It’s not Ideology, stupid

TrumpBClintonPat Borchers is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St.

Of course, the title is a play on Bill Clinton’s line about the economy. But as someone who spent several months campaigning locally, and several months in denial about Trump’s and Sanders’s prospects, it applies to me.

I began by thinking that Trump was a passing fad. As someone who cares a lot about policy, I thought his debate performances were disasters. He didn’t seem to have any clear positions except that the U.S. is going to build a wall on its southern border and Mexico is going to pay for it.

Other than that, he seemed to be all over the map. He once was pro-abortion and now he’s anti-abortion. The economy does better under Democrats, oh wait it doesn’t. He had a plan to pay off the national debt (which would require 24% economic growth for each of eight years, the record being 19% at the start of World War II).

When Cruz beat Trump in the Iowa caucuses I figured it was over for him and the real race was Cruz and Rubio. Then Trump won New Hampshire and kept winning and winning.

In the other corner is Bernie Sanders, the irascible Vermont Senator who is a self-described Socialist and has been a member of the Democratic Party since way back in 2015. Surely he’s not going to get any traction, I thought. With over 20 state primary and caucus victories, and within striking distance of Mrs. Clinton in California, he refuses to go away.

It’s very unlikely that Sanders will get the Democratic nomination and virtually certain that Trump will get the Republican nomination. But the two of them have really hit a nerve.

Campaigning unsuccessfully for the state legislature, I was struck by the number of people who were favorable on both Trump and Sanders. People who had caucused for Sanders put up my yard signs even with me carefully explaining that I am both a social and fiscal conservative.

The short of it is that a lot of people just hate the federal government. They see the Clintons and the Bushes and even guys like Cruz — who tried to position himself as an anti-Establishment candidate but had trouble because he is a sitting Senator — as anathema. It’s 4th and 21 early in the fourth quarter and we’re down by 17 and a huge chuck of the electorate doesn’t want to punt. They want to run a fake punt, or throw long or do something other than make the “safe” play.

These disaffected voters aren’t really sure what the problem is, they aren’t really sure what the solution might be, but they know for darn sure that things aren’t going well and they don’t trust anyone from the Washington elite to fix it. The sources of anxiety are legion. Unemployment is allegedly low, but it sure doesn’t feel like a robust recovery from the Great Recession. They don’t feel safe for all sorts of reason, from the San Bernardino shootings to the bombings of nightclubs in western democracies abroad. They don’t think the long security lines at airports are really doing them any good. And in real terms, they’re paying more tax than they ever have while the national debt pushes $19 trillion.

I’ll make the following prediction. Mrs. Clinton (whom I think is virtually certain to be the Democratic nominee, scandals be darned) won’t get 50% of the popular vote. She may get elected, but it will be because the opposition to her gets divided between Trump, the Libertarians and French-fry-guy (assuming he gets on any significant number of state ballots).

I wish there were a simple answer, but there’s not one.

66 comments

      • Pete says:

        All the I’s think they are more logical than the partisans. But then they do something bone headed like all the Obama-Terry voters, or the how about the Obama-Kerrey-Terry voters, or my personal favorite, the Sasse-Ashford voters.

        Yea, Independents are very logical voters.

      • Bynd says:

        The current state of the political situation in the US makes a strong argument that most voters, regardless of party affiliation, are not qualified to vote. Although it might be argued that it is the selection system of candidates that is the problem. However, as they say, you can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results. If independants actually used logic,third party candidates would garner more and more votes each election cycle until they become the most viable candidates. Thus putting the dysfunctional Ds and Rs out of business. That would be logical. But it doesn’t happen nor do things change. The answer seems to be that the non voters are the ones of logic who are refusing to participate in a rigged and corrupt system. All the rest, as we see in postings after postings here, are ideologues, some to greater degrees than others, that are satisfied with the status quo as it is what they argue for and not radical change, which is what is needed. Bottom line, it’s screwed up and it isn’t going to change. Because deep down, my party is great and your party sucks. Yours will bring Armageddon, mine will save humanity. And neither could be further from the truth or reality.

