A blunt honest appraisal of America today


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.

The coming dark age: This op-ed encapsulates perfectly my despairing sense of today’s American culture, and what it will bring to the future.

After noting the effort by Obama and the Democrats these past eight years to divide Americans by race, party, gender, religion, and creed, he then adds:

Into this, Republicans are responding not with a candidate who will rise above the fray and try to unite us all back into common culture, but a man with no temperament to do anything other than divide. His loudest supporters embrace a “convert or die” mentality. We are either with him or against him.

Republicans have embraced a man who takes tribalism to new levels and, in the process, have put on blinders and willfully ignored how much he excites white nationalists and the race baiters of the right. For every New Black Panther in love with Barack Obama there are two white nationalists willing to march through hell for Donald Trump.

In his conclusion he adds

I’m afraid 2016 is the beginning of a chaotic time and not a one off occasion. We may look back on 2016 as the calm before the storm. What is most galling to me is that my party, the party I once served as an elected official, has turned to a man who has no intention of uniting the nation, who brings out the worst in absolutely everybody, and with so much on the line has so little a chance of even winning. But to point this out is to be accused of being a traitor and helping a woman I find equally offensive.

All of this is to say we get the government and national character that reflects us and right now it is all a damning indictment of our American character. How many more will die? How many more Americans will turn against each other? How many will seek blame instead of reconciliation?

Meanwhile, I am reminded of how, during the primary campaign, Ted Cruz was always willing to graciously reach out to protesters and debate the issues with them politely, face-to-face. That behavior, in modern America, has now been called “creepy” and the act of a liar.

We get the government we deserve. Be prepared for bad things in the future.

79 comments

  • Cotour

    How Trump rises up (or not) and addresses this latest shooting issue will go a long way to indicate whether he will be successful in his presidential ambitions.

    A leader leads and provides some measure of comfort in such times and offers people a road to a positive future where problems are creatively yet realistically solved, where issues such as race and hatred are calmed and not inflamed.

    Leadership is about hope and manifesting a positive future, will Mr. Trump, can Mr. Trump, rise to the occasion?

  • Jwing

    Cruz would be walked all over regardless how many olive branches he has and would extend. No one will ever be good enough. No republican candidate, white or black (i.e. Dr Ben Carson), will ever be able to say and do the right thing with these radical, cultural Marxists that inhabit the media, academia, and the White House.

  • Jwing: I should have been more clear in my post. The people who called Cruz a liar and creepy were not radical, cultural Marxists, but Republican conservatives, many whom I know personally, and many whom wrote it in columns for major news outlets.

    This was my point, as well as the point of the op-ed I linked to: It isn’t just the left that is choosing badly these days. It is the right as well.

  • wodun

    Our friends in the NeverTrump camp act like they are paragons of virtue but often act in just as obscene a manner as they claim to be against.

    It isn’t about convert or die. Its about recognizing there are only two choices Trump or Hillary. The primary is over, Trump won. It is refreshing that people are not constrained from saying negative things about the candidate that represents their team. However, refusing to vote for Trump means that you are tossing your support behind someone many claim to hate just as much.

    Many of us dislike establishment Republicans and yet vote for them anyway. Establishment Republicans always call for others to compromise. Perhaps it is time for them to return the favor? Considering Trump shares many of their leftist positions on things, it shouldn’t be that hard.

  • wodun

    but Republican conservatives, many whom I know personally, and many whom wrote it in columns for major news outlets.

    Yup, the establishment attacked the best compromise candidate between conservatives and establishment types and helped Trump sail through the primaries. But does the establishment recognize their contribution? Do they respect that people are legitimately unhappy with the establishment? Looks doubtful.

  • Cotour

    Here we have Hillary’s response:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/08/hillary-clinton-blame-whites-cops-shooting-deaths-young-black-men/

    “The white man must change”,

    “White Americans need to do a better job of listening when African Americans talk about the seen and unseen barriers you face every day.”

    Enough said, make of it what you will.

  • Cotour

    Lynch’s response:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/loretta-lynch-dallas-shooting-225296

    “Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Friday encouraged protesters not to allow the “heinous violence” that occurred in Dallas to silence their “important” voices.

    I think maybe she should have been in the protest instead of as the head of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

  • Cotour

    Trumps comments:

    “”Last night’s horrific execution-style shootings of 12 Dallas law enforcement officers – five of whom were killed and seven wounded – is an attack on our country,” Trump said in a statement released this morning. “It is a coordinated, premeditated assault on the men and women who keep us safe.”

    “The senseless, tragic deaths of two motorists in Louisiana and Minnesota reminds us how much more needs to be done,”

    You tell me, Trump actually sounds like the more genuine, compassionate and more connected of the three.

    The watchful waiting continues.

  • pzatchok

    Trump doesn’t need to say anything. In fact the less he says the better.

    He has no authority or power so butting his nose into things will just make him look like an idiot.

    He could come out with a nice little general statement, thats all he need do.

    Something like
    “My thoughts and best wishes go out to all the victims of this unnecessary violence these last few days. I only hope that a way is found for everyone to get the justice they deserve and need. I hope that those in power in these situations have the wisdom to do all that is necessary and do it in an efficient and effective manner.”

    Effective leadership has crap to do with instilling hope. I do NOT get hope from my leaders.
    I have trust in my leaders.(at least the leaders I choose) Nothing more.

    I trust that Trump will do less against and more for me and my beliefs than would Hillary.

    As for these latest police problems I will reserve any comments about that for another thread.

  • wayne

    pzatchok:
    I’m agreeing with quite a bit of your remarks.

  • Cotour

    I am going to take issue with this statement:

    “Meanwhile, I am reminded of how, during the primary campaign, Ted Cruz was always willing to graciously reach out to protesters and debate the issues with them politely, face-to-face. That behavior, in modern America, has now been called “creepy” and the act of a liar.”

    While Cruz was interested in debate where ever he found it, and he is very good at it, he really can fully communicate the necessary concepts and associated conclusions on the issues. However his being able to be gracious, debate, be polite and talk face to face does not a “creepy” man or liar in modern America make.

    These observations and designations about individuals and their personal physical characteristics (looks) or mannerisms are observational tags designed to project a desired image by opponents, positive and negative depending on the desired effect / “tag”. Cruz was successfully politically “slimmed” in this way because of his personal physical characteristics and others being able to catch him here and there in a slip which was leveraged into a “lie”. If you can successfully make a negative Caricature of your opponent based on his or her “faults” you have gone a long way to defeating them.

    These are base and juvenile for sure but these techniques are very effective.

  • Willi

    Originally, Trump was not going to allow Cruz to speak at the convention unless Cruz endorsed Trump. But it’s my understanding that the movement to allow convention goers to vote their conscience has gained enough strength to force Trump to allow Cruz to speak at the convention without Cruz endorsing Trump. VERY interesting…

  • Al

    Sorry Bob. You’re making the assumption there’s a middle ground and if we just play nice with the left and treat them fairly they will be willing to compromise. They have shown themselves to be animals that won’t be happy until they get 100% of what they want. Take for example the baker that didn’t want to cater the gay wedding. They left had gotten gay marriage that they wanted but that wasn’t good enough. They had to destroy the people that opposed it. Ask Orson Scott Card about this.

    Although I truly believe it’s too late, the only chance of saving the country is to take on these people head on and never compromise on anything. At the very least, it might help to slow the decent.

  • Cotour

    Pzat:

    I agree that Trumps best friend is silence, but he must begin to demonstrate for a segment of the population who needs it, an ability to show in a public forum his compassion and humanity in a coherent connected way while remaining strong, disciplined and focused on some form of solutions to problems. That to some people translates into “hope”, that the future will be better than what is now.

    In the end however we are always existing in the now.

