Have You No Decency?

It is, essentially, the question asked of Trump and his supporters all the time. As for Trump, it appears that the best answer would be, “not much”. But I would like to point out that the people who are using Captain Khan against Trump are the same people who called Captain Kahn and his fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines War Criminals. Have you forgotten? Don’t you remember from about late 2003 until January 20th, 2009 that our military was derided as full of stupid people who couldn’t get into college and thus got “stuck” in the military? Don’t you remember the endless stories about how our soldiers were behaving like beasts? That the overly-soft prison at Gitmo was compared unfavorably to GULAG? Does Code Pink strike a bell? ANSWER? Does anything that happened as far back as last week matter to anyone any more?

I’d much prefer we lived in a polity where common decency was observed – you know, where people at least tried to tell the truth; didn’t exaggerate and/or flat out lie for political advantage; treated the opposition with respect due to all human beings. But, we don’t live in that sort of polity. I date the vileness in American politics to the Bork confirmation hearings where Ted Kennedy – the liberal “Lion” of the Senate – actually got up and said that Robert Bork would approve laws which allowed Gestapo-like cops to break down American doors at will. From that point on, for the left, there have been no standards of decency – you can say whatever you want about your opponents, launch the most disgusting slanders, and it is up to the opponent to prove it isn’t true. Of course, this only works one way – only liberals are allowed to be disgusting…non-liberals have to just sit there and take it and never, ever answer back in kind.

When the TEA Party emerged in 2009, it was made up of excessively polite, middle class Americans who would never hurt a fly. It was presented as a racist, fascist, violent organization out to destroy all that is good and true. No surprise at all that a good number of those TEA Partiers have taken the measure of things and figured out that if you’re to be hanged for a sheep, might as well go for it all. Trump is the long-delayed response to the unfair, nauseating way the left has operated for decades.

I don’t like this, at all. There was a time in the past when I would have gotten right into the insult-fest, but I’ve come to realize that getting down in the muck with Progressives just gets me dirty. But I’m also not going to wring my hands in horror over what Trump and his people say – whatever they say, it doesn’t hold a candle to the things Progressives say, and have said for ages, for all the world as if insulting people is part of normal, political discourse. Maybe Trump’s mouth helps him get his clock cleaned on November 8th, maybe it helps him to victory. I don’t know, and I don’t much care. I’d like to see a return to decency – but any such return will now require both sides to quit it…and given that the left has been doing it longer and worse, I think it is up to them to realize they’ve gone too far, for too long.

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “Have You No Decency?

  1. Retired Spook July 31, 2016 / 10:36 am

    I guess my biggest fear is that the lack of verbal decency that we see so prevalent, not just in politics but in society as a whole, eventually escalates to something more dangerous. We see this in the phenomenon of road rage, and now we’re starting to see it in the assassinations of cops. We desperately need a leader who can mend our divisions as opposed to the current leader who has done his best to inflame and aggravate them. Unfortunately I don’t see either Hillary or Trump as being someone who can do that.

    • M. Noonan July 31, 2016 / 10:40 pm

      Neither of them are – there was a reason I was for Jindal or Walker; both very able men who have proven themselves entirely capable of destroying Progressives and doing it without for a moment getting into the gutter with them.

  2. Amazona July 31, 2016 / 7:14 pm

    I was at a family gathering this weekend and my uber-Liberal cousin was bemoaning the nastiness of political discourse. I agree with her, which surprised her, but I also had an explanation. My take on it is that we have been herded away from discussions about governance, which tend to be more analytical and objective, into defining our politics according to issues. That is where divisiveness comes in. I don’t know anyone who has had his mind changed on an issue. They are almost always emotion-based and very personal. So when you argue with someone about an issue it quickly degenerates into “I’m right on this and you are wrong” and from there it is a quick trip to “Because I’m right and you’re wrong I’m better than you are”.

    She wondered what alternative there might be, and I said to shift the discourse back to one of governance. If we are arguing about the best blueprint for governing our country, we are stepping away from the emotional minefield of issues and while differences are going to be strongly felt and vigorously argued the entire subject matter is less volatile.

    This, and Identity Politics, have led us down an ugly path. As a nation, we have moved from objective standards to basically picking out people we will support just because of who they are, and then we give those people great power. So when they say something, as Kennedy did, those who have nominated him as one of their heroes will automatically buy into everything he says. We see the same thing with Obama—those who have decided they love him because of what he represents to them as a person will believe anything he says.

    Read Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell, He talks about the two basic conflict of visions in society, that between people who believe that all humans are subject to weakness and error and therefore power must be mitigated by process, and those who believe that some people can be so special they should be followed and trusted with great power, just because of who they are. When you read it, you start to see how and why some people gravitate toward tyrants and accept tyranny and some back away from power placed in the hands of the few and want processes involving many people to mitigate the dangers of tyranny.

    The rest of it goes back to the overall coarsening of America. Some cable TV shows now allow some profanity, and some revel in the foulest of language, all of it available in living rooms all over the country. We now often choose “reality” shows which are scripted but pretend to show real people in real situations, in which these people engage in the nastinest and most devious and despicable behaviors—and it is considered “entertainment”. I think the rise of the UFC craze is symptomatic of the coarsening of America—it has gone from boxing to true bloodsport, in which pretty much anything goes, with closeups of peoples’ faces being beaten into bloody pulp and in which someone can win by literally choking an opponent into unconsciousness. And it is mainstream, with audiences literally howling for more blood and violence. I’ve been to several movies which looked pretty good from the trailers, but which featured such bizarrely coarse, crass, vile, filthy language and plots I was disgusted. I could imagine the script meetings for these movies: “OK, the basic premise is pretty good and I like the dialogue so far but we need to take three minutes here and five minutes there and insert the most disgusting language we can think of, and have fourteen other short periods in which the characters sound filthy. It doesn’t matter if the script calls for nudity, we’re gonna have naked boobs. It’s not enough to have a movie about an unwed mother, we have to show her actually getting pregnant, with explicit closeups.”

