The childishness sweeping America


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

I find it incredibly depressing to repeatedly post the number of crazy, insane stories I read each day that document the descent into fascism that I see happening in the United States. So, this week, rather than post them as I found them, I have been accumulating them to post them all at once. I do this partly to save my own sanity, but more importantly to lend impact to them all. These stories illustrate the childishness and immaturity of too many Americans who unfortunately are also being given too much power and undeserved respect.

Quite simply, the behavior illustrated by all these links as that of a bunch of spoiled brats, throwing temper tantrums because they aren’t getting their way. Unfortunately, these brats also generally control our culture today, so no one is allowed to call them for what they are. If you do, you will get slammed, verbally, financially, and even violently. (Note that I once worked in academia, and do so no longer. I leave it to my readers to guess why.)

The video below the fold, from the third link above, nicely illustrates the immaturity and intolerance shown by all these stories. Watch as a tattooed student with a weird hairdo (proving she must be for diversity!) rips down the announcements of an event she simply considers “offensive.” The event was a lecture being given by Christina Hoff Sommers entitled “Where feminism went wrong.” The student is offended that anyone would suggest such a thing, and therefore it must not happen! (I guess some diversity isn’t allowed.)

I also encourage everyone to watch the video at the seventh link, second from the bottom. If you can stomach it, you will see a stark illustration of the hate that moves these children.

The worst aspect of all these stories is how this childish intolerant behavior is becoming increasingly violent and aggressive. Unfortunately, our society does not seem to know how to stop it, and thus I expect it to only grow worse in the coming years, no matter who wins this coming election.

Share

151 comments

  • wayne

    don’t want to distract from the main thread.
    This is what it looks like, when people fight back!

    Social Justice Warriors Get Owned in Epic Takedown at UMass
    : Steven Crowder, Milo Yiannopoulos, C.H. Sommers
    https://youtu.be/mR5RfspemSQ

    [Hat tip to whomever it was that turned me on to Crowder!]

  • Orion314

    if there ever was a time in history for a slave revolt, it is now…

  • wayne

    The Convention of States Project
    https://youtu.be/JdsjrVR-JUk

    It’s the last legal, non-violent way, to get out of this mess.

    It won’t be pretty, or painless, or easy. Before, during, or after. And it doesn’t end on November 9th.
    Even if Trump were turn to out to be a full-on Reagan/Lincoln combined, (which he isn’t) it still will not change the trajectory a whole lot. Even if he was an “outsider,” Mitch/Ryan own the Congress & all that entails. If they actually wanted to alter the status-quo, they had the power and the political capital to do so, they didn’t because they have no intention of ever doing so. Ever.

    They can be cooperative or obstructionist with a Trump, but one thing I am absolutely certain– none of these people will reform themselves, not in one term, not in 50 years.
    They just will NOT constrain themselves voluntarily, much less reduce their numbers & influence.
    (As Cotour has opined numerous times, “power doesn’t surrender willingly,” or words to that effect.)

    The role of the Federal Government in our lives’ needs to be fundamentally rolled-back. We can argue about how much & where, but it has to be done, now, of that we have to agree and act.
    (And unwinding these various social-programs, realistically takes 5-20 years, depending on Program type. Others are more easily erased, like free-cell phones.)
    The Federal Government is a creature of the State’s, they created the Feds & only they have the legal power under our Constitution to do something about it.

    (Do we believe in Federalism or don’t we?)

    We are already in the damn Twilight Zone, it took 100 years but we are there. Obama didn’t start it, but he did finish it & the damn CRONY’s RINO’s helped him, every step of the way, ‘cuz they are all Statist’s.

    My top 3 proposed Amendment’s, include
    1)Immediate repeal of the 17th Amendment,
    and
    2) 12 year term limits for all Federal Offices, total, all-in, President/Congress/Judiciary, combined.
    3) Ability of the States to over-ride any Congressional action or SCOTUS ruling, using the Article 5 requirements.

  • Cotour

    I looked for the Onion symbol on that “women and minorities are unable to be objective” Doctoral dissertation and I can not find it. I think that if Laura Parson did or does indeed receive her PHD. based on this thinking that it be used to end Hillary’s run for the presidency.

    And really any woman or minority from holding just about any position of responsibility.

    (Why can’t woman and minorities be objective? Can a female poster please guide me on this subject please?)

  • wodun

    The worst aspect of all these stories is how this childish intolerant behavior is becoming increasingly violent and aggressive.

    Its a continuation of over a hundred years of Democrats using systematic violence to bully, intimidate, and persecute people they hate.

  • Cotour

    As a follow up to the “Women and minorities can not be objective”:

    Probably the most intelligent person that posts here IMO is Blair Ivey (I am assuming “Blair” is a lady. You know what happens when you assume) When I read her comments a very sophisticated high IQ and precise voice fills my head. Anything she writes are the comments of a very intelligent woman and she is always very objective.

    (Blair, if your not a woman in reality I apologize, but you are in my head :)

    How the hell did that happen?

    What would top it off would be if she was black or a Latina.

  • ken anthony

    I no longer care about these reports of childish brats because by definition they are not the responsible party. The adults that allow them to be childish are. That’s you and me.

    We have a republic if we can keep it. We haven’t.

  • Keith Glass

    How to stop it ? Stop unlimited funding of student loans, no questions asked. I can remember, back in the Dark Ages of the late 1970s, when I first applied for a student loan. . . . I had to go to my bank. I had to sit down with a loan officer, who would ask to see my grades, ask what scholarships, etc, I had already gotten, and inquire on my planned major, and likely job prospects for that major. I had classmates who were turned down, based on previous grades and/or job prospects. And loans were for tuition, fees, dorm and meal-plan costs, and possibly books. No extra for spending money or “lifestyle”. . .

    Starve the beast that is the Educational-Industrial Complex, and watch the useless majors disappear. . .

  • Alinsky Rocks

    Couldn’t an argument be made that this childish behaviour is both tolerated and reinforced by the supposed adults that are supposed to be in charge? If you answer “YES” then the next question is why?

    It’s my observation, after working with liberals for years, that liberals have a low belief in the ability/capability of others. They then act in a rational way, based on that belief – in ways that seek to avoid accountability > i.e. they don’t see college students as adults, rather as grown children.

  • Colleen Cayes

    Sounds like a repeat of what Tom Wolfe described in his Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers in 1970. Somehow it’s reassuring to know this isn’t new, will probably time out when the cycle is over.

  • Childishness, yes, and also hate.

  • INSOMNiUS

    The Road to Serfdom. by Hayek

    insanity for those who haven’t seen it yet

  • Unfortunately if someone doesn’t drastically remove the various agencies, bureaus, commissions, etc. that are driving our economy into the ground and demanding more and more control over our lives, if these aren’t removed or drastically gutted, nothing will improve. The Executive is responsible for these bureaucrats, but Congress is supposed to be “overseeing” them, and they have completely failed to do so for the past 40 or so years. I’m hoping it can be done, but I’m afraid it might have reached the tipping point, and the bureaucracy has become self-sustaining with nothing to check its growth.

  • Cotour:

    This is embarrassing.

    I am most definitely not a woman. 100% red-blooded (I know because I’ve seen enough of it) American male. and not even the best example of the species.

    You’re compliments are of the highest order, and taken in the spirit in which they are offered. Thank you.

    I’ve met women who’ve shared my name, and most put an ‘e’ at the end. The confusion is natural: I’ve received women’s catalogs in the mail. You know, just an example of the patriarchy’s hetero-normative micro-aggression.

  • Cotour

    Captnerd:

    Bush jr. left the citizens of our country with about 9.5 trillion in debt, that is what in 235 or so years of operation our government debts have added up to. In just 7.5 years of the Obama administration one president along with the help of the mostly Republican Congress has added about another 9 trillion dollars.

    I will let you digest that for a moment.

    I think that when looked at in those terms we come to understand just how much in opposition our government has stood against the interests of the individual citizens and their freedoms.

    We are captive and I do not know for sure if there is really anything that can be done to reverse it. It appears that there has been a concerted effort to create debt as the ultimate tool of destruction and control and transformation. We all may just be being kept busy as time passes and the noose tightens with this spectacle that we find before us.

    Boy I hate talking like that but today I saw the debt number that Obama was allowed to create with the help of his “opposition” the United States Congress, supposedly under the control of the Republicans.

    We all may just be captive in this One World government model that grows around us. One president of a different thinking will not fix this mess. Without the application of the existing laws being applied to those at the highest levels of our government we are literally captive and impotent.

    Hillary Clinton will not be a president of no consequence, she will continue the drive down fascist road that began 30 or so years ago.

  • Cotour

    Blair (without an E) my apologies, I will have to change that voice in my head.

    (I must tell you that I laughed out loud and for a sustained period when I read your response…..too funny.)

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    Your estimate is a little low. The National Debt Clock shows that the debt is already up to $19.6 trillion, or $10.1 trillion over what Obama “inherited,” to use his early excuse for abject failure. He may already have added more to the debt than all other presidents combined.
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Please keep in mind that he believes that a debt of merely $9 trillion is unpatriotic. So how patriotic does he think himself to be?

  • Cotour

    Edward,

    What we all have to realize (I am sure that most here do) is that both of these political party’s at their highest levels have accomplished this together and it does appear to me that it is specifically designed to destroy (read raze) the U.S. economy in order to install this One World / U.N. run type form of governance. There is no real resistance.

    This seems plain as day to me, right from Bush sr. to Obama. 30 years of preparation culminating in the Hillary Clinton administration. This must never be allowed to happen.

    (we may but heads on some of the finer details, but I know that we are solidly on the same side)

  • Cotour

    A real world real time example of Strategy Over Morality (S.O.M.) and the two conversations that political leaders present to the public. One is the truth about their intentions and the other is purely for pedestrian consumption and is palatable.

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-dump-hillary-dreams-open-trade-open-borders/

    Lies, lies piled on top of lies.

  • Michael G.Gallagher

    If you’ve ever studied the history of Communist China, and especially the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, you’ll understand how completely Maoist all this social justice garbage really is. The SJWs are the modern American Left’s version of Mao’s Red Guards. In terms of attitude Trinity Carpenter would be perfectly at home in Chinese Red Guard Group circa 1966. Chinese Red Guards would beat, torture, murder, or force people to commit suicide on the basis of their ‘class’ identity. Modern American SJWs may rant and rave about race and sexual identity, but the mindset is the same. Mao’s GPCR quickly got out of hand as different political factions organized their own Red Guard groups to fight each other. Mao finally had to order the Chinese Army in to restore order, but unrest and the prosecutions based on class continued for quite awhile afterwards. Chinese universities remained closed fro ten years. China really didn’t begin to recover from the GPCR until Mao’s death in 1976 and Deng Xiaoping’s coming to power. I hate to say this, but the time may come soon when America’s widespread gun ownership will prove very handy indeed. But unlike some of the Red Guard groups back in the 1960s, the SjWs are unlikely to have access to heavy artillery.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “This must never be allowed to happen.”

    Are you thinking that committed liberal Democrat Trump would do differently?

  • Alex

    I cross the fingers for you Americans that Trump becames next US president. If it will not the case, the world have to cry!

  • Cotour

    Alex, to your point:

    A lady friend of mine who is a “feminist” rabid, Liberal Hillary supporter writes to me.

    “If Trump becomes president he will destroy the world!”

    I pointed this out to her:

    This is what is going on right now in the world, are you aware of it?

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-deploys-nuclear-capable-missiles-nato-doorstep-152729663.html

    https://sputniknews.com/military/20161008/1046124210/pentagon-nevada-nukes.html

    Trump has nothing to do with this, where do you think this came from and where do you think it will continue to go if the same people who brought us to this point are allowed to continue?

    Hillary is the establishment and she means to continue the One World / open borders model that has been going on for the last 30 years.

    These are her words, not Trumps: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-dump-hillary-dreams-open-trade-open-borders/

    Edward: Conservatives are best, Conservative Republicans who are actually Conservative are next, American Democrats are next, less desirable and will eventually become Liberals, Liberal Democrats are next and are the least desirable. All of these are basic American political animals.

    Then come: “Liberals” who are actually Leftists and don’t know it, now we are where some of the leadership of the Democrat party inhabit. Then there are “liberal” Democrats who are philosophical Marxists and have this new think blend of Neocon / One World / Border less world model going. None in this second paragraph are American animals but are mutants created in the international / U.N. laboratory of “intellectual” Sorosian supported paradigm where America as formulated by the Founders must be transmogrified into some kind of modern slave state (but everyone has Iphones). I do not know where and how to classify the RINOS within this list.

    If I have to I will accept any of the American political animals in the first paragraph. I suspect that Trump is some kind of political chimera that blends some Conservative foundation with some social Liberal manifestations (and he loves cats apparently).

    I hope this helps you.