  • Localfluff

    Trump is doing the right thing. There is nothing to be gained by giving after anything to the hatists. They have to be taken care of very roughly, unnecessarily rough to set an example. The entire “black lives matter” movement, which has not by now already left the organization and publicly demonstrated against it, should be swept up and sent to Guantanamo for life without any trial. They are all terrorists and enemies of society.

    The recent “David’s star” silliness is a good example. Trump explains how ridiculous this false witch hunt is. That is the very most important political issue in the Western world today. But the idiot losing pundits claim that it is a bad priority to mention it, that he should just surrender and say that he is sorry. Never. That is exactly the strategic failure what brought us to where we are today. Every single tiny battle has to be fought ruthlessly and won decisively with no pardon. That is absolutely necessary in order to uphold a civilized society.

    I like the bomb robot the Dallas police used to stop the killing. I didn’t know they had such gadgets. The murderer certainly did not expect it. “-Bring in the bomb robot!”

  • “Although I truly believe it’s too late, the only chance of saving the country is to take on these people head on and never compromise on anything.”

    So, the way we take on the left head on and not compromise on anything is to choose as our Republican presidential candidate a liberal Democrat who has no real understanding of the philosophical problems of liberal policy proposals? This makes no sense to me at all, and continues to baffle me.

    Trump is not Clinton. He will not be as terrible as she will. I admit that. Nonetheless, he will also not move the needle of politics one iota to the right. Instead, he will move it leftward, only slower. This is how you say we meet the left head on and not compromise?

    What a joke. As the author at the link here notes, we are no longer a serious country.

  • Edward

    Robert wrote: “Nonetheless, he will also not move the needle of politics one iota to the right. Instead, he will move it leftward, only slower.”

    I am in the Never Tyranny camp. I will not vote for the Democrats’ nominee, nor will I vote for Trump, for both will take the US deeper into tyrannical territory. Maybe one will take us less deep than the other, during his or her reign, but deeper we will go. I will not support that direction in any way, shape, or form, including with my vote.

    Is the country forever lost? Probably, but that would be because so many Republicans voted in favor of tyranny, this recent primary season. Unlike the days of its anti-slavery/liberty-and-justice-for-all founding through the days of the Civil Rights Movement, the Republican party is no longer of a mind to take us in the direction of liberty, so whether or not the country is lost, the Republican Party and much of its membership are lost.

    From the essay: “The GOP response, largely driven by anger, has been to double down on what they perceive caused Barack Obama to win. They have decided to embrace what they consider are the tactics of the left with gusto. Instead of trying something different or to be better than they perceive the other side, they’re going to try to deploy what they perceive as the President’s playbook with a man far more divisive and even less able to unite the nation.”

    Embracing the tactics of the left is to become one with the left. Abandoning America’s values and principles is to abandon all that is right and good. Fighting tyranny by becoming tyrannical is no way to fight tyranny; it is to become the tyrant, and that is what the GOP has done and become.

    As Lincoln said, a century and a half ago, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”

    As Reagan said, a century later, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

    The task now is to find or invent a new movement or political party that will return liberty to the United States of America.

  • wayne

    Edward:
    well stated.

    4 minute clip from
    “A Time for Choosing”
    “a rendezvous with destiny”
    https://youtu.be/lvg7lRsCVJ8

    The entire talk is surprisingly timeless and current.

  • Cotour

    Related, how deep and how fast do you want to get there? :

    Read these nine “truths” of progressivism and keep in mind that the culture of dependency that the government is constantly promoting and growing through ever bigger programs and more and more spending may well one day result in their full implementation. This is what Hillary Clinton, a self admitted “progressive”, as is president Obama, as is Bernie Sanders as are many others, believes America should become.

    Number six is a really good one, your going to love it. Remember “It takes a village to raise a child” H. Clinton.

    https://home.isi.org/sites/default/files/IRSpring2013_TheTruthsTheyHold.pdf

    The word “Progressive” sounds so positive and hopeful, but that is just another word game that leftists play as they slowly drive us all down the road to mutual ruin.

  • wayne

    Cotour:
    You forgot to include Trump in that list of Progressive’s.

    He has a definite bent in that direction, he’s more Hoover than Coolidge, and appears to have bought into the FDR agenda, lock, stock & barrel. (He’s no Hillary, but he’s no Conservative & barely a Republican on a good day.)

  • Cotour

    My objective take on Trump is that a lot of what he says is related to his process of making political / negotiating capital, all to be used at a later date to move things forward to his ultimate ends, what ever they happen to be. If he does become the president he will surround himself with people, like Newt, who know where and when to push and when to hold tight and many others who’s opinion he respects and he understands that he needs to listen to. I think you can take that to the bank.

    How he will develop and what his agenda is really going to be is what is in question as you point out and I do not really disagree with you. But given the choice of the four to choose between, who would you prefer to have dinner with? Maybe none of them but if I had to I would prefer Trump, I do not know if I could control myself with the others, I would probably be removed from the table at some point (you know how I can be :).

    On the subject of who is “progressive” and to what degree this I absolutely 100% know for sure, both Hillary and Obama and Bernie strongly identify with being progressive, promote it and adhere to the concepts that it promotes, pure Marxist dogma. Are there some things that Trump says that can be interpreted as being progressive? I suppose so but again IMO much of what he says is a set up for future access.

    Do I believe that Trump has a more traditional “conservative” American philosophy then either Hillary, Obama or Bernie? Yes I certainly do, and I am certain that you do to (not to put words in your mouth).

    Crazy, going to get crazier, and then its really going to get crazy.

  • Cotour

    To my point:

    Potential VP candidate / “consultant” for Trump, Flynn, digs down and straightens out from the jump in this interview the lefts anti American sovereignty / progressive word games. One progressive subject that Trump and his people are dispelling, they do not support open borders and not vetting the individuals who want to partake in the American experience. Agreed?

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-veep-candidate-corrects-this-week-host-its-illegal-not-undocumented/

    This general, like many others, fired by Obama because he used the term radical Jihadi?

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    “Do I believe that Trump has a more traditional “conservative” American philosophy then either Hillary, Obama or Bernie? Yes I certainly do.”

    Looks like he has you fooled, too. His instinctive reactions to questions he has not heard before are always either progressive answers or answers that he thinks are conservative, because his progressive friends told him that it was how conservatives think or what they believe.

    Trump does not believe in conservativism — he cannot even describe it, when asked. Trump is, at best, learning as he goes what responses would convince conservatives that he is on their side. He is a changeling, a cuckoo’s egg, a RINO implanted into the Republican Party in order to guarantee a liberal Democrat is president, next term, and to continue taking us down the road to tyranny.

    His surreptitious mission is succeeding brilliantly. Should he bother to become president himself, his advisers will not be conservative but will be progressive. They will think like him, and there will be no need for him to pretend to be conservative any longer. You will count on him to do the right thing, but he will betray your trust and faith in him. He will behave more like Comey or Justice Roberts. Of course, when he does, you will continue to defend him.

    Trump does not know how to make America great again, and if he did, it would go against his wishes and his nature.

    I understand that you do not believe me, that you are blinded by your hope for change, but the reality is that Trump would not recognize conservativism if it were to introduce itself to him.

  • Cotour

    “Looks like he has you fooled, too. ”

    I think that I have been pretty fair handed and objective in contrasting both Trumps “good” and “bad” potentials.

    As far as choosing between Trump and Hillary, if a person intends to participate in the coming presidential election, Hillary is just not for one second, for the many and multiple reasons known, not an option. So to me, and I know I have explained this over and over to you, Hillary must not be rewarded with the presidency. That is my goal.

    Whomever agrees with me and is going to vote then the choice is what it is, Trump. Assuming that he can survive the convention and become the nominee. And if you choose to sit it out you can be seen as supporting the worse of the two candidates with your non participation. I am sorry if that thought upsets you but the logic clearly exists to support it.