    We have a culture which has overtly encouraged premarital and extramarital sex, actually paying women to have babies out of wedlock. We have a culture which has moved from tolerating some abortions to actually PROMOTING abortions, attacking those who object to them with the harshest and nastiest language. The slightest hint of censure of ANY deviant behavior is now jumped on and excoriated, and the term “shame” is now applied with the greatest scorn and contempt to those who express any standard of decency.

    With this erosion of basic cultural decency, the stage is set for the vile, dishonest and vicious lies of the Left, because the public has been conditioned to accept those kinds of lies. When TV and movies are all about horrible people who do horrible things, it is no great leap to believe the Left when it claims that someone is horrible and has done horrible things. That, combined with a political process that has been pushed away from analysis to emotion, based on issues and Identity Politics, and you have the toxic stew we have today.

    • M. Noonan July 31, 2016 / 10:39 pm

      You’re right about TV – even the storied Friends, I thought a horrific show about absolutely awful people…and it was one of the more gentle shows of the past 20 years. Generally, I don’t even watch TV or modern movies these days because there is a deep amount of mercilessness in their mindset, in my view.

      But as long as we’re on the issue of who gets the goodies and who gets punished, the nastiness will remain, and increase…

  3. Amazona August 1, 2016 / 10:27 am

    I don’t doubt that there are lots and lots of good, serious, patriotic, kind, gentle and loving people who are also Muslims. But they happen to be part of a much larger and very dangerous and evil political organization that uses its religious element as a shield.

    Instead of whining about how poor Muslims are all treated alike when only some do vile and evil things, it is up to these good, serious, patriotic, kind, gentle and loving people to stand up against the evil, and do something definitive to say to the world “We abhor and disavow all violence done in the name of Islam and we separate ourselves from that by declaring our allegiance to Reformed Islam that is purely religious in nature and does not contain the elements of hatred, world domination and murderous intent that have made Islam toxic to the world”.

    The ball’s in your court, Captain Khan. I’m tired of your (plural “you” as in all those so-called “moderate” Muslims) constant whining about how misunderstood and abused you are, poor babies. Instead of demanding that WE, those who are under attack in our own country and around the world, change OUR attitudes, it is up to YOU to change the nature of your religious affiliation.

    That is, draw a very big, very public and very distinct line between the religious aspects of Islam, which I assume is what attracts you and generates your loyalty, and the murderous ambitions of Islam in general.

    We can start by stopping that ridiculous labeling of murderous and violent Muslims as representing “RADICAL Islam”. Bull. It IS Islam, as it is written, as it is taught. The killers are not the radicals—the so-called “moderates” are. We can’t fight an enemy if we can’t even identify it. Our enemy, the enemy of civilization and decency and freedom, is Islam. If you are a member of Islam and this chafes your heinie, too bad. It is not our job to find a way to soothe your hurt feelings. It is your job to do something to make it clear to the world that your identity is one of a religious person whose beliefs are based on the RELIGIOUS aspects of the teachings of the Prophet, and that you reject the teachings that are not specifically about worship of Allah and the teachings that link worship of Allah to violence and killing.

    And by the way, when you agree that 9/11 was a good thing, or that it would be good for all Jews to move back to Jerusalem because this will make it easier to kill them all, you lose ALL credibility as ” good, serious, patriotic, kind, gentle and loving people” and plant yourselves right in the middle of the ugliest aspect of Islam, even if you don’t carry a gun or even if you carry one as part of our military.

    My message to you, Captain Kahn, is the same message I had for the Catholic Church when its experiment of recruiting homosexual men as priests ended up with young boys being molested—this is not my mess, it is your mess. Clean it up yourself and then get back to me.

  4. Marc Lee August 1, 2016 / 10:35 am

    Your point about civility is well taken but there is also more to this story. http://shoebat.com/2016/07/31/what-the-media-is-not-telling-you-about-the-muslim-who-attacked-donald-trump-he-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent-who-wants-to-advance-sharia-law-and-bring-muslims-into-the-united-states/
    I wish you well in your attempt to remain civil and mudfree. I don’t for one moment entertain the notion that kindness, tolerance, logic, or facts have done one damned thing to change the course of our slide down into this hole our children will be left to deal with…..because we did not. We allowed it to become this uncivil and vicious. We allowed them to ridicule and intimidate us into something our founding fathers would not recognize. And continuing what we have been doing for the last 8 years is an exercise in futility. So you will find me putting on my hip waders and getting down in the mud my friend if that’s what it will take to stop them.

    • Retired Spook August 1, 2016 / 11:43 am

      Unfortunately, my friend, it’s like mud wrestling a pig. The pig likes it, and very soon you can’t tell which is which. The Left will never be completely eliminated because they breed just like everyone else, but I believe they can be marginalized. It’s a fight that must start anew with each new generation, because there are always those in every generation who believe they’re better, smarter and born to rule over others. Those types have been around for the better part of 6,000 years, just like cock roaches. And just like with cock roaches, sun light is the best disinfectant for Leftist ideas.

      • Amazona August 1, 2016 / 12:33 pm

        The problem is that the links are so many, and so complex, it takes a flow chart to link them and make them make sense. The only thing I can think of would be a mass mailing, not to Dems necessarily as they are for the most part locked into their Identity Politics and could see a video of Hillary ordering the terrorists to attack the safe house in Benghazi, giving them coordinates, and they would either dismiss it or just not care. They are zealots, beyond salvation.

        But a mailing to Independents, outlining some of the various misdeeds and connections, might be helpful. As long as all the facts are correct and verifiable, she couldn’t really do much to fight back. With a flow chart of various actions, with dates and events laid out, even the Complicit Agenda Media would have questions to ask her, and all she could do would be to retreat into her bunker and let Kaine carry the water for her. That is where Trump would be effective, calling her out on hiding and ducking the questions. It is in his wheelhouse of attacking and insulting, and is a simple concept I think he could handle.