      • Anon says:

        You fail to account for the rigged system that prevents many Independent voters from voting in primaries, such as Nebraska, bynd. And although most voters didn’t understand how rigged the system is, after this election, they’ll know. Don’t be surprised if third parties do very well this time.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        I don’t account for what takes place in Nebraska, Pete. But down here in Texas Independent voters get to use their primary vote to vote “FOR” or “AGAINST” any candidate on the ballot.

      • The Grundle King says:

        The system is not “rigged” because independent/non-partisan voters can’t vote in primaries. If you want to vote in a primary, then register with that party and vote in that primary. You want to try to play it both ways…but the system says, “No.” Pick one or don’t pick at all.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Not the system I live under, Grundle! Your system is rigged because when you only get to choose between awful candidates, your choice will be either A) AWFUL, or B) abstinence. There’s really no need to pick one or another of only one kind of candidate. We all should pick our first choice, FIRST! Liberty rules!!!

  1. Sparkles says:

    “The economy does better under Democrats, oh wait it doesn’t.”

    Oh, but yes, yes indeed it does.

    “The short of it is that a lot of people just hate the federal government.”

    Hate by design. Hate for profit. Hate as GOTV tool.
    Teaching people to hate all forms of government is the lynchpin, the core tenet of a business model that generates massive revenue streams for the the right wing entertainment complex.
    It’s a business model perfected by one of the world’s most successful political and media strategists, Roger Ailes. Ailes, who before becoming Chairman & CEO of Fox ‘News’ was a political strategist and media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.
    Fox ‘News’ and hate radio are right wing empires built on hate. And it is this business model – fomenting anger, discontent, fear and victimization – that was adopted, en masse, by the Republican party as chief fundraiser and GOTV tool dating back more than a decade.
    Ailes built the creature and the Republicans have gleefully bedded and milked it for all it’s worth for more than a decade.
    It is now this creature, manifested in the vulgarity that is the Tufted Talking Yam. that is consuming the Republican party and ripping apart the fabric of a nation.

    The business of peddling hate and anger is a fantastically profitable one.
    Murdoch and Ailes have built one of the world’s most powerful media empires.
    Limbaugh made $80M in 2015, Hannity $30M and Beck is worth more than $100M.

    And our nation has paid a shocking, nearly debilitating price.

    Before his passing Steve Jobs warned his good friend Rupert Murdoch:
    “You’re blowing it with Fox News,” Jobs told him over dinner. “The axis today is not liberal and conservative, the axis is constructive-destructive, and you’ve cast your lot with the destructive people. Fox has become an incredibly destructive force in our society. You can be better, and this is going to be your legacy if you’re not careful.”

      • Sparkles says:

        It’s disheartening to admit, but you’ve got a point.

        Thing is, I worry about the world we’re leaving behind for our children and grandchildren, a concern that sometimes expresses itself in anger.
        It has been far too long that the Republican party abandoned any pretense of thoughtful governance, embracing instead deliberate and harmful obstruction.
        Obstruction in pursuit of purely political gain, or, in allegiance to the most wealthy and privileged few.
        Laura Ebke is right: “it’s less about Trump per se than what that reflects about the Republican Party,”

      • HTH says:

        I wish I could disagree, Sparkles; I think the part you’re missing is that the blame is on both sides. Trump would not exist without Obama – Obama is the first president in modern times to exclusively pursue his party’s agenda, and when Congress kept him from doing that legislatively (by being obstructionist, sure – not making an argument about whether it’s right or wrong), he did it executively. It’s the same problem that makes Ricketts a poor governor: neither cultivates relationships with those they disagree, neither significantly compromises with opposing sides, and neither gets things done through the legislature.

        HTH

      • Sparkles says:

        HTH,

        The ‘both sides’ argument is absolutely legitimate… to a point.
        I believe D’s and R’s equally share in their unhealthy addiction to special interest money and influence.