    Maybe in the end it would be more expedient to just allow Hillary to become president, why fight it, it should accelerate Americas arrival to the progressive paradise that she sees in Americas future, it seems inevitable.

    Maybe she will create a special stamp in honor of those people who helped her become president, maybe there will be a competition and she will put your face on it. Do you have a good picture of yourself handy ? (sarcasm alert, I am sure your a handsome man and take a great picture and have plenty of acceptable pictures :)

  • “Do I believe that Trump has a more traditional “conservative” American philosophy then either Hillary, Obama or Bernie? Yes I certainly do, and I am certain that you do to (not to put words in your mouth).”

    But you are putting words in other people’s mouths. You cannot be “certain” in any way about the beliefs of other people, and you are presumptuous to even suggest that you are.

    It is this kind of comment by you that defeats your effort to persuade anyone who disagrees with you. You really should stop doing it.

  • Cotour

    ” (not to put words in your mouth).” Maybe you missed this?

    It is reasonable if presented with the choice between Hillary and Trump to come to the conclusion that Trump is the more “conservative” of the two. It may not be the kind of or to the degree of conservative that everyone would prefer, but more conservative he is. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) agree or disagree with that statement?

    My assuming that a reasonable person would tend to agree with my conclusion does not seem too far off the mark to be “certain” enough to continue to make my point to Edward and anyone else who might agree with his point of view. How can you be so certain that my efforts are for naught?

    I don’t like everything you write here, some of it is self serving and plainly biased. I did not appreciate this, will you stop doing it? :

    I am going to take issue with this statement:

    “Meanwhile, I am reminded of how, during the primary campaign, Ted Cruz was always willing to graciously reach out to protesters and debate the issues with them politely, face-to-face. That behavior, in modern America, has now been called “creepy” and the act of a liar.”

    While Cruz was interested in debate where ever he found it, and he is very good at it, he really can fully communicate the necessary concepts and associated conclusions on the issues. However his being able to be gracious, debate, be polite and talk face to face does not a “creepy” man or liar in modern America make.

    These observations and designations about individuals and their personal physical characteristics (looks) or mannerisms are observational tags designed to project a desired image by opponents, positive and negative depending on the desired effect / “tag”. Cruz was successfully politically “slimmed” in this way because of his personal physical characteristics and others being able to catch him here and there in a slip which was leveraged into a “lie”. If you can successfully make a negative Caricature of your opponent based on his or her “faults” you have gone a long way to defeating them.

    These are base and juvenile for sure but these techniques are very effective.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “‘(not to put words in your mouth).’ Maybe you missed this? It is reasonable if presented with the choice between Hillary and Trump to come to the conclusion that Trump is the more ‘conservative’ of the two.”

    I used my own words, but thank you for the thought. Trump has no concept of what conservativism is. When asked, he said that conservatives want to conserve, then changed the subject — explaining just how his positions are the opposite of conservatives.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PEMWpdIYZA#t=55 (1 minute)

    I don’t know what Trump has done to get you thinking that he is the more conservative of the two, but that you think so is why it looks like he has you fooled.

  • Cotour

    If you take notice Edward I have put the word conservative in quotation marks ” “, that makes the word subjective, you know, some people may have a slightly different, even a crazy definition of “conservative” than you. How ever you get yourself there, please no Hillary.

    And still after all of this the choice appears to be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. To my point, if you intend to vote in this next presidential election choose between them. (Don’t vote for William F. Buckley in the next election, he is not running, he’s dead.)

    But not you Edward, and I respect that, but the Zman will be using my logic, lets hope there are a lot more of us then there are of them. Its funny two different, highly intelligent human beings coming to two different conclusions about the same event. Who would have thunk it?

  • “the Zman will be using my logic…”

    I keep telling you to stop this, but you won’t. You haven’t the foggiest what I will do, and you piss me off every time you declare that you do. Worse, you actually reduce the chance that I will do as you want, because I do NOT like being manipulated. I suspect others feel the same.

  • wayne

    Edward & Mr. Z.;
    Well stated remarks.

    Cotour:
    You are waxing poetic in a chaotic manner. Saying stuff, doesn’t make it true.

    -I highly recommend a short essay by Orwell:
    “Politics & the English Language”
    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

    3 brief excerpts–

    “Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language.
    It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble.
    If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.”

    “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties.
    Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

    “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.
    In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.
    Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.”

  • Joe

    Great comments Wayne, Eric Arthur Blair was very much foresighted in his writings, so much of what Orwell wrote is going on now and has been going on for decades. The left control academia, the press and our language, they often change the language to suite their needs, they change definitions of words and proclaim our constitution a living breathing document that changes its meaning to bend to the lefts will, the deck is stacked against conservatives.

  • wayne

    Joe–
    Appreciate the sentiment.

    One (of many) excellent talks by Christopher Hitchens, on his book,
    “Why Orwell Matters;”
    https://youtu.be/rY5Ste5xRAA

    –When people pull the “living breathing document” argument on me (referencing our Constitution), I tell them to ask their Bank if the home-mortgage Note they signed, is a “breathing & living document,” subject to change at whim.

  • Cotour

    ““the Zman will be using my logic…””

    You have stated the exact same logic on this election and Trump V Clinton issue as I promote, or am I incorrect?
    (I could swear that I read your comments in the affirmative that you have also offered to Edward)

    If true then I am not manipulating you (how can I manipulate someone who shares my point of view on a particular issue? That is illogical, as are some things that you write on the subject of politics that piss me off. I am citing you and your, from what I remember clearly stated logic which I agree with.

    A lot of people piss me off all the time, I regroup and continue my conversation.

    “Cotour:
    You are waxing poetic in a chaotic manner. Saying stuff, doesn’t make it true.”

    Wayne, please cut and paste here something, anything, that you believe is “chaotic” and does not make sense to you that I have written. I am ready, willing and able to confront what I write and reconsider it at any time. Please be ready to explain their incongruities. I will wait patiently for your substantiated evidence.

    I think what is apparent here is that some people do not like my style and debating techniques and I can understand that I can be a bit proactive and insistent.

    In the end we can all agree that Hillary Clinton must not become the president of the United States, and no matter how you get there, make sure you get there, no matter who pisses you off. And anyone who can not get over my insistence and for spite does the opposite of what I suggest, in fact what they themselves have suggested, well I do not know what to say to that.

  • “You have stated the exact same logic on this election and Trump V Clinton issue as I promote, or am I incorrect?”

    You are incorrect. When it comes to Trump, I have agreed with you on some points, but I disagree with you on other points. Overall, I tend to agree more with Edward. You unfortunately seem to want to see what you want to see. You want to see that I agree with you, and thus dismiss the times I disagree. You want to see Trump as a conservative, and so you seem to ignore most of what he has done so far that suggests otherwise.

    Certainly Trump might be better than Clinton. Or he might be worse, in that he will appear as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and will thus allow the Republican leadership to keep the status quo because they have their guy in office. I have not decided, and am watching to see how Trump behaves in the coming weeks.

  • wayne

    Cotour:
    I have neither the desire nor inclination to pick apart your comments sentence by sentence. Others here do a good job & I could add little to the greater conversation.

    You do however, attribute to Trump a whole lot of internal-motives, that are simply not born out by his actions, past or present.
    We just simply disagree on some Key Concepts, and that’s ok with me.
    (other items we do agree upon)

    As I have stated many times, I did & do not support Trump, nor am I actively working against him at this point. Nobody I would vote for is currently in-play, and I have plenty of down-ballot people & issues I intend to support, Local, State, and Nationally.

    Maybe Trump would “rise to the occasion,” but I have no clue what that actually means in reality & I certainly can not count on “that” happening.

    I am sick of voting for the lessor of two evils. As Edward has stated numerous times, that is no choice at all, and I for one am not doing it again, ever.