        Trump would not do a good job of laying it all out. He is too erratic in his speech patterns, and only Trump lovers can stand to watch him and listen to him. But a mailing that lays out two or three or four of the worst Clinton relationships and their conclusions might lead to a feeding frenzy in the press, as it would be too hard to just ignore all this. And Pence could hit the campaign trail with his articulate style and fill in the blanks.

        One trail should start with the problems she had in the past with FOIA and why she took the preemptive step of avoiding FOIA exposure by setting up a private server. What is never made quite clear enough is WHY she did this, and the WHY is crucial because it not only shows premeditation of committing illegal acts, it leads to examination of those acts.

        One should be her relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, from Huma and her relationship with both Hillary and the organization to her recruiting of Captain Kahn to go after Trump, tying in her fund raising targeting Muslim groups and even leaving open some speculation about her refusing to come to the aid of our people in Benghazi because of her fear of alienating her Muslim buddies.

        One should be her selling of America, from First Lady to Sec of State, showing the money flowing into the Clinton Foundation and the government favors flowing out to contributors.

        I’d throw in her manipulation of the nomination process, just to stir up Berniebots and keep them wound up about wanting to take her down.

        It would not be cheap. It should be a high-class presentation, similar to what one would show to potential investors, with several pages and lots of color and charts and arrows and so on. But it would be devastating. And it would not have to go out to everyone. As I said, it wouldn’t have to go to Republicans, or to most Dems. And it would not even have to go to all Indies, as the word would spread, quotes would hit the Internet and email chains and so on. I think a few million invested in something like this would be well worth the investment of time and money. Its main impact would not be the information itself but the way Hillary would have to address it, or try to run from it, and how it would open up the discourse in a way that can’t be done by trying to work all this complex detail into speeches and off-the-cuff responses to questions.

        Of course, the GOP, being the GOP, would screw it up, putting in things that are not true or could not be verified, and so on. The party reminds me of a time I was at a party and a guy sat at the table next to me and pushed a key ring toward me, saying “Are these yours?” I said no, and he said “I’d still put them somewhere else where I won’t be picking them up. People who know me know if I can’t f**k it up I’ll s**t on it.” It’s a phrase I remember when I look at Curley, Moe and Larry, AKA the GOP, fumbling and stumbling along, predictable only in the assurance that if something can be done wrong by them, it will be.

      • Amazona August 1, 2016 / 12:46 pm

        From an article on the new Hillary movie. (I hear it is more about Dems than Hillary, which is too bad, as I think during the election cycle it should focus on her. Spook, you saw it—what did you think?)

        “Whether we are talking international bribery with other countries, gargantuan honorariums (sic) for corporate speeches, cattle futures controversy, Whitewater, Travelgate, Pardongate, Frank Guistra and the Kazakhstan deal, Haiti relief, Renting Lincoln’s Bedroom or the transfer of uranium production to the Russians, the Clintons are pros at backdoor deals and you-scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours political purchases when it comes to their own personal and political gain.

        The Clintons’ cash corruption plays both sides of the coin: international and national. Even a host of American companies with global interests gave millions to the Clintons while simultaneously soliciting the State Department.

        “At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation,” according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures.

        In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton left the presidency with millions of dollars in debt. Since then, they’ve amassed over $130 million. Think about it!”

        Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/top-10-highlights-of-hillarys-america/#pj6xbBmwuagRb2db.99

      • Retired Spook August 1, 2016 / 2:32 pm

        Spook, you saw it—what did you think?

        I actually thought the background on the Democrat Party made it much easier to understand exactly where the Clintons are coming from and put everything they do and say into historical context. Democrats have been operating on the BIG LIE strategy for 180 years, and NO ONE does the BIG LIE better than the Clintons. One of the best parts of the movie, IMO, was the debunking of the Democrat lie that after the Civil Rights Act, all the racist southern Democrats became republicans. Dinesh D’Sousa put together a collage of photos of the 1,600 (I think) most prominent racist Democrats during the Civil Rights era, and then highlighted the ONE PERCENT who switched parties. It presented a powerful image refuting one of the biggest Democrat lies of my lifetime.

    • Amazona August 1, 2016 / 11:50 am

      Gee, links between a Trump attacker and the Muslim Brotherhood and Hillary Clinton! Who woulda thunk it?

      Maybe people who read reports earlier this year from the Beaumont Texas newspaper and TV stations: From a message sent to me, along with the link to the story:

      “Hillary Clinton made a campaign stop yesterday in Beaumont, Texas. Only six people were there to greet her. Her security detail outnumbered her supporters by quite a bit. She wouldn’t talk, wave to or even acknowledge those there to greet her. As bad as that is, it’s not the real story here. The real story is who she took a private meeting with. After landing, Clinton headed off to a fundraiser in West Beaumont, where she was greeted by around 150-200 Muslims, most of whom were of Pakistani origin. The event was held by Pakistani businessman Tahir Javed and Hillary raised approximately $500,000 by pandering to Muslims, making it “one of the top five private fundraiser’s Clinton has had in this country.” She’s bought and paid for by them. Spread this far and wide. You will not see it on national news but this is what is going on. Sheila Jackson Lee was there as well. “

      https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=znwbV7TbIOKD8Qf65rvgBg#q=Beaumont+tx+%26+hillary

      Clintons have always been ready to sell out the country to the highest bidder, as we have seen going all the way back to the illegal campaign contributions from China to Bill’s campaign funds, leading to the “wall” separating all the various U.S. intelligence agencies to keep them from sharing information, which would have led to collating data on the illegal contributions. Don’t forget, it was that “wall” that kept those agencies from collating their data on the actions that led to 9/11.

