A Rebuttal to Those Who Insist We Vote for Trump
David Harsanyi over at the Federalist has penned a good think-piece for those who insist Republicans have to vote for Trump now: If David Duke Won, Wouldn't Republicans Have to Vote for Him?
Beginning with the hypothetical of Duke winning the GOP presidential primary, he asks:
You get the idea. It's a thoughtful look at the issue.
UPDATE: I gave a taste of Harsanyi's opening above in the expectation that people would read his article for his conclusions. If you want his conclusions without clicking over to read the rest, I've discussed that a bit in the comments. It's the comment at 10:47 PM. Key point: Harsanyi is not claiming Trump is the same as Duke. He's just talking about the arguments often used against #NeverTrumpers.
AND ANOTHER THING: We've argued about who to vote for when both candidates are pretty sketchy, so this is intended to be part of that discussion. I will probably hold my nose and vote for Trump as the lesser evil. But that's me; my values push me in that direction.
Other people, whom I often agree with on the issues, have different values that push them in a different direction, and they can't vote for Trump. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think those people are bad or stupid for voting their own consciences instead of mine. So we vote differently this election; as far as I'm concerned, we're still on the same side.
But right now a lot of Republicans do seem to have a problem with the #NeverTrumpers, and I thought Harsanyi did a good job defending the #NeverTrump position from the conservative side.
Beginning with the hypothetical of Duke winning the GOP presidential primary, he asks:
What if Duke promised to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices? Let’s say he drew up an extensive list of Federalist Society-approved justices that conservatives simply loved? Would they then vote for him then? Sean Spicer says no. Please don’t tell me you’re willing to surrender the court to a progressive agenda for a generation. If you don’t vote for Duke, it would be tantamount to abandoning law and order. As pro-Trump Republicans often stress, national elections are a binary choice.
It’s not just about justices, either. Duke would almost certainly build an impenetrable wall along the Mexican border to stop the flow of illegal immigration. ...
Duke would also limit Islamic immigration to keep America safe again. ...
You know elitists would simply hate Duke. Probably because the Klansman refuses to be constrained by political correctness. ...
You get the idea. It's a thoughtful look at the issue.
UPDATE: I gave a taste of Harsanyi's opening above in the expectation that people would read his article for his conclusions. If you want his conclusions without clicking over to read the rest, I've discussed that a bit in the comments. It's the comment at 10:47 PM. Key point: Harsanyi is not claiming Trump is the same as Duke. He's just talking about the arguments often used against #NeverTrumpers.
AND ANOTHER THING: We've argued about who to vote for when both candidates are pretty sketchy, so this is intended to be part of that discussion. I will probably hold my nose and vote for Trump as the lesser evil. But that's me; my values push me in that direction.
Other people, whom I often agree with on the issues, have different values that push them in a different direction, and they can't vote for Trump. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think those people are bad or stupid for voting their own consciences instead of mine. So we vote differently this election; as far as I'm concerned, we're still on the same side.
But right now a lot of Republicans do seem to have a problem with the #NeverTrumpers, and I thought Harsanyi did a good job defending the #NeverTrump position from the conservative side.
Some Snarky Country to Get Your Wednesday Going
And just to chill out, "It's Time to Get a Gun"
Yep. When it's all said and done, someone's gotta walk into the night. That's actually an old Fred Eaglesmith tune. For comparison ...
Come Be PC
From Chris Ray Gun, the guy who brought us "Ain't No Rest for the Triggered." It's kinda like the Disney version of "Ain't No Rest," but not really for kids. Although, that may depend on your definition of kids. Maybe some "kids" need to hear this. I dunno.
Anyway:
Anyway:
A Dem for Trump
A gentleman named Adam Townsend has given his reasons for supporting Trump in some detail. Some of what he says sounds like he would fit in quite well here, but other parts ... well, the unhappy left has its own reasons for being disaffected by some of the same things we are. The whole thing is worth reading, but I've put some tasty tidbits below to whet your appetites. The original is full of links to supporting articles as well.