        Yes, Obama is a bit of a cool character when it comes to schmoozing, but I respectively submit there is ample objective evidence documenting significant and prolonged outreach and good faith efforts at compromise by he and his administration.
        My cardiologist is an aloof character, yet he remains exceptionally skilled at what he does. His aloofness and unwillingness to negotiate his rate hasn’t lead to the desire to turn to Gary Busey or Larry The Cable Guy for health advise.

        I also submit that there is ample objective evidence that the Republican party bears the overwhelming share of the blame for our decade long dysfunction and malaise.
        To that end, I offer, Professor Thomas Mann, who’s insight has proven prescient:
        “Admit It, Political Scientists: Politics Really Is More Broken Than Ever”

    • The Eye Ball says:

      Sparkes, there is so much pretense in your allegations I do not know where to begin.
      There are three branches of government, in case you are not paying attention. Each has their own function. The problem today is the two party system is more interesting in going along to getting along. That is why the US has nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt.

      You are the type of person who blames all the wrong persons for all the wrong reasons because you fail to understand how Constitutional government works.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        You’re right Eye Ball. You do not know where to begin! The problem today is that the two party system itself is becoming unconstitutional…

  2. Bob Loblaw says:

    This election totally proves that ideology means nothing. We’ve been told by many on here (including SS) that if we’re a Republican we either support Trump or then we’re only helping Hilary. They’re telling us to support a guy for President who said that George W Bush was to blame for 9/11. WTF?!!! These people who claim to be social or fiscal or any other type of conservative who support Trump are the worst kind of hypocrites and charlatans there are. The only thing they stand for is Not Hilary, principles be damned.

  3. Pete says:

    Two notes of interest:

    At first glance, I’m pretty sure Sparkles’s comment is longer than Borchers’s article. It’s also less coherent, contains fewer original thoughts, and is infinitely douchier.

    • Anonymous says:

      Pete says, My law prof friend Pat Borchers would not except douchier as a word he is a language traditionalist. While not agreeing with your assessment of Sparkles I welcome a new term of abuse on Leavenworth Street.

  4. The Eye Ball says:

    The Establishment pushed Rubio to stop Cruz. Trump blew that plan out of the water and Cruz never really recovered. Add to the fact the New York media gave large volumes of coverage to Trump.

    • Pat Borchers says:

      Every media outlet gave massive amounts of free coverage to Trump. He could get on any show just by calling and saying “I want to be on.” Even networks and major blogs that were opposed to him wrote about him incessantly. Trump definitely learned the old saw that “I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right.”

  5. Lil Mac says:

    We all see useful honesty in a law school dean who admits he had it all wrong and was in denial for months about Trump. But then, Dean Borchers was wrong for a long time. So do we really need to believe his assessments of what he now thinks motivates Trump voters? He seems to be trying to work through less legal and more psychological angst. That’s okay. We are here to help.

    Borchers deems Trump voters unhappy, hating federal government. That is Borchers’ own negative view. Trump’s supporters laugh all the time. They are loving this campaign, they are hopeful.

    Borchers said “disaffected voters aren’t really sure what the problem is, they aren’t really sure what the solution might be, but they know for darn sure that things aren’t going well and they don’t trust anyone from the Washington elite to fix it.” – That last part is true. But as for Trump voters not being sure, speak for yourself, Dean. You didn’t know and so you project your ignorance onto Trump voters. They know exactly what they are against, i.e. political correctness, vindictive protectiveness, institutionalized lying and the serial apologia culture that goes with it. And that’s a lot bigger than just federal government. But mostly, Trump voter are proactively, avidly, happily eager to Make America Great Again. They are the most positive people I have ever seen in politics. And that includes all the immigrants and mixed race people I know who avidly support Trump.

    Trump’s voters don’t hate federal government any more than Borchers does. They hate America losing. They don’t want a political party to win, they want America to win for a change. That is inherently positive. True, they dislike the disunity of us all being hyphenated into this or that entitled sympathy group. They long for a President who doesn’t apologize to our enemies and competitors for our success. They long for a GOP congress that doesn’t apologize and fold to every politically correct nice-lie they feel they must swallow from the left for sake of this or that supposed false altruism. And also are tired of having to fold to the right wing’s nice-lies of politically correct patriotism that too masks some common sense.

