You Can’t Say That About Democrats!

I did watch and/or listen to (was out driving, so part of it was on radio) a good portion of the debate last night. I admit that some of the things Trump said made me cringe – but as I thought it over, I realized that it wasn’t Trump’s rudeness which made me cringe but the mere fact that he was being rude to Democrats which made me cringe. I realized in an instant that I had been carefully conditioned over many decades to never really hit home against Democrats.

Think about it – we’ve all been conditioned. Ted Kennedy, in a drunken-drive, managed to get a woman (not his wife) killed. While that event pretty much ensured that Ted would never be President, it didn’t stop him from serving in the United States Senate for forty years after he got the woman killed. Forty years! Half a life time. And during that 40 years no one really called him on it. Oh, to be sure, some vulgar red-necks out there in fly-over country might go on about it from time to time, but not the general run of the GOP. Seven times after that incident Ted Kennedy went before the voters of Massachusetts seeking re-election to the Senate and if there ever was a GOPer who ran an ad, or even put out a flier, bringing up Chappaquiddick then I am unaware of it. And, meanwhile, Ted was just one of the boys – GOPers were proud to call him a friend; hang out with him; co-sponsor legislation with him; call him “esteemed colleague”. And then we gave the guy a State funeral when he died.

For goodness sake HE GOT A WOMAN KILLED. Shouldn’t that be a career-ending event?

Not for Democrats – and only because we’re not allowed to bring up just what it is they do. Not in any meaningful sense – and certainly not when they are in front of a national audience. That just wouldn’t do. It would be rude. Mean-spirited. A bit of the politics of personal destruction. Unworthy of anyone…who isn’t a Democrat, that is. Democrats are allowed to bring up whatever they want, no matter what the venue. And if there isn’t any real dirt on a Republican, Democrats are just allowed to make things up and never get called liars when they do…you know, like when Senator Harry Reid lied about Romney’s taxes. For decades it has gone on like this – Democrats can do really terrible things and we can’t use it against them while Democrats are free to bring against us anything they want. We’ve been like whipped dogs; quietly playing our part as honorable men and women who want what is best…but always working out to getting Democrats in power and Progressive policies getting enacted.

And then came Trump.

My goodness, what a crass, rude, vulgar man! I’m serious about that – a bull in a china shop is more elegant by comparison. Hang on him that famous sign which used to be present on animal cages in the Paris zoo: “Caution! This animal is vicious; when attacked, it defends itself”. For 90 minutes on Sunday night Hillary Clinton (and Bill), had to essentially just sit there and take it – someone talking openly (and rudely) about what they had done. Holding nothing back – just letting them have it (and it must have been even more excruciating for Bill as he’s just as much an alpha-male as Trump…just more charming; and he couldn’t hit back!). When it was done, it was clear that no matter what the election results will be, Hillary has been exposed before a national audience as someone who is unfit to be President of the United States. And saying Trump is unfit, as well, makes no matter – Hillary is damaged goods. Only a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat will ever think of her as other than a corrupt hack.

And…it was refreshing. A breath of clean, bracing air – a clearing away of cobwebs. It was invigorating. You know, like democratic politics are supposed to be…conventions are for aristocracies…democracies are rude, vulgar and crass and don’t give a darn about your rules of behavior. And from now on, we’re free to say what is on our mind about Democrats. I don’t expect most GOPers in current leadership will grasp this – certainly not all at once – but they’ve been given permission to just go at them with gusto…no matter how they do it, they won’t be able to out-vulgar Trump.

American politics are changing. The quiet dogmas of the past are fading away before our very eyes. There is no national consensus on what it means to be American, or what America should stand for. We’re working it out – and it is the nature of these things that there will be a period – perhaps quite prolonged – where things get quite hot. By every traditional measure of American politics, Hillary is the next President and that is probably what the result will be. Of course, it hasn’t exactly been a traditional year and so, hold on to your hats. But even if she gets in, all she represent is the corrupt, grasping, dying political order. In decades of public life she’s never accomplished anything other than to garner power and wealth, and that is all she’ll do as President…and, meanwhile, the American political scene will continue to seethe and boil…with people both of the left and the right furious with the status quo and looking for an answer. As Trump has very accurately said, a vote for her is a vote to keep things exactly as they are…but things as they are won’t work. Except for the rent-seekers already at the trough, everyone is getting the short end of the stick. Read a bit ago that Chicago is issuing short-term bonds…not in order to build infrastructure, but merely to keep up bloated pension payments for retired government employees. In other words, the money a Chicago taxpayer wants to go for his local school is being used to send a check to a guy who may be retired to Arizona…Chicago is essentially taking out payday loans to keep up the bribes the Ruling Class has paid to itself. This is not a system which is healthy or has any chance of surviving long term.

I don’t know how it will all work out – I freely admit that I know nothing, because what I know was learned up until now, and it is all based upon knowledge drawn upon the political settlement created between 1933 and 1964. All that is out the window, now. We’ll just have to see how it comes out – but at least we no longer have to be polite to political grifters while we work it out.

101 thoughts on “You Can’t Say That About Democrats!

  1. Bob Eisenhower October 10, 2016 / 11:07 pm


    I understand how you feel, but do, do stay polite. We ARE better than our enemies, and we should proudly acts so.

    I gotta say, the only thing I like about Trump is that nobody pisses off Democrats like him. But such behavior is not how we should act, imo.

    • M. Noonan October 11, 2016 / 12:22 am

      Good manners are a must – but I’m also not going to get the vapors when the regular folks get rowdy. The old complaint from Europe – and especially from Britain – about America in the 19th century was how rude, braggart and vulgar the Americans were…and, we were. Massively so. And, so what? Good manners are a privilege of the aristocracy – either of the mind or of the blood…and of the blood, then history teaches us it is uniformly bad. We’re about to elect Hillary Clinton President simply because she’s the wife of former President Bill Clinton. Everyone remembers what a big Bush supporter I was (and I retract not a word of it)…but the bottom line is that in 2000 he was about my 5th choice…and part of my wariness about him was the fact that he was the son of a President and it just didn’t sit well with me. My biggest worry in 2000 was that Al Gore would continue the Clinton legacy of rank criminality in office, so when Bush got the nomination I swallowed my doubts and backed him, and after 9/11 he really did rise to the occasion (not perfectly – but, who ever does?).

      The bottom line is that we don’t want an aristocracy – a Republic can’t live if there is an aristocracy. There has to be a regular “churn” among those in charge…both in government and in the private sector. For the most part, even with changes of party in DC, the same people have been running things since the 30’s…and they are used to power, privilege and wealth. And it is they who have been the enforces of social rules which prohibit us from actually attacking the basis of their position. And only a bit of grit and determination can knock down the doors of the castle…

  2. Amazona October 10, 2016 / 11:28 pm

    I watched the beginning and some of the end of the debate, but missed the middle, and I didn’t see Trump going after Hillary. I’ll have to check that out.

    Yes, I am glad he did. The whole Clinton thing has been a festering sore on the American psyche for thirty years—rather, ongoing but going back thirty years. We have seen the Left throwing up so much chaff to try to distract us, or intimidate us, or scare us off, they have slipped out from under everything. And I mean EVERYTHING, from the corruption in Arkansas under Bill and the whole Rose Law Firm/Whitewater/illegal campaign contributions/Web Hubbell disgusting mess. Everyone in that particular cesspool went to prison or had some kind of consequence, except the Clintons, and even the “discovery” of missing records in the Clinton White House residence failed to generate much outrage.

    Then we had Buddhist nuns meeting with Algore, Chinese busboys donating tens of thousands of dollars, Johnny Huang bundling foreign money, and this all culminating in the Jamie Gorelick “wall” to keep American intelligence agencies from communicating with each other and comparing notes on what they found overseas and domestically regarding these illegal campaign contributions. We all know what that prohibition on communication led to. We had Pay to Play in the White House with the pardon of Marc Rich. We had the renting of the Lincoln Bedroom. We had the Chief Executive/Commander in Chief violating sex harassment in the workplace laws—not just suggestions or guidelines, but LAWS.

    More Teflon.

    It has literally been 30 solid years, and more, of nonstop fraud, corruption, theft, violation of the trust of the American people, and worse, and the Clintons have had a little publicity bruise every now and then but it’s never amounted to much. They rub some dirt on it and walk it off and in a few days it is all gone.

    So I am glad that Trump did something to correct that, at least to bring it out to younger people who don’t know anything about it.

    In the spirit of “even a blind pig finds an acorn, sometimes” Trump and his microphone are not all, 100%, without exception bad.

    But here’s the question: Why are some people so convinced that TRUMP, and only TRUMP, could be that voice behind that microphone? I saw this kind of courage and boldness in Ted Cruz, but he would have said ten times as much in half as many words, and said it better.

    I don’t object to all of Trump’s messages, just to the fawning assumption that he is the only one who would, or could, do something like this.

