Weird - there is no "quote" function here. Had to use copy and paste...so, here are my comments:

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

5 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

6 hours ago, PDS said:

In other words, I stand by my prediction:    Drumpf/Cruz get their asses kicked hard by Hillary/it-doesn't-matter.

I think that's how it's going to end up, too. Except it will be just the beginning of the end...

REB 

 

What are you guys going to do if it turns out to be a landslide for Drumpf as president against Hillary?

Rend your garments?

Mend your evil ways?

Do the unthinkable and say, "I was wrong?"

1

Interesting that MI(chael)ST(uart)KE(lly) = MISTAKE is so preoccupied or concerned with what "you guys" are going to do if OUR predictions are wrong - but I haven't seen anything from him (though I haven't read all the past 83,632 posts) about what HE will do in such a case.

MISTAKE wonders whether and how we will prostrate ourselves and admit that our predictions were incorrect. As if it wouldn't be obvious without our also admitting it. What's obvious is that admitting our fallibility is not the point, but humbling ourselves before his (MISTAKE's) MAGNIFICENCE and CORRECTNESS.

I'll tell you what I am "going to do" if Drumpf wins a landslide: the same thing I'm going to do if he wins by a modest or narrow margin, or Hillary wins by a narrow or modest margin or landslide. I'm going to take whatever practical steps I can to offset the fact that if EITHER of them is elected, America will be less prosperous and less safe than we are now, which is less prosperous and less safe than we were 8 years ago. which is less prosperous and less safe than we were 16 years ago. It is pitiful, naive, self-deception to think that Drumpf is going to be any better for the economy than Hillary - and in particular, for the economic well-being of average citizens, who depend on getting the most affordable prices they can for the things they need, which will become more expensive under Drumpf's proposed tariff/balance of trade policies. And if he's not  going to enact those policies - and the other alleged reforms he is appealing to Yahoo-America with - then why the hell vote him in? If he "keeps us out of war" and degrades our ability to defend ourselves (by pulling out of NATO and by not restoring the strength of the military, which Obama has gutted), then how are we more secure - just because he says he will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it?

Rush and Sean seem to have hitched their wagon to whoever has the best chance of beating Hillary AND being nominated. Yet, all the polls show that Drumpf is the dead last guy in line for beating Hillary. So, his function - like Goldwater's in 1964 - would be simply to give the ruling statist clique the middle finger and turn the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court over to the Democrats, but worse, at a point in history when we simply cannot afford for that to happen. (Though it's going to happen anyway, whether we can afford it or not.) Cruz may be able to beat Hillary, and the outcome might be somewhat better for the country, though I doubt he can or that it would. Kasich might be able to beat Hillary, though I think she would rip him to shreds in the debates - and that even if he did somehow beat her, nothing much would change from how it is now. Plus, he would nominate "moderate" (i.e., liberal) judges for SCOTUS, so there goes the High Court.

I'm sure there are thousands like me, if not more, who see it this way - and it may be the case that the combined effect of our negativity and pessimism (though I call it realism) will have the appearance of a voodoo hex on the future outcome of the election and our country's well-being. But that makes about as much sense as blaming the people who sold short in 1929 for causing the stock market crash and the Great Depression. As if our saying nothing negative would keep anything negative from happening - subjective "wishing will make it so" or, in this case, "not predicting, will make it less likely to happen." I don't know how much of this superstitious rot plays into people's thinking, but I wouldn't be surprised if some GOP folk, even CINO, LINO, and OINO (conservative, libertarian, Objectivist in name only) entertain such mental goofiness.

But to wind up my comments: no, it is not unthinkable to admit I was wrong. I admit it every day and twice on Thursday. But our friend MISTAKE, I'm worried about. He seems to rapturously cling to the inevitability and desirability of Drumpf. He explains away all of Drumpf's bad ideas and minimal thinking processes and points to buildings and businesses he has built, as though that qualifies him to repair a seriously damaged country. No principles, just anger and arm-waving and threats to China, Mexico, and the Establishment and vague promises to workers and middle-class Americans and people afraid of terrorists and illegal immigrants destroying their communities and taking their jobs.