      Then Hillary as Sec of State sold out the country, trading huge “speaking fees” paid to Bill and huge “contributions” to the nearly transparent money laundering scheme called the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors from the U.S. government. Uranium in Nevada ring a bell? Ask Russia about that. Or Harry Reid. Or Hillary, if you can get her into a press conference or under oath again.

    • M. Noonan August 1, 2016 / 11:35 pm

      My preferred course of action is to form a new, Conservative party and let this system burn down on it’s own – it can’t keep going; it is doomed. I want a party clean of it that the people can turn to when it all falls apart.

      • Marc Lee August 2, 2016 / 2:40 am

        You’re right, it must and will fall apart because it was corrupt and economically unsustainable to begin with. But we will then be called upon to deal with these same vicious, indoctrinated morons in the streets with our families lives on the line. So if you’re worrying about how uncivil our society has become now, you might want to give some consideration to how much more uncivil is it likely to become before we get to a point where the parties, the governments on all levels, and the people have had enough and insist on any of it being cleaned up, rather than the uncivil using it as an opportunity to actually take control or help it burn down. That is what they have wanted for a very long time.

      • Amazona August 2, 2016 / 9:17 am

        “My preferred course of action is to form a new, Conservative party”

        Mark, this was my thinking for quite a while, but then I started to evaluate the cost of forming a new party. That cost is losing majority status in either or both houses of Congress.

        It would be lovely if a new party were to bring in people from both sides of the existing aisle, so—as a for instance—-in an election the Dems take 45 Senate seats, the Republicans take 46, and the new party takes the rest. That would be a great start. But in reality, what would happen would be that the Dems would take 48 seats, the GOP would take 46, and the new party would take the remaining 6. Uh-oh. Now the Dems control the Senate. There are more conservative and kinda-conservative seats than Liberal, but the “new” party has bled off too many seats to allow the Right any kind of control

        That is the main reason I have shifted my thinking to mounting an insurgency within the GOP and weeding out the dead wood at the top. I think most of it IS at the top, party-wise. It means major, serious, and often expensive work at the state and local levels. but after all isn’t that how the nation was structured in the first place? To have citizens actively involved at local and state levels?

        The TEA Party started off pretty good, but then it degenerated into what ended up looking a lot like a Trump rally. And it recruited people who were simply not ready for prime time to be its candidates. We got Sharron Angle. We got a figurehead in Sarah Palin. I like Sarah Palin but she turned out to be a lightweight. We got well-meaning people who were in way over their heads, who had some good ideas but were simply not qualified to run for office. We tend to forget that we need people with two often different skill sets—-one for campaigning and one for governing.

        The fact is, no matter how good the origins are, the core management, groups like this will also attract the lunatic fringe. And it will be the lunatic fringe that gets media coverage and ends up defining the movement. However, deep in the heart of the GOP is a growing core of unhappy Republicans who are fed up with the direction the party has taken, and I think will make more sense to build on that. These are people who have at least a little political background and knowledge and understanding.

        It’s too late for 2016. Whether we win or lose, the die is cast for this election. But we can start to find and develop talent at the state and local levels, and we have to work on doing the same for Congressional seats. I think one area where conservatives are miserably inadequate is messaging.

        An example: A few years ago a small-town nice guy, Ken Buck, was running for office. I don’t even remember which one. In the primary, his opponent, a woman, made a speech in which she said people should vote for her because she wears high heels. In his next speech, Buck made what was a funny and on-target comment that people should vote for him because he DOESN’T wear high heels, he wears cowboy boots that are dirty because he is a working man who knows what has to be done in rural Colorado. It was a great comeback, tailored for his farm and ranch audience. However, the Dems pulled out the few words where he said people should vote for him because he doesn’t wear high heels, and used it very effectively to smear him as a sexist. The problem was, the local GOP let them get away with it. They never once ran an ad showing that his comment was not only a response to a blatant appeal to vote for an opponent merely because she is a woman, it was brutally edited and taken out of context. They just let the lie lie there. and it was very effective.

        Another example is the failure to make the case for conservatism. It has become a magnet for the freak show that gathers on the fringes of every movement, and no one seems to know what it really means. We need to define it, and define it in terms of governance and not of issues. We need to start educating people about which issues are actually legally allowed to the federal government, and which are reserved to the states. If done properly, this can even be used to show the political ignorance of the Left, as it is either ignorance or just a blatant desire to violate the Constitution. We NEVER make that point.

        If every state can find and develop someone who can jump on comments like the one about Buck and immediately counter it in a precise and effective way, and if we can find good people and then work with them and train them in how to campaign instead of just throwing them out into the arena where they will be up against mobs of experienced opponents, we can start to replace some of the Old Guard.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 2, 2016 / 9:32 am

        I think Amazona’s strategy to support the dangeous politician to maintain control of the situation was first engaged by Hindenburg in ’32. I’m not as good at history as Mark so I’ll cede to him…did it work out the way Hindenburg expected?

      • M. Noonan August 2, 2016 / 10:51 am

        Hindenburg had been essentially ruling by Presidential decree for some time before he appointed Hitler Chancellor – German democracy was already dead; Hitler just buried it. We have no provision in our Constitution for a President to rule by decree (though Obama has, of course, tried to create such a thing). A lot of government’s around the world have such a thing – and thank God we don’t.

        The attempt to equate Trump with Hitler or Stalin are, in my view, very much overdrawn – Hitler had at his back a large, well-organized Party which was entirely subservient to him. The Hitlerian ideal was to get legally created Chancellor, and then make his Party the government, which is what he did. Trump is inside the GOP, but he isn’t the Fuhrer of it – and there’s no idea of having GOP officials take over the government apparatus while still retaining their Party positions.