    What Borchers seems to miss is that Trump voters see Reagan’s shining city on a hill.

    • Sparkles says:

      You’re mistaken.
      That glow you see on the hill is the radioactive waste from the camp Trump meltdown.

      Obama and HRC have begun the process of defining The Donald.
      Exposing him for the charlatan and con man that he is.

      The end is nigh for your happy band of Trumpkins.

      • Khan says:

        Radioactive waste is a better description of the anti-Trump mob in San Jose that pelted a woman with eggs and burned an American flag last night.

    • HTH says:

      What an incredible way to write a lot and say nothing. Not unlike Trump.

      If you’re going to attack Borchers for (allegedly) incorrectly stating Trump supporters don’t know what they’re for/against, you should be more specific than ‘political correctness’ and ‘They hate America losing.’ What on earth does that trash mean? Nothing. You know how I and Borchers know? Because no one has been able to pin Trump down on ANY specific, significant policy issues. There is NO logical, thought out means of supporting Trump based on policy. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

      You’re angry at an amorphous blob of your imagination that represents people you don’t like – probably consisting of minorities, foreigner, LGBT, and/or Muslims – and have found someone who is willing to disregard what most consider to be objective fact to spite this blob. Don’t feel too ashamed, you’re just one of an increasingly large number of people in history to be so swindled by a big personality promising riches to the uneducated masses. But realize, even in your odd diatribe on Borchers’ critique of nonspecificity and emotion as the basis for Trump’s support, you relied solely on nonspecific claims and emotion.

      But, as the saying goes, you can’t fix stupid.

      HTH

      P.S. Anyone else catch that North Korean media has labelled Trump ‘far-sighted’ and ‘wise?’ Lol.

  6. Pat Borchers says:

    The best part, by far, of writing here occasionally is reading (or attempting to read) the comments. Carry on.

      • Pat Borchers says:

        Pulling out one’s fingernails is more fun than bluebooks. One reason I get them graded quickly is that I figure it’s like pulling a bandaid. Do it quickly and it will hurt less.

    • Anon says:

      You claim voters “hate the federal government.” You should consider that voters “hate” the two-party system. When third parties do well in November, you’ll be wrong again.

      • Pat Borchers says:

        I think third parties will do well by historical standards. I think the Libertarians will get 3 to 4% of the vote, even though they’ve only cracked 1% once in a Presidential election. I’m not sure I see the clear distinction between hating the two party system and hating D.C. Most people believe (correctly) that the major parties are run out of D.C. and mostly interested in self preservation. An interesting thought experiment is to imagine that the GOP leadership had not made the same mistake I did in thinking that Trump would never get the GOP nomination and consolidated quickly around a candidate like Cruz or Rubio and caused Trump to bolt and start an independent bid early enough that the logistics could be taken care of and his name would appear on every ballot. The conventional wisdom is that this would have hurt the GOP candidate more and handed the election to Mrs. Clinton. I’m not so sure that Trump would have hurt both major party candidates equally or even won it, or at least gotten enough Electoral votes to throw it into the House.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Uhh, Gary Johnson is more likely to take Republican than Democrat votes. And Bernie Sanders out polls both Hillary and The Donald. Plus Independent voters are now about half the registered electorate. So your thought experiment may not prove sound, given unaccounted for variables. But I do agree that IF Trump had run an Independent candidacy, Hillary would have beat him.

  7. Khan says:

    Speaking in vagaries and soaring language while letting his supporters fill in the blanks worked well for Obama in ’08. It’s not shocking at all that the approach remains effective.

    Also, attempting to actually understand the alt-Right makes it easier to understand Trump’s success. Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos wrote a guide to the components of the alt-Right and where it diverges from establishment conservatism.

      • Khan says:

        Yeah, Milo, the racist gay Jew with an affinity for black men. He’d be the first to tell you there are fringe racist cranks among the alt-right, as there are in any political movement of any size. It’s freely acknowledged in the article I referred to that was written by Milo and Allum Bokhari.

        Anyway, anyone who isn’t content solely with what’s presented to them by the lily white editorial board of the Huffington Post might find it interesting. Or not. I don’t much care, either way.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Thanx for the heads-up, Sparkles. I had not heard of the alt-right before. We only have ordinary racists here. I regretted reading that Milo aligns with “Libertarians,” and then I was confused to read that he supports Trump??? This rant that I read IS NOT the Libertarian Party I left after the Bob Barr fiasco (2008). And I still believe in Rand Paul, a Libertarian in Republican clothing. I think there’s some Libertarian in you, too!

    • Sparkles says:

      William F. Buckley’s National Review – April 5, 2016
      “The Racist Moral Rot at the Heart of the Alt-Right”

      The Federalist, April 14, 2016
      “You Can’t Whitewash The Alt-Right’s Bigotry”

      And the initial article I referenced was penned by Jack Hunter, uber libertarian and former aid to Sen Rand Paul. ‘Former’ because his own racist rantings cost him his job.

      Seems the disdain isn’t limited only to lefties and the ‘lily white editorial board of the Huffington Post’.

      Yiannopoulos, via the carnival rag that is Breitbart, is merely an evolution in hate profiteering.
      Limbaugh part deux.

      • Khan says:

        The alt-right freely acknowledges that there are true-believing 1488er racists among them. Others are more simply tribalistic…which is practiced and celebrated in virtually every other sector of the electorate that isn’t white, male, and straight, e.g. BLM, La Raza, CAIR, etc.

        Others are there for the sheer entertainment of watching the establishment go nuts as they spit on their pieties, taboos, and virtue signaling. That has played out time and again on Yiannopoulos’ “Dangerous F****t” campus speaking tour. He’ll calmly stand on stage and say “Feminism is cancer,” and the Trigglypuffs of the Left obligingly lose their minds in attempts to disrupt or shut down any actual discourse.

        If people are drawn to this, the establishment really only has itself to blame. In the face of humorless, joyless, pearl-clutching, virtue-signaling, bake-us-a-cake-or-else scolds like yourself, people aligning with the alt-right would rather go with the crowd that will raise a middle finger and laugh in your face. With the establishment, the best they can hope for are some loud harrumphs while quietly passing amnesty and the right for any straight guy to camp out in a women’s locker room so long as they vocally identify as woman or some other ridiculous biology-denying term.

        Whether the great William F. Buckley would have supported the alt-right is open for debate, but the WFB who in ’68 called Gore Vidal an epithet before righteously threating to punch his face in would almost certainly have understood it.

        P.S. Al Sharpton agitated the mob that got Yankel Rosenbaum killed during the Golan Heights riot and yet has still made a handsome living that included a turn on MSNBC. So if you’re going to reach for your smelling salts over “hate profiteering,” maybe give ’em a sniff for that.

  8. Lil Mac says:

    Sparkles and HRH. You don’t know my background any more than you can see what Trump supporters see. A great many governors, senators, chairmen, pundits, and media people cannot see it either. The best we can do is to view things by standing in our own shoes so to not guess wrongly what others think.

    Your assumptions about me being white bread, born American, bigoted and uninformed are wrong. You imagine I support Trump because he hates people whom I supposedly “don’t like… minorities, foreigners, LGBT, and/or Muslims.” You also think I am stupid. (My degrees are all cum laude or above but, sure, a person can lack common sense and still be academically adept.)

    I must first ask, are your mother and spouse foreign-born immigrated naturalized citizens? Because Trump’s mother and spouse are. Yet you went further… you attack me out of your ignorance of me.

    I worked and lived in the middle east. My first cousin is the wealthiest and most openly lesbian woman in her county. My marriage is racially mixed, not at all white, and most of us are foreign-born naturalized citizens who first came to avidly support Trump last summer when we cheered his “wall” proposal. We who have navigated the US Immigration process see no policy as more critical to national survival than this centerpiece issue of “border security” which Trump singlehandedly surfaced and nailed after the entire GOP Congress had given up on the matter.

    To be sure, Trump can lose. But that bet hasn’t been a good bet so far. In the end, it’s about him as a person or the alternative candidates as persons. For the entire executive branch is one person. Voters elect that person, not his policies for past problems, nor his party for its hidden interests, but rather himself as a chief executive whom they must feel is a strong enough leader to deal with problems none of us can imagine now but will arise during the next four years. Voters know that some policies and plans will fly out the window and the last thing they want is another POTUS who needs a teleprompter to think. Trump must seal the deal. If he doesn’t he loses. He hasn’t stepped wrong yet. We shall see.

    • TexasAnnie says:

      …and the FIRST policy to fly out the window is his insistence about a wall on our side of the Rio Grande. You don’t know about me and mine, so I’ll tell you this: It can’t be done due to the geology of the area. There are just too many crevices and mountaintops to travail. Even Trump has admitted that with a tall enough wall, Mexicans can’t get over, unless they have a rope!

      • bynd says:

        TA: China did it over 13,000 miles in a much older and less technical time. It’s effectiveness may be in question though.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Not so, bynd! The Great Wall mountains are sandstone. The Rio Grande Rift resulted of plate tectonics. As I said: It can’t be done due to the geology of the area. But I guess I should have specified that it shouldn’t be done, and not only due to continental shift. There is the aesthetic value of the mountains to consider… Now it’s possible to install today’s technology and monitor the area and we may come to that. But I hope not. However, that’s NOT what Trump is advocating.

    • HTH says:

      I don’t think your arguments are nearly as good as you think they are. There’s so much fallacy in your responses they’re beginning to resemble male genitalia.

      You have abandoned principles, rationality, and education to get behind a cult of personality. You are like Kim Jong-Un’s citizenry, Erdogan’s harem, or Hugo Chavez’s drooling supporters. Sure, they keep shoveling nonsense your way, but they do it with authority and grandiose promises for the future. You are a Kardashian Instagram follower. You’ll take whatever you can get if someone throws a little bit of glitter on top.

      My friend, your background, your relatives, your philosophies are irrelevant to me knowing who you are. All I need to know is that you’re a strongman apologist – you are the kind of person that rolls out the red carpet for autocracy, as long as it means you’re on top and your amorphous blob enemies are on the bottom. You are not unique in this regard. You are a statistic.

      I know I’m talking to a wall here (perhaps built by Mexico), but I’m an optimist: the one policy you’ve mentioned, indeed the one Trump ever seems to mention is about immigration policies. Consider: (1) More Mexicans are leaving the US than entering. This has been the case at least since 2009. (2) At least a third of illegal immigrants are overstays (persons overstaying their validly granted visas). Know what this means? Your wall does nothing to them. (3) The Heritage Foundation estimates the average illegal immigrant household pays more into the system than it takes out to the tune of some $14k. There is no significant research to my finding that illegal immigrants are a significant tax burden – a favorite argument among Trumpites. (4) A trade deficit, that Trump says he is going to use to force Mexico to pay for his wall, or to force capitulation of China, is not whatever you and other Trump supporters think it is. A trade deficit, almost by definition, is a direct reflection of cost savings by one country (e.g. the US) by engaging in trade with another country over domestically. That means if Trump goes around ruining trade relationships, your prices of goods are going to skyrocket.

      Why don’t Trump’s policies mesh with these concepts? Why are people still railing about Mexicans crossing our borders in droves? Why is Trump circling his campaign around what is, by all discernable evidence, a red herring? Because he wants to captivate the us v. them mentality that propels autocrats across the world into leadership. And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

      I know, I know – you still think Trump is right on this and every other issue, even and especially when he changes his mind. But please, stop deluding yourself into thinking that it’s for any reason other than that he appeals to your sense of groupthink and ego.

      HTH

  9. Lil Mac says:

    HTH, your post is 100 words longer than mine. You win.

    You compare me to North Koreans. KMA. I have 23 military ribbons, 12 for combat, for sake of defending your right to dip to speaking of genitalia. BTW, that is what killed Rubio in this race. He got frustrated and thought voters were supporting Trump because his rude truths were rude. Didn’t bother to examine them to see if they were true.

    You condemn me for being for a “strongman”. Fair enough. Trump is a strongman.

    So what weak man are you supporting? You are going to vote, right?

  10. Bob Loblaw says:

    Wonder if BTO opinion of Jane Kleeb has changed now that her and Vince Powers are trying to seize control of the NDP through a “unity” ticket.

  11. Lil Mac says:

    1:28, you are welcome. That was civil of you. And yes I do know you refer to dictators. I have lived where people who complain disappear. Some tyrants are blustery, most however are smooth talking and ooze benevolence for their people. The latter are just as bad. Maybe worse.

    Is a blustery guy more Hitleresque than a saintly civil nice guy? Our Constitution assumes they all are equally apt to be murderous tyrants. Some would say more so because no power seeking is ever saintly, thus the saint act is one of lying to voters’ faces.

    Every human being sees their own tyrannical beliefs as benevolent for others. Our constitution creates freedom by it not trusting anyone with too much power. It hamstrings Presidents and voters, lawmakers and judges… perhaps not enough for judges. But the point is, our constitution says people are not to be trusted with unchecked, unbalanced power. It finds zero saints. It assumes we all are budding dictators. So vote accordingly and hold them to account.

  12. Anonymous says:

    “All these Republicans were just slobbering all over (my wife) until she left the State Department.” Bill Clinton, June 3, 2016.

    The image of a wet slimy cigar… good lord! I need to puke.

    If you are slobbering over bad-hair Donald or cellulite Hillary or golem Bernie, you need to get your slobber mechanism fixed.

  13. LAX says:

    Clinton is going to win the popular vote and the presidency by a landslide. Writer has mush between the ears to even suggest otherwise.

    • Horatio says:

      You could not be more wrong….Trump wins by a larger electoral margin than Reagan over Mondale…you can take that to the bank.

    • Khan says:

      Oh, is that why so many Dems are quietly praying for a Plugs Biden/Lieawatha ticket? The Inspector General’s report sure didn’t sound favorable to Granny Goodness.

      • Sparkles says:

        1) You can fit the entirety of those ‘quietly praying’ masses into TD Ameritrade park.

        2) Never. Gonna. Happen.

  14. bynd says:

    TA,

    Islands made in oceans, including Dubai I believe. Tallest building in the world over 2,700 feet tall. That’s about half a mile. There is very little that can not be over come for today’s builders. Eventually there is bedrock. And who knows when technology will produce a wall capable of floating on any geological formation. If not already.

      • bynd says:

        TA, Sparkles, As I said and pointed out, there is pretty much an engineering solution to almost all problems. Maybe not now, but usually sooner rather than later. Who ever thought 640 tons could fly? Your need to work on your imaginations, except as politics go because it’s all way over the top, and broaden your horizons. There are many engineering feats that have been accomplished when everyone said it couldn’t happen. I’ll bet you two think the landing on the moon was staged by the government:)

        Plate tectonics, largest fault goes from New Madrid MO. to the Midwest and southern US. They’ve built a lot of things along that fault. Same for SFO.

        Although I’m sure since Sparkles chimed in, he referencing the steel plate in his head. Shutting off reality from the rest of his thoughts.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        You don’t deserve the last word here, bynd. We’re talking about Trump’s absurd plan to “build a wall that Mexico will pay for,” NOT, any and every engineering feat man is capable of erecting!

    • TexasAnnie says:

      No bynd, NO! Sure you can drill to the bedrock. But it’s a RIFT. It changes. The water there changes course. New crevices open up. Mountain boulders tumble down. As Sparkles suggests, you need to look up plate tectonics.

      • Sparkles says:

        No doubt the families of 15,894 dead, 6,152 injured, and 2,562 still people missing from the March 2011 Megathrust along the Tohoku region of Japan would love to hear of bynd’s dazzling feats of geothermal defying, mantle convection nullifying human engineering.
        And if only bynd and his engineers were available to the scientist and engineers that built the Fukushima nuclear power plants.

      • bynd says:

        TA, The Rift is only 100 k, 61 miles, wide at the border. 61 out of how many thousands? Maybe you & Sparkles should read more than just the word Rift:) Just sayn’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.