  • Cotour

    I omitted this little item from my list of accomplishments of the establishment:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-9000000000000

    Just a minor detail.

  • INSOMNiUS

    responding to: wayne October 6, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Is that where Triggly made her debut?

  • wayne

    INSOMNiUS–
    Good eye-balls!
    This short clip from Campus Reform puts it in real-time context.

    Trigglypuff 3 camera view
    https://youtu.be/7hdQsEyION4

  • Edward

    “Edward: … If I have to I will accept any of the American political animals in the first paragraph. I suspect that Trump is some kind of political chimera that blends some Conservative foundation with some social Liberal manifestations. I hope this helps you.”

    I’m not sure what you think your opinions and what you will accept is supposed to help me with, but Trump has no concept of what conservativism is. He believes that conservatives want to “conserve things” (his words) and get emotional about the military. Does he think liberals want to bulldoze the National Parks in order to build hotels? Even liberals get emotional about the military, but their emotions are hatred rather than love and respect.

    On the other hand, this explains why you accept liberal Democrats, such as Bloomberg, who infiltrate the Republican Party and make it look bad. “See,” the Democrats get to say, “all Republicans are evil, just like we told you all along.”

    Even now, Trump gets to make all Republicans look bad, because he said something, two decades ago, as a staunch liberal Democrat, able to get away with any sexist, racist, homophobic statement, along with all the other similar statements that liberal Democrats get away with making. But does anyone point out that it was liberal Democrat Trump who said that? No. Of course not. They pretend that he was Republican-through-and-through Trump who said it, proving that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are the racists in the US.

    Accepting evil into your party does your party ill, not good. This is not the side that I am on; I prefer that whatever political party that I join be good and stick to its principles. No wonder your party can no longer win the presidency. It has lost its principles, and you even pretend that there are no principles in politics, allowing you to accept evil and allowing evil to destroy your party.

    Wake up. Bed bugs got into bed with your party, and now they are harming it and are terribly hard to get rid of. You may want to get rid of them before the Republican Party starts limiting speech, like the childishness that is sweeping the rest of America.

  • Garry

    Related indirectly: Last night I discovered and watched a 1995 adaption of Kurt Vonnegut’s short story Harrison Bergeron, about a dystopian future where the new Constitution declares that not all men are created equal, but it’s the government’s job to make them equal. For example, if someone is physically strong, the Handicapper General makes him carry weights, so that nobody else feels weaker. People who are more intelligent have to wear bands that zap their brains with signals to interrupt their train of thought, so that nobody else is less intelligent.

    When my kids were little they went to a Catholic elementary school, and their favorite day of the year was Field Day, where they competed in all kinds of athletic events and won ribbons. We later switched them to public elementary school, and they came home from public school Field Day very disappointed, since it was designed so that everybody “wins” and gets a participation ribbon. That inspired me to read them the original short story aloud. Years later, I was (happily) shocked to see that the public school makes them read the story in high school.

    The movie expands the premise to give a detailed depiction of a whole society, governed by a secret group of elitists who don’t have any artificial handicaps, but must keep the masses ignorant and handicapped. It even talks about an event called The Great Recession that changed America fundamentally and led to the Second American Revolution (the film was made in 1995).

    It’s very well written and thought provoking, with a lot of humor thrown in to keep it entertaining and light. It’s the best movie I’ve seen in a long time, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the extreme version of what may be at the end of our country’s current trajectory.

    You can watch it on Youtube for free, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBcpuBRUdNs

  • Cotour

    Edward:

    This might have driven you over the edge.

    http://nypost.com/2015/06/16/trump-wants-oprah-as-his-2016-running-mate/

    The Republican party deserves exactly what its getting because of their double dealing and selling the American people and the Constitution down the river of history. Only the people that can fix this and fortunately or unfortunately Trump is their vehicle to attempt that fix.

    Garry: That sounds like a very instructive movie, its parallels to today are on the money.

  • Edward

    That is terribly insulting, Cotour. Just because I disagree with your myopic view does not mean that I have been driven over the edge (why you think that article would drive anyone over the edge is unclear). If there was an edge gone over, it was when the Democratic Party hijacked the Republican Party, and it was the Republican Party that went past the tipping point and over the edge when it accepted liberal Democrats to run the party.

    Cotour, you are part of the reason that the Republican Party is getting what you say it deserves, because you accepted the liberal Democrats. But then again, that is why you voted for Trump instead of anyone who could have fixed the party or America. You voted for him out of spite, not because he could or would fix anything.

    Trump is not a vehicle for any fix. He is a big government person, who believes that only government can fix the problems created by government, and that fix is to add even more government (with its associated new problems). He believes this mainly because he has used the corruption of modern US and local government to fix his own specific business problems. Even as you voted for him in the primary, his proposals all favored big government, government coercion, and dependence upon government.

    The people who think that Trump can fix this do not need Vonnegut’s handicaps.

    More and bigger government is not the solution; it is the problem. Since you are willing to accept liberal Democrats as part of your party, you are part of the reason that the party double deals and sells out the American people and the Constitution. You didn’t only allow it, you invited it into the party.

    Now you try to shut me up by suggesting that I have gone over the edge (or that I skipped required medication, or other similarly insulting statements), and earlier, in another thread, someone tried to shut me up by suggesting that what I say is slander. Somehow, to those in the Republican Party, disagreement is becoming a problem rather than a means to a solution. Next, the party will be assigning safe spaces so that the liberal Democrats who have infiltrated will not have to listen to other opinions or ideas — they will get to think that theirs is the only correct thinking.

    Republicans, or maybe just pro-Trumpists, are already rejecting free speech, especially as Trump wants it to be rejected — no one may say anything negative about him. Next thing you know, Republicans will be saying that disagreeing with them is sedition.

    Cotour, stop suggesting that I and those who see the big picture are the problem (or have a mental problem). You are the one who accepts the anti-Republicans into your party. Look in the mirror to find the root cause of the Democratization (big D) of the Republican Party. You and your “Republican” Bloomberg.

    Your shame is not transferable.

  • INSOMNiUS

    Thanks for the link, Garry.

  • wayne

    Garry–
    Yes, thanks for that link, I was unaware of the ’95 version & am downloading it.
    (PBS did a short adaptation in the 1970’s, along with 2-3 other short stories of his.)

    It is an interesting story, but I’m going to have to counter-differ with your interpretation that’s it’s satire against egalitarianism/socialism.

    It’s mainly a critique against how Conservatives (in the eye’s of the left) “misunderstand ‘levelling,’ and socialism.”
    Vonnegut is not against radical-egalitarianism, not by a long shot– he’s against how the Right portrays egalitarianism, which in his eyes is “not complimentary.”

    Of course, in Vonnegut’s World, socialism = utopia.

    Don’t forget, Vonnegut was a hard-core leftist & he didn’t change stripes just to pen Harrison Bergeron.
    It’s been a good 20 years since I read it (& I can’t quote you any of nuanced material) and while I definitely enjoy Vonnegut as literature, if they are teaching any of his material to your children, they are not (necessarily) doing it as “literature.”

  • Cotour

    Edward:

    What ever your logic or rational is, I never want Hillary to be empowered by the people of America for the many, many reasons that I and many others have enumerated. Trump, like it or not right now is the only person that stands between that happening or not happening. Point fingers, wring your hands, contemplate your navel, be insulted I do not care.

    Figure it out.

  • wayne

    It was the people in New York, who elected Hillary to the Senate. (and DJT helped her.)

  • Cotour

    And now he opposes her and is the only human being that can prevent her from becoming the president of the United States.

    Your point?

  • Garry

    Wayne.

    I’m aware of Vonnegut’s views, but I think he tried to be too subtle with this story, and it contains truths he probably didn’t intend it to contain. There’s an analogy to (some Republican Andrew mentioned) using the term “climate change” to try to convey the other side of the hysteria, and the left grabbing it to further fuel the hysteria.

    The full-length movie adaptation expands on his basic premise and is eerily predictive in some ways. I’m generally not a fan of fiction as telling truth, which is why I enjoyed this movie so much (in addition to its entertainment value).

  • wayne

    Hillary was just a first-lady, until New York elected her, twice, to the Senate. She had never been elected to anything, until the people in NY empowered her.
    Then New York voted for Gillibrand, twice, in huge numbers. (Schumer & Gillibrand, NY’s gift to the Senate.)
    That would be those “NY Values” in play.

    Mitch/Ryan/Priebus…they run the RNC and the GOP.
    They would have a made a deal with anyone to derail people like Cruz, Lee, Rand, etc. anything to wipe out the Conservative faction.
    So they made a deal with DJT, their new found best-friend.

    Now, it is what it has become.

  • wayne

    Garry–
    You might enjoy this–

    Kurt Vonnegut & Joseph Heller
    War Experience: Battle of the Bulge, Bombing Raids, VE Day
    (1995 C-Span, 50th anniversary VE Day)
    https://youtu.be/MEZTCVv_MiA

  • Cotour

    Your history histrionics serves no purpose related to the subject at hand.

    Trump still at the moment is the only human being that stands in Hillary’s way. That is the reality of the situation that we find ourselves, like it or not. Do you reject reality? Do you hide from reality? Ted Cruz gritted his teeth a recognized reality.

    (As an aside, I will assume that there will be further revelations about Trumps behavior to be revealed.)

  • Phill O

    After watching some of the press. debate, I am convinced the political correctness is the key to this election. Truth, justice and safety do not matter to the majority. Welcome Hillary to the White House and say goodbye (forever) to the freedoms you once had. I do not claim to be a prophet even if this prediction comes true; I am just a realist.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “What ever your logic or rational is, I never want Hillary to be empowered by the people of America for the many, many reasons that I and many others have enumerated.

    This does not explain why you chose to vote for the one person, in the Republican primary, who could not beat Clinton. Your kind of thinking does explain why the Republican Party keeps getting away with moving so far to the left that a liberal Democrat RINO infiltrator is what you now consider to be your only hope of keeping his friend and daughter’s wedding guest from being empowered by the people of America.

    My logic and rationale is better than yours. You have only emotion and personal desperation on your side. You refuse logic, and you rationalize rather than reason out your problem.

    You have orchestrated this whole mess with your poor choices.

    You long had me sold that Clinton should never become president, but you have also managed to further sell me that Trump should likewise never become president, based upon the many, many reasons that you and many others have enumerated.

    Only a fool would vote for someone whose election would be the equivalent of being shot in the ass. The wise vote for the person whose election would not be that equivalent. I had this figured out months ago, but even after those many months of teaching you of your folly and complicity, you refuse to admit your own mistakes, nor are you willing to try to correct them.

    You try to convince me to vote for your terrible choice, but I gave up trying to convince you to vote for my much better choice; that would be a hopeless cause. What you think are convincing arguments are actually doing the opposite of what you claim to want.

    Grow up, grow a brain, and accept the reality. The reality of the situation in which you find yourself, like it or not, is that the mess is all your making; you put the loser Trump up against Clinton. That you cannot find enough people to violate their principles, make matters worse for themselves, and pull you out of your mess is on you. That your mess is so bad that it takes millions of people to rescue you is also your fault.

    I have been adamant about not voting for tyranny, but your arguments merely increase my conviction that Trump is tyranny, not liberty. This is because there are no possible arguments that Trump is liberty, thus worth voting for.

    You continue to try to guilt me into accepting your shame. Point fingers, wring your hands, contemplate your navel, continue to insult, but it gets you nowhere except closer to a Clinton presidency.

    That you continue to use the same losing strategies and tactics (apparently expecting different results) suggests that you are not as anti-Clinton as you profess.

  • Cotour

    ” but I gave up trying to convince you to vote for my much better choice; that would be a hopeless cause.”

    Did you at some point reveal your secret candidate and I did not read it? If you did please restate it.

    I am happy and very confident in what ever I wrote in regards to this election. Hell, even Mark Levin now agrees with me and has stated what I stated many, many, many months ago. I saw who was going to be the candidate long, long ago, you just do not like who it turned out to be. (would you have preferred it better if I told you what you wanted to hear? Now you know I would never do that. Suck it up and get over yourself.)

    Why don’t you call Mark and tell him of my culpability in Trump becoming the Republican candidate. He would calmly inform you about what I have been telling you for months. Good luck with that conversation, I suspect that it will not go well for you.

    And PS: You can tell Mark where to find me if he wants a consultation..

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “Did you at some point reveal your secret candidate and I did not read it?

    What would be the point? By the time I had a secret candidate, you were already far, far beyond hope; already being hopeless, helpless, and hapless.

    You wrote: “I am happy and very confident in what ever I wrote in regards to this election.

    A false confidence of an intellectual elitist?

    You wrote: “Hell, even Mark Levin now agrees with me

    Does that mean that he has finally given me permission to vote for Trump?

    You wrote: “you just do not like who it turned out to be.