    • M. Noonan October 11, 2016 / 12:27 am

      I was hoping early on that Walker – who seemed to be sensing what was needed – would be the guy to out-Trump Trump, but without the carnival-barker vulgarity. He started to, but it was too late because he had generally run a poor campaign and got himself in a mess over immigration, largely thanks to listening to “experts” who were telling everyone that if we weren’t DREAMers, we were doomed. If Trump flames out, Walker is still my man for 2020…and I hope he’s watching all this carefully and taking copious notes. Trump is doing some things very much right – also, some things very much wrong. If Walker – or someone else – can pick out of the slag heap the gems that Trump has discovered and also come to the table without Trump’s baggage, that person might be invincible in 2020…especially as I have my serious doubts that Hillary will be capable of serving a second term (that video wasn’t a stumble – she collapsed like a sack of potatoes…and it made me feel sorry for her, that she was that ambitious and her staff so greedy that none of them cared about her as a person and realized it was time to pack it in).

  3. Cluster October 11, 2016 / 8:05 am

    Getting back to Kristol: I agree with Mark in that there is a disconnect between the conservative leadership and punditry and the base, and it is incumbent on the leadership to adjust to the base, not too scold and lecture. The other truth conservative leaders need to understand is that what they’re selling is completely foreign to most conservative leaning people out there. Reagan, who is the most effective conservative president in my lifetime never did reduce the size of government. He scaled back spending in some areas, reduced taxes across the board, lowered regulations, incentivized private sector growth and expansion, and had a broad shoulder foreign policy but the government still grew albeit at a slightly slower pace. Reagan even compromised with O’Neil on an amnesty/secure the border plan only to be screwed over by Democrats, and of course Bush I and Bush II actually grew the government and entitlements, so what conservatives advocate is a tough sell to 95% of the population only because they have never seen it happen in their lifetimes. And now Trump is blamed for taking away the one opportunity conservatives had to really do it right?? Excuse me but that is quite a bit of a reach.

    Ironically, Trump is campaigning on many conservative positions that I am sure Kristol would happily support. It’s just that Kristol evidently finds the messenger to be beneath him and socially unacceptable so I don’t think it is out of line to question Kristol. Apparently it’s either Kristol’s way or the highway and if Trump wins, I think Kristol will find himself without much of an audience to speak to anymore. The other thing Trump is doing is showing how to fight, which this post speaks to. Romney never fought, neither did McCain, or Bush and neither would have Walker or even possibly Rubio. Cruz may have put up a fight and I would have liked to have seen that but Cruz would have also been burnt on the cross (no pun intended) by Democrats. Cruz would have been painted as some religious zealot who would bring about a theocracy, the apocalypse, and the “end of days” and I honestly believe that Cruz would have polled worse against the Clinton machine considering the ill informed, over emotional voting population.

    • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 10:09 am

      ” It’s just that Kristol evidently finds the messenger to be beneath him and socially unacceptable…”

      Oh, come ON! That is the kind of rhetorical tactic we decry, for good reason, on the Left. Ignore the message and just malign and impugn the character of the speaker. For shame….

      Cluster, you know perfectly well why millions of Americans think Trump is a bad choice for our nominee. They have been laid out, in exquisite detail. I myself have posted several lists of reasons, including links to extended articles.

      On the personal side: History of shady business dealings, dealings with the Mob, multiple investigations for multiple concerns of illegality, serial adultery (which covers lying and personal betrayal as well as immorality), huge archive of inflammatory remarks that cover sex, race, age, weight, appearance, physical disability, sneering at POWs because “they got caught and I don’t like people who get caught”—-the list is so long it sometimes seems endless.

      While God might overlook and forgive every single one of these things, the Dems won’t, and it has been clear from the very beginning that every one of these things can, and probably will, be used to keep the Republicans out of the White House.

      To denigrate someone who talks about the utter foolishness of thinking that a candidate can overcome this tsunami of negative information as merely being a social snob is really quite dishonest. It’s a lot worse than that but I am pulling my punches because I like you.

      And then there is the political side. We have an allegedly conservative party nominating a man who has come out in favor of single-payer health care (Obamacare doesn’t go far enough, the government should pay for everything), using the power of the Central Authority to confiscate personal property to benefit business and enhance the income of the business and the municipality, praising Planned Parenthood, bringing in illegal workers from Poland and paying them less than union workers would have been paid (and then sometimes not paying them at all), supporting gun ban demands by Obama………………….gee, how much of this makes disapproval of Trump from the political perspective of a conservative nothing more than seeing him as being “beneath” someone, or “socially unacceptable”?

      No. It doesn’t fly. If you (and here I don’t mean “you” as YOU, Cluster, but as a general rhetorical instrument) make a decision that is contradicted by hard cold evidence that it might be a very very bad and disastrous and damaging decision, but you make it anyway, there is the quite reasonable assumption that you are accepting the possibility of being held accountable for the decision and its aftermath. Now that it appears that the predictions of the opposition are coming true, that the opposition is doing exactly—EXACTLY—what we said they would do, and using exactly—-EXACTLY—-the same information against Trump WE TOLD YOU THEY WOULD USE, it’s pretty shifty to try to blame the people who never backed down from their/our warnings.

      Let’s say you have a son, and he is a screwup. He drinks, a LOT. He is the worst driver you have ever seen, with a long list of accidents, some of which were clearly due to nothing more than stupidity and carelessness, and he has a history of DUIs. His license has been suspended. He still hangs out with his drug and drinking buddies, he still drives without a license, and he likes to record his various adventures on his cell phone. He has a history of lying, to you and everyone else. Everyone warns you that this guy, son or not, is bad news. But you love him, so when he promises you he will not drink and drive, will be careful and respectful of your property and follow the law, you let him drive your car.

      You know his history. You know his personal history, his driving history, his drinking history, the whole shebang. But you like so many things about him and he appeals to you on so many other levels, you make this decision.

      Well, he drives while drunk, he plows into a crowd of people and kills a couple, and he is driving your car. He is unhurt. He walks away. You, on the other hand, are screwed. Your insurance company won’t cover anything because the car was being used illegally. You end up spending years of misery in courtrooms, you lose your house and everything you have ever worked for, and you have to start over. The plaintiffs have court records, videos of your son driving drunk, videos of him being reckless, testimony from literally hundreds of people about his general recklessness and disregard for others, and for the law. All you’ve got is “He PROMISED me he would do what he had to do, to protect me and others and my property. I love him and I believed him.”

      Who do you blame? Do you attack your friends, who said “Don’t do it”? Who said “Take away those keys right now before something awful happens”? Who kept reminding you that drinkers drink, bad drivers tend to continue driving badly, and so on?

      No. There are two people to blame—-the son who refused to change his destructive ways, and the person who put him behind the wheel.

      So this claim that the only reason Kristol is still talking about the badness of the Trump nomination is because he is a petty snob who looks down on Trump for superficial reasons is really not convincing. And BTW, it’s not just Trump’s history that is sinking him—it is his refusal to change, his insistence that whatever he says or does was right, his refusal to take advice. That is a far far cry from merely being “socially unacceptable.”.

      • Cluster October 11, 2016 / 10:30 am

        I am not denigrating Kristol, I am simply using his own statements and positions on Trump to reveal what is obvious. Kristol does have an elitist attitude and I have seen him plenty of times to be confident in that assessment. And while conservatives want to keep their hands clean and fret over the personal indiscretions of their candidate, the Democrats are busy burning down the country, weaponizing agencies, flooding the low skilled labor market, and lining their own pockets with special interest money. It seems bizarre to me that people like Kristol seem more concerned with the vulgarity of Trump than they are with the outright criminal and dishonest conduct of their opponent.

        I will note that you have highlighted some of Trump’s more liberal positions from the past, but people do evolve and today Trump is running on conservative positions as they relate to healthcare, education, spending, etc. What’s not being exposed is Hillary’s positions that are 180 degrees different from what her husband ran on 24 years ago, and it would serve the conservative cause much better if Kristol and other conservatives would focus his attention on that fact. I am frustrated by people who say they are happy that Trump is taking the fight to the Democrats, yet those same people still want to stay above the fray and chortle at the unwashed masses – what good does that do? Who does that serve? If Kristol, et al are so confident in their prescription of conservatism maybe he should throw his hat in the ring, run for President and subject himself to brutality of the Democrat/media machine. He may change his tune.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 10:50 am

        Now you are talking about Hillary, and Dems. But you started off talking about Kristol, and that is who I am talking about. You ascribed his attitudes toward Trump as basically being based on petty snobbery, and that is what I addressed.

        I don’t think “people like Kristol (are) more concerned with the vulgarity of Trump than they are with the outright criminal and dishonest conduct of their opponent…” We never had anything to say about nominating Hillary. We DID nominate Trump.

        The point is not how bad the other side is. The point is what a crappy job we did in choosing who would go up against it.

        Yes, I know there is a lot of good stuff that can be said about a Trump candidacy. Yes, I know his recklessness can be recast as courage or boldness when he finally says what no one has said, before, to or against Hillary I get it. But we can’t ignore the vast amount of really, seriously, negative and damaging truths about Trump that Trumpists were warned would be brought out against him, and we can’t ignore the fact that these Trumpists were so giddy in their almost cultish fandom that they just dismissed these warnings.