I'm sorry if this all sounds like repetitive talking points, but I'm rapidly approaching the point where I simply don't want to talk about politics any more. So many of our libertarian and Objectivist comrades either want to embrace the most convenient alternative to a known demoness - or to abandon their principles as "not applicable" in the present situation (we need a "transitional" President) - or both. I think that is a very dangerous policy. We've had a transitional President for 8 years now, transitioning us to full-tilt, mixed socialism-fascism. What would a President Drumpf transition us to? What would be better in the direction we want to go, under his leadership and policies? As noted above, I don't think he's going to do much more than reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic, while waving his arms and demanding that people make a deal with him, or they're "fired."

REB

P.S. - William, you may use any portion of this for a submarine transmission that you like, changing or omitting names to protect the clueless where appropriate.

Very, very well said REB!

There really is no loss of one's union card if a prediction is wrong.  If I am wrong about the Trump landslide, I am wrong.    These are factual determinations, not floating abstractions. 

I really agree with REB's penultimate paragraph.    As the Zen master says, "before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.   After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." 

I say likewise in this context:  before election, chop wood and carry water.   After election (of either Hillary or Trump), chop wood and carry water--but with a hard hat on and much less yen in pockets....  

After the election then, I can go back to being a serial killer?

Actually, just continue to be one now...

8 minutes ago, PDS said:

Actually, just continue to be one now...

Thanks!

--Brant

--I killed two flies yesterday and one so far today (two years ago I killed 57 with a swatter in 15 minutes)

On 4/20/2016 at 2:20 PM, Roger Bissell said:

Do the unthinkable and say, "I was wrong?"

Where did the 'unthinkable' nature of admitting error come in?  If we have one aspect of integrity to play with, it is just this empirical reality, the chance that Roger/PDS/"you guys" will admit error even if not as per usual habit, right? He figures an admission has vanishing chance of occurring under X future condition (Drumpf schlongs Clinton) -- on what evidence? These are unwarranted characterizations.  No one needs to dramatize a disagreement, or over-darken the motives, aptitudes and vision of disagreers. I would exclaim in annoyance but I am merely irked, which only draws a sigh. Sigh.

I mean, where did this lurch into 'unthinkable' behaviour come from, what black picture of Trump Hate Club values and arguments? Yuck.  I don't like these over-dramatic sprouts of exaggeration in describing other people's failures. A person who cannot admit wrong is not PDS's reputation in argument.  The label has not the right fit, besides the operatics and scenery-chewing and chastising of the Blind.

This is why I generally prefer the submarine. 

8 hours ago, william.scherk said:

A person who cannot admit wrong is not PDS's reputation in argument.

William, it's interesting that you mentioned PDS but not me. I take this (as part of my now-on, now-off pattern of mild paranoia) to indicate your belief that I, by contrast, do have the reputation of "a person who cannot admit wrong." At least, in the "eyes" of one or more of the Trumpenprotelariat on the Drumpf and related threads. I'm sure that part of it is true, even if you didn't intend to allude to it. After all, anyone who opposes their realistic, objective orientation must be a rigid, deeply invested dogmatist, a religious, righteous mentality, close kin to the religionist conservatives. (Else, why favor the creepy religionist Cruz over the MAGNIFICENT creator-builder Drumpf?)

This also may indicate some of the downside to blocking some of the posters on OL. For all I know, Princess Minne-Heh-Heh has run rampant, accusing me of hitting and running, making assertions that are proven wrong, but not admitting my errors. 

Specifically in re errors of prediction, I appreciate PDF's comments. I have to point out, though, that there are (at least) two kinds of predictions in politics.