    I have always been clear that I did not want the Republicans to choose a liberal Democrat. You, on the other hand, have explicitly stated that you accept liberal Democrats, thus you are the reason that you think the Republican Party deserves what it is getting. And now you tell us that you are happy and very confident in being that reason.

    You wrote: “Why don’t you call Mark

    Didn’t you just tell me that he agrees with you? So, what would be the point.

    Just because you hold Mark in high regard does not mean that everyone does. You continue to demand that I do stupid, poorly thought out things, from my vote, to my phone calls, to feeling guilt for your choice of actions.

  • cotour

    “I have always been clear that I did not want the Republicans to choose a liberal Democrat.”

    So what?

    What you wanted did not happen, now you must deal with what you have to work with.
    (and you suggest I grow up?) Is that how you run your life? You don’t get what you want and the world comes to an end?

    “Just because you hold Mark in high regard does not mean that everyone does.”

    Yelling and screaming and high pitched voice aside, you do not hold Mark Levin in high regard concerning the discussion of politics and the Constitution?

    And now whats wrong with him? (besides the listed annoying traits)

    I still suggest a nice bottle of wine for you, you will certainly be needing something in the coming weeks. A nice Malbec maybe, not too expensive and it is very drinkable.

  • Phill O

    I have been trying to answer the question about why the liberals are more cohesive than the conservatives. For instance, the discussions on this board argue over the GOP nominee while the Dems are behind Hillary.

    My conclusion is that conservatives have an ethical base that is missing in liberals. Liberals have a mindset that as long as I get what I want, they can do whatever. That is how they bought off Bernie. Just let Bernie try to get the free tuition he has been able to promise! If you can not buy a person off (according to liberal theology) intimidate. Dig up as much dirt as possible, state it in a moral outrage tone and conservatives back off. It all stems from a lack of a moral base or framework.

    I hope that the American people can see through the BS and that conservatives can unite to defeat Hillary. This election will show where the moral base of people really lies.

    There is the group that believes if they vote for some one other than Trump (a pretty flawed candidate) they are on a higher moral ground than those who vote for the guy. Well, I can relate to this thought process, except when I look at the alternative who will win.

    Remember my argument that the GOP and the mainstream politicians are funded by the same folk (at least many) as Hillary. Would the attacks that are centered on Trump, be pushed to Cruz if he had won? ABSOLUTELY His character would be assassinated as only the ethically depraved can do. There is only one person who lead an acceptable life and he was crucified after his character was attempted to be assassinated.

    We have the Wildrose party in Alberta and it can best be described as a TEA Party, party. It was formed because the conservatives were becoming way too liberal. My member of the legislature (MLA is provincially elected) I do not like. She was brought from the green party. Now she is competing for the most conservative riding in Alberta. This is what is taught in debating— being able to argue for a point you may not agree with. However, experience has shown that if people argue for that side long enough, they become believers. So be it with Trump; and I will vote for the Wildrose in my ridding.

    Personally, I hold little hope (save a miracle) for Trump and the continued existence of conservatism world wide.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “So what?

    Read the rest of the paragraph. You have reverted to pretense of stupidity. Again. It is one of the things that you do when you lose your argument.

    You wrote: “you do not hold Mark Levin in high regard concerning the discussion of politics and the Constitution?

    I do not listen to him, so I do not know his opinions enough to hold him in high regard to whatever nonsense you are using him as an example of what actions you think that I should take.

    Here you go again. You lost the argument, so now you change the subject to Levin’s discussions of politics and the Constitution rather than the topic of agreeing with you. Another of the things that you do.

    You wrote: “And now whats wrong with him? (besides the listed annoying traits)

    What is wrong with whom (and what listed annoying traits of his)?

    If you mean Trump, one of the many things that is wrong with him is that he said that Clinton’s liberal Democrat proposals do not go far enough. Hence, Trump is worse than Clinton. He strongly believes in liberal Democratic solutions rather than conservative ones. Thus, when listening comes to action, he will not heed the words of his conservative advisers any more than Clinton would — Trump is very egotistical and believes that he is always right even more than you believe that you are always right. That would be another thing wrong with him.

    If you mean Levin, what is wrong with him, according to your report, is that he has abandoned his principles, too. You and he are among the reasons why I bailed out of the Republican Party (I yelled “EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! as I pressed the submit button when I reregistered to vote — not in the Republican Party). The party became a branch of the Democratic Party because of these kinds of sellouts.

    You wrote: “I still suggest a nice bottle of wine for you

    Reading you after your own bottle of wine, I am off that mind-altering substance forever. It hasn’t helped you rationalize or cope with your poor decisions, so I doubt it will help me cope with living with your poor decisions, either. But I can understand why you would want to become an alcoholic under either Clinton’s or Trump’s regime. Alcoholism has looked like a reasonable option all through Obama’s regime, too.

  • Edward

    Phil O wrote: “I have been trying to answer the question about why the liberals are more cohesive than the conservatives.”

    The liberals are more cohesive than the conservatives because conservatives believe in individual freedom, and liberals believe in central control over everything, including thought and expression.

    Conservatives believe that out of the discussion of multiple ideas put forth by a large number of thinking people, the best idea can be determined, yet liberals believe that a small committee is best suited for determining the liberal ideas and ideals of the day and everyone else should follow unquestioningly.

    Conservatives believe in the United States as described by Alexis de Tocqueville, and liberals believe in the world as described by Karl Marx: a ruling class taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his need. Marx failed to explain what happened to the difference between the bounty taken and the dregs distributed.

    North Korea is a good example of liberal thinking.
    The Only Black Lives Matter group is a good example of liberal thinking.
    Safe spaces are a good example of liberal thinking.

    The variety of ideas discussed on Behind the Black are good examples of conservative thinking.

  • Cotour

    Edward,

    You are really losing it.

    And I suggested you have A glass of wine, not turn into an alcoholic.

    Is there ever any moderation in your thinking? Maybe that is something for you to ponder.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “And I suggested you have A glass of wine, not turn into an alcoholic.

    No, you suggested a nice bottle of wine. A whole bottle. Not “A glass of wine.” Perhaps you need to cut back a little (or a lot), as the wine is messing with your memory and ability to reread your own words or read the exact quote that I included with my response. One of us is “really losing it,” but it isn’t me.

    Once again, you lost another arguments and are now trying to change the subject. I’m not sure what you mean by moderation in my thinking, because you are the one insisting that Republicans and conservatives sell out to the liberal Democrats, which does not sound moderate, to my way of thinking. I would suggest that you ponder that, but this is futile, as it is not the first time that I have pointed it out.

    Or the second.

    Or the third.

    Or the tenth.

    Or the twentieth.

  • Cotour

    Edward,

    I state again, I am very comfortable and confident in the *objective* analysis that I have written on the subject of this election, everything. You just don’t like it. I just told you why Cruz would not make it. Don’t shoot the messenger. If only the world worked like we wanted it to work, we would all be so much happier.

    Q: If you go to a store and buy a bottle of wine (I suggest a nice Malbec from Argentina for you, it will be about $10.00) and bring it home and pour yourself a glass (one glass) and enjoy it, is that some kind of alien thought to you?

  • Edward

    Don’t shoot the messenger.

    Take your own advice, Cotour. I have explained why Trump is as bad as or worse than Clinton. You just don’t like it. So you shoot the messenger.

    I have not harped about Cruz. That is your harp. You cannot get over not choosing Cruz, because you have discovered that your choice cannot make it and that you were wrong about why Cruz can’t make it. Clinton should be the easiest Democrat to beat since Carter, but instead you have to beg for people to abandon their principles to bail you out. No one had to do that in order to get Reagan elected over Carter.

    Now you are too embarrassed to admit your mistake, but not too embarrassed to blame others for it.

    You either regret not choosing Cruz or you actually are comfortable with the Republican Party running a liberal Democrat.

    Q: If you go to a store and buy a bottle of wine (I suggest a nice Malbec from Argentina for you, it will be about $10.00) and bring it home and pour yourself a glass (one glass) and enjoy it, is that some kind of alien thought to you?

    As I already stated, you have put me off wine forever. You are only digging a deeper hole about that wine thing. Having just watched the movie “Bottle Shock” last night (what a coincidence), I will stick to the good stuff: California wines. Oops. Ignore that last, as I have been put off wines forever.

  • Phill O

    {Edward
    October 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    The liberals are more cohesive than the conservatives because conservatives believe in individual freedom, and liberals believe in central control over everything, including thought and expression}

    This argument should have conservatives more cohesive, when the argument is fallowed to its end.

    Sorry, but your answer does not make sense to me.

    I still think it relates to a moral base lacking on the left. There is no need to argue if all ideas have equal merit. Now that sounds Islamic!.

  • Cotour

    Edward:

    If you won’t pay attention to me then pay attention to PHILL O.

    He, like many others get it. Hillary Clinton must never become the president of the United States, how ever that works itself out.

  • Cotour

    Behold Edward: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-gop-229653

    The catalyst that has the potential to fulfill your political dreams (as crazy as that sounds to you).

    He stands between the Republican / RINO political party that we all have come to despise and some kind of rational way in dealing with those who stand to take over the country and the world with their open borders, diminished Constitution and U.N. world wide agendas. Again, as crazy as that sounds to you.

    Einstein said that if you keep doing the same thing and expect different results that that is the definitions of insanity. We must think and act differently than we have been thinking and acting, and this candidate is the answer to those problems at this moment in time. As crazy as that sounds to you.

    It was crazy, it is crazy now, and its going to get crazier.

  • Garry

    “Einstein said. . . .”

    And Batman pondered whether or not the enemy of my enemy is my friend (I say that generally, he is not, and we should never rationalize allying with someone just because he is the enemy of our enemy).

    No mater how badly Trump wants to build his wall, it won’t get done if Congress doesn’t want it, and/or doesn’t see it as helping them somehow.

    This is a good example of Trump being a liberal in his approach towards power: he’s going to build a huge, expensive wall, because, dammit, he’s (hypothetically) the President, and he thinks it’s best for us (whether or not it is best is an entirely different issue).

    Any guesses on how that would turn out, assuming that Trump becomes President and Congress decides to build the wall? My guess is it never gets completely done, and what does get done is highly defective, while tens of billions of dollars (probably more than that, actually) line the pockets of big construction companies/construction unions, and that’s not even considering the effects of the political horsetrading that gets done to get the bill passed. Call it the earthbound version of the Orion capsule.

    As I’ve written often, I’m going to don my hazmat suit on election day and vote for Trump. That doesn’t mean I don’t see his flaws, and I respect Edward’s (and anyone else’s) decision to not vote for Trump.

  • Cotour

    This is the most relevant thing in your post and it demonstrates that you understand that you must prioritize your moral and political comfortability :

    “As I’ve written often, I’m going to don my hazmat suit on election day and vote for Trump. ”

    The wall is to me is a non issue, it is at this point a distraction, what is THEE issue? Hillary Clinton must never become president. Plain, simple and easy to understand. We deal with what must be dealt with after that item is crossed off the list.

    And I respect anyone not being able to vote for Trump for the many reasons that exist, and still the prime goal must be achieved. How is that reconciled?

  • Garry

    I wouldn’t say I understand; I have a gut feeling of what I’m most comfortable with, but am by no means sure that I’m right, or that Edward and others are wrong.

    In fact, Edward is at least as likely to be right about this as I am; faced with the impossible task of reconciling the issues you mentioned, I freely admit that I’m relying on instinct/emotion rather than reason at this point. I do listen to my instinct, but I know that it is not infallible.

    And I know that Edward is right about what decision should have been made in the primaries; if that decision had not been bungled, we would not be in this irreconcilable dilemma.

  • wayne

    Garry– good stuff.

  • Cotour

    Go with your gut.

  • Garry

    An analogy:

    We’re all on the hospital board, in charge of choosing the new head doctor.

    We know that the “other people” on our board favor Nurse Ratched – she runs things in an orderly way, on the surface she’s personable with the patients, the board members are willing to look the other way at her abuses, and they really, really want to appoint the first woman head doctor in the history of our hospital.

    We have 2 candidates on “our side,” neither one of them perfect. Dr. House is disliked by his colleagues, but really understands medicine well and makes good decisions. One the other hand, we have Dr. Kevorkian, who goes out of his way to bully people into accepting things his way, even though he shamelessly (even proudly) violates the Hippocratic Oath. Still, many think he’s charismatic, and has a better chance of beating Nurse Ratched, who must be beaten at all costs!

    In our runoff, Dr. Kevorkian wins “our side.”

    I’m not particularly fond of any of the candidates, but, given a choice, I would choose House – he’s well versed in medicine, and despite being unpopular with his colleagues, I think he’ll make the right decisions.