Hillary
When this presidential cycle began I was determined to vote for Hillary.But, I suffer from the double edge of an annoyingly inquisitive nature.
#NeverHillary
Hillary and her political enablers and courtiers argue that the Democratic party must come together to defeat the ‘evil’ of Trump, I disagree…
It is far more ‘evil’ and destructive to the United States to permit Hillary to be our president:
Foreign Policy. Hillary was a horrible Secretary of State that made very poor decisions in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Egypt.
Clinton Global (and its related entities) is a department store of political, multinational, corruption. The charity is under investigation, it was the middle man in weapons deals to foreign nations, it brokered a treasonous uranium deal to Russia, it stole money from Haiti and small contributors after the earthquake, it was deeply involved in a larcenous private college, Laureate University, it has allied with some of the worst dictators in the world and it may unravel slowly as the greatest charity fraud in history.
Emails: The email ‘issue’ is an open and shut conviction within the Espionage Act.
...
Free Speech
...
Free speech is a safety valve. Reducing our language of any possible offensive character is being engineered not to salve, but to create turmoil. Big state (your tax dollars) is manufacturing chaos and then big state (your tax dollars) is coming into legislate and police. Big state is setting the fire and then calls the fire department and becomes a hero.
...
Miscellany incomplete thoughts
...
The mechanics of propaganda are bombarding every channel of distribution with an untrue and anachronistic view of our remarkable history, our people and the achievement of our Constitution. There has never been anything like it and it is being eroded, purposefully, by both sides. Each take turns pushing its envelope and each uses the Supreme Court to legitimize the Federal overreach.
...
On the Road
I'm going to be gone for a week. I may post from the road, or not. Keep yourselves entertained.
Why Are Voters So Angry
Myron Magnet, of whom I've not heard before, has a piece in City Journal on the question. He's not wrong, but there is a strangeness about locating the problem as beginning in the Woodrow Wilson administration. If this has been acceptable since WWI, why are voters angry about it now?
It's a piece worth reading all the same. Nevertheless, something more is needed to explain why voters are so angry right at this moment.
What has now largely displaced the Founders’ government is what’s called the Administrative State—a transformation premeditated by its main architect, Woodrow Wilson. The thin-skinned, self-righteous college-professor president, who thought himself enlightened far beyond the citizenry, dismissed the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights as so much outmoded “nonsense,” and he rejected the Founders’ clunky constitutional machinery as obsolete. (See “It’s Not Your Founding Fathers’ Republic Any More,” Summer 2014.) What a modern country needed, he said, was a “living constitution” that would keep pace with the fast-changing times by continual, Darwinian adaptation, as he called it, effected by federal courts acting as a permanent constitutional convention.That's an argument readers of the Hall will find quite familiar. Still, that's a hundred years ago.
It's a piece worth reading all the same. Nevertheless, something more is needed to explain why voters are so angry right at this moment.
Of Course the Russians Are Helping Trump
I realize that the impulse is to doubt everything said by Clinton or one of her appointees, and that's a very healthy and good impulse. It will serve you well. But this time, the guy is right. Wikileaks is a Russian intelligence project. Russia Today, which has been leading the broadcasting of this story, is openly Russian propaganda.
Doubtless Putin takes Trump's outspoken pragmatism about NATO to be a good sign for Russian interests. No one really doubts that everyone would be pragmatic in fact, but the secret in diplomacy is you're supposed to pretend that you would be principled instead. This is an old story.
Hillary Clinton, being a former Secretary of State, understands the rules and is playing accordingly. This has led to the highly amusing spectacle of her supporters, many of whom would disband the nuclear forces entirely if they had their druthers, arguing for a week about how important it is to have a strong deterrent against Russian aggression. They are no more serious about nuking Russia than she is, but they're all pretending they are.
The fact is that President Obama has weakened the United States' global position so much that the next president will have no choice but retrenchment. Some concessions will have to be made to Russia, to China, and possibly even to Iran. Clinton will make those concessions if elected in terms of conceding American power to 'international' institutions that happen to favor Russian or Chinese interests -- things like the TPP, which she will of course resume supporting once she's elected (as her VP choice does as well, I notice). Trump, on the other hand, will negotiate some sort of deal directly.