One is simply who will win a given horse race - and, yes, what is so bad or disgraceful about being wrong on such a prediction? It's just like a football game or Olympic event - rah, rah, our team won, yours lost, haha, boohoo. Until and unless it's made a contest between good and evil, and then it's: you are one of the bad guys, and you stubbornly refused to join us, so if you lose, you got what you deserved, and if you win, you cheated and robbed us, but in either case, you're evil, and our patience is running thin, and if you ever admit you picked the wrong side, it might be too late, and we might shun and ostracize you, or we might magnanimously let you in but you'll have to go to the back of the bus and shut up and let us do the talking, because you're dogmatic and mentally/morally defective and not to be trusted with the awesome responsibility of upholding the good and the right.

The other is whether a result which is actually bad for people will soon happen, as the result of some election outcome. We're told that Drumpf, for instance, will change toward more positive, sensible policies once elected and once he confronts the political and economic realities and gets some intelligent advisors to shoo him away from promoting dumb, counterproductive policies. Failing that, it won't matter all that much anyway, and gosh wasn't it fun poking the socialist left and the GOP Establishment in the eye. So, it's win-win, or win-not lose so badly-and enjoy the agony of your losing opponents. I'm sure the liberal Democrats loved stomping the evul conservative GOP candidate and his supporters back in 1964 and thought that getting to have the War on Poverty was a great bonus (though trillions spent and the poverty line hasn't budged in 50 years)...until the first big wave of 55,000 young people started coming home in body bags. What will it take for people to realize how awful it is for Drumpf or Hillary to have won? What would they take as evidence or proof? And what will keep them from attaching that evidence or proof not to the winning Presidential candidate, but to the previous President or to their opponents in Congress (if there are any) or the media? That's what Obama and the Dem's have been doing since he took office - blame it on George W. Bush and/or the "obstructionist" Congress and/or the greedy bastards on Wall Street.

But look a little more closely at the "transformation-once-elected" idea. The Trumpenproletariat say that Drumpf will change for the better, and then you'll see that he was a good guy after all, just like we were saying. In other words, his Howard Roark mask may not do a good job of obscuring his rude, sexist, unprincipled persona, but that is just a mask, too, and beneath that is the true Howard Roark guy who stood tall and strong against obstacles and created businesses, buildings, and thousands of jobs. A Howard Roark who doesn't run off to work in a quarry and doesn't blow up buildings that weren't built to his specs. Why he's better than Howard Roark!

Actually, the insinuation is that he's kind of like Francisco d'Anconia. Francisco was a good and noble man, but he put on the persona of a blighter, a spendthrift playboy, as a kind of camouflage to cover his drive to accomplish the destruction of a corrupt system. The question should be not: is Drumpf like Roark, but is Drumpf like Francisco? Does he have any kind of noble scheme behind the superficial populist hoohah - or is that really all there is? Is he really just another Pragmatist power-seeker, who figured out the system's Achilles heel and is exploiting it in an end-run around the system (which he refuses to learn how to work)? Looks that way to me. 

Then the only question is: if we have such a crass, power-seeking Pragmatist in office, what will he try to impose on us as part of making America "great" again? Because that will be in the rhetoric tied to any and all of the legislation he asks for and the Executive Orders he makes. We really don't have a clue - except that if he betrays the people who think Mexico and China and traitorous corporations and illegal immigrants are stealing jobs from Americans, or if he actually replaces Obamacare with anything better than an extension of Medicare and elimination of the mandate, we perhaps should hope that his Vice President rules with more intelligence and principle than Herr Drumpf. (How long has it been since some over-wrought wack-job has taken a potshot at a sitting President? Not counting the shoe an Iraqi newsman threw at W in a news conference in Baghdad.)

REB

Trupenproletariat!  That is so choice.

Roger, your comment went into the POD ... http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/POD/1IDEARSetc/rogerWilliamApril22F&Fconversation.mp3

-- I put it in the queue, to be answered after the fun stuff at Kid Gloves for Ed.

I just love being the villain.

oops...

I meant:

Michael

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just love being the villain.

oops...

I meant:

 

Michael

lol. Yes you do...  and great stamina I might add...as evidenced by the repetitive 15 rounders you're usually engaged in with some posters.

Now a well deserved salute... nice job Michael with the conversion to the newly designed OL site. Those of us who have produced a web site know, it's no cake-walk. -Joe

1 hour ago, Backlighting said:

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just love being the villain.

oops...