        And that dismissal of those facts, along with the facts themselves, put us where we are today—not Bill Kristol

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 10:57 am

        “Evolution” is more convincing if it takes place BEFORE someone decides to run for office, instead of afterward, when he needs support. Even a brief history of two or three or four years of Trump coming out in favor of policies that comply with conservative governance would have lent some credibility to his sudden claimed conversion. But right up till and I think even into his campaign he was defending Eminent Domain as a vehicle for moving ownership of private property into the hands of corporate entities, with the government wielding the club. Even during his campaign he was praising Planned Parenthood.

        It took getting really close to the nomination to get a team to write up a relatively conservative manifesto and put it on his web site, but it took him a long time to even follow that script.

        Keep in mind that I have been supporting him once he got the nomination, and repeatedly said I think he may NOW be committed to being a conservative president. It’s just that this conversion happened at about the time his fan club started to form, and it was pretty clear that it was him saying what he thought he needed to say to get what he wanted.

        I think he did have a strong feeling that Hillary needed to be defeated, and a conviction that he was the guy to do it. I think the rest followed along afterward, as a look at what he would have to do to make it happen. The tail wagged the dog. This is why there is so little respect for the people who never questioned his sudden (and extremely incomplete) “conversion” because he appealed so much to their emotions. Remember, what got this train headed down the track was the promise to immediately deport all illegals and build that honkin’ big WALL. The emotional appeal of those impossible promises overrode any real examination of real political philosophy. Once people got inside that tent, lured by the drama of the Quick Fix (without Unintended Consequences, of course) of the illegal immigration program, they were so dazzled they never left.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 10:58 am

        “…stay above the fray and chortle at the unwashed masses…”

        There you go again, recasting legitimate observations as nothing more than petty snobbery. Tsk Tsk.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 11:05 am

        “…conservatives want to keep their hands clean and fret over the personal indiscretions of their candidate…”

        Oh, so now the mantra is that conservatives are only “fretting” over some “personal INDISCRETIONS” of Trump. Good to know.

        Good to know that repeatedly imitating people with physical disabilities, on camera, is now merely an “indiscretion”. Good to know that a long history of so many ugly things I don’t want to go into any of them again is being sanitized as mere “personal INDISCRETIONS”.

        Funny how close Trump manages to steer to the boundary, whatever it might be at any given time (and I am sure it moves around a lot…) between a mere INDISCRETION and outright disgusting, reckless and needlessly offensive behavior. He seems to spend most of his time right along that boundary, which seems to have been invented fairly recently, where his ardent fanboys move it to keep his comments and actions on the INDISCRETION side.

      • Cluster October 11, 2016 / 11:26 am

        I am ONLY interested in stopping the globalization of our country at the hands of the corrupt political elite. We are at a crossroads in this country and I don’t care who is offended or whose feelings are hurt. We either stand up and band together and fight, or just be happy being the minority party.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 11:40 am

        “We either stand up and band together and fight, or just be happy being the minority party.” and a LOT of very serious people believe we lost that battle at the GOP convention. The time to “stand up and band together and fight” was way back when we had some serious candidates, but too many people got caught up in the cheap thrills of name calling, slander, personal attacks, and mob rule to think it through.

        You are upset that some people are reminding us of the risks the rest took and why it was a bad decision, instead of just shutting up and pretending it was the best approach to the problem. Nominating a man with a baggage train a mile long trailing behind him, loaded with more negatives than any opposition could throw at him in a dozen campaigns, and burdened with a psyche that compels him to constantly add to it, was a really stupid thing to do. Focusing only on the aspects of this candidacy that had instantaneous emotional appeal and gratification, while ignoring or dismissing the crowd of witnesses to some really serious stuff standing in the background waiting for a chance to testify was a really stupid thing to do.

        Now you seem to be arguing that everyone else should do the same thing, in a desperate attempt to overcome this avalanche of destructive information. I think Kristol is saying, in essence, “Hey, we warned you about this avalanche, we could see it coming, we described it to you, we gave you its road map, we explained how and why it would be used, we tried to tell you how damaging it would be, we tried to tell you that you were risking the future of the nation on a wild card, but you were insistent. You had to have it your way. Even if we had liked the guy and his message, we HAD to look at the facts and how they would impact the election. Now our job is to remind people of this whole process, so we don’t make the same mistake again. Nothing we say or do is going to change the direction of the election, so we are just going to keep our message alive.”

      • Cluster October 11, 2016 / 11:56 am

        How many times have I told you that I wanted Rubio and ended up voting for Cruz after Rubio dropped out? You also keep overlooking one uncomfortable but undeniable fact – YOU DON’T HAVE THE NUMBERS TO WIN, and standing in judgement against the people that don’t see it your way will get you no where. Kristol is better served warning conservatives against the dangers of Democrats efforts to globalize the country then he is doing anything else.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 11:58 am

        If we don’t care whose feelings are hurt, then let’s hurt Trump’s and get rid of him while there is time to promote Pence as the only likable and qualified person in the race, period.

        If we are serious about hurt feelings not being an issue, then let’s push Trump into backing out—give him an out, let him have a heart attack and blame it on the mean old Dems to get the pity vote, who cares—and have an emergency GOP convention to officially move Pence into his place and appoint a VP candidate. I’d go with Walker.

        That’s a month to try to patch things up. It would cut Hillary off at the knees, make the millions of dollars of ads against Trump all moot, and leave the Dems without enough time to gear up the Hate Machine to go after Pence and Walker.

        Flood the airwaves with ads that lay out some of the details of Hillary’s premeditated plan to use her position for personal gain and hide it from the public. Hit the reckless disregard for national security that went along with the premeditation, going almost 2000 miles away from D.C to find a company to handle her server and not even trying to find someone with a security clearance to develop and maintain it. Ask why five people were given immunity regarding this investigation—immunity from what, for what? Touch on the insanity of letting the UN make laws for Americans in America but don’t focus too much on this “globalization” thing because it will fly right over the heads of most voters. Hit Benghazi from the perspective of the bungled effort to help take down the only leader in the Middle East to be fighting al Queda, the resulting funneling of millions of dollars of weapons into the hands of al Queda “to be used against Americans” and the presence of Stevens and his brave bodyguards specifically to help cover this up. Hit the lies to the families of those killed, and the lies to the country.

        A three week blitz of stuff like this, with the only likable and trustworthy person in the race running for the GOP and the lightning rod of Donald Trump out of the picture, and we might be able to pull this off.

        But we won’t, because Trump’s ego will take us all down with him, and Trump’s mobs would never go along with anything unless he told them to. Which he wouldn’t do.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 12:03 pm

        “You also keep overlooking one uncomfortable but undeniable fact – YOU DON’T HAVE THE NUMBERS TO WIN,”

        What numbers? When? In the primaries? Trump had far less than half of the votes till the very end, after his slime machine had driven everyone else away. The numbers to nominate someone else WERE there—that is why the Rules Committee was packed with Trumpists to block going back to the traditional rules which did not tie delegates to state votes, and why Trumpists threatened to boycott the election if Trump did not get nominated. It was never about NUMBERS, it was about manipulation and gamesmanship and underhanded tactics. I have a good friend who was on the Rules Committee who said the process was the most despicable and disgusting thing she had ever seen.

        As for now, Trump is easily as despised as Hillary, and both sides are depressed and only voting because of fear for the other side. Getting rid of Trump would change that dynamic, but it would involve having a Trump with ethics and integrity and not one so dominated by ego he would rather take the whole country down with him.

      • Cluster October 11, 2016 / 12:19 pm

        So the slime machine drove everyone else away??? They don’t sound like fighters to me. I can tell you this, if Republicans lose this election, I may be done. I am tired of contributing and supporting a party that eats their own and doesn’t know how to win.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 8:32 pm

        “They don’t sound like fighters to me.

        Well, I supposed they COULD have stayed in, tried to deal with the unceasing onslaught of virulent tweets, attacks on family members, and the sheer volume of hate and lies flooding the primary cycle, and contributed to the death spiral of the Republican Party. After all, what could be the downside of prolonging an ugly hatefest among Republicans?

        Weren’t you all wound up about the “cannibalizing” you saw in the party? So why should people stick around to be relentlessly abused, with lies and personal attacks on them and their families when “winning” would only have weakened the party? Was there ever a way to “fight” the tactics of Trump and Trumpists without damaging the Conservative Movement, and the GOP?

        “I am tired of contributing and supporting a party that eats their own ..” but in the same post you sneer at those who bailed out rather than participate in this very thing.

        And what is this whole new obsession about just being a “fighter” all about, anyway? It’s almost as if being willing to bite, claw, shred, batter and rip at people is all that matters.

        I see it differently. When the only “victory” is at the cost of self respect, a feeling of safety for your your family, dragging the nation into an ugly mud wresting contest and tearing your party apart, I respect those who realize that with a certain kind of opponent they can never really “win” but only prolong the ugliness while feeding a certain pathology that gets off on it.