  • Cotour

    The specific subject here happens to be whether a person might logically justify voting for Trump even though they do not see him as the perfect candidate, even see him as just as bad as Clinton. Nothing more, nothing less in this particular thread. You can disagree with my positions on a variety of subjects all day long but I clearly remember you agree that its best, although not ideal, to vote for Trump over Clinton. I assumed that we agreed based on you own words. I will abandon citing you specifically in the future if it makes you uncomfortable.

    Your expanding the conversation to include every political opinion I have is to say the least, disappointing and distractionary for your own purposes.

    As for Trump I have consistently described him as being “different” and that I loosely classify him as more conservative and more pro American than Clinton, it may be a matter of degrees but different he is and IMO the better more “conservative” of the worse choices.

    But that is politics. We swallow hard and we take care of what must be taken care of and deal with the future that we have before us, or abandon all hope and freely allow the left to further confiscate power that we will live with for the next 50 years. And at that point, what is the point we will be all “equal” then.

  • Cotour

    “A blunt honest appraisal of America today”

    Sub heading: “The coming dark age.”

    In keeping with the dark and ominous spirit of the headings of this story line I can not stress enough the validity of my bluntness on the subject. I suggest we all put aside our ideals in this instance, once again, and work to improve our choices in the coming elections considering that our current president and at least one of the people who want to continue his un American / anti American “progressive” agenda for sure will do just that.

    Wayne, you did not disappoint me. (no sweat, were still buds, 98%)

  • Garry

    I don’t trust my memory completely, and don’t have time (or the desire) to go back and read, but when I think of what Mr. Z has written about voting for Trump, what comes to mind is something along the lines of “in the end I will probably vote for him over Hillary, but I disagree strongly with him / am disappointed by his. . .” That’s my impression, whose accuracy is suspect.

    Perhaps I remember it that way because that’s been my view all along. If the election were held today, I would probably vote for Trump over Hillary, but as time goes by, I’m less and less inclined to vote for either. I find myself torn; the people have spoken in the Republican primaries, and the party “leadership” ought to respect their choice. Yet, the longer we go on, the more disastrous a Trump presidency looks.

    The only thing I know for sure is that I won’t vote for Hillary. I hope that Trump would not be as bad for democracy, freedom, and prosperity, but as time goes by I get a stronger and stronger feeling that he might be as bad, if not worse. I’m going to wait and see, and focus more on down-ballot elections.

    There are a lot of bad trends worldwide, and I’m afraid the US is not going to provide the leadership that’s so badly needed.

    The latest event that looks like a bad sign is yesterday’s elections in Japan: the Liberal Democratic Party and its allies took enough seats to win a 2/3 majority in both houses, which would allow them to amend the Constitution. I’m not so worried about their proposal to abandon their renunciation of war (our weakness demands they be a little more assertive), but I am worried about their proposal to limit free speech, leaving to the government’s judgment of what speech is against the public interest and should be censored.

    In Japan, nothing happens without a lot of backroom dealing and groundwork first; by and large there are no trial balloons, so now that they have the means to amend the Constitution, it’s a good bet that they will.

    A few alarmists have written articles saying that the Prime Minister and many of his key people are part of a secret cult that wants to bring back Imperial Japan, including Emperor worship, rollback of women’s rights, and deporting foreigners, but I take that theory with a huge grain of salt.

    Either way, Japan amending its Constitution would be huge news, that nobody seems to be paying attention to here.

    My apologies if I’ve hijacked this thread off topic.

  • Garry,

    Your memory is more or less correct, except that at no point have I said outright that I will likely vote for Trump. I have agreed with cotour’s point about Trump being better than Clinton, but have also said that I am quite doubtful that we will gain much by the slight difference. I am hoping Trump will reassure me in the coming weeks, but am very doubtful.

    As I said in another comment earlier today, Trump might actually be worse, as while he makes believe by words that he is a Republican, a conservative, and a supportive of the Constitution, he could proceed to make deals with the Democrats, the party he has supported for most of his adult life.

    Thus, the best possibility might be to have Clinton as President, but make sure the Congress is even more conservative than it is now to act as a brake on her worst policy decisions.

  • wayne

    Garry:

    Well stated. When the number of comments gets this large, most everyone is all over the map. (it’s all connected, but the connections get circuitous!)

    Agree- our Media does a terrible job of reporting on other Countries. I’m in Michigan & we never hear anything about Canada, and we share a large border with them. (Detroit paper will cover Windsor occasionally but I highly suspect their “foreign desk” just pulls stuff off the wire-service, and it’s all pure political punditry and non-news.)

    I appreciate your insight on Japan, I know you lived in Japan when you were in the military– if I have that correct.
    And I agree with your broad point, pretty much nobody, including huge numbers of our politicians, cares. Just look at the Brexit referendum in Britain, by and large the Media didn’t care before the vote & then went to straight to “the sky is falling” reportage, afterword.

    If the USA wasn’t projecting so much weakness, the Japanese might not be so (rightfully) paranoid about China/ N. Korea. Are some factions still advocating they construct their own atomic weapons?
    Personally, I’m not worried about the Japanese reverting to their Imperial ways. (should I be?!) We beat the hell out of them in WW-2, although that segment of the population is dying off quickly. Fortunately, the younger generations grew up in relative prosperity & democratic rule. I’d be more worried about Germany reverting to their bizzaro-world past tendencies.
    But Russia takes the cake in that regard, among the 3—“communism” may have fell, “officially,” but they are up to no damn good and they have nuclear weapons..

    (and I apologize for veering off topic as well.)

  • Cotour

    Gary: Thats about what I also recall about the Zman and the subject of voting for Trump, its reasonable and I agree with it. Its not very complex.

    As for your Japan comments, I think the fact as you point out that our leadership in the world has been lacking or non existent, ala Obama and “leading from behind” (a “progressive” treasonous insult to every American), has resulted in the Japanese having to make these Constitutional adjustment moves in relation to China’s and North Korea’s aggressive moves in the South China sea. I will choose to see it as a positive for the moment, they have a right to protect themselves if they perceive that we no longer will .

    I welcome more people participating in the conversation.

  • Cotour

    “Thus, the best possibility might be to have Clinton as President, but make sure the Congress is even more conservative than it is now to act as a brake on her worst policy decisions.”

    Your comfortable with allowing a self admitted “progressive” (read Marxist dogma adherent) to appoint possibly 3 to 4 Supreme Court Justices with what is going on in our country today? I would much rather put the brakes to Trump than Clinton as a matter of strategy.

    I site the success the Republican controlled Congress has had stopping out Obama implementing his agendas, that was a real tour de force. That’s a bad plan.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “The specific subject here happens to be …”

    No. the specific subject happens to be an appraisal of America. We are on a sub-subject about how Americans currently think about their ballot choices. In my estimation, that appraisal is bad, as few voters are actually thinking about what they want, they are only thinking about what might win the November election, and are willing to vote for the winner despite it not being what they want in the end.

    You wrote: “it may be a matter of degrees but different he is and IMO the better more “conservative” of the worse choices.”

    Perhaps he is less progressive, but from where I sit, it does not seem that way. To consider him “conservative” in any way is to disrespect conservativism. He believes that conservativism is the desire to conserve. What, we are not sure.

    Think of the political spectrum as a map of the US. Perhaps Clinton is as far left as the Great Highway, in San Francisco, and Trump is as far right as the Embarcadero in the same city. Someone in Oakland might be able to differentiate, but for someone as far right as Ohio or Michigan, both are pretty much as left-leaning as someone can get — at least in the contiguous states, at least while using well-known cities. Think of me as a Midwesterner, unable to distinguish between the subtle differences between these two lefties. You, Cotour, may be able to, but I cannot. Trump does not come close to being anything like conservative, although he likes to pretend that he does.

    Meanwhile, I futilely continue to urge you to vote for a different — non-tyrannical — candidate.

    You wrote: “In the end we can all agree that Hillary Clinton must not become the president of the United States.”