      • Amazona August 2, 2016 / 9:45 am

        Marc, I think a lot of the incivility we are talking about is really fairly mild and not likely to develop into violence or even organized action of any kind. I see it all the time. Working with people who are in their 40s who have never heard of any of the basic rules of civil conduct we took for granted all our lives, because this is how we were taught, their coarseness is pretty much limited to trashy “entertainment” and acceptance of every weakening of social fabric such as the whole phony-baloney LBGTXYZX “movement”. Take a significant number of girls and women back to even the 60s and people would think they are whores, with their big plastic boobs on display, their tats, their underwear hanging out. But that is mainstream these days.

        Even most of the suburban “warriors” squealing about Black Lives Mattering” would crumple like Kleenex in the face of any real opposition, scurrying to their safe places where they can wear their onesies and suck their thumbs and wait for rescue.

        From what I have seen, and I admit I do not have a ringside seat, the true activists have had to be recruited from the seething sewers of racial hatred. I am sure there are white activists who would be on the front lines of armed conflict, but I think the strategy on the left is to mine its plantations of captive black people and get them wound up as tightly as possible and then send them out as cannon fodder. While this would result in a lot of misery and bloodshed, I don’t think it would last long. A race war could be just a diversion, but so far the only militant (as in armed and potentially dangerous) elements I see in American society are carefully nurtured and choreographed black rage and unrest and Islamic terrorists in our midst. While the latter are getting some protection from the Left in its snuggling up to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, terrorism against Americans is tough for the Left, with most law enforcement working to find it and rout it out while the upper echelons of the Left are walking the tightrope of paying lip service to fighting Islam and also cozying up to its leadership. The problem with promoting a relationship with Islam is that it hates the Left as much as it does anyone else, and will turn on its protectors and try to kill them with the same zeal they will go after everyone else. They are not reliable allies, like the black militants.

        Personally, at this point I see the coarsening of America as a cultural problem, more than one of national security, with a very high risk of isolated armed racial skirmishes and an even higher risk of national disaster from Islamic sources—-my main fear is a biological attack, followed in order (in my mind) of severity; coordinated bombings and gun attacks, coordinated attacks on infrastructure such as the power grids, chemical warfare, an EMP attack, or dirty bombs. When Iran gets its nukes up and running, between Iran and NoKo we can look at nuclear attacks from a couple of different places. Any or all of these will quickly move the uncivil into a better understanding of how to function in society, and several of them will target the uncivil first. Let’s face it—the worst of the uncivil are in the highly populated urban centers, which are most likely to be affected no matter what happens, and the more civil populations in Flyover Country are less likely to be taken out.

        Plus, we have a lot of guns out here.

      • Amazona August 2, 2016 / 10:36 am

        Oh, Bob, Bob, Bob….do take a breath, take a pill, do something to calm down and then maybe work a little on you comprehension problems.

        I get it. You hate Donald Trump with a blind white-hot passion and you think he is the moral and political equivalent of Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot and Darth Vader. You do not equate him with Mussolini because you think Benito was too benign to be compared to the All That Is Evil that IS Donald J. Trump.

        In your mind, Trump is not just a narcissistic fool way too impressed with his own special wonderfulness and woefully unprepared or unqualified for the job of president, he is actually a clear and present danger actively interested in destroying America as we know it. In your mind, a bumbling stumbling doofus with absolutely no history or hint of any ideological underpinnings related to official Leftist tyranny, erosion and eventual destruction of the Constitution, or sinister relations with our enemies, is exactly as dangerous as one who has every one of those characteristics. Therefore, there is no difference whatsoever between the Communist ideologue and the egotistical upstart. And, therefore, voting for the person whose misdeeds are far far FAR more likely to be the result of ineptness rather than a cold-eyed calculation of how best to implement a radical Leftist policy makes me an active conspirator in the planned destruction of the nation.

        There. I think I have summed it up.

        Of course, to get to this absolute, a few things have to be ignored. One is the fact that a President Trump is not very likely to veto bills passed in a Republican Congress. A President Clinton, having taken the baton from the hand of President Obama, is pretty much guaranteed to. But whatever, let’s not focus on things like that.

        A President Trump may not stick to his promise of nominating Supreme Court justices from his list. But he might. A President Clinton, on the other hand, has already said she would love to see Obama as a Justice, and we know with absolute certainty that she would nominate very radical Lefties to the Court..

        Again, whatever……..

        The solution to the problem is, evidently, not to roll the dice and go with the lesser of two evils, the choice that at least gives us a chance at avoiding absolute disaster and permanent dismantling of much of our foundational concept of governance, and instead go sloping off to cast a wholly symbolic vote that is not for anything, not for trying to salvage at least something out of the trash heap, but is just cast to flip off both major parties.

        Well thought-out.

        Take some oxygen with you to that Higher Moral Ground—its lofty elevations sometimes impair thought processes.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 2, 2016 / 11:40 am

        I “hate Trump with a blind white-hot passion?” That is how you are positioning me? No, I fear a Trump presidency and I hate that the GOP has proven to be cowardly, and still, folks like you cling to the GOP and will embrace, with your vote, Trump.

        I do not compare Trump to Hitler temperamentally. Trump is not evil. As you and I have discussed, Trump is not Hitler, but his rise to power – including help from the powers that be thinking he could be controlled – has remarkable similarities.

        I have no fear Trump would do the evil Hitler did, but I am 100% sure Trump will do whatever the Hell he wants at any given moment.

        I agree with Mark, we need to consolidate Conservatism elsewhere, even though that means losing Congressional power in the short term. I’m not waiting for a new party, though I may join if one forms. I will not be part of this GOP, and I will not help this egomaniac to power.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 2, 2016 / 12:27 pm

        You know, from my high horse I can see history and pay attention. Gee, what happens to those who don’t pay attention to history?

      • Amazona August 2, 2016 / 2:18 pm

        Bob, whatever “history” you are seeing from that high horse of yours doesn’t seem to include what happens to nations, and people, when the Left achieves power.