        “They don’t sound like fighters to me” has a creepy echo of “I like people who don’t get caught”.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 8:54 pm

        “Laura summed it up pretty well”

        Summed up WHAT “pretty well”? What it is about some Trumplists that makes us think they are vile, vicious and vengeful and more than a little bit nuts? Good point—she summed that up very well.

        Are you saying you actually LIKED this piece of hateful crap? Are you saying that you find it acceptable to dismiss people who don’t like Donald Trump by vicious slurs such as calling them “pro-globalization” and repeatedly using the term “Team Globalization” to describe them? What a petty, nasty, spiteful little temper tantrum Laura just had, and I can’t believe you thought it was so meaningful you had to share it with us.

        Maybe you ought to re-read this nasty little screed and then revisit my comments on how it has been the virulent, hateful attitude of Trump fanbots toward people who look at his words and his record to form their opinions that has created the divisiveness in the party today.

        I used to respect Laura Ingraham. No more. This is a piece of crap reminiscent of the worst of Leftist propaganda. It is vile and if this is what is helping form your opinions please keep it to yourself and don’t dump it here. I had wondered where you were picking up this whole new GLOBALIZATION theme and now it appears you seek out sources for it.

        So now if you look at Trump’s failures, defects and problems and find him a liability to the party, that means you are ON TEAM GLOBALIZATION !!! Whatever the hell that means.

        What a disgusting tirade of Laura’s and shame on you for buying into it. If you have to wallow in this kind of crap, please at least don’t recommend it to us. But you might take a minute to ponder the irony of whining about anti-Trump people splitting up the party and then recommending a screed like this that is no better than Hillary’s “deplorable/irredeemable” comments.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 9:56 pm

        ” I am tired of contributing and supporting a party that eats their own and doesn’t know how to win.”

        Maybe knowing how to win means not nominating people with long sordid histories of actions and comments that are historically guaranteed to sink a campaign.

        Jes’ saying’…….

      • Cluster October 11, 2016 / 10:04 pm

        I am critical of the GOP and conservatives only because of results. In the last 30 years, the GOP controlled the White House for 14 years, and had both Chambers of Congress from 1994-2006, and the House since 2010 and then the Senate again since 2014, so they too have their fingerprints all over our current mess. I am not sure who has the right answers anymore but I think anyone would have to be skeptical of the solutions offered by the conservative punditry and the GOP brass. That’s just common sense.

    • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 10:21 am

      ” I honestly believe that Cruz would have polled worse against the Clinton machine considering the ill informed, over emotional voting population…”

      Yes, the Cruz no one knew because he was just a Senator who had had only skimpy (and negative) media coverage would have polled badly.

      But the Cruz whose skill set includes being a brilliant presenter of facts to a skeptical audience (such as the justices of the Supreme Court) and convincing it of his position would have been able to present the facts of his candidacy, and those surrounding Hillary Clinton, so much more effectively than Trump has been able to do, those facts would by now be forming a very complete pattern of corruption and lying and treason. And it would have been a compelling argument no one could ignore or excuse. So I think his presentation would appeal to people who WANT to make the right decision, and that would include a lot of those “over emotional” voters whose emotions would be stirred by the ugliness of the portrait he was painting.

      Trump seems to see the various facts of Hillary’s corruption as discrete bits of information. (And yes, I do mean “discrete”, not “discreet”. ) He may see a pattern but he doesn’t seem able to articulate that pattern, connect the dots for the listener. So when we hear Trump we usually hear a rather rambling reference to various misdeeds, but no road map linking them together to show a pattern. There may be a lot of those discrete bits of information thrown out, but they need to be lined up and connected to form a picture of ongoing, intentional, planned corruption.

    • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 10:26 am

      I suggest that if Trump wins, Kristol will still have his supporters, and we will be working to get rid of the GOP elite that made this election, which should have been a walkover, a nailbiter and the most depressing, stressful election cycle in memory.

      Maybe to some a Trump victory would validate the abandonment of conservative principles to follow a pied piper who came very close to leading us into oblivion. Wrong. Trump in the White House would mean even MORE vigilance, to hold him to his promises, while a battle would still be going on to reform the party to make sure we never have to go through something like this again.

  4. Cluster October 11, 2016 / 9:16 am

    While the media and the political elite are busy feigning shock over Trump’s vulgar language, the Clinton’s and the Democrats have successfully weaponized the FBI, the DOJ and the IRS and put tens of millions of dollars in their own pockets thanks to foreign countries and well connected operatives and now are embarking on raping the Haitian people once again:

    The media won’t cover this story nor will they investigate the Clinton Foundations massive tax free overhead, or even question Hillary’s use of Bleachbit to sanitize her yoga emails and keep them from public eye, but the media will find the outrage in Trump’s vulgar sexual language all the while broadcasting from the Emmy awards where Miley Cyrus simulates oral sex on stage.

    I am so glad this country has it’s priorities straight.

  5. Cluster October 11, 2016 / 4:36 pm

    Interesting statement from Ben Shapiro:

    If you care about the republic rather than Trump’s ego, it’s time to live in reality: Trump’s going to lose.

    Personally, I think the NeverTrumpers are far more obsessed with Trump than the Trumpbots are. To me and and many other Trump supporters I know, it is ALL about the republic and very little to do with the man.

    • M. Noonan October 11, 2016 / 5:44 pm

      Tweeted out today that there comes a time when, given your sure Trump is going to lose, then you’d turn your fire against Hillary…if Never Trump is that existentially certain that Trump is done for, then they simply wouldn’t go on and on about him like that…unless their Never Trump has just become a psychosis of some sort. Methinks that they are in fear – and perhaps most in fear that they’ve become de-facto I’m With Her and she might lose…

      • Bob Eisenhower October 11, 2016 / 7:55 pm


        I’ve made my opinion of Trump pretty clear and I do not consider myself “de facto I’m With Her.” All I am is “Not With Him (Trump)” and, not to leave out, I am also “Not With Them (GOP).”

        I guess I’m with no one this election, which genuinely sucks.

      • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 9:10 pm

        Yeah, that’s it—-finding aspects of Trump’s morality, psychology and political background so distasteful as well as so antithetical to the movement you believe in that you can’t bring yourself to support him is really just cloaking your—-FEAR. Or psychosis. Or passion for “globalization”. Or desire to have sex with people wearing fur costumes. Or anxiety about being abducted by aliens.

        It could not be principle. Oh, no, because that might mean that supporting him means having no principles! Attacking Never Trumpers might just be trying to deny your inner fear that you may be discovered to have no principles at all because you support him! Or it might be overreaction, in a frantic need to deny your inner attraction to Team Globalization! Or it might be …….

        And so on.

        How about this? BS. Some people are attracted to the same things about Trump that some people find repellent. Some people are repelled but feel an obligation to keep Hillary out of the White House and find acceptance of a Trump candidacy and a Trump presidency worth the pain of choking over having to vote for someone they don’t like or trust. Some are not able to overcome that disgust for the man, or more to the point what he has stood for his entire life and what they believe he still stands for, without feeling that they have betrayed their own principles.

        So please stop with the name-calling, the bogus psychoanalysis, the “shaming”. The situation is bad enough without the need to convince people they are wrong if they don’t agree with you. We really don’t need some wild-eyed tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that people who don’t like Trump are secret “globalists”.

        Maybe everyone needs a Twitter break, as it seems to bring out the silliness in people. Just go cold turkey, folks, before you embarrass yourselves even more by needing to send something profound out into the universe.

      • M. Noonan October 11, 2016 / 11:10 pm

        Oh, I was just wondering out loud a bit about why those who are (a) absolutely against Trump and (b) are dead certain he’s going to lose would bother spending so much time on him? Some people are getting rather obsessed out there…digging around in obscure websites looking for information to attack him with. Being against Trump isn’t at all wrong.

        As for me, I’m only going to cast a vote for Trump because it is the maximum I can do to prevent Hillary from becoming President…voting for anyone else, or not voting, would be at the least not making the maximum effort against her.

        And I also start to wonder why people aren’t seeing the sheer fun of all this – a political consensus which has been Progressive is breaking up right before our eyes. Don’t know what will come after it, but it won’t be Progressive…this is actually our chance! The system is failing – and it is a bit frightening and messy, but I’m just rolling with it, now. And if Trump some how does pull this off, won’t it be nice to have a President we can absolutely praise or condemn based upon policy? Trump isn’t a Conservative – if he does something we like, we can support him…if he does something we don’t like, we can oppose him. That, to me, is a great relief in prospect…

    • Amazona October 11, 2016 / 9:19 pm

      I would rephrase Shapiro’s comment: If you care about the republic rather than Trump’s ego, it’s time to live in reality: Trump’s probably going to lose but if he does he will have defeated himself.

  6. Amazona October 11, 2016 / 11:58 pm

    Personally, I am tired of All That Is Trump. I am tired of his fan club. I am tired of the Never Trumpers. I am tired of the analysis, the pseudo analysis, the toxic drivel such as Ingraham’s little piece, the theorizing, the speculating. I am absolutely fed up with people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives looking for new dirt on Trump. It’s inexcusable.

