer and has written articles asserting that the Beatles were relentlessly mediocre and that The Princess Bride is unwatchable trash. He’s a bit out there, but he’s got more guts than 90% of all men out there.

    • M. Noonan March 4, 2016 / 12:09 am

      Oh, I still check in on Zero Hedge from time to time. Beware of using the “neoCon/Neoliberal” thing, however…it is often a phrase used to mask “the Jews” and is placed in articles by anti-Semites who don’t want to be openly identified as such.

  2. bardolf2 March 3, 2016 / 9:24 am

    *Even if Hillary has a stroke, the Democrat need remains unchanged, in that they live off of crony capitalism largesse. Zero chance that a commie gets the nomination.

  3. bardolf2 March 3, 2016 / 11:34 am

    February 28, 2016 / 9:55 pm

    So at last we have something we can both agree on. Trump is the worst I’ve seen from either party.


    Evidence based reasoning (what Casper would call being open minded), says that new statements should not be discarded out of hand. The above is a statement that Amazona and Casper finally have something they can agree upon.

    From Amazona’s point of view, a person who is wrong is now agreeing with her on exactly one point. Should she assume 1: the implausible thing which is Casper finally got something right OR 2: the plausible thing (since she has data of her own mistakes) that she is incorrect?

    Most likely, she’ll conclude the latter and hence Casper’s historic view that Amazona is terribly closed minded.

    • Bob Eisenhower March 3, 2016 / 3:07 pm

      Well, there is no way Amazona can refute his statement, that Trump is the worst candidate he has ever seen. She has no idea what candidates he has seen.

      However, she can aver whether Trump is the worst SHE has ever seen.

      Maybe they agree….maybe she really hated John Anderson (look him up)…I dunno.

      • bardolf2 March 3, 2016 / 5:36 pm

        When a Democrat says that Goldwater was wrong on everything BUT abortion (he was pro-choice) that Democrat isn’t trying to be reasonable and non-ideological. He just supports abortion and is filtering Goldwater through his own unreasonable opinions. He wants to show that even a crazy person like Goldwater supported abortion it’s that obvious.

        Person C has always been incorrect politically (from person A’s point of view). One day Person C says some new political opinion-X that person A feels is correct. Reasonably, person A should doubt her own opinion about X more so than believing C finally has a correct opinion.

        If you only pick news sources and arguments which reinforce your own point of view, very little discussion with people with different opinions is possible.

      • Bob Eisenhower March 3, 2016 / 8:33 pm

        OK, I see the issue. I’m pretty sure Amazona was being sarcastic when stating she agrees with nothing Casper believes. Matter resolved. You are welcome.

      • Amazona March 8, 2016 / 10:22 am

        Bob, I don’t even pay rent for the space I occupy in Bardolf’s head. Good thing, as it is a pretty bleak and desolate space, and kind of eerie, populated with random dolfisms plaintively trying to sound relevant.

        But no, I do not just have a knee-jerk reaction to anything casper says, automatically disagreeing. While I have years of experience backing up a perception that he is probably wrong, I also subscribe to the theory that even a blind pig might find an acorn, sometimes.

        My points were not that obtuse. One is that even Trump is not as bad as Hillary, for reasons given. Another is that I don’t even consider Trump a Republican, or a representative of the Republican Party, even though he has a nice shiny new R on his lapel.

        However, if it will smooth some evidently ruffled feathers, I will agree that Hillary and Trump do represent the two worst presidential candidates I can think of, at any time in our history. And they might even qualify as such if given cameos in “Idiocracy”.

  4. dbschmidt March 3, 2016 / 9:54 pm

    Three co-equal branches of Government; (no particular order except how I remember them) Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

    Seventeen enumerated duties of the Federal Government


    Only the last has anything, if the President decides, has anything to do with “issues” like Pro-anything, including Pro-Life or Pro-Choice (which linguistically should include Pro-Life)

    Gun Rights is a Second Amendment right—not an issue.
    Protection of the Borders to not become boarders is a constitutionally divvied mandate.

    I do not care what you and whoever is your partner or partners are or do until you get in my space and try to screw with me or mine including laws and regulations. What you do with your body until it infringes on someone else’s rights like the unborn.

    Nevertheless, I am not, and will not, run for President—but what is the “issues” issue with voters? Discounting the LIV—I do not see what running for the office of President has to do with issues rather than policies and management (for lack of a better term). Both Hillary & Trump have stated the “love” LIV. That part I can understand.

    Our President is the CEO, CIC as well as a lot of other duties. Why are we, the American population, so fixated at the level of a morning/afternoon talk show like Ellen or Good Morning America where multi-syllable questions would confound most viewers?

    Is America that dumb? I am starting to be a believer.

    • Amazona March 8, 2016 / 10:40 am

      DB, most of the American public has been very effectively trained to think that “issues” are what matter most in any election. Ask any Liberal why he or she voted for a Lib and you will get “because, like, you know, like she is for gay marriage” or some such twaddle. I doubt that many, if any, such voters even realize that they have really voted for an entire political system, hiding behind an “issue”.

      “Conservatives” are no better. Look at all the so-called “conservatives” lining up to lick the boots of Donald Trump, because all they care about is their “issues. Try asking a Trumpbot “why are you wanting us to vote for someone who represents an even greater expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal government and even more erosion of the Constitutional balance of power among the three branches of government?” and you will get a “HUH??” and a glazed-eye stare. They are absolutely utterly clueless about the actual government model that would make it possible for Trump to enact his wild promises. Worse, they are indifferent to it. Because he is speaking to their ISSUES. He zeroes in on an issue and then, like any good con man, he assures them “I am the only one who UNDERSTANDS how you feel. I am the only one who CARES how you feel. I am the only one who CAN do what you wish could be done. I am the only one who WILL do it.” And they get all warm and gooey inside, because finally someone is relating to them on that essential emotional basis, and they see Trump as a friend, as someone they can trust because he UNDERSTANDS HOW THEY FEEL.

      Every one of these issues is a string on the Trump fiddle and as long as he keeps playing they will keep dancing.

Comments are closed.