    Facing the prospect of Nurse Ratched being in charge, I’m going to don my hazmat suit and vote for Kevorkian – my gut tells me he’s toxic, but maybe if we surround him with the right staff, he’ll back off on the assisted suicide. Besides, maybe all 130 people he assisted, including the Alzheimer’s patients, really were of sound mind and made an informed, conscious choice, without any influence of outside pressure or bouts of depression. Perhaps Kevorkian has some redeeming qualities, and can be swayed.

    Cotour, on the other hand, pushed for Kevorkian from the start, because, in his eyes, Kevorkian was the only one who could defeat Nurse Ratched; House had no chance at all, even if he was better qualified. In his efforts to sway me and others, Cotour has compared Kevorkian to Hippocrates himself, then to Florence Nightingale.

    Edward wants no part of Nurse Ratched or Dr. Kevorkian, and can’t bring himself to vote for either one.

    *******************************

    I’ve been racking my brain to come up with good stand-ins for the candidates; I’ve never watched House, so he may not be the best choice here; I tried to come up with someone, like Cruz, who is disliked by his colleagues but competent.

    Can anyone come up with better alternatives? Personally, I think Nurse Ratched is the perfect choice, and I built this analogy around her.

  • wayne

    Garry–
    again, good stuff. (I’ll have to think about your character stand-ins a little more, but good stuff nonetheless.)

    I understand Edwards point of view, perfectly. And I won’t give him any hassle whomever he supports or is against, ‘cuz I know he’s pondered this extensively for month’s.
    Also extremely sympathetic to Garry’s perspective. (I’ll be using the iron-man suit on this one.)

    Cotour– you’ve been full-on DJT from the get go. (just sayin’, not criticizing.)

    He’s not HRC, but he’s not whom you project him to be. (and I know we’ve been round-n-round on all this & we’ll just have to agree to differ.)

    The Country has already transmogrified in large measure, DJT is not the savior, and November 8 is not salvation-day.

    http://www.conventionofstates.com/

  • Cotour

    You are racking your brain with confusing and complicated analogies when you needn’t. You need to rationalize what you need to do, I am fine with that.

    Hillary Clinton from what information that I can reasonably gather is a philosophical Leftist and internationalist, intends to push a border less America ala George Soros Open Society Foundation agenda, is a chronic liar, is a proven threat to American security, will drive continue to drive the un Constitutional Obamacare into a single payer government system, will further empower and legitimize organizations like Black Lives Matter, will continue to flood the country with illegals to ensure Democrat leadership in perpetuity, will appoint Leftist sympathetic Supreme Court Justices and will be a real and serious threat to the Second Amendment, will continue this two tiered justice system where no one in the leadership sphere need worry about the law of the land, will continue to use the IRS as a political weapon, will use the DOJ as a political weapon, will continue to use the complicit FBI as a political weapon, just to name a few basic issues. To say nothing of the media being in the bag for her in such a blatantly and disturbing a way. These are just off the top of my head.

    Now put any other candidate up against her and choose, even Trump. (and IMO Trump truly has potential to actually make fundamental changes in the structure of our plainly corrupted government. How do I know that? Most empowered leadership level politicians despise him, the U.N. despises him, etc. That’s the tell, what they fear the most is what must be at this level of the usurping of the peoples rights and the Constitution. We the American people are captive slaves to these corrupt political party’s. This is modern slavery, modern slavery deserves revolution at the ballot box!).

    I quite honestly would strongly argue to vote for Al Sharpton over her.

    Hillary and her cadre is interested in trading away American sovereignty and is a demonstrable un American subversive, if you consider Trump at least an American there is your justification. I consider Trump at least an American concerned about America.

    This is a very simple equation, everyone, please stop confusing yourselves. This is politics for all the marbles. Politics is the dirtiest and filthiest game that human beings play, at this level there is no morality, there is only winning and pushing agenda.

    Stop applying morality that you live by to this political activity, it does not apply.

  • Cotour

    “you’ve been full-on DJT from the get go”

    I just understand the potentials of each candidate and how confused and outraged the public is. One of these presidential candidates has two potentials, the other has only one potential.

    Its as simple as that. And your fatalistic take on this election may be a sign of depression, and I understand it. But you have to shake it off and at least understand that the country must be given the opportunity to right itself.

    For the people to empower the Hillary machine based on moral outrage grounds when leadership does not play by moral rules is to accept the dissolution of our country as we know it based on two sets of rules when only one set of rules applies. Upon empowering her she will rightly feel justified to execute her agenda. I do not like the agenda.

  • Cotour

    USA Today survey: Top Ten Fears.

    Here are the top 10 fears of 2016:

    Corruption of government officials (same top fear as 2015) — 60.6%
    Terrorist attacks — 41%
    Not having enough money for the future — 39.9%
    Being a victim of terror — 38.5%
    Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition — 38.5%
    People I love dying — 38.1%
    Economic or financial collapse — 37.5%
    Identity theft — 37.1%
    People I love becoming seriously ill — 35.9%
    The Affordable Health Care Act/”Obamacare” — 35.5%

    The general public knows intuitively what is going on, but they are being effectively confused by those who need them confused in order to retain and acquire power.

  • wayne

    New York elected HRC, twice.

  • wayne

    DJT is “potentially” anything you want him to be…

    Cult Of Personality
    https://youtu.be/7xxgRUyzgs0

  • Cotour

    What is your point when you site this historical fact?

  • Cotour

    Yes, DJT has two potentials, one good and one bad. Hillary has one potential, bad.

    Now understanding your choices try to make a reasonable choice between the two.

    One has both good and bad potential and one has only bad. Would you chose to guarantee a bad result?

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “Hillary Clinton must never become the president of the United States, how ever that works itself out.

    The same logic works for Trump; he must never become the president of the United States. The details differ, but the end result of either of them becoming president is the same.

    Mark Levin may agree with Cotour, but millions of conservatives agree with me.

    It isn’t that I haven’t paid attention to Cotour, but I disagree with his conclusions, since his arguments also point to the necessity that Trump also never become president.

    Cotour wrote: “The catalyst that has the potential to fulfill your political dreams (as crazy as that sounds to you).

    I’m not sure how the linked article is the catalyst to fulfill my political dreams; apparently Cotour has no idea what I dream but imagines that he does.

    Cotour wrote: “Einstein said that if you keep doing the same thing and expect different results that that is the definitions of insanity.

    Which I implied when pointing out that Cotour keeps doing the same thing expecting a different result from me.

    Cotour wrote: “We must think and act differently than we have been thinking and acting

    Except that voting for the RINO is the same action that we have been taking for more than a decade while getting bad results. Now Cotour wants us to continue voting for RINOs but he expects a different result, this time. As Cotour says, it is insanity. If a liberal Democrat is the answer to the Republican Party’s problems, then the party is over. Good thing I bailed out before the crash and burn, but it was a good party before the liberal Democrat RINOs arrived and took over.

    Be careful with intuition. If something feels or seems to be wrong, it probably is, but confidence tricksters use the converse to gain the confidence of their marks to trick them out of money, property, or other valuables (such as presidential positions and political party principles). Just because Clinton is the wrong choice does not make Trump a better choice. He could even be a worse choice, gaining people’s confidence for his own ends and gain.

    Cotour wrote: “what is THEE issue? Hillary Clinton must never become president.

    This myopic focus is why the party is over. Rather than see and fix the big problem, fixating on a small problem to the exclusion of all else will result in disaster.

    Speaking of analogies, here is a case where the big picture was ignored due to focusing on a small portion of the picture:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401
    The crash occurred as a result of the entire flight crew becoming preoccupied with a burnt-out landing gear indicator light, and failing to notice the autopilot had inadvertently been disconnected. As a result, while the flight crew was distracted with the indicator problem, the aircraft gradually lost altitude and crashed.

    This distraction with Clinton is the same kind of preoccupation that results in fiasco. The country is in serious trouble, and the one political party that could fix it is being taken over by the disease.

    Today I drove my mother to see a friend of hers who has terminal cancer (four hours each way), and she is another allegory for the country; she is bedridden in her living room with her beautiful view, but she is in bad shape and unable to take visitors for more than an hour. Her immune system makes her sleep a lot, but it is fighting a hopeless cause.

    Rather than fix the problem, Cotour invites even more of the problem to take even more control of the Republican Party. The cancer of the liberal Democrat RINOs is deep in the Republican Party, and if it is to be cured, it must be done before it is too late. Otherwise, the Democrats will have no opposition, and the Democratic (big D) cancer in the country will kill the country, too.

    This is part of the bigger picture that Cotour will not see.

  • Cotour

    “Mark Levin may agree with Cotour, but millions of conservatives agree with me.”

    Even Mark Levin and some of those millions have been pushed to make these decisions to choose, and he has chosen. And I agree, the Republican party has now been proven to be nothing more than an accommodator of the more organized and cohesive “Democrat” party (read: Marxist /Leftist internationalist anti American controlled political party posing as an American political party). The Republican party is over.

    The “Democrat” party is reaping the the harvest from their multi decade investment in a strategy to dominate the political field. They have created dependency on government and have actively controlled the education system and have taught the children of the country nothing about their heritage so they are unable to “see”. Job well done Ted Kennedy.

    This is not ideal but its what we are presented to work with.

    Was crazy, is crazy now, and is going to get crazier.

  • wayne

    Kirsten Gillibrand –first elected to the 20th congressional district in NY.
    Elected Senator for NY twice, special election & general.
    Overwhelming margin, both times.

    These are the people that gave us HRC.
    She was an unelected spouse of an ex-president, until NY “empowered her.”

  • Phill O

    Another prospective:

    The full Palin has been applied only to Trump. Again, consider the character assassination of Trump. This is because, he represents the only credible opposition for winning the White House. Remember what they did to GWB. In the last weeks dropped the bombshell about his DUI. Really, that had the affect to almost cost the election. Focusing on a minor issue! Consider Ted Kennedy (his dead secretary) and Bill Clinton (his many rapes). Give me a break. Only a fool falls for these tactics!

    If the “other” candidates were a threat, their character would be assassinated big time!!!!!!!!! Their presence in the election (polls indicate) puts a downward pressure on Hillary and the dems, so there is some merit to them.

    To say you are on the higher moral ground supporting say Johnson is not logical because there will be an incredible amount of dirt to dig up on him, if required by the dems. It just has not happened yet. There will be so much dug up, he will become toxic!

    Cotour “The “Democrat” party is reaping the the harvest from their multi decade investment in a strategy to dominate the political field. They have created dependency on government and have actively controlled the education system and have taught the children of the country nothing about their heritage so they are unable to “see”. Job well done Ted Kennedy.”

    How true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Conclusion: Vote for Trump (even if it requires a Hazmat suit) because Hillary represents the bigger threat to freedom. If a higher moral ground is required (than the Hazmat suit) consider again the people each candidate has placed around themselves. Trump wins the logic hands down. The Hillary people (Bernie Al Gore) are diametrically opposed to “TRUE” conservative ideals!

    Also remember all Regan was, was an actor! This was how many perceived him at first.

  • Cotour

    And what is your point other than stating the known strategic history of the rise of Hillary Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand?

    I don’t know if you are aware of this fact but New York State is mostly dominated by Democrats. And to top it off, they tend to vote for Democrats.

    Why do you waste your time worrying about what has happened? Its what is going to happen is what you need to be concerned with. Learn from history, but do not worry about what has happened.

  • wayne

    How many times DID you vote for Gillibrand?
    She won with damn near 70%.

  • wayne

    “New York State is mostly dominated by Democrats. And to top it off, they tend to vote for Democrats.”

    They will this time around. They vote for communists, RINO’s, and billionaires, at an alarming rate as well.

    “The “Democrat” party is reaping the harvest from their multi decade investment in a strategy to dominate the political field.”

    I’ll ask the same question back at you–
    “Why do you waste your time worrying about what has happened?”

    The only thing DJT is, is he’s not HRC. And that’s not saying a whole lot.

  • Cotour

    Zero times, I despise the woman, but not as much as I despise Hillary, who I also never voted for.

    What does this historical obsession of yours have to do with the national presidential election?

    You have other things to be thinking about other than what has happened.

  • Cotour

    “The only thing DJT is, is he’s not HRC. And that’s not saying a whole lot.”

    That is plenty for me. Why?

    Because Hillary Clinton must never become the president of the United States. You should catch on soon, I seriously know this is difficult for you.

  • Edward

    Phill O wrote: “Conclusion: Vote for Trump (even if it requires a Hazmat suit) because Hillary represents the bigger threat to freedom.

    She may represent the bigger short term threat to freedom, but Trump is the bigger long term threat. Big picture, guys.

    A Trump win will result in feelings of justification and vindication those who are now selling out America’s future by focusing only on the small picture: “Never Hillary.” Thus, the tactic of accepting liberal Democrats will look like the correct tactic. The battle will be won, but the distraction will lose the war and will lose liberty for Americans and for the rest of the world.