    I am still interested in the election, kind of, a little bit. I still have opinions, such as the feeling that when it comes right down to the nitty gritty only true Hillary fans will be able to vote for her without hesitation, and a lot of Dems will find at the last minute they just can’t do it. I don’t see that happening with people who have decided to vote for Trump. Just my take on things as I see them.

    This is a depressing and miserable election cycle. The reasons for it have been gone over enough times, we don’t need to revisit them.

    I agree with this: And if Trump some how does pull this off, won’t it be nice to have a President we can absolutely praise or condemn based upon policy? Trump isn’t a Conservative – if he does something we like, we can support him…if he does something we don’t like, we can oppose him. That, to me, is a great relief in prospect… I just hope that disagreeing with Trump on a policy will not generate the same kind of knee-jerk vitriol that criticisms of him do now.

    I do find myself looking forward to the cleansing of the party. We have waffled on it for far too long, and I think one aspect of what we have gone through—-been put through—-over the past six months or so has been so miserable that we won’t be as hesitant to act as we have been.

    I am ready to kick some ass and take some names, and I think there are several in Congress who are planning to do just that. And it will be no matter who wins.

  7. Amazona October 12, 2016 / 12:20 am

    What other battles do we have? Colorado has a great guy running against Dem Senator Michael Bennett, and he is running a terrible campaign. It’s something of a stealth campaign, as I have yet to see an ad or a billboard or anything. I know someone who listens to a lot of talk radio who is very familiar with him, as he is on a lot of the shows, but who was under the impression Bennett is a Republican. (He’s new to Colorado.) Bennett’s ads never mention that he is a Democrat and they sound very Republican in nature, and his opponent is not getting his name out there. So both candidates for the Senate are running stealth campaigns, in different ways. Of course, Dems often run as Republicans till they get elected.

    There is a proposal in Colorado to make all parties hold primaries and to let anyone vote in any primary. I am not sure this would be enforceable, as I think a party is a private enterprise and can make its own rules, and I am definitely against open primaries. Here, too, the state GOP is not visible. We are very happy about the Broncos Super Bowl win last year—-I think a simple campaign asking if we would have wanted the Panthers to pick our quarterback for the game would get our point across.

    • M. Noonan October 12, 2016 / 11:54 am

      LA Times also shows Trump doing a bit better. It’ll be a week before we really know.

    • M. Noonan October 12, 2016 / 11:58 am

      One thing I have to mention, because it’s kinda funny – there’s this meme and counter-meme out there…Trumpsters saying that Reagan was behind late and Never Trumpers saying that he wasn’t. All I was thinking until late yesterday is that when the 1980 election happened I was 15 and I remember Reagan’s victory as an amazing shock…a happy shock, but shock nonetheless. Parents were shocked, too – and delighted. Mostly I had let that meme and counter-meme just go as I didn’t want to get into it, but last night I did a bit of searching and found out that, sure enough, the Gallup poll of October 26th, 1980 showed Carter up by 8 among Registered Voters, 3 among Likely Voters. After the debate on the 28th, Gallup showed a Reagan surge to a four point lead (47-43) but even that missed the 51-40 victory (the rest went to a Third Party candidate). Pointing this out to some guys who were pushing the counter-meme, I was essentially advised that my memory was faulty and it was only that Gallup poll which supported my complete forgetting that Reagan had it in the bag all year…

      People are weird this year…

      • rustybrown2014 October 12, 2016 / 12:12 pm

        You are totally correct Mark. We’re about the same age and I remember that election as you do (except for the being delighted by the results part!); Reagan’s victory was a shock. He was seen as a no-hoper early on and tightened the race considerably as the campaign wore on–us Libs were in “this can’t be happening” mode–but the polls and prevailing wisdom still had him behind on election day.

      • M. Noonan October 12, 2016 / 3:14 pm

        I just loved how they were certain I had to not believe my own memory – my own life! I was to take it from them (neither of them even born when Reagan was elected) that their “facts” trumped my memory.

      • Amazona October 12, 2016 / 12:17 pm

        Hey, I’m hoping, I’m praying, I’m crossing my fingers, I’m doing everything but sacrificing chickens or goats. I have been resolutely hopeful even when it has been hard and I have thought I really had to consider the worst.

        I do think this is an election where many people have not really firmly made up their minds, and where a lot of votes will be last-minute, hold-my-breath-and-pull-the-lever kinds of decisions, and I don’t see most of them going Hillary’s way.

        What I see is what I am starting to think of as a “BUT….” election.

        “Hillary really does have all that experience, BUT…..”

        “Trump is kind of an ass, BUT…”

        “Hillary comes across as pretty calm and reasonable in debates and she has a lot of good answers, BUT…”

        “I really don’t like the way Trump talks sometimes, BUT…”

        …and so on.

      • Amazona October 12, 2016 / 1:22 pm

        Something that (hopefully) supports my intuitive guess that at the last minute more people will make the decision to vote for Trump is this, from the Rasmussen poll Rusty linked:

        Among voters who say they could still change their minds between now and Election Day, it’s Clinton 45%, Trump 28%, Johnson 23% and Stein five percent (5%).

        In other words, according to Rasmussen, which by the way I think asked a very important question, just a little more than a quarter of people leaning toward Trump say they can still change their minds, nearly a quarter of those leaning toward Johnson say this, and nearly half of those leaning toward Hillary say this.

        I think that is significant.

        Just guessing here, but my guess is that if you are in the 28% that might change its mind about Trump there is a better chance of going to Johnson or Stein, because the change is probably more “I just can’t vote for him because he said ____” than a shift to thinking Hillary is the better choice. Of those who have already leaned Libertarian, or toward Johnson, if they change their minds, are they more likely to change it to Hillary or to Trump? Trump is far more libertarian than Hillary and the Dems, and Libertarians aren’t as squeamish about how someone thinks or expresses himself. Just look at their convention. And at Gary Johnson. And the number of Hillary-leaners who are still on the fence speaks for itself. We don’t care who they vote for, or if they vote at all, as long as they don’t vote for her.

      • M. Noonan October 12, 2016 / 3:13 pm

        We’re starting to get some polling done post-2nd Debate and while it’s still bad for Trump, the samples seem pretty heavy Democrat and they are not catastrophically bad as the polls taken Saturday and Sunday before the debate. Lot of things mixing and swirling around out there…and the bottom line is that Reagan per Gallup was in the high 30’s very late into the election season. If this is a change election – as it normally would be given we’re into the 8th year of a particular Party’s rule – then most of those unsure will eventually break for the challenger.

      • M. Noonan October 12, 2016 / 3:15 pm

        Another indicator of a re-tightening race is some GOPers who abandoned Trump are returning to the fold…and the smartest GOPers out there, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, never wavered.

      • Cluster October 12, 2016 / 3:22 pm

        Rush just had a great observation re: GOP congress critters who refuse to support Trump and I paraphrase – “so you are evidently ok with a Hillary Presidency but then you want us to vote for you so that you can stop Hillary. How does that make any sense? And when have you ever stopped Obama?”

      • rustybrown2014 October 12, 2016 / 4:31 pm

        In my opinion you Republicans should never trust those that abandoned Trump at the drop of a hat again. Opportunistic, backstabbing, and shortsighted. They’re obviously part of the corrupt political machine Trump’s looking to dismantle.

      • Cluster October 12, 2016 / 5:06 pm


        Email from Podesta re: Hillary

        I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion. I think if she doesn’t say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.

        And these are the emails we are seeing. Can you imagine what is in the 33,000 deleted emails?

      • tryvasty October 12, 2016 / 8:29 pm

        Remember how well poll unskewing and betting heavily on Rasmussen went in 2012? I can still remember Karl Rove turning red and panicking as the results started coming in.

        I’m not saying Trump can’t still win, but if he does, it won’t be because current equilibrium is actually a close race.

        And remember, even the most hopeful interpretation of the 1980 election still involves a commanding win in a debate, something I seriously doubt is in the cards for Trump.

        (That and the most hopeful interpretation of 1980 is way too optimistic. The poll at the same time of likely voters, which is what almost every poll uses today, only had Carter ahead by 3 points, for instance)

      • Amazona October 12, 2016 / 8:47 pm

        Cluster, I heard that Rush show today and that whole segment was brilliant. He referenced Reagan’s belief that the GOP, when it was a party of ideology and political philosophy, had room for so many, but when it narrowed itself to issues and excluded those who don’t share specific beliefs it started its decline. I don’t know if there is a place I can get a transcript of that part of the show.

        He also referenced an article by Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator, and I went to the site and read some of his stuff. I really like Lord.

        From one of his pieces:

        “As I noted a while back in this space:

        I confess, Trump’s “manners and grace” are not the best. When asked about Trump a number of friends and contemporaries replied that he told “dirty stories” no matter how “coarse” or “outright nasty.” There is an admitted sense of “disgust and humiliation” that he could be president. Nothing, it seems, according to one friend, keeps him from saying things of the “grosser sort.” One House member declared bluntly of Trump that the front-running billionaire was “vain, weak, puerile, hypocritical, without manners, without moral grace.”