Either way, America's standing in the world will diminish, at least for a time. Even the most hawkish president would have no choice but to drop back and try to figure out what new lines are tenable.
Doubtless Putin takes Trump's outspoken pragmatism about NATO to be a good sign for Russian interests. No one really doubts that everyone would be pragmatic in fact, but the secret in diplomacy is you're supposed to pretend that you would be principled instead. This is an old story.
Hillary Clinton, being a former Secretary of State, understands the rules and is playing accordingly. This has led to the highly amusing spectacle of her supporters, many of whom would disband the nuclear forces entirely if they had their druthers, arguing for a week about how important it is to have a strong deterrent against Russian aggression. They are no more serious about nuking Russia than she is, but they're all pretending they are.
The fact is that President Obama has weakened the United States' global position so much that the next president will have no choice but retrenchment. Some concessions will have to be made to Russia, to China, and possibly even to Iran. Clinton will make those concessions if elected in terms of conceding American power to 'international' institutions that happen to favor Russian or Chinese interests -- things like the TPP, which she will of course resume supporting once she's elected (as her VP choice does as well, I notice). Trump, on the other hand, will negotiate some sort of deal directly.
Either way, America's standing in the world will diminish, at least for a time. Even the most hawkish president would have no choice but to drop back and try to figure out what new lines are tenable.
Live Free or Die
I'll never flee my country, but will fight -- and die, if necessary -- to preserve our freedoms. However, if you were looking for a nice place that's reputedly willing to accept American refugees from Donald Trump, you could hardly beat Inishturk. Perhaps we could send our noncombatants there -- whoever wins.
An Even Worse Lexicon
The other day, we were talking about an attempt to provide a lexicon for terrorism both from Islam and the far right. It was really solid on the Islam question, but was very weak in providing an accurate name for "far right" actors. It was functional for part of its intended purpose, then, but not all of it.
The Lawfare Blog has proposed its own similar lexicon of violence, and it is even less useful. It has two major flaws, which I will explain once I give you the lexicon.
1) All of this is ultimately rooted on the definition of "Violent Extremist Ideology," which is unspecified. Thus, the whole thing is groundless. Specifying exactly what a Violent Extremist Ideology is -- so that it captures all and only the right kind of actors, leaving legitimate political actors alone -- is the real work to be done, and it's untouched.
2) This approach elides essential differences. By essential differences I mean things that make the other things necessary. The first lexicon accurately captured that a commitment to jihad was what was making all the violence necessary. The right wing groups are doing whatever they're doing for entirely different reasons. Violent Communist groups, like the Maoists in the Philippines, are necessarily committed to violence out of a different essential understanding of the world and their place in it. Since ultimately you have to get at the motivations of violent groups in order to make the violence go away, collapsing these essential distinctions is a terrible idea.
The motivation for all of this is to try to treat different kinds of radical groups "equally," I suppose. Yet equality isn't what we're interested in here: we don't have to be afraid of being unjust to people who run over children with big trucks. We need to retain an understanding of just what is moving them to do all these things, because it is that motivating force that we ultimately have to deal with.
The Lawfare Blog has proposed its own similar lexicon of violence, and it is even less useful. It has two major flaws, which I will explain once I give you the lexicon.
Violent Extremist Organization: An organization that takes action to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.There are two big issues here, as I mentioned.
Violent Extremist: An individual who take actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.
Resident Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who takes actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology in the same State in which they are considered a national under the operation of its law.
Non-Resident Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who takes actions to further a Violent Extremist Ideology in a different State than that in which they are considered a national under the operation of its law.
Supported Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who receives support for their actions from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.
Unsupported Violent Extremist: A Violent Extremist who does not receive support for their actions from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.
Inspired Action: When a Violent Extremist takes action that is inspired by a Violent Extremist Ideology.
Directed Action: When a Violent Extremist takes action based upon direction they received from another Violent Extremist or a Violent Extremist Organization.