    The error was plain for everyone to see when bush abandoned his free market principles in order to save the free market system. We Americans still have not regained our free market. Abandoning the principles did not save it after all.

    This is why principles matter. It is when we abandon our principles that we get stuck in such no-win situations.

    The correct tactic was, is now, and always will be: “always liberty.”

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “Even Mark Levin and some of those millions have been pushed to make these decisions to choose, and he has chosen.

    And he has chosen poorly.

    Cotour wrote: “This is not ideal but its what we are presented to work with.

    Yet Cotour and Levin chose to work with, rather than work against, the liberal, Democratic party. Which is a crazy choice. As he said, “Was crazy, is crazy now, and is going to get crazier.” The reasons for the crazy are choices like theirs.

    Cotour wrote: “Because Hillary Clinton must never become the president of the United States. You should catch on soon, I seriously know this is difficult for you.

    I caught on to that many years ago. I understood that when she was claiming co-presidency with her husband. What the myopic Cotour is finding difficult is that Trump must also never become the president of the United States. Thus, if the choice is between the two of them, then I don’t care which one wins and will stick to my principles. For the Republican Party to accept liberal Democrat RINO Trump as their candidate was the end of the party and the end of liberty for the United States.

    Now we must plan how to get it back.

  • Phill O

    Edward, you need a lesson in sex and travel. You are an idiot!

  • Edward

    “Edward, you need a lesson in sex and travel. You are an idiot!”

    Thus, Phill O runs out of reasoned arguments, resorting to emotional arguments, and demonstrating that Trump is the emotional — not reasonable — choice.

  • Phill O: I hope you intended your last comment in fun, because it didn’t come off that way. Instead, it came off as name-calling and an insult, something I do not permit on Behind the Black.

    Either explain what you really were trying to say, or apologize.

  • Cotour

    The conundrum, Edward is that one of them will become the president.

  • Phill O

    Thanks Bob. Yes, I apologize for calling Edward an idiot. Better way of saying it is that “if some one would stick to an argument in the face of solid facts, without admitting that some of those arguments are valid, seems to me to have a closed mind, and lacks sense.”

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    The conundrum, Edward is that one of them will become the president.

    Duh. But at least I won’t be in any way responsible for the tyrant in the White House. You cannot say the same. At best, you can only rationalize away your poor decisions.

    Phill O,
    Apology accepted.

    If my refusal to vote for a tyrant means that my mind is closed, then you are right. But justifiably so; what I want is liberty, and none of us will get it if we vote for tyranny. By voting for tyranny we only get tyranny. We can only get liberty by voting for liberty.

  • Cotour

    So to your thinking there are no degrees of tyranny.

    You would prefer to have no say what so ever in who is empowered to be president if both were considered tyrants in your opinion. For example if you were able to solely choose between Stalin and Trump, you would choose neither. Between Hitler and Trump, you would choose neither.

    How might you explain that logic to your or your neighbors and their grand children?

  • Steve Earle

    Cotour said:
    “..For example if you were able to solely choose between Stalin and Trump, you would choose neither. Between Hitler and Trump, you would choose neither…”

    Excellent point. As was your point made earlier that Trump could be good or bad whereas Hillary can only be bad.

    Hillary (hopefully) is neither Stalin or Hitler, but the point remains, sometimes you have to make an unpleasant choice, or by choosing to make no choice, help the greater evil win.

    I was all-in for Cruz, but like Ted I also have to wake up and smell the coffee. It’s time to emulate the Left and rally behind our Parties pick, or continue to fight amongst ourselves and hand the Republic to the Dark Side….

  • Cotour

    Steve Earl:

    You are a wise man. Which is not to say that there will not be chaos, there will be chaos. And from chaos there comes order, some kind of order from which we can move in a more positive way into the future.

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “So to your thinking there are no degrees of tyranny.”

    Doesn’t matter. I will never vote for tyranny, because all we get by voting for it is tyranny. Big, little, it makes no difference. But we already have a tyranny that is bigger than any other; it tells us how to spend our money.

    Cotour wrote: “You would prefer to have no say what so ever in who is empowered to be president”

    This is why I will vote for who I would prefer for president, not for who Cotour demands that I vote for. Otherwise, I have no say whatsoever in who is empowered to be president; Cotour would have all the power to say so. This is why we are supposed to vote for who we want to be president, not who Cotour, Phill O, or Mark Levin wants.

    These three are already acting as the tyrants that I do not want, and this is yet another reason why voting for Trump is a bad idea for me; he is the tyrant that they want, not the freedom lover that I want.

    Cotour wrote: “How might you explain that logic to your or your neighbors and their grand children?”

    I don’t have to, because I voted for liberty, but Cotour will have to explain why he voted for the tyranny that they will be stuck living under. It will be hard for them to understand why voting in favor of tyranny was supposed to bring them liberty. It will be impossible for Cotour to explain.

    Cotour wrote: “And from chaos there comes order, some kind of order from which we can move in a more positive way into the future.”

    Which is yet another reason why it makes no difference which I vote for. Chaos will ensue, and Cotour promises to bring some kind of order — even if that order is communism — so that many, many generations later will have to go through a terrible time regaining the liberty that we lost due to Cotour’s poor choices and illogical thinking.

    Steve Earle wrote: “It’s time to emulate the Left”

    That makes you one of the left, too, and one of the reasons I bailed out of the Republican Party. It is no longer any different than the Democratic Party, and neither are its members. Steve is not so wise after all, he merely caved in to Cotour’s and the Democrats’ form of tyranny, making the Republican Party that much more like the Democratic Party, and Cotour is trying to make him feel good about betraying his principles.

    Betrayed principles is why someone has to hold his nose or put on a HazMat suit when voting. If you keep doing that election after election, when do you think you will ever get your principles back?

    Like Cotour, you will eventually forget that there ever were principles or values to be had in your vote, and like Cotour, you will continue to vote for the Democrats in Republican clothing, pretending that the “lesser evil” is good.

  • wayne

    Edward–
    Highly empathize with & am sympathetic to, your thoughts, in large measure.
    I say– do whatever you think, is correct.
    (these “people” always engineer circular firing-squads, because they hate the Conservative wing on the GOP more than they hate the opposition Party. And they did it again.)

    >It is important, to hear what you are saying, and although I think I’m going a different route, I totally get your stand.

    Don’t want to speak for Steve Earle, but I didn’t hear him say “become the left.” I took it more as “unify.” (or any other neutral adjective)
    -There are plenty of things the Left is masterful at doing, which we need to get better at, real-fast, that don’t include deviousness & criminality.

    Personally, I’m far more concerned with the down-ballot, and getting my State on board with a Convention of States.

  • Edward

    Wayne wrote: “Don’t want to speak for Steve Earle, but I didn’t hear him say “become the left.” I took it more as “unify.” (or any other neutral adjective)

    Emulate was his word. He is willing to use the left’s tactics and strategies, and in context with his thinking that it is time to emulate the left, he had different principles in the recent past (yesterday?). As in Star Wars, which he references, The Dark Side wins by getting people to use their emotions, to get angry and lash out. The Democratic Party is doing the same, now, and winning in the same way. The lessons of Star Wars have been lost on many of its fans, who are now being lost to the Democratic Party.

    The Republican Party and its membership are now falling into the Dark Side, once again being betrayed, as in 2014, but this time by the latest infiltrator in whom they put their trust, Trump.

    It reminds me of some of the girls in college, who thought that they could change the bad boys, but ended up in tears. Sadder but wiser, were they.

    Foolishly, Republicans hope that this bad boy liberal Democrat will do well by them. Some even think that they can change him.

  • Cotour

    Wayne:

    Edwards high IQ nerd inflexibility is too narrow for most tastes and winning strategies. I admire his principles but we all understand that there are no principles nor morality in politics. So we understand that and know that he applies rules that do not apply to this kind of contest. This is an example of the two conversations of S.O.M. but on the other end from the leadership point of view.

    And if I could ask, I totally agree with the down ticket strategy, but why not take a shot at supporting the top of the ticket and increase your chances of success along with the down ticket? If neither candidate means anything to you but you know that Hillary would be much worse to your cause then wouldn’t it be logical to just vote for Trump? (even though you also despise him)

    I understand your disgust but the logic is plainly there.

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “but we all understand that there are no principles nor morality in politics.

    Cotour makes my point: “Like Cotour, you will eventually forget that there ever were principles or values to be had in your vote, and like Cotour, you will continue to vote for the Democrats in Republican clothing, pretending that the ‘lesser evil’ is good.” Cotour now asks that you give up more than just your principles, but your morals, too. That is no different than the liberal Democrat he insists we vote for.

  • Cotour

    There is no morality or principles in politics or political leadership, the people do have principles and morality, lets make the distinction.

    Your narrow interpretation misrepresents my position.

    Lets concentrate on just one subject where we can all agree Hillary will drag our country if she is empowered. Read about George Soros and his “open Borders” One World government dreams, which Hillary is right on board with.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Pre-2008/George-SorosOpen-Society/2006/07/25/id/687006/

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-open-borders-kass-1012-20161011-column.html

    Their contempt for the Constitution and their drive to deconstruct and dissolve America and its power is real and is reason enough to support anyone who would dare oppose them. The logic is there.

  • Edward

    In fact, back in the days when you were voting for Reagan, you were voting your principles, morals, and values. Today, the Republicans have you abandoning all three in order to vote for a liberal Democrat who has wormed his way into being the Republican candidate. Your “choice” of Republican v. Democrat is not a choice after all, because both are Democrats.

    Thus, to have a non-Democrat choice, we must vote for someone else. Are you going to choose the Democrat tyrant who the Republican-held Congress will oppose, the Democrat tyrant who Congress will follow, or the candidate who represents the liberty that you prefer?

  • Garry

    Edward wrote,

    “Betrayed principles is why someone has to hold his nose or put on a HazMat suit when voting. If you keep doing that election after election, when do you think you will ever get your principles back?”

    I was privileged to cast my first presidential vote for Reagan in 1984, and since then I have had to hold my nose every time I voted. I even voted for Perot in 1992; not because I wanted him president, but because (1) there was no doubt my deep blue state was going for Clinton (2) I didn’t like Clinton or Bush (3) I thought the best use of my vote in the sea of votes in my state was to indicate that some of us don’t like the 2-party system, rather than have Bush lose my state by 1 fewer vote. If I was sure that either candidate would win my state and there were a 3rd party candidate I could stomach at all, I would vote 3rd party this time too.

    Even when I voted for Reagan, I betrayed my principles to an extent; I didn’t agree with him on everything, but on balance thought he was the better candidate. In more recent elections, I have usually voted for the one I considered the less bad candidate, betraying my principles to a greater extent than I did when I voted for Reagan.

    There is no way my principles will prevail this election. I choose to take a gamble and vote for Trump (from within my hazmat suit), because in my perception his upside is better than Clinton’s, and I’m willing to gamble that his downside doesn’t prevail, which in my opinion is worse than Clinton’s downside. Plus, I think he has the better chance of upsetting the established order, within and outside our borders, which I think must be done.

    I freely admit to betraying my principles in every single election I’ve ever voted in, and I think the same applies to every voter, except those who voted for themselves (and I presume that they all betrayed their principles once in office). Yes, there is a matter of degree. My principles are always my starting point, and I go from there.

    Edward, I respect your decision to not betray your principles, but you’re getting a little preachy towards those of us who hold similar principles to yours and are making a different choice.

    Cotour, on the other hand, has always been preachy towards even us who ultimately are voting the same way he is, but for different reasons. It’s astonishing that I’m voting the same way as someone who states:

    “Edwards high IQ nerd inflexibility is too narrow for most tastes and winning strategies. I admire his principles but we all understand that there are no principles nor morality in politics,”

    which I don’t agree with at all. First, the name-calling is inappropriate and frankly seems like a tactic of the left. Also, Cotour, don’t assume that “we all” understand; you can only speak for yourself, and I reject rather than understand what you write, although I see where you’re coming from.

    I like that we have different takes on issues and I enjoy the exchange of views, but the preachiness is getting more and more irritating.

  • Cotour

    Reagan when he was the president was by definition Amoral and his principles were flexible as need be as the situation demanded. You are understanding leadership from only one point of view, the pedestrian, moral and principled point of view, that is incorrect. In order to be accurate you must understand the dual realities, the pedestrian (moral) and leaderships (Amoral or the appearance of morality).

  • Edward

    Garry wrote: “Even when I voted for Reagan, I betrayed my principles to an extent; I didn’t agree with him on everything”

    Principles are not agreement. Most likely, most of those you voted for had your same principles, but you did not agree with the way that they wanted to go about following them.

    This election is different. The two candidates we are arguing over have different principles. For them, corruption is a way of life. Clinton tries to hide it and denies it; Trump has bragged about it.