        Oh wait. Sorry. My mistake. These comments weren’t made about Donald Trump. They were made by friends, associates, and contemporaries of… Abraham Lincoln. Which means that the 16th president, the man who founded the Republican Party George Will says is in such mortal danger, the man whose memory dominates not merely the Washington skyline but the nation’s soul, has been so eternally honored in spite of having been found by his contemporaries to be — oh no! — a teller of “nasty stories” of “the grosser sort” and who was “vain, weak, puerile, hypocritical, without manners, without moral grace.”

        He also quotes David Horowitz:

        “I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered — Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas — have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to not be easily forgiven.”

      • Amazona October 12, 2016 / 8:49 pm

        Cluster, one statement of Rush’s that I liked a lot was “So you want us to rally to stop Hillary after January, but you won’t do anything to stop her now?”

      • Bob Eisenhower October 12, 2016 / 11:06 pm

        I think Lincoln was sued fewer than 3,500 times.

        Lincoln did not encourage the dark side of his base by jokingly offering to pay their legal fees should they assault an opposing party member.

        I’m pretty sure Lincoln was only married once and did not cheat on her, but I was there for firsthand information.

        I read in a book that Lincoln was so humble, he refused to be humiliated by a general that made him wait for two days to meet with him, he was so focused on the goal to be achieved by that meeting.

        But, yes, Lincoln was a rural guy that wrestled and told bawdy jokes. He was just like Trump.

      • Amazona October 12, 2016 / 11:22 pm

        And Lincoln was taller, and then there was that beard…….

        Brilliant analysis.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 12:06 am

        Umm, speaking as the Jew in the room, I assure you the party standing between the Jews and our annihilation is the Likud Party. We can work with ANY president, we always have.

        What concerns us Jews is how familiar Trump’s rise, appeal and behavior seems. Can’t pit ,y finger on it but I know I’ve seen it somewhere…

        (noting you called me “fey” and “precious,” hopefully the last unprovoked insult. I was called those things because I was offended at a comparison of Trump tou one of our two best Presidents. So, the tally for insults in this thread is Amazona 1, Bob 0.)

      • M. Noonan October 14, 2016 / 1:20 am

        Hitler had a pretty specific plan of action, laid out long before he ever had any chance at power – from 1919 until 1933, every last action of Hitler’s was directed towards obtaining absolute power in Germany and then implementing his plan, the two keys of which were the destruction of the Jews and the expansion of German territory.

        Trump has kinda jumped around at the idea of running for President but he doesn’t seem to have gotten serious about it until 2012 – and in all his time of making the attempt, I don’t recall a program of his which calls for the destruction of a certain sort of people, nor the expansion of the borders of the United States. He also doesn’t have anything like a personal body guard, nor a collection of organized bully boys to fight in the streets, nor absolute control of a political party based upon his theory of the “leadership principle”. But, other than all that, yeah – he’s just a Hitler mini-me…

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 12:38 am

        “What concerns us Jews is how familiar Trump’s rise, appeal and behavior seems. Can’t pit ,y finger on it but I know I’ve seen it somewhere…”

        Good grief, can you name a single thing Trump has ever said or done to make you think he’s anti-semetic in any way? He’s a businessman from NY who’s lived and worked alongside Jews his entire life.

        Meanwhile, you seem blithely unconcerned with the candidate who’s pledged to open our borders to teeming masses of Muslims from some of the world’s most hard-core Islamic countries. You’re aware of the history of Muslim/Jewish conflict, No?

        But you’re right, Trump is just like Hitler so never mind.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 12:44 am

        When did I say Trump was antisemitic?

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 12:53 am

        What did you mean by that statement then? Was that a comparison to Hitler or not?

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 1:19 am

        Look, I’m not going down that hole before I ascertain your stance on the original issue. A post compared Trump very favorably to Lincoln and I disagreed. If you see Lincoln in Trump, good for you. I don’t.

        Good night.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 1:26 am

        Actually, before I got to bed, since you mentioned “you seem blithely unconcerned with the candidate who’s” (laundry list).

        I am unconcerned by what I cannot affect. She is going to be the next President whether I like her (which I do not) or hate her (which I do). If you scroll up a bit you’ll see where I stated for the umpty-umpth time I am not with her.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 1:31 am

        Huh, me again. I was headed to bed and something that had been gnawing at the back of my mind from your response finally broke free.

        Rusty, the problem with Hitler wasn’t that he was antisemitic, though his being antisemitic certainly amplified it in a way not very helpful to my people (and to members of my family).

      • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 10:19 am

        Rusty, it’s just a Bob thing. For one thing, he is simply incapable of tolerating anything, anything at all, that illustrates the absolute idiocy of the absolute hatred of Trump. Bring up an example of someone else who was equally vilified on very very similar grounds, and he is compelled to charge in to point out that these two people were not identical in every way, and therefore the example fails.

        The second is that he is compelled to, as Spook said, spend vast amounts of time picking the fly shit out of the pepper. It seems to fit his self-perception as being someone so much smarter than everyone else, who sees what they, the poor blind fools, can’t, so he has to point it all out to them/us. Ceaselessly. Till the groove in the record is so worn it screeches. We see a lot of that, hence last week’s reference to “preening”.

        it’s just Bob, Bob Bob Bobbing along, And collecting phantom insults along the way. I see he now has a cute little scorecard. I envision it hanging around his neck on a lanyard, with a little golf pencil tied to it with a string.

      • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 10:22 am

        “…the problem with Hitler wasn’t that he was antisemitic…”

        Good to know.

      • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 10:28 am

        “A post compared Trump very favorably to Lincoln and I disagreed.”

        Wow. There is missing the point, and then there is the Bob version of missing the point, which demands a whole new category of point-missing.

        “If you see Lincoln in Trump, good for you. I don’t.”

        Well, good on you, Bob. Of course the Lincoln reference did not even imply in any way that the author, or any of us who actually understood the reference, DO “see Lincoln in Trump” but I have a feeling that is beside the point. (The point you keep missing,)

        And no, I’m not going to try to explain it to you. That would just lead to more bickering with Mr. Bickerston (you be sure to take that little pencil and put another tick by my name, now…) who, Trump-like, will never ever ever admit he was wrong, and it is excruciatingly tiresome. I know.

      • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 10:33 am

        “I was called those things because I was offended at a comparison of Trump tou one of our two best Presidents. “

        No, the comparison was of Trump ATTACKERS to Lincoln ATTACKERS. It was a comparison of Trump CRITICISM to Lincoln CRITICISM. It was a comparison of two CAMPAIGNS.

        Jeeze. Captain Oblivious strikes again. (Don’t forget to make another little mark by my name.)

      • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 10:38 am

        “What concerns us Jews is how familiar Trump’s rise, appeal and behavior seems.”

        Yeah, that makes SOOOO much more sense than being “concerned” about masses of hate-filled violent people, armed and enabled and encouraged to a great extent by the incompetence of Hillary Clinton and the attitude of the current Democrat Party president, who are as we speak planning to actually KILL you.

        It makes ever so much more sense to be more “concerned” about the existential threat you see in the trajectory of a rise to power than it does about the real, detailed, documented, repeatedly stated ability and intent to wipe your nation off the planet.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 11:11 am

        I don’t think the original post “compared Trump very favorably to Lincoln”, I think the point of the original post was that Lincoln (apparently, I haven’t looked into it much) faced a barrage of unsubstantial character and decorum attacks similar to Trump, and look how he turned out as president. But then I’ve always been pretty good at reading comprehension.

        “I am unconcerned by what I cannot affect. She is going to be the next President whether I like her (which I do not) or hate her (which I do).”

        I’m not going to try to teach you the civics lesson of the importance of voting and supporting the candidate that stands in opposition to the one you hate. Suffice to say that in this election if you don’t support and vote for Trump you are a defacto Hillary supporter. And if you hate her as much as you claim to then I find your nihilism self-defeating, self-fulfilling, and unthoughtful. So yes Bob, you are “with her”, and I’m certain your stance has everything to do with Trump derangement syndrome.

        “Rusty, the problem with Hitler wasn’t that he was antisemitic”

        Well Bob, I’m sure you’ll agree that it was at least ONE of his problems, no? So back to my original question, maybe you can try answering it this time, what did you mean by that phrase? Again, I’m very good at reading comprehension and it seems as if you were saying Trump reminds Jews of Hitler in a way that should be of concern to them, hence my anti-Semitic comment.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 12:38 pm


        Captain Oblivious got the Lincoln reference on the first pass, which is why I refuted the reference.

        See, Lincoln was derided because 1. he was a country boy and b. he liked to tell dirty jokes. But no one realized his towering intellect, wisdom and humility.

        Trump is derided for far worse than being a city boy who says dirty things, and he has demonstrated his lack of wisdom and humility and impulse control repeatedly.

        The comparison is wrong on an exponential scale.

        btw, I don’t hate Trump. I am a Howard Stern fan and have loved Trump for years. He once eviscerated a Stern guest that dated the same woman as he in an epic phone battle. I just think he is an awful person to be President.