        We can’t hit “Pause” for the country while a bunch of idealists gather to discuss, ad infinitum, the most perfect and ideal and just plain wonderful political party and then get it organized and then get it established nationwide and then get it big enough and strong enough to take on the Left and then hit “Resume” and pick up where we are now. No, while you are undermining the only opposition to the Left which has any stroke in this country at all, even though it has been reduced from being a formidable opponent to being merely a speed bump, the Left will be taking over every branch of government and making all its own rules, and there will be no way any other party can ever catch up.

        Maybe that history studying you keep bragging on ought to cover the development of our Constitution—the arguments, the compromises, the purists vs the realists. You do realize, don’t you, why the Constitution makes no reference to slavery.? You do realize, don’t you, why we had to go back and tack on the Bill of Rights? We got an amazing document that formalizes the most amazing blueprint for governance in the history of mankind, and it did not make the purists happy. Check it out. There is a lesson to be learned in the study of the writing of the Constitution.

        There is the history of the encroachment of Leftism into governments around the world, and the outcomes of those encroachments. That is the kind of history that a serious person would examine, to decide how important it is to stop that encroachment here and now, in this nation, at this time.

        “Gee, what happens to those who don’t pay attention to history?” Gee, probably the same thing that happens when people cherry-pick “history” to find bits that support their biases and let them lay claim to the Higher Moral Ground, where they can bask in their own self-perceived superiority.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 2, 2016 / 2:28 pm

        You sure are afraid of the oddest things, Amazona.

        This nation has had many left candidates, not the least of whom was married to the current Democrat candidate, and survived. This nation has never had as volatile and egomaniacal a person as Trump as President.

        And yet you are more afraid to have just another (ho-hum) lefty in office than you are of an out of control maniac. Odd choice.

      • Amazona August 2, 2016 / 5:03 pm

        Bob, you are right and I am wrong. After doing my due diligence and researching the Libertarian Party a little more deeply……

        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/gary_johnson_needs_to_leave_the_libertarian_party_behind.html

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436011/libertarians-convention-florida-crazy-fun-unserious

        …….I agree that this is the perfect political landing spot for you. Your evaluation of your place in the electoral process is spot-on, and I offer my deepest apologies for doubting the sagacity of your self-perception.

        I also want to apologize for my wordiness. I had intended to only post my Trump opinions 100,000 times, but my lightning fingers (like quicksilver over the keys) evidently struck the X 100 macro, and oopsie-daisy I hit that 10 million mark without even realizing it!

        I also failed to appreciate the greater danger of a clueless blundering narcissist who wanders from idea to idea without an ideological roadmap vs a tightly focused well educated narcissist with vast political experience and driven by a clearly understood and accepted ideology complete with detailed agenda. Clearly Hillary is just the JV team. I am still trying to play catch-up on that one, but I will keep working at it.

        Your efforts to educate me have not gone unnoticed. Please accept my sincerest apologies and my hopes that your entry into the Libertarian Party will be met with a hearty “Welcome home, Bob!”

      • Bob Eisenhower August 3, 2016 / 1:16 pm

        This is not about the Libertarian Party, it is about building a new home for Conservatism rather than remain in the ashes of the its old home.

        Also, I wouldn’t recommend showing a goofy picture of the Libertarians when, literally, ANY picture of your party’s Oompah-Loompah standard-bearer could serve as a fitting comeback.

      • Amazona August 3, 2016 / 2:59 pm

        “Also, I wouldn’t recommend showing a goofy picture of the Libertarians when, literally, ANY picture of your party’s Oompah-Loompah standard-bearer could serve as a fitting comeback.”

        No argument there. I personally prefer the description “gilded toad”. Yes some people find him charismatic, even attractive, Go figure. I think he usually looks like a surly toddler with a full diaper. But that, while entertaining, puts me over into Identity Politics, or at least Personality Politics, and I try to stay out of those tents. I am an ideology wonk, not an American Idol fan.

        Regarding ideology, I have spent many years reading up on Leftist dogma, and can spot it pretty far away, which is what bothers me about Clinton. You used the word “fear” as a sneer, but you stumbled onto a truth there—I do fear her and her dedication and her ability to put so much of her deep ideological commitment into practice if she becomes president. And Hillary does not stand alone. She is the figurehead of a frightfully well-organized and powerful international movement with a clear-cut agenda for destroying this nation as it was invented, and remaking it into a new utopia of utter tyranny, riches and power for the elites and misery for the rest.

        Trump’s ideology, such as it is, seems to be wholly Trump-centric. That is, “Does it make me feel good?” “Does it make me rich?” “Does it make people think I am wonderful?” “Does it make me think people think I am wonderful?” While such an ego-based motivation for everything does make one erratic, it also makes one somewhat malleable, as anything that provides a “yes” to any of those motivational questions is going to have a shot at success. Therefore, to make people think he is wonderful he has to do at least some of what he promises, what got people to think he is wonderful and let him think people think he is wonderful. He has to make good on at least some of his promises, or be proved to be a fake, a phony, a fraud. The thing about constantly making promises is that it becomes increasingly harder to find exit strategies from those commitments.

        Flip side of that coin is that anything that will tarnish the self-perceived image is not good. Reneging on too many promises would paint him not as a brilliant con man but as a failure, and that is not good for the ego. Or the legacy.

        A true psychopath would not care. He would chortle his evil bwah-ha-ha-ha and rub his hands together in glee at fooling so many suckers, and then proceed to implement a plan of destruction.

        You seem to see Trump as a true psychopath, and I don’t. It comes down to that, and while events could possibly change my mind—producing a manifesto of remaking America in the model of Lenin or Darth Vader, for example—-I don’t think anything will change yours.