    I do not see Trump as any better than Clinton. Thus, if the choice is between the two of them, I do not care which it is. I will choose a third candidate, as there are alternate candidates from which to choose. If that means that either Trump or Clinton becomes president, then so be it. If I were to vote for either of them (and I have been adamant, and still am, that I will not vote for either of the Tyranny candidates), then one of them would still be president, and my vote would have been wasted on a tyrant.

    Please do not assume that I can agree with you on all aspects Clinton. It certainly seems like she would be a bad choice, but I cannot say that she would be worse than Trump, Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or even Obama.

    As far as I can tell, Cotour, you are concerned about the specific road she would take us on, and I agree that it would be a bad road. However, each of the other people I listed above would also take us on bad roads, each of which leads to the same tyrannical destination. I refuse to give my consent (through the ballot box) for taking any of those roads. I want a completely different road with a completely different destination. I suspect that you do, too, but you seem willing to encourage the tyrants by voting for one of them.

    If everyone who did not want the US to become a tyranny voted for someone who was not a tyrant, then Trump and Clinton (and Sanders and Warren, if they ended up on the ballot) would lose the presidency, and we would have an improved choice. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get people to not consider the tyrant ticket — it is as though there is some sort of social/political/party momentum that prevents people from actually thinking about what they want and voting for it. Instead, they swallow hard or hold their nose and vote the way they always have, only to be disappointed yet again.

  • Cotour

    “I want a completely different road with a completely different destination.”

    What one wants may be different for the time being than what one gets to choose. The choice that you seek will come about in two ways IMO.

    1. Through the incremental method where things change by several degrees at a time and eventually you through constant pressure more or less achieve what needs to be achieved.

    Or

    2. Through massive unrest and possibly great violence.

    The path that appears before us seems sure, its the #2 choice, I would prefer the #1, incremental method.

    Thanks for you well thought out (from your point of view, which I do not agree with) comments.

  • wayne

    Edward:
    Good stuff, once again.

    Cotour:
    Referencing SCOTUS. I’d appreciate your take although its totally off topic.
    If Hillary were to become President, she can nominate anyone she wants. Same thing with Trump.
    –The Senate however, is the only part of the Legislative branch than can approve/block/hold a nominee. The Senate has exclusive power over this.

    >Assuming the Republicans maintain control in the Senate, Mitch and the head of the Judiciary Committee, are the two RINO’s who directly control who gets appointed, next year or later. There are precious few reliable Conservative in the Senate and a whole lot of hardcore leftists and RINO’s, who can always be counted on to make deals.

    Mitch would love to “make a deal” with a President Trump on SCOTUS nominees.
    Mitch would also love to “make a deal” with a President Clinton.

    It’s highly instructive to note.
    – Whomever is elected President, Mitch/Ryan and the Boys, can not lose in the short-term.
    Their power and control grows, no matter what. The only unknown, is exactly who would enrich/empower them, more, the People be damned.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “What one wants may be different for the time being than what one gets to choose.”

    But at least I am able to choose far, far closer to what I want, because I am willing to vote for an alternate, third choice. You, however, are unthinkingly and myopically fixated on only two of the several choices, both of which are tyrants.

    You wrote: “The choice that you seek will come about in two ways IMO.”

    It is precisely because of your opinion and refusal to vote your actual interests that leaves us stuck with those two ways. Had you (and the other unthinking voters) voted for a real conservative in the primary election, then we would not be stuck with the Trump that you fear is unelectable. Instead, we would have an option of someone who need not be coaxed into doing the right thing, would not need an army of advisors to advise him on what the right thing is, and would take us instinctively toward liberty, rather than away from it.

    Disagree with me all you want, but it is people like you that have brought us to this place, where the blunt, honest appraisal of America is so bleak. Now that you have brought us here, you insist that we follow you all the way, over the cliff. You have confused me for a lemming.

    You wrote: “I suggest we all put aside our ideals in this instance”

    I do not need an ideal, what I need is a candidate who is good enough to vote for (a concept I will not put aside). Trump is the opposite, and I will continue to treat him so.

  • Cotour

    And then we might see a struggle of wills between the counter balancing powers and it would be a test of Trumps powers of persuasion and negotiation that he speaks about so often. I can not for sure say how that might go seeing his learning curve, which might not be as long as others, but its really an unknowable.

    If its Clinton then the Borg would drive home the liberal / leftist agenda by installing the same for sure. Think about the “progressive” (reread the 8 truths of progressivism and know where they intend to go) agenda and the Supreme Court filled to a majority with the people who will be able to in their minds justify essentially rewriting the Constitution.

    This potential disturbs me, Hillary must not become the president in 2016.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You may be disturbed by Clinton, but Trump/Clinton/Sanders/Warren/Obama (no difference) and their tyranny terrify me. Thus, my choice of vote.

  • wayne

    Edward:
    Good stuff.

    Cotour:
    –“struggle of wills between the counter balancing powers.” “test of Trumps powers of persuasion and negotiation.” ” “I can not for sure say how that might go seeing his learning curve, which might not be as long as others, but its really an unknowable.”

    –Not intentionally being argumentative, but what does that mean?

    Mitch McConnell as Leader of the Senate, controls exactly which nominee’s are put to a Vote in the Senate & which are blocked or put on hold. That includes any SCOTUS nominees and roughly 200-400 Federal Judge nominees. (in any given 4 year Term.)
    A President merely nominates, the Senate votes to approve or not.
    Mitch is a RINO

    Hillary, Trump, Mitch, Ryan…. they are all, more alike, than they are different. They are all over a line certain, it’s only matter of degree.

    As Edward painted the visual picture, they are all located in California, while the Country has historically been in the Mid West.

  • Cotour

    –“struggle of wills between the counter balancing powers.” The counter balancing powers between the president and the powers of the Senate, as proscribed by the Constitution. Who’s will prevail? Who will tend to fold? Who will get their way?

    “test of Trumps powers of persuasion and negotiation.” Trump says that he is the king of the “Art of the deal”, how will that play out within the engineered constraints of the Constitution?

    “I can not for sure say how that might go seeing his learning curve, which might not be as long as others, but its really an unknowable.” Trump will be on a learning curve related to striking a deal or pushing forward an agenda, in the private sector he controls, he does it as easy as breathing. That will change.

    (I see him as constantly creating leverage through his speech to test his opponents tolerances and then those established limits to be used as needed in the future. Its how he gets to understand better who he is pitted against. That’s what I hear when I hear him bouncing around or trash talking, he is testing the outer limits of his opponents tolerances, its a kind of mental modeling / strategy development technique. This is an example of his political learning curve, what he says has to be structured in a different way to operate in the public forum of political speech. I do not know how it translates yet.)

    In the new government environment his power is by law counter balanced by the Congress and the Judiciary. He will find himself within the constraints and structure of the Constitution / government and the engineered counter balances that make it up. I do not know how that will go, its an unknown to me, could be a breeze, could be a big stopped up toilet.

    I hope this helps, you do not have to apologize for asking for clarification. And I do not see it as being argumentative, and being polite goes just so far, sometimes when its called for you have to get down and get in the mix in order to sort things out, (test the limits of you opponents commitment to what they think and what they know and what they think they know). Maybe its a New York thing? I encourage you to discuss and to argue you positions and to challenge me on mine.

  • wayne

    Cotour– appreciate the clarification.
    It does however raise even more questions. But that’s to be expected, given I’m not changing my mind on Trump, and you aren’t either.

    No personal offense intended, but when I think of New York, it’s Tammany Hall that comes to mind, and the long list of Progressive Majors you guys have had, starting way back.
    In the Midwest, we all know exactly what “New York Values,” really means. I can be as provincial as the next guy, but that phraseology just mimics the Left as they attempt to divide Urban from Rural, State against State, etc., etc.