Spontaneous Action: When an individual with no known previous plausible ties to a Violent Extremist Ideology, Violent Extremists, or a Violent Extremist Organization, suddenly takes action, with little planning or preparation, to further a Violent Extremist Ideology.
Opportunistic Claim: When an individual with no known previous plausible ties to a Violent Extremist Ideology, Violent Extremists, or a Violent Extremist Organization engages in violence, and a Violent Extremist or Violent Extremist Organization claims responsibility without providing proof that they inspired or directed the action.
1) All of this is ultimately rooted on the definition of "Violent Extremist Ideology," which is unspecified. Thus, the whole thing is groundless. Specifying exactly what a Violent Extremist Ideology is -- so that it captures all and only the right kind of actors, leaving legitimate political actors alone -- is the real work to be done, and it's untouched.
2) This approach elides essential differences. By essential differences I mean things that make the other things necessary. The first lexicon accurately captured that a commitment to jihad was what was making all the violence necessary. The right wing groups are doing whatever they're doing for entirely different reasons. Violent Communist groups, like the Maoists in the Philippines, are necessarily committed to violence out of a different essential understanding of the world and their place in it. Since ultimately you have to get at the motivations of violent groups in order to make the violence go away, collapsing these essential distinctions is a terrible idea.
The motivation for all of this is to try to treat different kinds of radical groups "equally," I suppose. Yet equality isn't what we're interested in here: we don't have to be afraid of being unjust to people who run over children with big trucks. We need to retain an understanding of just what is moving them to do all these things, because it is that motivating force that we ultimately have to deal with.
Friday Night Party Music
First, "Medieval Music - Hardcore Party Mix"
... then some Nathaniel Rateliff & the Night Sweats, "S.O.B."
Alright, gimme a drink!
... then some Nathaniel Rateliff & the Night Sweats, "S.O.B."
Alright, gimme a drink!
Is a "Trainwreck" Ever Good?
To answer Ed Morrisey's question, there is one really positive aspect to the trainwreck in Cleveland. It proves, again, that the Republican party is not rigged.
The Democratic Party really is. We've seen the fix in for Clinton from the DNC's own internal messaging, from the way in which they structured the debates to favor Clinton's interests, and especially from the handling of her criminal troubles by the Justice Department. The whole system, up to and including the criminal justice system, was rigged to deliver her as nominee. When a substantial number of Democratic voters said, "No, thank you, we'd really prefer Bernie," the DNC bent itself backwards to make sure that he failed. The voter fraud was so bad that even Snopes can't bring themselves to fully deny it.
So, democracy is messy. The RNC had a rules fight, a floor fight, Ted Cruz's excellent speech on principle, and then nominated Donald Trump. Donald Trump, I mean, and not Jeb Bush. If the Republican party were rigged like the Democratic party, Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee this morning.
Factor that in to the choice, I suppose. The Democratic system is rigged from stem to stern. The Republicans are really taking this democracy thing seriously, even at the cost of losing control of the party, even at the cost of public embarrassment. Even, possibly, at the cost of what should have been an easily-winnable election.
Maybe that commitment to democracy ought to mean something. I leave it for you to decide.
The Democratic Party really is. We've seen the fix in for Clinton from the DNC's own internal messaging, from the way in which they structured the debates to favor Clinton's interests, and especially from the handling of her criminal troubles by the Justice Department. The whole system, up to and including the criminal justice system, was rigged to deliver her as nominee. When a substantial number of Democratic voters said, "No, thank you, we'd really prefer Bernie," the DNC bent itself backwards to make sure that he failed. The voter fraud was so bad that even Snopes can't bring themselves to fully deny it.
WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.That's funny stuff -- 'OK, the part about the study proving widespread voter fraud is true, but it's not really a 'Stanford Study,' it was just done by students at Stanford... and, er, nobody's going to check their work, because nobody wants to know if they're right.'
WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.