        I thought you had mentioned voting Libertarian. If you are now thinking of a brand new party, starting from scratch, I do have to wonder how much time, energy and effort you have put into developing that idea. Since many of us have kicked that around for many months now, including a lot of people a lot more connected and intelligent than I, most of us have come to the realization that while a new party might eventually gain enough following to split both of the existing main parties to make this a three party system, and therefore split Congressional power three ways, it makes more sense to remodel than build from scratch. That requires slowing Leftist power grabs if not actually stopping them, and having a placeholder in the White House (as we have thrown away our chance at having a real leader) with his chief virtue that of keeping Hillary out. Trying to do a massive shift to a new party while the Constitution is being dismantled by Justice Obama and two or three or four equally radical Leftist cohorts on the bench doesn’t make sense. And once we have three or four new young justices with lifetime appointments, rewriting the Constitution and therefore the very laws of the land to fit their radical Leftist ideology the move back to Constitutional governance will be exponentially complicated if not impossible.

        I just think we are much more likely to survive a blundering Trump presidency with a few successes and a couple of good justices and presidential signatures on Republican bills than we are a Clinton presidency which packs the Court with radical Leftist activists, blocks all Republican legislation, runs another Liberal DOJ that essentially rewrites laws through selective enforcement, enlarges the new (unconstitutional) Fourth Branch of the government (agencies) into an even more powerful and bloated behemoth. and generally continues the work started by Obama.

        You disagree and think a Trump presidency would pose a much greater threat to the nation. I get it. I also think you are wrong and all your sneering, insults, claims I am actively contributing to the downfall of the nation, etc. do not make me think you are right.

        If you had addressed any of the points I have made, instead of just continuing your tirades against Trump, you might not come across as such a shrill, hyper-emotional Personality Politics zealot. But you have not addressed the dangers of an increasingly Liberal Court, nor the dangers of an even more bloated branch of government consisting of government appointees who can’t even be fired due to government regulations regarding government employees, etc. You seem pretty comfortable with government agencies like the Department of Education or the Social Security Administration having millions of rounds of ammunition and hundreds of thousands of those dreaded “assault rifles” and a president who will expand the size, scope and power of those agencies and others. Your bogey-man is one obnoxious guy, and mine is a massive international machine that has already nearly taken over our government.

        I heard the other day that there are several hundred other political parties in the US and I expect to see “Bob’s Party” among them.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 3, 2016 / 3:18 pm

        Amazona

        I meant no sneer when I said you fear a Hillary presidency, I meant it literally. And, as you explained, it is true.

        You seem to read a lot of sneer into things I say when I’m usually being direct, and I think that engenders stronger reactions than necessary. We do agree on most points and I hate to see conversations get hostile on the issues on which we disagree. I think you’ll find that the times I am, in actuality, sneering, is when the conversation has already turned tense because I am genuinely seeking others opinions and sneering goes against my goal.

        As for my stance on voting Libertarian, it isn’t that I have an overwhelming love of all things Libertarian. I simply see no future for the GOP, I see we Conservatives will be in the wilderness for a while regardless of this election’s result, and I am looking for the best third-party from which to rebuild. The Libertarians seem the best pick, but if I see Conservatives flocking to a different party by the election, I will vote that way.

        You are absolutely right at the most basic level. You feel Hillary is a greater threat than Trump and I feel the opposite. I fear Trump and his followers very, very much.

        I hope your view changes by election time but I respect your viewpoint either way. It seems each day presents more evidence of how bad Trump will be but maybe you will never find that tipping point that makes you fear Hillary less than Trump. Then again, maybe my view will change, who knows?

  5. Retired Spook August 2, 2016 / 10:25 am

    I think Amazona’s strategy to support the dangeous politician to maintain control of the situation was first engaged by Hindenburg in ’32.

    Bob,

    Could you clarify that a bit. Maybe I’m just dense, but I read Amazona’s post a couple times, and I don’t see what I think you’re trying to describe.

    • Amazona August 2, 2016 / 10:44 am

      Spook, I was interrupted while responding to Bob, and that is when you posted this. Yes, Bob does read a lot into things, and he does love him those metaphors, don’t he?

      I’ve got one: You’re in a plane that has gone into a dead-stick nose dive. You have a choice—-try to gain some control, knowing that if you do you will still end up in a semi-crash landing, where you will probably walk away but will be in a neighbor’s nice corn field and it will cost you, or you just go down with the plane because you don’t like that neighbor and for damned sure ain’t gonna give him any money.

      • Retired Spook August 2, 2016 / 10:59 am

        I guess what puzzled me was Bob’s statement that you had a strategy to “support” a dangerous politician. Since you don’t “support” Trump, and since Trump is not a “politican”, Bob’s thought process eluded me.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 2, 2016 / 12:24 pm

        Spook

        You likely already know this but when Hitler was just short of running Germany, Paul Hindenburg and the honchos of the Weimar Republic decided to support him with the assumption that once he was in power they could control him. The GOP has embraced Trump, figuring better to have him in the tent pissing out that outside pissing in

        Amazona has listed 10 million reasons why Trump is dangerous, yet she will elect this man because she feels the GOP will right itself Conservatively and manage Trump.

        The GOP will never right itself Conservatively, whether this election is won or not. And considering the election stands a strong chance of being lost, what is your vote with the GOP worth anyhow?

        My vote is with whatever third part has the best chance to score 15% or higher in the general election. That party will be at the next debates and wilkl be on all ballots, and represents a true home to Conservatives, if we make it so.

      • Amazona August 2, 2016 / 2:04 pm

        Bob, if you could get the voices in your head to tell you something, ANYTHING, closer to what I actually say, we could have a much better discussion. But they are playing nasty tricks on you by relaying things I have never said. Case in point:

        “Amazona has listed 10 million reasons why Trump is dangerous, yet she will elect this man because she feels the GOP will right itself Conservatively and manage Trump.”

        Let’s make that a little closer to what I actually said, ‘kay?