    What I’m really hearing you say–you don’t really know how Trump would govern but you are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. (for all the reasons you have mentioned over months)

    Myself & others, aren’t willing to give Trump that level of trust, for all the reasons previously stated.

  • Wayne wrote, in analyzing Cotour’s position: “What I’m really hearing you say–you don’t really know how Trump would govern but you are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. (for all the reasons you have mentioned over months) Myself & others, aren’t willing to give Trump that level of trust, for all the reasons previously stated.”

    I think this sums up the area of disagreement, practically from the beginning. As you like to say, well stated!

  • Cotour

    I would agree, I am willing to roll the dice, that is valid. But my gamble is not without a safety net, it is not an open ended irrational gamble. Keeping in mind that ALL candidates are by nature gambles.

    What I will point out here are the structures involved that are designed specifically to stop out the power of any president and that fact allows me to think in such a way. Think about electing Barack Hussein Obama without the constraints of the rules that limit his power (not that it has been used to the extent that IMO it should have been used).

    But if that is true are you saying that what you all want that oppose me is the same old comfortable “tyranny” as we are used to? Kind of a Stockholme effect? Or are you willing to actually change the paradigm that we are currently on?

    Real change is uncomfortable, scary, even dangerous, but if there is to be change we must at some point actually turn from what we know must be rejected. Comfortability with the status quo politics as we know it may feel “normal” and safe but where is the progress in it?

    So am I willing to roll the dice? Yes, but knowing that there is a 240 year old, time tested structure in place specifically designed to allow for the new and different while preserving the sanity and common sense needed to proceed with what must be proceeded with, the interests of preserving and promoting America and the principles of its founding.

    I again point out that Hillary Clinton on balance is the more offensive candidate to our country’s sovereignty and the world for the many and multiple reasons that we are all aware of. If you are forced to choose then you must justify your choice by choosing the less offensive and not the more offensive. Logic points to nothing else.

    Wayne, you can not offend me.

    (I am right now listening to the offensive Liberal Anthony Weiner on the radio and he is spewing the “Hillary Clinton is thee most qualified person to ever run for the presidency”. Get ready for a lot more of that if this “most qualified person to ever run” becomes the president. Just to flesh this out, the callers that are calling talking to him after his spewing all are saying “some are happy, some are not happy but they are going to hold their noses and vote for Trump. A guy is right now reaming him and his “record”, Weiner squirms. A great man once said, I think it was, Feh!)

  • wayne

    Cotour:
    “But my gamble is not without a safety net, it is not an open ended irrational gamble.”

    Just admit it’s a gamble you are willing to take. No need to qualify it. We’ll know in November (or maybe at the Convention.)
    It’s just a gamble myself & others, are not willing to make.

    If Trump were to be elected, it would be the troika of Trump/Mitch/Ryan.
    There are precious few (if not ZERO) Constitutional constraints left in place. We are living in a Post Constitutional era where nothing makes sense, by design.

    –There are no stop-signs for Obama, & there will be none for Clinton or Trump. I expected that when the Democrats controlled Congress, but Mitch/Ryan-Boehner FULLY funded EVERYTHING that mattered to Obama, at a time when they could have killed the entire agenda. They chose not to.
    The Senate was even willing to give up it’s Treaty power. Bob Corker did exactly what Mitch instructed him to do & the RINO’s went along, except for people like Cruz & Lee, and a handful of others.
    Boehner/Ryan gave up the House’s power over Funding the Federal government.
    (“Hell yes, they done drank ALL our Money!”)
    Their pathetic “solutions” were to sue the Executive Branch & let the Judicial Branch grow in power. Who cares if they rewrite the Laws, eh? The Legislative Branch apparently doesn’t care.

    The way you restrain the Executive Branch, is to starve it & not fully fund it.
    The way you investigate Hillary, is to hold Hearing’s, at-the-time, not these phony-baloney “hearings,” long after the fact. You get her under oath and grill her non-stop. You offer immunity to the low hanging fish & work your way up. (That boat has sailed, never, ever, to return.)

    As for Weiner– a scum-bag to be sure. But he is married to Hillary’s Girlfriend, so he has a incredible amount of power, despite his scumbaggery. He’s by no means “dead politically.”

    Total tangent:
    How much do cigarettes cost in NYC? Last I heard, it was something like $13 a pack. (?)

  • Cotour

    “Just admit it’s a gamble you are willing to take”

    Are you reading the words that I am writing? Yes, I have plainly said so and have explained why in detail.

    “It’s just a gamble myself & others, are not willing to make.”

    Your not willing to take gamble? But you are willing to help elect Hillary and she is not a “gamble”? (She actually is a known quantity, we know exactly what agenda she will be continuing with her own personal spin. The progressive agenda, read the Marxist agenda. )

    I have clearly stated that ALL candidates are gambles.

    “There are precious few (if not ZERO) Constitutional constraints left in place. We are living in a Post Constitutional era where nothing makes sense, by design.”

    We live at a moment in time where we have a president who it has been determined that the Congress will not stand much in his way because of his race because they are all apparently “racists”. And he has learned how to push it to the max and leverage it. Obama and his “progressive” adherents strategy is to create that confusion that you speak of as a part of their progressive / Marxist / Alinski training. That will go away post Obama, if no other “minority” becomes the president. Obama like it or not is “special” and has gotten a general pass, again because of his skin color.

    “There are no stop-signs for Obama, & there will be none for Clinton or Trump.”

    Not for Clinton, but definitely for Trump. Let us not be naive here. Clinton, after you help elect her, will get the lady parts / Va jay jay pass in Congress, just like Obama because of his skin color. “Hillary can’t get anything done because all of the men in Congress are misogynists” ! And out comes the pen and the phone. Wake up my friend, I have clearly, patiently and more or less respectfully laid this entire scenario out for you and anyone else who is confused about the situation before us. I am hopeful that you drill down on this and understand it in the proper context and the ominous implications that come with it. And your concerned about Trump? Please.

    Cigarettes? You smoke?

  • wayne

    “me thinks thou doth protest too loudly.”

  • Cotour

    That’s your response?

    I welcome anyone else to comment on this subject and refute my position.

  • wayne

    Cotour– you are just digging yourself deeper.
    Don’t have the desire to pick apart every one of your sentences. Nor do I feel the need.
    It is however, extremely tedious to be told its my fault if Clinton gets elected.

    “In most debates, people seem to be trying to convince one another; but all they can hope for is new arguments to convince themselves.”
    Nassim Taleb

  • wayne

    “I frequently tell the apocryphal story about how Max Planck, after he won the Nobel Prize, went around Germany giving the same standard lecture on the new Quantum Mechanics.

    Over time, his chauffeur memorized the lecture and said, “Would you mind, Professor Planck, because it’s so boring to stay in our routine, if I gave the lecture in Munich and you just sat in front wearing my chauffeur’s hat?

    Planck said, “Why not?” And the chauffeur got up and gave this long lecture on Quantum Mechanics. After which a physics professor stood up and asked a perfectly ghastly question.
    The speaker said, “Well I’m surprised that in an advanced city like Munich I get such an elementary question.

    I’m going to ask my chauffeur to reply.”
    …….
    “In this world we have two kinds of knowledge. One is Planck knowledge, the people who really know. They’ve paid the dues, they have the aptitude.

    And then we’ve got chauffeur knowledge.

    They’ve learned the talk. They may have a big head of hair, they may have fine temper in the voice, they’ll make a hell of an impression.

    But in the end, all they have is chauffeur knowledge. I think I’ve just described practically every politician in the United States.

    And you are going to have the problem in your life of getting the responsibility into the people with the Planck knowledge and away from the people with the chauffeur knowledge.

    And there are huge forces working against you. My generation has failed you a bit… but you wouldn’t like it to be too easy now would you?”

    Charlie Munger
    2007 Commencement address USC Law School

  • PeterF

    Cotour;

    “are you saying that what you all want that oppose me is the same old comfortable “tyranny” as we are used to?”