So, democracy is messy. The RNC had a rules fight, a floor fight, Ted Cruz's excellent speech on principle, and then nominated Donald Trump. Donald Trump, I mean, and not Jeb Bush. If the Republican party were rigged like the Democratic party, Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee this morning.
Factor that in to the choice, I suppose. The Democratic system is rigged from stem to stern. The Republicans are really taking this democracy thing seriously, even at the cost of losing control of the party, even at the cost of public embarrassment. Even, possibly, at the cost of what should have been an easily-winnable election.
Maybe that commitment to democracy ought to mean something. I leave it for you to decide.
Great Ape Starts Fires, Cooks Own Food
So if this election does lead to Armageddon, at least our replacements are on deck.
That's Convenient Timing
The Fraternal Order of Police hit Hillary Clinton on her convention speakers:
It sure is good timing for Donald Trump, who apparently intends to say the following lines in his speech:
“The Fraternal Order of Police is insulted and will not soon forget that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton are excluding the widows and other family members of police officers killed in the line of duty who were victims of explicit and not implied racism,” Mr. McNesby said in a statement.In fairness, there's no evidence that it is possible.
He said it’s “sad that to win an election Mrs. Clinton must pander to the interests of people who do not know all the facts, while the men and women they seek to destroy are outside protecting the political institutions of this country.
“Mrs. Clinton, you should be ashamed of yourself, if that is possible.”
It sure is good timing for Donald Trump, who apparently intends to say the following lines in his speech:
I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th 2017, safety will be restored.I don't know who wrote this speech, but they earned their money.
The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.
It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation.
I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.
So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths the Democrats are holding their convention next week.
But here, at our convention, there will be no lies. We will honor the American people with the truth, and nothing else.
These are the facts:
Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement.
Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60% in nearby Baltimore.
In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.
The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year.... The problems we face now – poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them.
A Paradigm Example of the Problem With OODA-Loop Gun Training For Police
When a 23-year-old autistic man carrying a toy truck wandered from a mental health center out into the street Monday, a worker there named Charles Kinsey went to retrieve him.It makes perfect sense. You train for a stimulus/response reaction, you're training the officers to shoot without thinking. He doesn't know why he shot. It's an honest answer. Some stimulus triggered the response. He never thought about whether to shoot at all.
A few minutes later the autistic man was still sitting cross-legged blocking the roadway while playing with the small, rectangular white toy. And Kinsey was prone on the ground next to him — a bullet from an assault rifle fired by a police officer having struck his leg.
“He throws his hands up in the air and says, ‘Don’t shoot me.’ They say lie on the ground, so he does,” Kinsey’s attorney Hilton Napoleon said Wednesday. “He’s on his back with his hands in the air trying to convince the other guy to lie down. It doesn’t make any sense.”
...
Kinsey said when he asked the officer why he fired his weapon, the cop responded, “I don’t know.”
Here's A Concept
80 % Arms sells unfinished upper and lower receivers that are perfectly legal to buy without any kind of license. They also sell jigs for finishing them. Looks like for less than $300 you could have both the jig and an unfinished lower, which you could finish at your convenience.
You could then purchase or build any kind of upper for it, and have a working rifle that's completely legal and yet also completely off the books.
You could then purchase or build any kind of upper for it, and have a working rifle that's completely legal and yet also completely off the books.
Range 15 in the Washington Post
The 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' of the military community, they quote Nick Palmisciano as saying.
Since its mid-June debut in the U.S., the comedy has brought in close to $700,000 at the box office in fan-sponsored screenings across the country. One of those screenings was late last month at Ashburn’s Alamo Drafthouse, selling out a 135-seat theater in a day. It was at that Virginia theater that Nick Palmisciano, a West Point grad and one of the movie’s stars and producers, began to wonder if the movie had hit a nerve.I can see that. There's another round of shows scheduled in Georgia. I don't know if any of them will make, but if they do, I might like to go back and shout dialog at the screen with comrades.
Predictably, most of the audience had military ties but, to Palmisciano’s surprise, about a third of the crowd had already seen earlier screenings. As the jokes and gore ratcheted up, he sat stunned as fans began to shout out dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)