        “Amazona has listed 10 million SEVERAL reasons why Trump is dangerous NOT THE BEST CHOICE, yet she will elect VOTE FOR this man because she feels the GOP will right itself Conservatively and manage Trump.” THINKS HE WILL NOMINATE BETTER SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AND SIGN REPUBLICAN BILLS THAT HAVE MADE IT THROUGH CONGRESS WHILE A MORE LIBERAL SCOTUS AND VETOING IMPORTANT BILLS WILL CREATE LONG LASTING DAMAGE TO THE NATION. There. Fixed.

        OK, aside from the “10 million reasons” hyperbole, the words I used to describe Trump were “woefully unprepared or unqualified for the job of president, bumbling, stumbling and doofus…” which were carefully chosen to delineate the major, crucial, critical as in very very important difference between mistakes made by someone who fits those categories and the alternative, which I painted in far more sinister words such as “Communist ideologue” and “… a cold-eyed (calculator) of how best to implement a radical Leftist policy ..” Sorry if the nuances of all that were, well, too nuanced.

        I thought it was pretty clear that I see a huge major spectacular difference between someone whose entire adult life has been dedicated to studying and trying to implement hard-core Marxist ideology and one who has no real foundational ideology other than a vague slant toward capitalism but who has set himself up in front of the nation as one who will act as a conservative.

        OK, step away from the two candidates for a moment and look at their support systems. Hillary’s has already been trying to push her even farther Left, and a significant number of those who vote for her have already declared their allegiance to the political system of Socialism. Trump’s external pressures will be from the Right, toward the right.

        Hillary’s stance is that she would be taking the baton from Obama in a Leftist relay race, so she can continue down the same path and develop what he has begun. Trump’s is that he wants to reverse the direction in which Obama has taken the country.

        Is there a difference between a terrorist who steps on the accelerator of a car loaded with explosives and purposely drives at top speed into a crowd, with the intent of killing as many as possible, and a doofus who is reaching down to pick up a dropped CD and drives at a much slower speed into some pedestrians? Yes, there will be injuries and maybe even deaths in both instances, but one is a cold calculated move based on ideology and one is just a dumb move.

        I’d much rather have a doofus in the Oval Office, the presidential equivalent of the guy whose inattention creates havoc, than someone tightly focused on pushing through an organized agenda that will result in much more disastrous, widespread damage. Trump would just have to get 25% of his job right to be vastly better than Hillary. If he just protects the Supreme Court and signs Republican bills I will be happy, at least a whole lot happier than an Obama SCOTUS justice and no bill making it into law.

        You are quite cavalier about “..losing Congressional power in the short term…” How “short” a term? Figure two years per Congressional cycle—establishing a brand new party big enough and strong enough to take over ALL positions now held by Republicans would take how many cycles, in your estimation? Four? Six? Ten? Ten would be 20 years. Twenty years of Democrat control of both the House and the Senate as well as the presidency, with a Supreme Court packed with nine hard-core Liberals so far to the Left that the only thing left of the Constitution is a dried-up piece of parchment in a Smithsonian basement.

        “The GOP will never right itself Conservatively,” True, left alone it will continue down its path of appeasement with the Left and only symbolic opposition to encroachment on the Constitution. But just as your voices give you all sorts of imaginary messages from me stating imaginary positions, they edit out the statements I make about the developing insurgency within the party. I don’t know if you communicate with party officials in your state. I do. And the ones I talk to talk to other leaders in other states. Your little bubble keeps your ideas inside and everything else outside, so you have no idea of the size or scope or power the mounting tide of revolution within the GOP.

        The party did not lurch suddenly and violently to the Left. It kind of slipped that way, a little at a time. As it did, it did pick up some momentum, and lately the slide has turned into kind of a death spiral, but it has not yet hit bottom philosophically. It still has some vestiges of conservatism, and some vague concept of how it is SUPPOSED to be different from the Left. And the descent has galvanized many many true conservatives who are quite distressed at what has happened, at the discarding of the one chance the party had to pull itself out of its increasing quagmire of political squishiness, and we are determined to try to change course. I don’t have figures, but I am pretty confident in saying we outnumber the entire total of the Libertarian Party, and we haven’t even started working on expanding our influence. That has to wait till after the election.

        Absolutists may toss it aside if it can’t be instantly, immediately, brought back to its roots, but that’s just the way they think. The realists, who are by the way ideologically strong while also understanding the facts on the ground, understand it will take a while, and will strive for some improvement every year.

        You seem perfectly happy with the idea of just turning the entire government over to the Left for several election cycles while you sit around with some like-minded purists and discuss the nature of a perfect party, and that’s OK. It’s kind of weird, because you are talking about rolling the dice on the hopes that (1) such a party can be formed, (2) it can ever achieve that magical 15%, and (3) it can then achieve the traction it will need to overtake the GOP, all of which seem quite giddily hyper-optimistic and leaves the entire nation in the hands of the Left while you are working it all out, but at the same time you are not willing to roll the dice on the chances that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton presidency.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 2, 2016 / 2:30 pm

        I stand corrected. You did not list 10 million things wrong with Trump. You’ve listed ten to twenty items. You just repeated them in 10 million posts.

        Sorry for the hyperbole. I thought you understood how language works.

      • Retired Spook August 2, 2016 / 3:13 pm

        My vote is with whatever third part has the best chance to score 15% or higher in the general election.

        How would that make ANY difference? Perot got 19% in the ’92 election, and he didn’t get a SINGLE electoral vote.

  6. Retired Spook August 2, 2016 / 4:24 pm

    Did anyone else find it ironic when Khizr Kahn whipped out his pocket Constitution at the DNC? I would bet that was the ONLY mention of the Constitution at the entire convention.

    • M. Noonan August 2, 2016 / 7:50 pm

      The whole Kahn thing just reeks of liberal hypocrisy…

Comments are closed.