    Cotour does not remember Reagan or any other president. They had morals, principles, and values that followed most of ours. Cotour now believes that compromises mean that these are abandoned or forfeited. This is untrue, but it explains why he is willing to easily abandon his principles in order to vote for the tyranny he probably does not want. He is confused as to what are compromises and what are morals, principles, and values.

    Bush did not compromise; he abandoned his free market principles, which explains why the free market system was lost to us. Now, millions of Americans are being called to abandon their principles of liberty, and we will not get that back, either.

  • Steve Earle

    Wayne said:
    “…Don’t want to speak for Steve Earle, but I didn’t hear him say “become the left.” I took it more as “unify.” (or any other neutral adjective)
    -There are plenty of things the Left is masterful at doing, which we need to get better at, real-fast, that don’t include deviousness & criminality….”

    Correct Wayne (as usual!) The Left will occasionally bicker but then they unite to defeat the right, who usually are still bickering right up until election day.

    Edward said:
    “…As in Star Wars, which he references, The Dark Side wins by getting people to use their emotions, to get angry and lash out. The Democratic Party is doing the same, now, and winning in the same way. The lessons of Star Wars have been lost on many of its fans, who are now being lost to the Democratic Party….”

    Also correct in that emotions are being manipulated (again), but I was referring more to the movies depiction of the Republic Senate being so captured by the bureaucrats that even the well-meaning members did nothing and were unaware of the danger from their “Left” until it was too late.

    Garry said:
    “…There is no way my principles will prevail this election. I choose to take a gamble and vote for Trump (from within my hazmat suit), because in my perception his upside is better than Clinton’s, and I’m willing to gamble that his downside doesn’t prevail, which in my opinion is worse than Clinton’s downside. Plus, I think he has the better chance of upsetting the established order, within and outside our borders, which I think must be done.

    I freely admit to betraying my principles in every single election I’ve ever voted in, and I think the same applies to every voter, except those who voted for themselves (and I presume that they all betrayed their principles once in office). Yes, there is a matter of degree. My principles are always my starting point, and I go from there….”

    Well said Garry, and I agree completely. The established order (in both parties!) is why we are where we are now, and it needs a good enema! LOL!

    It’s once again time to embrace the “Buckley Rule” as extra-distasteful as that is this election.

  • Cotour

    Presidents do not have morals that are the same as the rest of us, not even Reagan. Your fooling yourself. They present their arguments using morality and principles but in the end they have to take care of business. And taking care of business at that level is void of the kind of morality you think they have.

    Why? Because they necessarily exist for the time that they are empowered (executive privilege) in a special nether region where law is much more flexible and amorphous then the black letter law that the pedestrian citizens live in. When you treat the two the same you are incorrect.

    This kind of “morality” has all kinds of loop holes dependent on the situation and need.

  • Cotour

    Wayne:

    Levin came around to agree with me.

    Something to think about?

  • Garry

    Cotour,

    You write as if you’ve been talking to Levin, and he finally said “you convinced me, Cotour, now I’m voting for Trump.” Although you and I have come to the same choice in this election, I came to my conclusions on my own, and if anything your arguments tended to drive me in the opposite direction.

    On another topic, something About SOM just hasn’t rung true, and what it is hit me the other day: you present it as if strategy itself is the objective, but, by definition, strategy is not the objective, it is a means towards an objective. If you make strategy itself the objective, you risk losing sight of the objective that you’re after.

    By and large, our country’s objectives have been moral, and strategies have been devised to reach those objectives. I fully admit that sometimes the objectives have, arguably, been amoral or even immoral (manifest destiny was arguably immoral, not allowing other countries to develop nuke weapons is arguably immoral, etc.). But by and large our objectives have been moral, and at times, when our strategies to reach those objectives were immoral, we ran into trouble.

    An example where our strategy was (arguably) immoral but I think the immorality was overriden by the morality of our objective was the dropping of the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To me the real issue was the larger scale bombings of civilian populations in Tokyo, Dresden, etc., but I use the A-bombs as an example here because they are much more prominent in the minds of the general public (especially in Japan).

    The acts of killing tens of thousands of mostly civilians by single bombs were immoral. However, they were done in order to stop the War, and stopping the War was moral to the extent that the effect of ending the War overrode the more local effects of the bombs, as tragic as they were. Less morally messy alternatives were presented, such as dropping the bombs in the ocean as a demonstration, but they were judged less likely to achieve the objective of ending the War with minimum casualties. I’m ignoring the conspiracy theories here.

    In this instance, we can say that there were immoral aspects of the strategy, but the strategy was chosen because it was judged the most likely to lead to the overall objective, which itself was moral.

    Note that what we did after was among the most morally clean acts in history; the Japanese fully expected us to treat them as they had treated the peoples they had conquered (systematic rape, institution of slavery, etc.), but instead, after neutralizing them we rebuilt their nation, instituted rights for the people, and led them to prosperity they had never experienced before.

    An example of immoral strategy backfiring was the Iran – Contra deal. The idea was to give Iran arms, and in exchange they would give us back our hostages and some money. Normally money wouldn’t play a role in foreign policy (the Clinton Foundation notwithstanding), but since we “needed” the money to skirt the Boland Amendment, money was a motivator. In this case, the principle that was violated was negotiating over hostages, and the result was predictable (Iran took more hostages as soon as they released the ones we paid for, so they could get more arms to use against our allies).

    We always have to be careful, because strategies seem like good ideas, but they almost never work out exactly as planned. A good example of this is Abu Ghraib. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here; perhaps it wasn’t strategy as much as some degenerates getting their jollies through extreme humiliation (along with a failure of the degenerates’ leadership). But assuming it was a strategy, the objective may have been to get info out of prisoners. The objective itself was moral, but the strategy didn’t work, or at best had unintended consequences that overrode the objective (potential allies or neutral parties being driven away by the horrific acts depicted in the photos that got out, regardless of how accurate those depictions were). Perhaps if the prisoners were of higher value (Khalid Sheik Mohammed, for example), the info gained may have overriden the immoral strategy.

    My biggest problem with “the ends justifies the means” is that the definition of “the ends” (the results) is too narrow, usually limited to the intended ends. I like to say “the ends, taken on the whole (intended, unintended, and collateral damage), may justify the means.”

    In sum, we have to remember that strategy by itself is not the objective; strategy has to serve an objective, and morality often lies in the the objective itself. Morality is not always the be-all and end-all of strategy (it has to be balanced against the likelihood of achieving the moral strategy), but we always have to be aware of unintended consequences, and make a conscious decision whenever we employ an immoral or amoral strategy, to ensure that the greater moral objective is met.

    When you apply this to domestic politics, the objectives quickly get distorted, and you end up with a bunch of degenerates bending logic in calling for “the greater good,” which is a pretty good description of the modern politician.

    I like to say, “The most underestimated force in the universe is the human capacity to rationalize almost anything.”

  • Scott Drysdale

    Judges 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.

    A lack of strong leadership with too much freedom for society of children leads toward anarchy.

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    Referencing Levin.
    Not exactly.
    (I don’t speak for Levin but do watch/listen to him daily, for years.)

    Granted, Levin is checking the DJT box on his ballot, but I tend to think it’s for different reasoning. (leading up, currently, and forward.)

    Our respective Venn diagrams just don’t over-lap precisely. ( They overlap enough, so I do stand with you on some topics, others not so much.)

    As for SOM, we’ve had that discussion in part & you & I just differ on a lot in the social-psychology realm, but no matter.

    Garry–

    Good stuff in large measure.
    (I would differ on the whole a-bomb ‘thing, but that’s a complex topic.)
    serendipity– I’ve been watching some documentaries on WW-2 strategic bombing, ever since Vonnegut came up last week. (found my copy of Slaughter-House 5 & did watch that video adaptation you recommended.)
    >And a bit of Victor Davis Hanson on Classical attitudes to War & Democracy. Fascinating historical material.

  • Edward

    Garry wrote: “Note that what we did after was among the most morally clean acts in history;”

    Unfortunately, this is not taught to today’s students, and it contributes to the childishness that is sweeping America. Today’s students are taught that America is evil, and they are taught that they need to be protected from those who think otherwise.

    What also was never taught is that America invented the concept of giving back a conquered nation. When we went into WWI, we were not there to gain territory, even though our blood and treasure were expended. This concept was less than a century old, by then, but we invented it when we conquered Mexico during the Mexican-American war.

    After the Mexican-American war, America gave back the parts of Mexico that were not disputed. Nations call on the US to rescue them, because they know that we will not take their nation afterwards. Despite what many claim, the US is not colonial and it is not an empire.

    I thought about Levin coming around to agree with Cotour (and I have to take Cotour’s word for it). It seems that Levin is accepting the Hobson’s choice that Cotour arranged for us; we could call it a Cotour’s choice, as it is not exactly a Hobson’s choice. As Cotour describes it, it is like getting shot in the ass, and chaos will ensue.

    I, on the other hand, reject this Cotour’s choice. It is the slow degradation of America through these lesser-of-two-evils choices that has slowly gotten us into the mess we in are today.

    The last time that we had a real choice, between a conservative and a progressive, was when Reagan was the Republican candidate for president. Ever since then, the Republicans put up progressives as candidates. But then again, the last time America prospered was due to the policies, principles, and values brought to us by Reagan. It even took Bill Clinton eight years to undo Reagan’s work, and that was after the first Bush was through messing it up.

    I have great doubts of Cotour’s judgment, due to his rejection of liberty during the primary process and his choice of the tyrant Trump to vote for during the primary.

    Cotour does not apologize for giving us this Cotour’s choice but revels in that he orchestrated it, forcing us to choose his evil choice or the (possibly) worse evil. He also gloats that others eventually cave in and choose his lousy Cotour’s choice. Because of Cotour, no matter what we do, we will end up “shot in the ass” and in the midst of chaos.

    Fixing the United States means fixing Cotour’s attitude. Choosing the lesser of two evils has gotten us here, and it will not get us out. Cotour has gotten us into this hole he dug, and digging further down will not get us out. Everyone must stop caving in to this attitude and fundamentally change back to the attitude of choosing liberty rather than the offered tyranny. We will not get liberty by choosing tyranny, but we can get it by all of us choosing liberty every time.

    As long as voters rationalize their poor voting choices by pretending that all politicians are evil, amoral, and selfish then we will continue down this road paved with apparent good intentions.

    The Democrats and RINOs, who prefer big government to small government, are the ones with evil, amoral, and selfish aims (they see themselves as the leaders and arbiters of what all and each of us should do). The politicians who advocate for small government are the ones who would allow us independent thought and action. They are good, moral, and selfless.

    But Cotour preaches that big government must win and there is nothing that we can do about it, except accept getting “shot in the ass” and accept living in the promised chaos.

    Unlike Hobson’s choice, which could be a good choice (it is difficult to know in advance), Cotour admits that his choice has only a bad outcome.

  • wayne

    A War Like No Other:
    How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
    Victor Davis Hanson
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?189156-1/war-like-peloponnesian-war

  • Cotour

    Garry:

    I was playfully trolling Wayne with the Levin reference :)

    That being said, S.O.M. identifies the two conversations that leadership has with the public that, in our American case, has empowered them. In this conversation leadership communicates their palatable morality and their principles (because the public sees them as being moral like them) BUT as a general rule those moral and principled representations can and will be thrown out the window (or are already thrown out the window upon being represented) as need be or as agenda be. And in addition we may not be aware of what the actual agenda actually is, as in black projects, clandestine operations, strategic false flag operations etc.

    I give you a current example and on going real time version of S.O.M. https://youtu.be/3njrCrUeLH4

    This is only a version of S.O.M., S.O.M. goes much further and deeper, as deep as necessary, in order to achieve the desired objective of the empowered leadership. The strategy to achieve the overt objective is represented as being moral by leadership but when you are able to look behind the curtain (wiki leaks) and see the covert you find out that its all about the objective at any cost. And the objective in this example is winning the presidential election.

    So you tell me, are presidents moral?

  • Cotour

    “Unlike Hobson’s choice, which could be a good choice (it is difficult to know in advance), Cotour admits that his choice has only a bad outcome.”

    Getting shot in the ass by a 22 as opposed to a 50 cal. (if you are going to site my analogy please do not bastardize it, it is misleading)

    The 22 I can probably survive and live to further fix what needs to be fixed, the 50 cal. on the other hand is certain destruction. I will take the 22.

    I want to also point out something else, Trump who is being ground up at the moment and is being forced to face his failings and short comings in this trial by fire, if he should prevail has the opportunity to grow and become more than he is. This is a detail that I have been very specific about and Edward always forgets to include. He has both good and bad potential. Hillary on the other hand has her George Soros open borders plans ready and will by her own words implement them. She has only one potential, can you guess what it is Edward?