I meant:

 

Michael

lol. Yes you do...  and great stamina I might add...as evidenced by the repetitive 15 rounders you're usually engaged in with some posters.

Now a well deserved salute... nice job Michael with the conversion to the newly designed OL site. Those of us who have produced a web site know, it's no cake-walk. -Joe

[Edited to add a clanger from 2008]

Robert Bidinotto's penultimate posting at OL:

On 1/20/2008 at 3:12 PM, Bidinotto said:

I have checked my premises, Michael -- and those in your response, which promises only a continuation of more of the same.

For that reason, I take my leave of this website.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Robert Bidinotto's penultimate posting at OL:

William,

Man, are you taking me back.

This was all about a fight over Barbara, believe it or not. The TAS people (at least from the impression Biddibob always gave back then) wanted to own her. And for some reason I still don't understand, Ed Hudgins and Will Thomas were demanding sanction of the victim from her while, ironically, practicing self-sacrifice. And it was so cute to see Biddibob supporting Perigo's nastiness while calling us nasty.  

(Read about the issue here in Barbara's own words, but read the thread, too, especially Jonathan's comments. They are a hoot. ) 

Soon after, when Barbara posted a speech on OL she had given at the TAS event (the one Perigo got disinvited from because of this thread), you should see the nasty email I got from Biddibob demanding, DEMANDING, I SAY!, that I take it down. And calling me a few nasty names (like thief) in the process.

I don't think he ever saw what Barbara saw in me. I don't think he could quite believe she really did care for me, unless it was like a pet dog or something. If you want to know the truth, this attitude is the same as when he talks about Trump supporters. 

btw - I doubt Bibbibob would ever grandstand in favor of Perigo again. Nope. I don't see it. Not ever again, not after all that has happened...

But then again, TAS is no longer issuing his paycheck, so he's free now.

Michael

49 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't think he ever saw what Barbara saw in me.

Here is a treat for you, a reading of Barbara's commentary. It is the real prize of that thread.

Nice to see you in the Friends and Foes part of your empire!  

Barbara's biting critique: 

Bidinotto's 'farewell' essay: 

4 hours ago, The voice of Trump vision said:

I do know a little about the bond Drumpf has with his supporters. And I also know how anti-Drumpf people ignore that bond, denigrate Drumpf supporters and keep grasping desperately at any and all theories that can explain to them where the hell Drumpf came from and where the hell all these people came from.

Nobody can see me in the submarine!

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

You must be disappointed in the reception of the National Enquirer stor

33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

you really, really don't understand what the inside looks like to a Drumpf supporter.

33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Don't bother trying to split hairs over what the establishment means (Democrat and Republican) or what the Silent Majority means and so on. That's the kind of rhetoric I just don't listen to anymore. Nor do Drumpf supporters. 

33 minutes ago, Robert Campbell or Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Drumpf supporters are not stupid.

On 4/22/2016 at 7:33 AM, Roger Bissell said:

William, it's interesting that you mentioned PDS but not me. [...]

Preview! ...

Crystal balls and cartoon knobs - sounds like a bad porno movie title. 

Good job on the commentary and the sound track. "I Can Help" was one of my favorite songs-I-love-to-hate from decades ago. 

Speaking of For Whom the Crow's Served (the GOP nomination result), perhaps you heard in the news today that Cruz and Kasich have formed a Stop Trump alliance? Kasich is pulling out of the Indiana primary campaign, and Cruz is likewise pulling out of the Oregon and New Mexico campaigns. I haven't looked yet to see if there is any notice and discussion of this over on the Drumpf thread. But on the face of it, it seems like a really big deal. We'll see whether it keeps Drumpf from attaining the magic number - or the near-enough-to-the-magic-number-number.

REB

Who does it sound like, in syntax and prosody?  You will never get this one.

"I've never seen anybody get so many calls from the press."

"I'm somebody that he knows and likes."

"He just feels it's too soon."

"I've never seen someone so immune [to bad press] ... and now he's doing well."