    I don’t really see people opposing you as much as people who are genuinely concerned for the future of “The American Experiment” with opinions that differ from yours only by degree. Personally, I feel (THINK) that the experiment will continue and will continue to bear fruit as long as there are people who are willing to discuss the future of America civilly as they do on this website.

    I also feel (THINK) that the concern of all the liberty loving people contributing to this thread is tinged by the fear that we may be looking at a possible armed insurrection no matter WHO is elected president in November. If I had grandchildren, I would weep for them.

    I don’t know what ancient Chinese I pissed off but it appears that I am about to live in “interesting times”.

  • Cotour

    Peter:

    I do not think anyone here who disagrees with my fairly well argued position about the justification of voting for either Trump or Clinton is only off by one degree, they have come to a 180 degree different conclusion.

    If you mean an armed insurrection based on race, I believe that all of that will begin to lessen quite a bit after our “fearless” racial pandering president leaves office. Obama has been thee biggest fomenter of racial tension in our country right now. Obama plays this like a fiddle, and points his finger else where. I expect him to become the leader or the main consultant / community organizer of the Black Lives Matter organization after his term.

    I realize as I am writing this that he will be the go to person for the rest of his life to continue to stir this pot, so I am now contradicting myself and agreeing with you. Another good reason that he not have a co fomenter in the White House. Remember what Hillary said about the Dallas police murders, “white people have to change”. Not good.

    In conclusion, a vote for Hillary is what it is, and a withheld vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary. Hillary must not become the next president of the United States!

    Q: When will the Black Lives Matter organization become outraged at the over two thousand people, mostly of color, who have been shot in Chicago the past year? Almost three thousand in 2015!

    http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/

  • Edwrad

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “But if that is true are you saying that what you all want that oppose me is the same old comfortable “tyranny” as we are used to?”

    No, we are saying that with Trump, that is what we will get. I thought that I have been exceedingly clear on that point.

    The Stolkholm effect is on your part. You already know that Trump is more likely to bring tyranny than liberty, it is what he preaches loudest. You reject even the consideration of voting for anyone who is more likely to bring liberty than tyranny.

    But this is to be expected. Trump’s liberal Democrat rhetoric is much more in line with the liberal Democrat views that you have presented as acceptable or desirable to you, in the past few years. You continually ask the rest of us to accept the tyranny that has been thrust upon us, rather than argue that the tyranny must be fought and liberty returned to the US.

    You wrote: “What I will point out here are the structures involved that are designed specifically to stop out the power of any president and that fact allows me to think in such a way.”

    Have you missed the part where those structures have failed to stop presidential abuse of power? The structure is also supposed to be in the parties, that one party prevents the other from gaining too much power, but with Trump being the same party as the Congress, there is nothing to stop him, as he becomes the head of that party (it’s in the Constitution).

    You only pretend that there is a safety net. It used to be there, but it is no longer there. The 240 year old, time tested structure is no longer in place. The gamble that you are willing to take is actually a sure thing for the house (the tyranny). The dice are loaded against We the People, and electing a liberal Democrat will only bring us more of the same.

    You wrote: “Real change is uncomfortable, scary, even dangerous, but if there is to be change we must at some point actually turn from what we know must be rejected.”

    Agreed, and what must be rejected is Trump’s tyranny. You embrace it, because it is familiar to you, having been a liberal Democrat (like Trump) for so many years.

    You wrote: “If you are forced to choose then you must justify your choice by choosing the less offensive and not the more offensive. Logic points to nothing else.”

    This is why I reject the more offensive Trump. You make my points for me, yet you draw non sequitur conclusions.

    Be brave. Be bold. Choose a conservative third choice, not the same old same old. THIS is where the REAL gamble is. The third choice may win, or he may not, but if he does, then the march into tyranny is stopped.

    You wrote: “In conclusion, a vote for Hillary is what it is, and a withheld vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.”

    Once again, your conclusion is a non sequitur. It is also illogical.

    Your conclusion, used as an argument for how we should vote, is a completely bogus argument. It is just as true to say that a vote for Trump and withheld from the third party conservative is a vote for Clinton. It is your argument, so you must also believe the as-true counterargument.

    Since you insist that she must not be elected, why are you going to vote for Clinton, if only by proxy?

  • Cotour

    “You already know that Trump is more likely to bring tyranny than liberty”

    No, I do not know that, you theorize it, but no, I do not know that.

    What I am sure about and do know is that Hillary is and will continue the progressive agenda plus of the Obama administration, and you also know that for 100 percent sure. Objectively Trump is at this point more of an unknown, you know much, much more about Hillary. Trump has never been an empowered / elected politician.

    “Your conclusion, used as an argument for how we should vote, is a completely bogus argument. It is just as true to say that a vote for Trump and withheld from the third party conservative is a vote for Clinton. It is your argument, so you must also believe the as-true counterargument.”

    When you are ready to disclose this secret, mystery third party “conservative” candidate that you have been eluding to and actually change the calculation it will go a long way to substantiating your extremely weak argument. And we wait.

    (You are referring to this coming American election in 2016 right? Your not speaking of some election thats maybe going on just in your head………………right? )

  • wayne

    Edward:
    Good stuff, all around
    (I think you hit a nerve…)

  • Cotour

    PS: Many of you will be receiving in the coming weeks your intellectual permission to vote as required after Mark Levin gives the OK. And believe me its coming.

    Not the ideological purists like Edward and Wayne but hopefully enough Americans who need the logical guidance to make the difference. And I will be here to take the heat when Trump screws it all up royally.

  • wayne

    Cotour:
    Listening to Mark right now.

    I don’t get my marching orders from Levin, Beck, or Rush, but I dearly love all 3 of them. (Even met Mark at a book-signing at Tysons Corner & at a Bark in the Park event one year.

    If he begged me to vote for Trump, it would not sway me at this point.

    (Sorry to disabuse you of your preconceptions.)

  • Cotour

    I specifically excluded you and Edward, if I were were to disabuse myself of my preconceptions then you and Edward would do what Levin will indicate to do in the coming weeks / months, vote for Trump.

    I really do not expect it, as I indicated.

  • Cotour wrote, “PS: Many of you will be receiving in the coming weeks your intellectual permission to vote as required after Mark Levin gives the OK. And believe me its coming. Not the ideological purists like Edward and Wayne but hopefully enough Americans who need the logical guidance to make the difference.”

    You keep doing this and I keep telling you it is a terrible, pandering, and insulting way to debate an issue. On one hand you suggest that everyone (but you) needs Mark Levin’s endorsement to consider Trump, while on the other hand you imply that some (Edward and Wayne) are too close-minded to consider his endorsement at all. Real nice, ain’t it?

    Make your arguments, based on the facts and your beliefs. That is the best way to persuade people. Don’t try to insult or pander to them to get them to agree with you, as you have been doing. I guarantee that this technique does not work, and you will thus lose the argument, something I think you care very much about..

  • Cotour

    ” (Edward and Wayne) are too close-minded to consider his endorsement at all.”

    Wayne: “If he begged me to vote for Trump, it would not sway me at this point.”

    The stone cold concept that neither Edward or Wayne are philosophically able to bring themselves to vote for the lesser “evil” has not been communicated to you in this particular thread? Do you really hold out hope that they will be swayed? I have accepted this as a fact and while I will still discuss the points with them I do not have any expectation for either Edward or Wayne to change their minds, and I respect it. I disagree with it vociferously, but I respect it.

    I am however confident that their are many others who need to read here and in other media someone argue the points so that they might be able to come confidently to a different conclusion and do what must be done IMO. (as a point of inquiry, how many eyes might be viewing these interactions? If you know them and if you divulge that information)

    “On one hand you suggest that everyone (but you) needs Mark Levin’s endorsement to consider Trump,”

    This not needing Levin is an assumption on your part. I respect and pretty much listen to Levin every night and I find him quite enlightening on the law and government, when he is not screaming. And like him, I love dogs.