    I at least can see in the chaos that will ensue if Trump prevails some kind of American as being the president and not some kind of Leftist internationalist ready to further that agenda.

    And when I look at it in those terms I can have some measure of optimism that the multinational corporate rats, billionaires and the foreign country’s that own Hillary and aspire to further control America and further dissolve our Constitution might be stopped or slowed down, or even reversed.

    But the people of America must make a strong and overwhelming statement on November 8th. They must be loud and unambiguous. And until that does not happen, I will remain optimistic (despite Edwards fatalistic ramblings)

    Hillary Clinton must never become the president of the United States. If a majority of Americans empower her then she by rights will endeavor to execute her agenda. Be afraid.

  • Garry

    Cotour, can you give us an example of why you still have hopes that Trump will “grow and become more than he is”? Or an example of another president who has done the same (the most recent one I can make a case for is Kennedy)?

  • wayne

    Garry–
    interesting question. (ref DJT)

    I’d quibble with you over JFK–although he did slash taxes, the whole Kennedy-Myth is way overblown.
    His youthful fascination with Nazi Germany & Fascist Italy was/is, disturbing, and old-man-Kennedy was just a Bootlegger/Gangster and an Anglophobe.

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    “playfully trolling me, eh?”
    How very Andrew_W of you…
    :)

    Don’t confuse the lethality of bullets by their caliber.
    .22 kill you dead, no matter where you get hit.

  • Garry

    Wayne, I was only thinking of one aspect, how he handled foreign policy. I once took a course on decision making, and one of the case studies was how Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis after bungling the Bay of Pigs so badly. Basically, after BoP he consulted Eisenhower, and set up a think tank during the Cuban Missile Crisis of his foreign policy team, where he encouraged the free flow of ideas regardless of rank. There was more to it than met the eye, and it was a good way to handle a very dicey situation, leading to approaches that otherwise would not have been explored in detail.

    But that was a young, inexperienced president, and only one aspect.

    I’m careful not to get too one-sided about people; there is usually something to admire about anybody, and something to not like at all. In the last debate I was impressed by Trump’s answer on what he admired in Hillary; it showed me he had some sense of balance, and not at all impressed with her answer, as it showed her close mindedness.

    My perception is that these days there isn’t a whole lot of time to grow into the job; there’s potentially too many important decisions that need to be made correctly right out of the gate, so the issue of growing isn’t as applicable as it may be otherwise.

  • wayne

    Firearms Facts: “The .22 Confusion…”
    https://youtu.be/gjIVpMqHh40

  • wayne

    Garry–

    tangentially–check out that Victor Davis Hanson talk on the Peloponnesian War, if you have an interest.
    (on a side note– one of (of many) VDH’s contentions, in general, is that the Western Way of War is extremely lethal & violent, but we (“modernity”) get hung up on morality/ethics when it comes time to actually be, extremely lethal & violent.)

    It’s my contention, we’ve been fed a pack of lies, in large measure, on JFK.
    He was the media’s-guy hook-line-and-sinker, they covered his drug miss-use, womanizing, & rewrote the shady history of old-man Kennedy, a Nazi-sympathizer and gangster. (And the whole “Camelot” thing was re-engineered after the fact & none of it was contemporaneous.)

    I would absolutely give him credit for massive tax reductions & a few other key policy decisions, but I would contend— if he had not been assassinated, he would not make the top-20 list of President’s.

  • Cotour

    “Don’t confuse the lethality of bullets by their caliber.
    .22 kill you dead, no matter where you get hit.”

    Yes, I am well aware of that fact, but the potential to survive the 22 is vastly higher than the 50 cal.

    And there in lies my analogy, one candidate has both good and bad potential, and the other has just bad. This is not rocket science, you can ask any actual rocket scientist right here on this site.

    I Think the recent news of the day, not the news in the main street media that conveniently barley touches on things like the Wiki leaks revelations, demonstrates 1. how empowered government actually works, without any morality, retaining power and acquiring new power in order to further THE agenda at all costs and 2. the media has plainly chosen who will be the new president, entirely surrendering all pretense of being objective and also surrendering any trace of their fiduciary responsibility or morality in doing so.

    The only thing the people can do is participate and forcibly transfer their power to the least damaging candidate to their freedom by voting, and that candidate in this cycle is Trump IMO. To allow the peoples power to be retained by this current plainly lawless, corrupt and tyrannical Democrat party and their blatantly un American agenda is a form of fiduciary surrender by those people who understand these facts and still refuse to do what must be done.

    To understand it and not do something about it is what it is……………….no matter how personally uncomfortable an individual happens to “feel”.

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    -we’ve had the “caliber” discussion before;
    I get your analogy but just don’t think it’s the precise one you want. (but, no matter.)

    Tragically, elections aren’t really decided by “any of us here.”
    That is, there’s the 20% “in the middle,” (largely low-information) that will make an impulse purchase on election-day, for reasoning with which we would disagree.

    (my god, Obama was elected twice. They (the un-loyal opposition) do the same old stuff, every damn cycle, ‘cuz it works.)

    That’s not to totally disparage low-information folks. But it’s a huge factor.
    I’m sure I’m not alone–I know some otherwise very intelligent people, who are just not-into-politics, at all.

  • wayne

    It Feels Good to Be a Clinton….
    https://youtu.be/FECIYlo3KRY

  • Cotour

    “I know some otherwise very intelligent people, who are just not-into-politics, at all.”

    If you don’t do politics, politics will be done to you.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “(if you are going to site my analogy please do not bastardize it, it is misleading)

    Getting shot in the ass is getting shot in the ass. You may see a difference in the remains left behind, but dead is still dead. Nothing bastardized about that. Chaos is still chaos. I choose life, and I reject your “Cotour’s choice” of chaos and tyranny.

    You wrote: “if he should prevail has the opportunity to grow and become more than he is.

    If he hasn’t taken advantage of his opportunities to grow in the previous seven decades, well, he is pretty fixed in his ways by now. But that was a good try, Cotour.

    You wrote: “the media has plainly chosen who will be the new president

    So, since your choice is the losing choice and cannot win, why do you insist that I violate my own principles in order to choose the unwise choice? Your guy loses, and I lose my sense of principle, just as you did. Your way supports tyranny and brings us chaos and figuratively getting shot in the ass. My way supports liberty.

    You wrote: “The only thing the people can do is participate and forcibly transfer their power to the least damaging candidate to their freedom by voting

    Which is what I have announced on multiple occasions, yet you insist that I follow your poor judgment and unwisely choose your tyrannical, chaotic Trump. You tell me to do the least damage, then you insist that I vote for major damage, even after you insist that he cannot win. WTF?

    You wrote: “To allow the peoples power to be retained by this current plainly lawless, corrupt and tyrannical Democrat party and their blatantly un American agenda is a form of fiduciary surrender by those people who understand these facts and still refuse to do what must be done.

    This is what I have been telling you all these months! Trump is a tyrannical lifelong liberal Democrat. It is you who continually refuses to do what must be done, which is vote for liberty.

    You have stated that he is the equivalent to being shot in the ass and that his presidency will result in chaos, yet your poorly thought out opinion is to vote for him anyway. Wherever you learned your logic, you need to demand your money back. You are voting on emotion, and that merely got us the only liberal Democrat, from the primary.

    You wrote: “To understand it and not do something about it is what it is”

    I can only conclude that your poor judgment, lack of wisdom, and illogical opinions are a result of your lack of understanding, because you refuse to do the right thing about it. I have given you new information, but you reiterate the obvious information about Clinton, thinking that I must never have heard it before. But as some of us have already informed you, your arguments are counterproductive to your cause (the cause of tyranny, chaos, and being figuratively shot in the ass).

    “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” — John Quincy Adams

    You wrote: “If you don’t do politics, politics will be done to you.

    We have done politics your way, and politics still was done to us.

    By the way, Pericles said: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” Everyone commenting here has taken an interest in politics.

    In the past, Cotour, you chose to do the same thing over and over (choose the lesser of two evils) yet each time expected better results. Your votes have been lost, and they brought us what we are stuck with now.

    You are a higher information voter, now. Choose more wisely, this time around.

  • Cotour

    And Popsicle said (that’s Pericles’s older and wiser cousin): Don’t freeze yourself out of your country’s future due to your extreme inflexible moral or principled position, because your opponents are not employing morality or principles in the battle. Fight fire with fire. And then after you win and are empowered by the people you will be able to restore what must be restored.

    Popsicle was a very wise man, he kicked ass and he took care of business and then sat down and enjoyed a nice steak and a bottle of Opus One with his family.

    First we eat, then civilization!

    I will make another analogy here: Edward is like a properly trained and highly intelligent boxer, fighting an MMA, Kung Foo, caged death match trained street fighter. Poor Edward, he died so principled a death.

    First we eat, then civilization!

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    We are not to the point where we have to worry about eating; we are still at the civilization level, although your promised chaos may change all that. Since you continually bring it up, perhaps that has been your intention all along.

    This mythical Popsicle was not so wise, because when you join your adversary in abandoning principle, then you have joined your adversary and are now indistinguishable from him. Just because your leadership enjoys steak and wine does not mean that the populace does, too. Just look at tyrannical North Korea. That is what came of flexing the moral principled position of liberty. South Korea did not flex, and her populace not only eats well but lives in a nice civilization.

    Not only am I still living a principled life (not that anyone can say the same for you, as you have announced that you have denounced your principles), but if I am so outmatched, why do I keep winning the arguments?

    Since you are unable to figure that one out: the answer is that I still have principles, the basis for doing what is right, while you have abandoned yours, as indicated not only by your statements that there are none in politics but also by your insistence that everyone vote your way, the tyranny way.

    (I’m not changing your mind, which I don’t think I can ever do, but I do not have to change your mind to win the argument. You get to be stubborn and inflexible, too, only you have no principles, morals, or values to justify the inflexibility of your position.)

  • Cotour

    You keep up your “winning” Edward.

  • Edward

    By the way, I am hearing about plans for regaining liberty with a Clinton presidency but none with a Trump presidency, so if I were to give up my principles, it would be to vote for Clinton, as that gives the best chance for eventual liberty. With Trump, there appears to be none at all. Even you, Cotour, have no plan to regain liberty with either one — just a hope for change (which didn’t work out so well under the current tyrant, so your track record is pretty poor).

    Of course, if I gave up my principles, I would be guaranteed to lose my liberty and have to fight to get it back.

  • Garry

    Cotour wrote,

    “And Popsicle said (that’s Pericles’s older and wiser cousin): Don’t freeze yourself out of your country’s future due to your extreme inflexible moral or principled position, because your opponents are not employing morality or principles in the battle. Fight fire with fire. And then after you win and are empowered by the people you will be able to restore what must be restored.”

    But what we seek is liberty, and government out of our business. By your logic, because the Obama administration used the IRS as a weapon, then the next Republican administration should turn the tables and employ the IRS against liberals. But if we do that, we are going against our objective, and surrender any chance of reaching it. The answer isn’t to employ the IRS as a weapon against the other side, but to prevent the IRS from being used as a weapon against anybody, whereby the American people regain some freedom. Ditto the EPA and a number of other government agencies.

    Which is but one example of why I don’t have a lot of faith in Trump; he doesn’t seem to want to deweaponize government, but to employ the weaponized government against the other side.

    Once people gain power by abusing power, they don’t change their ways; abuse begets abuse.

  • Cotour

    Edward, listen to this video, even Joe Digenova, former Federal prosecutor agrees with my position.

    https://youtu.be/OovaH9T69oA

  • Cotour

    I have never in one word that I have written said this:

    “By your logic, because the Obama administration used the IRS as a weapon, then the next Republican administration should turn the tables and employ the IRS against liberals. ”

    If you have interpreted my words to mean this you are incorrect. The new government could come to a conclusion that it too should do the same but it is by no means how they should act towards their own populous. The extent that this current administration HAS done exactly that is a measure of how desperate they are to spin the facts (blatantly lie) and retain power. And by doing so they are revealed to be the most corrupt administration that the American people have allowed to exist.

    Leadership must have the character, force of vision, understanding of the Constitutional and the intestinal fortitude to control its natural tendencies. And that is to abuse power. This describes the varying shade of gray within which we all live, its neither black nor white but an always changing shade of gray.

    This current administration with its overt abuse of power however has pushed it very close to black though.

  • Cotour

    Look how far the media will go to retain power:

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787749893649600512

    These people are literally enemy’s of the people of the United States.

  • Garry

    I’m glad I’m mistaken, but human nature dictates that what you wrote would lead to post-election abuse.

    “And Popsicle said (that’s Pericles’s older and wiser cousin): Don’t freeze yourself out of your country’s future due to your extreme inflexible moral or principled position, because your opponents are not employing morality or principles in the battle. Fight fire with fire. And then after you win and are empowered by the people you will be able to restore what must be restored.”