        (noted, you’re name-calling “Captain Oblivious” and “Mr. Bickerson” as two insults, being in two different posts. Just so it is clear to Moderator should I slip and say something not so nice. Scorecard: Amazona can’t backer opinions without insults: 3 vs. Bob 0)

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 12:49 pm


        Voting for someone I’d hate to have elected President instead of someone I’d like even less, who is definitely going to win, does not see my civic duty. I need no lessons in civics.

        As regards the Hitler reference, don’t for a second act like you are unaware of the parallels of Hitler’s rise and Trump’s campaign.

        The problem with Hitler was his drive to power and what he did with that power. Because he was antisemitic he used that power to kill us but had he been anti-Catholic we’d read about millions of dead Catholics shipped out of France. There are many antisemites in the world, the problem with Hitler was not his antisemitism.

        I do not believe Trump is Hitler, I do not believe he is evil in any way shape or form. But his rise to power on the roughest of populism directed at every lower-caste and the Press, fed by and in turn feeding the worst of Americans, driven by misinformation and character assassination. In that way – which chills Jews everywhere – Trump is akin.

        (I know, I know, Hillary is worse. Got it/)

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 1:40 pm

        Speaking of Hitler and Jews and whatnot, I also was reacting to the post that the Republican Party is all “that stands between the Jews and annihilation.”

        Here’s the thing about us Jews. We survive.

        Around 600 BC the Babylonians destroyed every object that defined the Jews and moved them to Iraq. We developed the Rabinical System, recorded the Old Testament, and went on.

        Around 100 AD, the Romans re-destroyed everything sacred and again kicked the Jews out of Israel. We moved to Europe.

        For 2000 years (mostly, but not entirely) Christian peoples decimated us, with the ultimate pogrom in WWII. We went underground or lived in ghettos, but we survived and thrived.

        Jews are doing OK right now, but there have been many pockets of good history for us before. Maybe Israel as a state will survive, hopefully, but if it does not, we will go on. Judaism survives.

        A way we survive is to be taught “never again” throughout our childhood, especially when we see blatant red flags, as Trump’s campaign often-spectacularly shows with too much regularity..

      • Cluster October 13, 2016 / 1:59 pm

        Bob, do you like Bibi Netanyahu?

      • Retired Spook October 13, 2016 / 1:51 pm

        A way we survive is to be taught “never again” throughout our childhood, especially when we see blatant red flags, as Trump’s campaign often-spectacularly shows with too much regularity..

        Bob, can you cite some of the red flags displayed by the Trump campaign. Not saying there aren’t any, but I have not seen any. In fact, mostly what I’ve seen are articles about what a friend a Trump administration would be to Israel.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 2:08 pm


        List list is very, very, very deep but here are a two disturbingly Hitleresque moments from the Trump campaign:

        1. Offering to pay legal bills of anyone who attacks his opponent’s supporters. Even as a joke, when said to violent people, will incite further violence.

        2. Telling, or leaking via surrogates, blatant lies about your opponents (Cruz’ dad was involved in JFK assassination, etc.)

        Those are two (of many) despicable tactics both Hitler and Trump chose to employ.

      • Cluster October 13, 2016 / 2:27 pm

        No question about that Bob.

        1. I was appalled when those Trump supporters took to looting, rioting and actually burning down small business’s but when they started targeting and killing cops, that was just too much. Good catch on that.

        2. And when surrogates of the Trump campaign stood on the floor of the Senate and intentionally lied about his opponent not paying taxes for ten years, and that he was responsible for taking away healthcare and allowing a woman to die of cancer, that was certainly Hitleresque.

        No doubt about it Bob, you are on the right track.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 3:36 pm


        You have no basis for your CERTAINTY of a Clinton win for at least these three simple reasons: there have been political upsets in the past that have surpassed what Trump would achieve with a win here, this is a very unusual and unpredictable election cycle, and there’s still time left for surprises and revelations because they seem to be coming aplenty. So I’ll stick with my assertion: if you don’t support and vote for Trump you are a defacto Hillary supporter, you are “with her”. There’s really no cogent argument against that logic, after all, if you refrain from voting for Trump who do you think it helps, Gary Johnson?

        I won’t touch your rather odd insistence that apparently it was Hitler’s rise to power and not his anti-Semitism that was/is the biggest concern for Jews other than to say I think many prominent Jewish leaders and historians would disagree with you. But that’s a rabbit hole we needn’t explore. But I’m glad you’ve explained the reasons why you think Trump is similar to Hitler, which was my original issue, so let’s look at those. You say Trump is akin to Hitler because of:

        “his rise to power on the roughest of populism directed at every lower-caste and the Press, fed by and in turn feeding the worst of Americans, driven by misinformation and character assassination.”

        First of all, all of these things are not uniquely Hitler-like but in fact the providence of many politicians including his current rival, Clinton. It all depends on what side of the fence you’re viewing things from. It’s apparent to me that you’re freaked out by the optics–a strong personality speaking directly to the disenfranchised, an unapologetic appeal to nationalism in spite of the unpopularity of that message among the ruling elite class, a call to arms that certain foreign interests are currently working against us, etc.–but your mistake is realizing that these things are not a priori evil. In fact, they’re good, reasonable, relatable, and hence the popularity of populism. Trump’s nationalism is centered around strengthening our borders, kicking out illegal immigrants, tightening our immigration procedures in interest of national security and America first trade deals. Doesn’t sound like Hitler to my ears. (Btw, it’s unclear but if by “directed at every lower-caste” you mean “against every lower-cast” then you’re way off base. A large portion of Trump’s message is speaking directly in support of the American lower-cast; I’m sure you know this)

        You speak of “blatant red flags” that Trump “spectacularly shows with too much regularity” yet offer no examples. Maybe we could understand what you’re talking about if you do.

        Finally, bully for Jews for surviving. I’ve no doubt they will continue to do so. In addition to surviving I also hope for their prospering, as they’re capable of doing under Western Democracies like present day America. I think the likelihood of that is greatly enhanced by a conscientious immigration policy regarding Muslims, so does Trump.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 3:40 pm

        Cluster – ok, Hillary sucks. Guess I won’t vote for her.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 3:47 pm


        1. “if you don’t support and vote for Trump you are a defacto Hillary supporter” – I believe the Conservatives of Utah are proving otherwise.

        2. While Hitler’s RISE to power was disturbing, you seem to be missing the point that WHAT HITLER DID with power was the problem. His rise simply mirrored his intentions.

        3. “all of these things are not uniquely Hitler-like” – you are right. These tactics are used by dictators throughout history (also threatening to jail one’s opponents). This is the first time I’m seeing it happen in America, and it is extremely worrisome.

        4. “offer no examples” you are replying to a post where I named two examples. I need not list them all, there are a lot of them.

        5. “the likelihood (of Jewish survival) is greatly enhanced by a conscientious immigration policy regarding Muslims, so does Trump” – yes, I am quite sure U.S. immigration policy is key to our survival as a people.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 3:55 pm

        Bob, if your list of Trump/Hitler similarities is very, very, very deep you’re going to have to dig a bit deeper for better examples than what you’ve offered. The offer to pay legal bills was indeed a joke at a boisterous partisan rally, hardly a call to arms. And what kind of violence has it inspired? Practically none, if any. In fact, if it’s brownshirts you’re looking for, look no further than Hillary supporters. There have been many more blatant examples of violence and intimidation coming from her legions; once that became uncomfortably apparent to the press the whole meme of “violent Trump protesters” was quietly dropped. I guess you didn’t get the memo.

        “Telling, or leaking via surrogates, blatant lies about your opponents (Cruz’ dad was involved in JFK assassination, etc.)”

        You’re kidding, right? If you think this is a despicable tactic of Hitler and not standard, run of the mill politics then you haven’t been following politics very long.

        You’re 0-2. Any other Trump/Hitler similarities?

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 4:12 pm

        Oh, gosh, I couldn’t convince Rusty.

        Fortunately, that does not matter. I’ve stated my opinions and, when asked, gave some support. I have no need to convince you of my opinion.

        In summary, here are my opinions. Feel free to disagree with them, as I disagree with your own.

        1. Trump represents the worst of America and will lose to a candidate I do not like.

        2. The GOP has no credibility as a conservative body for supporting Trump when they clearly abhor his candidacy.

        3. I hope Conservatives coalesce around a new home for conservatism – even a currently non-conservative party , as those in Utah appear to be doing.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 4:15 pm

        And I reserve the right to voice my opinion at any time.

        If one says Trump’s detractors are like Lincoln’s when Trump merits his detraction and Lincoln did not, I will defend Lincoln. If someone implies voting for Trump ensures the Jewish state of Israel, I will disagree.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 4:16 pm

        1.“I believe the Conservatives of Utah are proving otherwise.”

        What are you talking about?

        2.“you seem to be missing the point that WHAT HITLER DID with power was the problem.”

        I’m not missing the point at all, you are. What Hitler did with power was to kill a whole lot of Jews, hence my charge of anti-Semitism there. I really don’t see what’s controvertible about that point, but as I’ve said I don’t need to discuss it.

        3.This is the first time you’re seeing populism in America? Not mine. But I’ve been following politics for a while and none of the many appeals to populism I’ve seen politicians employ over the years has ever put me in mind of Hitler.

        Trumps threatening to jail one’s opponents is a total canard. An hysterical propagandistic interpretation by the left that the media is running with. I could explain if you like.

        4.I’ve just dismantled the two examples you’ve offered. If you’ve got better ones then bring it on, although I seem to remember your competency for “bringing it on” did not match your enthusiasm in our last go round.

        5.“yes, I am quite sure U.S. immigration policy is key to our survival as a people.”

        I take it this is sarcastic. What is “key to your survival as a people”? What group threatens you more than Muslims? Are Jews around the world better or worse off with a large, vocal, voting Islamic block infiltrating the West? Those are a few questions you might want to consider.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 4:24 pm

        “If someone implies voting for Trump ensures the Jewish state of Israel, I will disagree.”

        Who ever said that? I’ve just been talking about playing the odds.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 4:30 pm


        I swore to myself my prior posting would be the last one, but your response was too good to leave alone. But THIS is my last word on the topic. Feel free to continue without me.

        “what Hitler did with power was to kill a whole lot of Jews” Hmmm, I think all of Europe would disagree with that. In fact, killing the Jews wasn’t even the number one bad thing Hitler did….

        …except “I really don’t see what’s controvertible about that point” clearly proves me wrong. Boy, you know all the angles.

        “This is the first time you’re seeing populism in America?” No, not the first time for populism. This is the first time I’m seeing strongman populism in America. I don’t believe William Jennings Bryan’s campaigns shared that much in common with Trump.

        “I’ve just dismantled the two examples you’ve offered” wow, you surely did. I dun been dismantled by the best.

        “What group threatens (Jews) more than Muslims?” You are kinda walking into a haymaker here. Historically, Christians have been the most threatening to Jews, not Muslims.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 5:09 pm

        All of Europe disagrees that Hitler used his power to kill Jews? I guess we can agree to disagree with that one, Bob.

        I never said or implied that was ALL he did with power, it’s simply one (very prominent) part of the whole Hitler thing. Look, when someone, especially a Jew, invokes Hitler, the six million or so Jews he’s killed naturally blips prominently on my radar. Is that wrong of me? Sheeesh.

        I never said killing Jews was the number one bad thing Hitler did, but there are many people who think it was including most prominent Jewish groups. But again, I really don’t see the point of all this.

        “Strongman populism”? Really? You’ve self-confirmed that you are heavily influenced by the biased optics of the popular press.

        I’ve pointed out that your two examples of Trump=Hitler were trite. You’re free to list more from your many, many, many, many examples but my guess is they’re just as trivial. You’re clearly suffering from an acute case of conformation bias (as Scott Adams might put it) where every media suggestion of Hitlerian overtones is recorded as fact. Clear evidence of this bias is that when asked to substantiate your claims, you can’t.

        Oh, and when I was asking what group threatens Jews more than Muslims, I was referring to the present day. I thought that was obvious by my use of the present tense. Wow, that’s some haymaker you’ve got there Bob.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 5:14 pm

        Keep cooing, Rusty, you da man!

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 5:41 pm

        Keep sluggin’ away there Bob, you might land one someday.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 6:44 pm

        “I’ve stated my opinions and, when asked, gave some support. I have no need to convince you of my opinion.”

        The support you offered is as thin as a paper bag. But your right, just having an opinion is enough. Substantiating one’s opinions is for losers.

      • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 9:28 pm

        Rusty, keep in mind that Bob DID manage to shift the focus of the discussion to him, and after several episodes like this where he makes bizarre and really stupid comments and then by dragging it out for as long as he can by doubling down on them has led me to think that is the goal.

        It certainly has nothing to do with meaningful political discourse.

        And he loves to come in with something inane and utterly stupid, which he obviously thinks is wry and witty: Keep cooing, Rusty, you da man! ??????????? Cooing? Sometimes I wonder if “Bob” is really “Roberta”, a high school sophomore with a lock on her bedroom door to keep the ‘rents from barging in.

    • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 9:40 pm

      Historically, Christians have been the most threatening to Jews, not Muslims.

      Really, what can you say to such nonsense? I wonder when “history” ends, given that the most passionate defense of Israel in this country is from Christians, and I wonder which Christians or Christian nations have stated as a tenet of their religion that they exterminate all Jews.

      Keep in mind, Bob will keep posting such drivel as long as it gets a response, putting us in the position of being sucked into his little game or just letting stinking piles of this s**t lie there.

  8. Amazona October 12, 2016 / 9:03 pm

    Some interesting stuff on Podesta and other emails on I don’t follow online chatter or social media so I have no idea how legit this site is. Any comments?

  9. Retired Spook October 13, 2016 / 11:02 am

    How’s this for a prediction? Evan McMullin is nearly tied with Clinton and Trump in Utah. There are three ways that the electoral college could end in a tie. Give McMullin Utah’s 6 electoral votes, and Clinton ends up with 269, Trump with 263 and McMullin with 6. The election is thrown into the House of Representatives.

    • Bob Eisenhower October 13, 2016 / 12:57 pm

      I think those are Republicans refusing to vote for either Hillary or Trump. I’ve been told by others on this site that my vote for a third party would be wasted.

      huh, go figure.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 8:19 pm

        Yeah Bob, abdicating your vote to the career politicians in the House of Representatives is not a waste at all.

  10. Cluster October 13, 2016 / 1:05 pm

    Nothing to see here folks. Everything is good:

    The government of Qatar promised Bill Clinton a $1 million check for his birthday in 2011, according to emails published by WikiLeaks. In an April 2012 email to Clinton Foundation officials, Ami Desai, the foundation’s foreign policy director, summarized his meeting with the ambassadors from several countries, including Qatar. According to Desai, the representatives from Qatar “would like to see [Bill Clinton] ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011.” The Qataris were also interested in suggestions for how to spend the $20 million they donated as part of the Haiti earthquake relief.

    • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 8:22 pm

      But Cluster, didn’t you hear? Sally said Donnie peeked under her dress in high school.

      • Cluster October 13, 2016 / 9:07 pm

        It is ridiculous. I heard Charles Lane form the Wa Po say today that Trump’s indiscretions are far worse than the wikileak revelations on Hillary. Revelations of collusion with the media, $1 million birthday gifts from foreign countries, and complete contempt for a large swath of the American people and I couldn’t believe it. Are you kidding me? I hope the majority of Americans aren’t falling for this.

        And Bob it is completely absurd to equate Trump and Hitler. You are far more obsessed with Trump than any Trump supporter I know who simply wants an end to the cesspool of incompetence and corruption that both parties are responsible for. A government that puts Americans of ALL stripes first and protects the language, borders, economy, and culture of this country. We don’t even stand a chance with Hillary, and most likely not even with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell “doing their best” to stop her.

      • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 9:24 pm

        In that link I posted there is a reference to a video of Hillary using vile racist language and if I remember correctly, calling black people “n****rs and disparaging them. The comment was that the look of disdain and hatred on her face was creepy. Did you see that reference and have you heard of such a video?

  11. Amazona October 13, 2016 / 9:22 pm

    I swore to myself my prior posting would be the last one…

    Bob, of all the voices in your head, this is the one you should listen to.

  12. rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 11:25 pm

    Hey, how about those Cubs?

    • Amazona October 13, 2016 / 11:31 pm

      Glad you didn’t ask “How about those Broncos?” It’s been a rough night.

      • rustybrown2014 October 13, 2016 / 11:44 pm

        Yeah, ouch. But they’re still contenders. I’m a North side Chicagoan though. Although I’ve drifted away from the insufferably boring game of baseball, watching the Cubs on WGN with Jack Brickhouse is in my formative DNA. I’ve been to Wrigley countless times, and passed it everyday on my way to High school. I’m enjoying this ride. Anybody see that ninth inning comeback against the Giants?

      • Amazona October 14, 2016 / 12:12 am

        After my old school days as a Yankee fan I never gave much thought to baseball, and then during a really rough patch in the early years of the Rockies a friend let me use his club seats and a friend and I went and it was magic. For a whole 9 innings, I didn’t think about anything but baseball. I have gone to a lot of Rockies games since then, games we won and games we lost, games when we had the dynamic hitters and games where we just couldn’t do anything right, and I still love a live game. The ball park is gorgeous, with the mountains framed in a cutout on the west side so in the right seats the mountain range is framed by the park, and it’s just a multi-sense experience.

        For a few years our company bought several games worth of season tickets from a man who couldn’t use all of his, though we didn’t this year because last year we were too busy to catch all the games. The seats were great, just a hair closer to home plate than right behind first base, so you could actually see if a ball was a strike or not, and it was just plain fun to go to a game. The energy of a baseball game is different than that of a football game.

        I can’t watch baseball on TV but I think radio is the natural medium for baseball, and for some reason I love to listen to a few innings every now and then. I’m not one of those purist baseball fans who just love the game, mostly just care about the Rockies, but I have been known to listen to a World Series game or two every now and then on the radio if I am in the car at the right time.

      • rustybrown2014 October 14, 2016 / 12:32 am

        Totally agree. Nothing like being at the ballpark for a live game.

Comments are closed.