    He is a direct contributor to my thinking and argument in more ways than one. Thats what surprises me about people who listen to him, who are devotes, and are unable to make the intellectual leap about appropriate political strategy. Down and dirty politics is no place for ideals.

  • wayne

    Cotour:

    It really is, tedious.
    “et a deliciis ad a billionaire, utilis excors”

  • Wayne: Please translate. This is too obscure for me, and google doesn’t even recognize it.

  • wayne

    (sorry for the delay– got caught up in a massive windows-10 cummulative update this AM & it delayed my real work)

    In my haste, was too smart by a half & my Latin IS absoluetly rusty;
    intended to be–
    >”Minion of a billionaire, a useful idiot.”

    Suspect I mangled it into something that tranlates more literally & crudely as:
    “billionaire delights, service of a perverse heart”
    (which serendipitously, also works for my purposes)

    If I crossed a line, I’m not really sorry… but would stand advised & restrain myself going forward.
    (I personally suspect Cotour listens to Alex Jones & Michael Savage, far more than a Levin, Beck, or Rush.)

  • Wayne: Thanks for the translation. Very amusing actually. And you didn’t cross any lines, you were merely obtuse, something we all practice periodically.

  • Cotour

    I will let others deal with your disrespectful and childish Latin quote.

    As for Alex, very, very rarely, Savage, rarely, he gets on my nerves but I like him, he’s an ego maniacal American mench, Levin, most every day if he is not yelling, probably the most technically educational, Beck, I do not like, too much religious BS, just not my cup of tea, Rush, not every day but most, interesting and insightful analysis, and he cracks me up when he does the little kid voice asking his mommy a question :)

    I do not watch any talking TV heads unless I pick it our of a Youtube panel, which is rare, and I love Youtube, what a concept. I did not get it at first but it is brilliant! I read a variety of things most of the day while listening when not out or otherwise occupied. You now have more actual information to flesh out your Cotour profile.

    When I do listen I agree (and disagree) with all of them to differing degrees, they all reveal their weaknesses and strengths and in the end their opinions can educate or indoctrinate depending on the listeners ability to pick the BS from the hype from the agenda from the gold. In the end they are entertainers filling time and being paid for it. So listen but be ready to question and test, call BS and reject when it is earned.

    Sorry to dispel your “Theory of Cotour”, the facts, and we all love actual facts, reveal that your assumptions and conclusion is exactly the opposite of reality. Maybe something that you should begin to consider.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “‘You already know that Trump is more likely to bring tyranny than liberty’
    “No, I do not know that, you theorize it, but no, I do not know that.”

    You should start listening to him, sometime. It is seriously enlightening.

    You wrote: “When you are ready to disclose this secret, mystery third party “conservative” candidate …”

    No mystery. Everyone else has a little knowledge on this topic. You are the only person here who denies the existence of any other political parties and their own candidates.

    You wrote: “(You are referring to this coming American election in 2016 right? Your not speaking of some election thats maybe going on just in your head………………right? )”

    Once again, you feign stupidity, not a persuasive argument. At least I hope it is just pretend.

    You wrote: “Not the ideological purists like Edward and Wayne …”

    Nobody needs someone else’s permission — although your assumption that you do explains why you are so adamant in your position, as you do not yet have permission to broaden your knowledge.

    Robert wrote: “You keep doing this and I keep telling you it is a terrible, pandering, and insulting way to debate an issue.”

    This is very true, Cotour. You use poor argument techniques, using these poorly formed and baseless insults as an argument. All it really does is let everyone know that you are frustrated and you realize that you have lost the argument. You fear that your guy is going to lose because you cannot convince freedom-loving people to vote tyranny. It was as hopeless for you to try to persuade us to give up liberty is it is for me to persuade you to give up tyranny. But we each still try.

    You wrote: “The stone cold concept that neither Edward or Wayne are philosophically able to bring themselves to vote for the lesser “evil” has not been communicated to you in this particular thread?”

    It does not make us closed minded that we have considered lesser evils in the past and fell into that trap — it *is* a trap — we are just a little sadder but wiser. It means that we have made a better decision, and your “hope for change” argument is completely unconvincing. (Didn’t we hear something like “hope for change” just before the country changed into a tyranny, telling us how to spend our own money? Huh. Sounds to me like hoping is a poor substitute for voting for the right person in the first place.)

    You see, the problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that you are practically guaranteed to get evil — unless enough sadder but wiser people vote for what you had wanted in the first place.

    You wrote: “and do what must be done IMO.”

    In your opinion, voting for tyranny must be done. In my opinion, as I have stated before, there is no difference between Clinton’s, Trump’s, Sanders’s, Warren’s, or Obama’s tyranny. There is only a difference in the way each wants to get there. I don’t care about the path, I care about the end result. I will not vote tyranny, no matter whose it is.

    You wrote: “This not needing Levin is an assumption on your part.”

    As I said a few paragraphs ago, you think that you need someone else’s permission to think freely. That concept is a (moldy) leftover from your liberal Democrat days, and it is time to throw it out. Conservatives do not require everyone to think alike, nor do we insist upon telling everyone which alternate candidate they must vote for. Unlike Democrats, conservatives believe that their fellows are intelligent, free thinking people who do not need to march in locked goosestep.

    Once you get your permission from Levin, please look for yourself who the alternate candidates are, and please vote for one of those who actually believes in liberty rather than one who poses as a conservative. I have just now realized that giving you an alternate name is futile, as you do not yet have permission from Levin to consider him as a possible choice.

  • Edward

    Actually, Cotour, you ruined your entire argument long ago when you stated that all political candidates lie. I asked how you choose which candidate to vote for, since you cannot trust what they tell you, and you gave no response. Since you have no tangible reason for choosing one over the other, your insistence that one must not be elected wanes in importance. As wayne noted, just because you say so does not make it so. Your argument seems more of a campaign slogan than argument. Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too! Or in your case, Trump and not Hillary, too. (The first had better cadence and rhyme, which is why we had a President Tippecanoe. Wait …)

    It is now much clearer that you do not choose who to vote for but someone else chooses for you. This time around, that someone else is Mark Levin, and you are waiting for permission to consider any other candidate. Your slogan is even less compelling, now that it is: vote for Trump, because Levin hasn’t given permission to vote for anyone else. (Even worse cadence and rhyme, but as we have seen, good slogans are no guarantee of success, even though “I Like Ike” beat out Steven’s … whatever slogan.)

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    How about, when Levin grants permission for America to consider alternate candidates, you explore them and present a list of those you are willing to consider. Then we can discuss them and find an actual conservative that America can elect rather than the tyrannical, liberal Democrat Trump.

  • PeterF

    I have an “I Like Ike” bumper sticker on my car. People always take pictures of my car. Funny thing is, nobody ever asks me if I want to sell it…
    “Tippecanoe and Tyler too”
    A campaign slogan that made a vice presidential candidate’s name famous that unfortunately couldn’t make the Whig party candidate William Henry Harrison anything more than a footnote to history.

    America didn’t need the Federalists. America didn’t need the Whigs. If the republicans aren’t careful they may find that America don’t need them either. And the H-bag will end up destroying the (democratics) too.

    I sometimes call them the democratics because every time you read a news article you can tell the bias of the author because they always refer to them as “the democratic party”, not “the democrats”. (It sounds so much better than socialists, marxists,anarchists,etc,etc.)

    But I digress, carry on…

  • Wayne

    PeterF:
    I shall digress in your place;

    Way cool on your Ike bumper-sticker! (I would definitely ask you if I could take a picture.)And, agree with your point about the correct use of Nouns and Adjectives in reportage.

    Personally, I always liked the slogan “54-40 or Fight!” Once you memorize that, you just don’t forget it.

Leave a Reply

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