    You seem to think that anything goes in the election phase, and after that the successful candidate will restrain himself, but that’s just not how people work.

  • Cotour

    Push comes to shove it is the empowering by the people that gives either party the power to execute their agenda, they will essentially do what ever necessary to have it. This is not a nice and neat package but these things do go on, to not recognize it is to pick and choose the facts that you like.

    A friend asked me at lunch “You have no problem with your boy (Trump) destroying the entire country by saying that the election is rigged?”. Then he added as a qualifier: Except for the JFK election.

    He says one thing and then contradicts himself in the next sentence. This is the mentality of some people. This was my response to him:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/09/news/mn-51973

    By your own words you agree that a presidential election can and was stolen, then why is what Trump says about what is going on in this election a “threat to national security” and is false ?

    By your own words and beliefs you agree that it can indeed be stolen. Does the truth bother you to the point that you choose not to see it and allow such things to go on? Both party’s, especially the Democrat party, as evidenced by actual demonstrable evidence will do anything to retain power. ANYTHING.

    What is different about today than 50 years ago? If anything it will be easier to steal through electronic manipulation today rather than just a paper bag filled with cash. This is the Spanish company that will count a good number of votes in the coming election.

    https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/05/scytl-funding/

    ————————————————————————–

    So its acquiring the power that is important, after you have squared that away then you can execute your agenda, in this elections case it is the furthering of the One World Government / open Borders / U.N. consult and control model. To me that is a treasonous agenda and I reject it. It reject it with actual evidence about what can and will go on in any for all the marbles election.

    Am I more concerned about a dude who likes “Pussy” or am I more concerned about a woman who is a proven Leftist progressive in the model of George Soros and who has been running a RICO operation out of the State Department and is a documented security risk and should have been arrested by the FBI and prosecuted?

    I will take the “Pussy” chaser, its a much more American pass time rather than a Leftist operative.

    Does this help you understand my position better?

  • Cotour

    Here is another example of the Democrats cohesivness :

    https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/bernies-shame-rallies-clinton-amid-humiliating-leaks/

    Bernie is willing to be seen as a bitch of the party after actually reading what was done to him by them, and he is still on board, he got in line. They will do anything to retain power. ANYTHING, up to and including murder IMO. Its just a matter of how covert they believe they or any of them can operate. Too much transparency and potential to be hacked and they will tend to be more “honest”, both party’s.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “You keep up your ‘winning’ Edward.

    Don’t worry, I will. You make it so easy.

    First you tell us that Trump is a conservative, but he can’t even describe what it is. Then you tell us that since he will surround himself with conservatives he will pretend to be conservative, but after 70 years of being a devout liberal Democrat, he isn’t about to follow advice that goes against his beliefs. Then you tell us that he is the best hope (despite better choices on the ballot), but since he stated that Clinton’s policies do not go far enough (meaning not far enough to the left), he demonstrates that he is farther left than even Clinton. Thus it has been easy to defeat your silly arguments.

    Your continued assurances that Clinton is corrupt falls on agreeing ears, but that small narrow view of the big picture is already well known and ignores the bigger picture. Thus it has been easy to defeat your already defeated arguments.

    Now you tell us that you go for Trump because you have no principles, and you insist that no politician does, either. This shows why you are willing to go for the far-left Trump, and it ignores the principles held by and followed by past and present politicians.

    You wrote: “Even Lou Dobbs disagrees with you Edward. Lou Dobbs.

    Whoever Lou Dobbs is. A quick search shows that he considers himself a populist (which is different from a conservative), thus he is the type of person who would not have principles. In fact, since populists think that all leaders are amoral, unprincipled, and corrupt, he fits right in with your way of thinking, not mine.

    It is hardly a surprise that your heroes disagree with me, and since they are your heroes, I probably do not want to agree with them on much. (You have even stated that you believe people should check their religions at their front door and succumb to any immorality or sin that any arbitrary stranger wants them to do.)

    You wrote: “Joe Digenova, former Federal prosecutor …”
    … is such an obscure reference that he is unfindable. Considering the state of the Department of Justice, a reference to him probably also hurts your case.

    However, he does not disagree with me. He talks about “Never Trumpers,” not Never Tyranny-ers. Your point is irrelevant to our discussion. I do not disagree that when Trump loses Clinton will be president (this is also your position, especially since you, too, think Trump has no chance of winning). My point is that since Clinton is a shoo-in, abandoning our principles is a poor practice and a terrible habit to acquire, and it keeps us from having any chance at all of electing liberty rather than tyranny.

    You got into this habit, and that is what happened when you abandoned your principles and voted for tyranny in the primary. You ended up with a tyrant who has no chance of defeating Clinton.

    Had you stuck with your principles, then people would have had a viable option against tyranny, and enough would want to vote for liberty that Clinton would be 50 points behind in the polls, for all the reasons you have mentioned (and more). The reason that she is not behind is that Trump is such a terrible choice that even Republicans are declaring that they would rather vote for the farther-right Clinton than for the farther-left Trump.

    You wrote: “I have never in one word that I have written said this:
    ‘By your logic, because the Obama administration used the IRS as a weapon, then the next Republican administration should turn the tables and employ the IRS against liberals.’

    No, you haven’t said that, and Garry did not say that you said it. He said “By your logic,” and by your logic it is correct. Your logic is to “Fight fire with fire” (your words) because having an “extreme inflexible moral or principled position” cannot prevail over “your opponents [who] are not employing morality or principles in the battle.” You consider that having a moral or principled position will result in “freez[ing] yourself out of your country’s future.” The only logical way to interpret it is that you advocate to join your adversary and do against him what he does against you. Especially in the context of the discussion, which is about abandoning morals, principles, and values.

    See, this is why your arguments are so easily defeated. You don’t even understand your own immoral, unprincipled statements and positions. When you get caught that they are poorly thought out, you often declare that you meant something else. Other times you inflexibly stick to your immoral or unprincipled position, as though it were moral, principled, or based upon a value system.

    You wrote: “Leadership must have the character, force of vision, understanding of the Constitutional and the intestinal fortitude to control its natural tendencies.

    And yet you would have us vote for Trump. You say one thing that sounds so noble, but then insist that we act in the exact opposite way. Once again, your arguments are easily defeated, because no one knows whether you mean the noble thing that you say or the ignoble things that you do.

    However, we all believe that your actions are more telling than your words. In the primary, you already voted for the candidate who showed the least character, force of vision, understanding of the Constitution or of conservativism, and even the least intestinal fortitude to control government’s natural tendency toward tyranny. You fell for a slogan from someone who believes that the ends justifies any means, even if the means is fooling Cotour into voting against his once-held principles.

  • Cotour

    You either get it or you don’t, Edward.

    I confidently stand by everything that I have written here on the subject at hand, it is very well reasoned and thought out. I admit that a lot of it is difficult to digest and comprehend, but there it is anyway.

  • insomnius

    Hillary Clinton can only win through corruption and the MSM is colluding with her. Why let them enable her?
    Vote for Justice! Trump and Pence.
    If Trump triumphs, where do you think he will assign Trey Gowdy?

  • Steve Earle

    Cotour said:
    “…Am I more concerned about a dude who likes “Pussy” or am I more concerned about a woman who is a proven Leftist progressive in the model of George Soros and who has been running a RICO operation out of the State Department and is a documented security risk and should have been arrested by the FBI and prosecuted?…”

    That is just about the best and most succinct description of this election to date.

    Any chance we can get that on a bumper sticker? :-)

  • wayne

    For all this bluster of how Hillary should “never be empowered, ever, never….”
    >N.Y. made HRC a US Senator, twice.

  • Garry

    Speaking of analogies,

    Hillary Clinton : “Everything he just said is a lie” :: Cotour: “I confidently stand by everything that I have written here on the subject at hand, it is very well reasoned and thought out. I admit that a lot of it is difficult to digest and comprehend, but there it is anyway.”

  • wayne

    Garry– good one.

  • Cotour

    Steve:

    Thats one hell of a long bumper sticker. But it is the essence of the of this entire election.

    Wayne:

    I interpret Garry’s quoting me and comparing it to something Trump said and called a lie by Hillary as supporting my position. If we all understand that everything that Hillary utters is a lie in order to win the contest then what Trump said and what I said is deemed as being true.

    If Hillary says its a lie it then must be true.
    —————–
    And the general population of the State Of New York did empower Hillary (I told you, most of them are registered Democrats), if you want me to apologize for that act I can not, because I did not participate in empowering her.

    Not everyone in New York is an insane and blind Liberal tool. Your eternal looping logic on this subject does not mean anything in the context of this conversation………….again………………………..BECAUSE I DID NOT EMPOWER HER. More hysterical and disconnected thinking from the mid West. I understand your frustration.

  • wayne

    “Your eternal looping logic on this subject does not mean anything in the context of this conversation….”

    Har… my “internal looping logic,” that’s a good one. When it comes to DJT, you’re the king of internal looping logic.
    :)

    You folks in NY gave Gillibrand almost 70%. Nothing “hysterical” or “Midwest,” about that factoid. And “you” elected HRC, twice.

  • Garry

    Cotour’s statement interpreting what I mean by my analogy is like Hillary saying “Wipe it, you mean with a cloth?”

  • Cotour

    Garry:

    If you reread what you wrote that is what it means. You may have meant it in a different way, but it is what it is.

  • Garry

    This is the way analogies work, according to basic logic: “Cotour is to his statement as Hillary is to hers”

    There is no way (in basic logic) to use this to relate Cotour’s statement to anyone’s statement but Hillary’s. To do that you have to twist things beyond all recognition, through either gross ignorance or (as I implied in my second analogy) gross obtuseness.

  • wayne

    Totally tangential—

    I do wish DJT would quit saying, over & over, how “expensive” it was for HRC to Bleachbit her PC.

    http://www.bleachbit.org/
    (It’s freeware for god sake.)

  • Cotour

    And if it its ubiquitously understood that Hillary is a liar, and Cotour is not? Then what?

    “Cotour is to his statement as Hillary is to hers”

    I understand that Hillary has probably never told the truth in the context of her political ambitions and that is being very well substantiated through evidence. So if Cotour is to his statement as Hillary is to her’s, then what Cotour has stated can be established to be true and what Hillary has stated is as has been established a lie, then what you wrote is not what you meant.

    Not to my interpretation, so again, thank you.

  • Garry

    Both Cotour and Hillary, when faced with evidence that their logic is faulty, have pat statements that go back to the accuser and do not address the evidence. I meant nothing more than that.

  • Cotour

    My logic and what I propose is not faulty, Hillary however has been solidly confirmed as a liar. Again, what you propose is illogical.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “You either get it or you don’t, Edward.

    Oh, I get it, all right. You have been wrong on multiple occasions, whether or not you confidently stand by what you wrote. I get that very clearly.

    I find what you say to be easy to digest and to understand, but much of it is wrong.

    You wrote: “I interpret Garry’s quoting me and comparing it to something Trump said and called a lie by Hillary as supporting my position.

    Yes, but only if you take it out of context. Garry corrected you that he was making an analogy, as he stated along with his comparison, so perhaps you should review the definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy

    As Garry noted, Cotour, you have a tendency to twist things beyond all recognition. This is yet another reason why your arguments are so easily defeated. The twist is easily discovered and countered. It also indicates that either you have not thought it through or that you are trying to rationalize yet another illogical position.

    You wrote: “If Hillary says its a lie it then must be true.

    I can’t wait for Clinton to say “I’m lying.”

    You wrote: “Not everyone in New York is an insane and blind Liberal tool.

    Perhaps not, but since you are insisting that we vote for a liberal Democrat, it looks like you are one of the New York blind liberal tools, sane or otherwise.

    You wrote: “And if it its ubiquitously understood that Hillary is a liar, and Cotour is not? Then what?

    Well, then Cotour must be wrong and have poor judgement. That’s what then. Being wrong is not necessarily the equivalent of lying.

    But then again, there is that pesky “if” that assumes Cotour is not a liar. How do we know that you are not a liberal Democrat in disguise, like Trump, except that Trump’s disguise turned out to be transparent.

    You wrote: “My logic and what I propose is not faulty

    I have shown otherwise. Rather than vote for a conservative who could easily have beat out Clinton, your faulty logic told you to vote in the primary for the tyrannical Trump, a candidate not worth voting for and who not only may choose a liberal Supreme Court justice, just as Clinton would, but whom you declared unelectable from the moment that Kasich withdrew from the primary race. If you do not consider that faulty logic, what would faulty logic look like?

    Thomas Jefferson said, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God

    It is probably futile to say this, but face it, Cotour, you made a poorly thought out, emotional choice during the primary, and we all know it — even those who say that they will vote for Trump while wearing HazMat suits. All the rationalization and saying that ‘this is what we are stuck with, so deal with it’ is not going to correct your mistake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *