We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

There can only be one explanation for the disgrace that is Donald Trump: he must have failed to realise that the film industry’s demonic portrayals of conservative politicians are politically motivated caricatures, not role models to be emulated. In Love Actually, the villain is a crude, lecherous redneck Republican president on a visit to London. He is keen not just to bully Britain but also to force himself upon Martine McCutcheon’s character. Prime Minister Hugh Grant – an anti-war version of Tony Blair – tells him to get lost, tearing up the “one-sided” special relationship in the process, to the cheers of a grateful nation. As an insight into the Left-liberal mind, this scene takes some beating; the US president at the time was George W Bush and the invasion of Iraq had just been completed. But Trump, who unfortunately remains in the lead for the 2016 Republican nomination, seems to be auditioning for the remake.

Allister Heath. 

Read it all. By the way, I have noticed in some other online forums that Trump fans get very annoyed at we Brits opining about his views. Well, he chose to refer to the UK as part of his recent remarks about Muslims, so he puts himself in the frame for criticism. If you cannot take the heat, etc. The same would apply if a Brit, such as the broadcaster Piers Morgan, chooses to bash America for its 2nd Amendment.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

93 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Vinegar Joe

    I think the difference is that Piers Morgan was living in the US and working for a US network.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    Vinegar, that is a distinction without a difference. Trump has made money in the UK – controversially via a Scottish property deal. He also wants to be POTUS, which means he would be a member of NATO, etc. The rise of this man has an impact on powers such as the UK.

    The idea of this man with a finger on a nuclear button scares the shit out of me.

  • Alisa

    The idea of this man with a finger on a nuclear button scares the shit out of me.

    Indeed.

  • Frank S

    Trump seems like a pretty decent sort of chap to me. He is quite colourful, and willing to speak his mind in a straightforward fashion which I find refreshing these days. And he seems to share the widespread concern about mass migration and associated violence which are scarcely discussed by the regular ‘political class’. I hope he continues to do well.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    Frank S, I am assume you are being sarcastic.

  • Mr Ed

    I read that Mr Trump is a life-long Democrat, has he been on the road to Damascus?

    Mr Trump was popular in the UK when he was a Democrat billionaire with obnoxious view, like supporting Kelo.

    The only good thing that could come of this would be if Mr Osbourne, the UK’s First Secretary of State, who had some rather harsh words for Mr Trump the other day, became the UK’s Prime Minister to a President Trump and got torn a strip off in public by Mr Trump, or had his flight over to go to the White House diverted to Canada as an unwelcome alien. Then we might all start considering if we should not stand on our own two feet and stop parasatising the USA.

  • staghounds

    I hate to disagree, but Love Actually doesn’t suggest the Party of the President, and the Prime Minister is clearly a Tory.

  • Paul Marks

    Of course Mr Trump was AGAINST the Iraq war – and detested President Bush.

    Mr Donald Trump was also pro abortion, pro “Gun Control”, pro universal government health care (he still praises the “Scottish system” of government health care, Glasgow being an example to us all…..) and attacked Mitt Romney (of all people) for being too hard line on IMMIGRATION.

    All this, and much more, is left out of the media narrative.

  • Frank S

    JP, no I am not.
    Trump is resisting tyranny, as nicely captured in this piece by Delingpole at Breitbart:

    “I personally think that Trump’s proposed Muslim embargo is silly, counterproductive, unjust and unworkable. But I’m still glad he said it because – as I suspect was his real intention – it so perfectly illustrated the massive gulf between where most ordinary people are on the subject of immigration and the Islamist threat and where our increasingly remote and complacent political class are.

    If Trump’s proposals are “extreme” then how exactly would you categorise the current do-nothing policies being championed by most of the Western world’s political leaders from Barack Obama to David Cameron and Angela Merkel?

    I’d suggest that policies which involve imposing tens of thousands of displaced citizens from Islamist hellholes like Syria and Libya on the reluctant populaces and creaking welfare systems of Western liberal democracies are about as extreme as you can get. They are, in fact, a form of tyranny.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/10/neither-fox-news-donald-trump-going-come-ak-whereas/

  • Chip

    Trump is a narcisstic buffoon but I’ll salute his hair if he gets people to discuss whether Islam as a belief system is compatible with western values. Take a few minutes to absorb Pew’s polling on Muslim countries.

    Less than 5% support for social acceptance of gays, more than 80% support for the death of apostates.

    Has Muslim immigration to Europe been on balance a positive development? The data on education, employment, crime and social cohesion say no.

  • Ljh

    If Hillary is the alternative, I’m willing to bear with Trump, at least it’s his money he’s spending, he hasn’t mishandled sensitive national information on an unsecured server for all the world’s spies and hackers to explore, he hasn’t protected a serial womaniser, betrayed an ambassador, supplied arms to Isis via Qatar and Libya, been on the take while in office, lied to grieving parents….

  • AKM

    Quite an interesting essay on Trump’s tactics by Scott Adams here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/134791529391/risk-management-trump-persuasion-series

    Hat-tip to Instapundit who linked to it.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    Frank S, there is nothing decent about this man, for all the reasons Paul Marks has given. He is not even a coherent conservative on a whole range of issues. For a start, if he has given a speech or written an item lauding smaller government, more free markets and so on, I must have missed it. He’s a populist, chasing after those who fear foreigners (all Muslims, Mexicans, etc); he’s happy to play the system for gain (eminent domain, etc) and is a lout in his treatment of journalists, particularly women. I am kind of old fashioned about such matters.

    Real conservatives, such as George Will and Jonah Goldberg, for example, are appalled. It is, in my view, dangerous to say “oh he may be a shit but he gets debate going”. Sorry. I recommend you read the whole of the article to which I linked because far from helping frame honest debate, Trump has poisoned the well. He is a Michael Moore-sort of cancer on our lives, from a different angle.

  • thefrollickingmole

    Hes a dick but contrast.

    Merkel destroyed the free movement of Europeans in less than 3 months by literally opening the floodgates form Turkey, a more or less increasingly Islamist country. There is no upside to this process for the EU, if they continue they will directly cause the rise of the far right by destroying social safety nets and in general introducing a sizeable ‘lump” of population which will prove incredibly hard to digest to enlightenment values.

    Trump has floated the idea of stopping migration from that same area of the world till further notice, done (allegedly) to protect his own country.

    One is currently worse than Hitler while the other is Time magazines person of the year.

    Trump is the logical outcome of politicians like Obama and Merkel.

  • CaptDMO

    “…there is nothing decent about this man, for all the reasons Paul Marks has given.”
    Well, gosh. He DOES employ more actually productive tax payers than either, say, Pearce, or Marx.
    He actually knows the difference between actual economics, and Aesop’s Fables, in “political science”.
    He DOES manage charisma, integrity, and “support”,(like it or not) without sole reliance on “special” Affirmative Action credentials, OR “Special” campaign finance “considerations”.

  • Surellin

    Trump is a crude tool, like a sledgehammer, but he is doing useful work. He has pretty much single-handedly smashed the Overton Window on a whole range of issues in the US, and that is a great service. God save us should he become President, though.

  • Sam Duncan

    “Trump seems like a pretty decent sort of chap to me.”

    Read up on the Scottish property deal Johnathan mentioned. Trump is not a pretty decent sort of chap. (Although some of the things he said about Alec Salmond’s administration after the latter failed to fix the compulsory purchase made me warm to him for a while in a sort of “enemy of my enemy” way. But the point there is that he was like a spurned lover: he saw a kindred spirit in Salmond and thought they could stitch the thing up together. Only when Oily Al failed to deliver did he turn against him.) Johnathan’s 12.50 comment is spot-on.

    We can only hope that the Republican opposition to Trump (still hovering around 70% when you add it all up, let’s not forget) will end up uniting behind a candidate who can go on to win the general election. But it’s not looking good.

    On that note…

    “Mr Trump was popular in the UK when he was a Democrat billionaire with obnoxious view, like supporting Kelo.”

    While I’m no fan of conspiracy theories, I remain to be completely convinced that his entire candidacy isn’t a false-flag operation on behalf of Hillary. Something about it just smells wrong.

  • Jordan

    Frank S, there is nothing decent about this man, for all the reasons Paul Marks has given.

    And more. Just during this election cycle, he’s trashed freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and an open internet. He’s also advocated making all Muslims register in a government database. The man is a vile fearmongering demagogue.

  • Watchman

    staghounds – I think you may be confusing Hugh Grant calling a picture of Margaret Thatcher a saucy minx with him being Conservative. It would be something of a shock if Richard Curtis had written a character we are meant to like who was a Conservative to be honest, although he was smart enough to leave his politics to be read onto by others.

  • A Swiss

    Of course The Donald is not a conservative.

    He is the conservatives’s murder weapon to stab the GOPe.

    At the burning platform site they think he is possibly the grey champion of the 4th turning.

    We shall see.

    As other people on this blog have already pointed out, he is only the symptom.

    The cause is a completely incompetent and corrupt western “elite”.

  • A Swiss

    And by the way.

    In the US banana republic they have checks and balances. At least in theory.

  • PeterT

    The criticism Trump has come under for his recent comments is ludicrous. First of all, the US is not obliged to take any immigrants, full stop (I’m a Brit BTW). Not all muslims are terrorists (of course) but at present time 99% of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by muslims. And has been pointed out, ‘bad Islam’ is much more popular with Muslim’s worldwide than ‘good Islam’. What’s so controversial about a short hiatus before a good vetting procedure is designed? I just don’t get it.

    Yes, he is a wild card and I too worry about the nuclear button issue. But there is absolutely no chance I would vote for Hillary (or Sanders) rather than Trump.

    What libertarians seem to not realise is that a Democrat win in the next Presidential cycle means ‘game over’ to conservatism in America. The demographics are already not favourable and unless major changes are made now it will be too late.

    Much as I like the ‘reason’ crowd of libertarians, or ‘champagne libertarians’ if you will, they are hopelessly naive. Libertarian values are not universal, and it is an accident of history that they have done as well as they have, within the Anglosphere.

    I would prefer a Cruz or Paul presidency (although Paul too suffers from some of this libertarian affliction of attributing good faith to his opponents) but if Trump is selected then its Trump.

    What I find most disturbing is this movement to have him banned from the UK because it is “not in the public interest”. WTF?

  • I think the annoying thing is not the disagreement with his views, but the refusal to see what his popularity means. He will likely get rank and file democrats to vote for him in the general election because they are fed up too.

    The cultural Marxists in the schools brainwash the kids with identity politics, and the left always goes to far when they have power, and suddenly we’ve got a bunch of people who have rejected the progressive agenda, but still have this identity politics thing in their heads. Trump appeals to them- and, frankly, the things he says aren’t that crazy. When I am forced to listen to political crap, I am struck by the fact that the things Trump says are more likely to work, whereas the things others say are more likely to get us into WWIII with Russia and China.

    We need to learn this lesson. Democracy is not particularly conducive to liberty or any of the principles derived thereof. If we ever want a libertarian society, then we would, in some sense, have to learn to be pretty damn restrictive on certain behaviors because otherwise people get infected with statist nonsense, and we lose.

  • Patrick Crozier

    Trump is addressing the concerns of the electorate. Why aren’t the others?

  • Mr Ed

    There was never a man so hated, as he who told the truth.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    I don’t see the worry about Trump with his finger on the nuclear button: who is less likely to start a general conflagration than a man with many properties in many major cities? And I doubt he amassed those properties by being irrational.

    As for the rest of it, Americans are heartily tired of a political class that is blatantly self-interested, and while Trump’s proposals may be egregiously wrong-headed, they at least are real proposals about real problems: the ‘professionals’ soft-pedal problems and propose unworkable solutions designed only to let them seem ‘concerned’ while playing to their bases.

    It’s axiomatic that when you’re at war, it’s better to do the wrong thing now than the right thing too late; we are at war with Islam, and with the occupying powers of our own elites. Trump may be the wrong thing, but so far he’s the only thing.

  • James Strong

    I like Trump.
    He slightly mis-spoke in his speech; it would have been better if he had been clear that he was in favour of stopping Muslim immigration, and that his policy would not include stopping US muslim citizens travelling abroad on business or holiday from re-entering the country.
    And I am not worried about him having his finger on the nuclear button: there is no chance of him using ot Russia or China, and if he uses it on Mecca if muslims continue their violent attacks on Westerners I would happily raise a glass to him.
    He is the only politician in the North Atlantic area who can command air-time on the nes reports and tells the tuth about the threat posed by Islam.
    And let’s get away from this nonsense that freedom of religion is to be respected and protected.
    What is Sharia?
    It’s a system of laws.
    What is a caliph?
    He is a ruler over citizens in a state.
    These are political ideas, cloaked in a claim that it’s a religion.
    It’s not, it’s an evil, oppressive political system and will need to be wiped out if Western civilisation is to survive.

  • lucklucky

    Well the Brits opinion of Trump only make me prefer Trump since their country and its Government + Media are one of worse offenders in enabling Islamism. From Basra to London.
    Do not even get me started on the repelent The Telegraph.

    Cameron for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHqRtLeI_pE

    While i don’t like what Trump says i also don’t like most things about war. But sometimes is necessary.
    I very much doubt that his idea is practical, effective and reasonable for now(lots of intel came from Muslims).
    And while i regard Islam negatively there are certainly many Muslims which are good people.

    But Trump is certainly less worse than suicide politics-journalist enabled pact what we have today.

    There are also the issue we are dealing with : are our problem just the next attack from ISIS or Londonistans, Mollenbeek’s, Marseilles, or other places then multiplcated by several fold in 20 years where no Christian or Jew, Budist etc is tolerated?

    Is Islam compatible with West? if it is not when population reaches a certain threshold then the obvious policy is precisely restrict Islam immigration.

    The problem with Trump is all his dishonesty and other Rooseveltian, crony ideas from him, in short i don’t believe he will stop Muslim immigration either. Offer something he wants and he will change his opinion in a beat.

  • PeterT

    And by the way, Allister/Johnathan, how does it feel over there in the MSM?

  • JohnK

    The nuclear button issue is a complete red herring. Nuclear weapons are at present not targetted, so Trump or Clinton could press the thing as much as they liked and nothing would happen for days. Besides which, I think nuclear launch authority consists of a system of codes to be entered rather than the semi-mythical “button”.

  • long-lost cousin

    JohnK –

    The “button” is just a set of protocols. And the big one is that the President can order a launch. He’d need someone else to confirm his order – someone appointed by him and confirmed by the Senate. In theory, all that is, is a confirmation that the President has not completely flipped his shit.

    We’re set up for retaliation. In the event of a mass launch from the FSU/PRC/wherever, we’d have our missiles flying long before theirs got here. That’s a lot quicker than “days.”

    And we need to see Trump for what he is: a long-time Clinton donor, a long-time gun ban advocate, a long-time abuser of eminent domain, a long-time (and recent!) advocate of a government takeover of health care, and a self-promoting douchebag. He is a populist, and from me that word is NEVER a compliment. Sometimes you need to turn a bull loose in the china shop, but you don’t then appoint the bull as shift manager and comptroller.

  • AKM

    “And let’s get away from this nonsense that freedom of religion is to be respected and protected.”

    Also freedom of religion under classic liberalism is not intended to be absolute. It is predicated under the assumption that this freedom is two-way. Any religion that threatens to kill apostates and carries out violent attacks against unbelievers has given up its’ own right to practice their religion freely.

  • Gary Kayser

    When has campaign rhetoric EVER resembled elected actions?

  • Mr Ed

    I have pressed a button that would once have dropped a nuclear bomb, in a Vulcan bomber (long since grounded and dis-armed), so nothing happened. It’s a nice big red round button, it stands out on the console of the Navigator Radar (Bomb Aimer) (who faces backwards) and it is the fail-safe (I abuse the term) mechanism to eject the bomb if the primary release mechanism fails. It went out of use as a Nuclear Button in 1969 when Polaris came on stream, (apart from the tactical use) and of course, in those days, the launch of the UK’s deterrent was done by scrambling the bombers from their bases hoping that they would get away before the incoming missiles struck their bases.

    In the UK, there is at least a sort of safety valve against having a lunatic Prime Minister launch a nuclear war, which is that the Prime Minister is not in command of the Armed Forces, but acts through the Chief of the Defence Staff ‘CDS’. Should the CDS fail to implement an order to launch Trident, the Prime Minister can sack him, but cannot replace him without the consent of the Sovereign, so this could buy time for sanity to prevail (if launching a nuclear war is insane).

    Whereas in the USA, as the Congress no longer seems to declare war, and the President seems to have the right (de facto) to authorise military force, there seems to be little effective braking on the use of the USA’s arsenal, except perhaps a President wary of not getting good poll ratings.

    Perhaps we should get the film Dr Stangelove brought up to date with a sequeal, Dr Strangelove’s dyslexic son starts a worldwide unclear war.

    Or was that was Bush II did?

  • Jerry M

    I cannot criticize many of the criticisms of the Donald listed above. I do note that, no one has listed any alternatives. Why, because the alternatives are worse! For me, and most of us Trumpers, immigration is the ONLY issue. If we can’t control our borders, none of the other issues matters as we will no longer have a country. You Brits have sure done a swell job with your Muslim migrants. I guess you want us to just sit by and watch as our young girls are groomed as ho’s. Can’t wait for No-Go zones. No one but Trump has had the guts to say what needs to be said. Yeah Shariah! The Great Reset is coming and it is not going to be pretty. You Europeans have an extensive history with that. So keep criticizing us. But… We. Don’t. Care. Not any longer.

  • RRS

    Elective politics in the U S has become an art of creating (and maintaining) perceptions.

    While still retaining some legislative functions, the elective functions of the “party system” in the U S have fragmented.

    In place of a constitutional format, the U S electorate is becoming aware they are faced with a Federal Administrative State; how its various hierarchies are to be managed and controlled; or, how it they may be deployed for access to benefits.

    Despite all the noise to signal ratio of reactions to current events, the next 11 months will likely see shifts in perceptions in terms of how the Federal Administrative State affects the lives of the electorate.

    It is not about the perception of any one person.

  • veryretired

    To condense some of the comments I have made at Chicagoboyz regarding this whole Trump/election business—

    Trump will not be the Republican nominee, and Hilary won’t be the Dem nominee either, by the way, because the establishment pols in the party will never allow it. He will run as an independent, which was the plan all along.

    Trump began as a creature of the Clintons, with whom he has been friends and allies for a long time, but no one who planned his Perot-like candidacy, in order to repeat that vote siphoning process that contributed to Bill’s win in 1992, could have predicted the large pool of unhappiness and frustration among the electorate he has tapped into.

    The permanent ruling coalition in the US, and it’s counterpart in other parts of the world, especially Europe, live in an almost impervious bubble of inbred opinion, so the depth and strength of the dissatisfactions of the ordinary citizens have come as a complete surprise, much like the famous story about Nixon’s election by a landslide in 1972 that was incomprehensible to some well -known east coast liberal woman because, as she said after he was elected, “How did he ever win, no one I know voted for him.” It was one of the biggest landslides in Presidential election history.

    Trump will draw off a sizable part of the votes that might normally go to a Republican, as well as some who might usually vote for a Dem, but are attracted to the populist positions he has taken.

    The media firestorm over everything he says is a reflection of two related phenomena—the media is used to being able to destroy Republican candidates by an endless stream of critical stories which cause them to either apologize, or modify their positions by censoring themselves to avoid the endless accusations of racism, sexism, etc.

    Secondly, the media love sensationalism, and celebrities, and Trump is both, so they naturally flock to him as moths to a flame. What they can’t seem to comprehend is that their antagonism not only doesn’t hurt him, or any of the non-traditional candidates, like Dr. Carson, but actually enhances his favorable ratings among his disgruntled supporters, who despise the media anyway.

    The coming election cycle is going to be chaotic, violent, dirty, and corrupt in the extreme. The mood in the US is approaching the deep divisions of the 1850’s, and the chaos in the world resembles the turmoil of the 1930’s.

    If it weren’t so dangerous, I could almost find all of this ironically funny. But, in fact, it appears that Europe is well on its way to committing suicide by allowing an invasion that will totally remake its civil culture, while the political culture enables, rather than inhibits, that destruction.

    The US will be a non-player on the world stage for much of the next decade, due to both political and economic weakness brought about by the collapsing progressive state policies, which have undermined most of the inheritance from its former primacy after WW2. Since so much of the world has been pissing and moaning about that role for the last several decades, all of you are now going to get what you have been asking for, and you’re going to get it good and hard.

    Enjoy!

  • Thruppennybit

    Dr Strangelove’s dyslexic son starts a worldwide unclear war

    It feels like we’re already in an unclear war.

  • Gene

    VeryRetired, I’m afraid I must ask you to expand on your second paragraph, which begins “Trump will not be the Republican nominee …”

    Your remark about Hillary, specifically, needs explaining.

  • I sneeze in threes

    Never mind about the Prime Minister having his finger on the button it looks like John Humphreys does.

    “The captains of Britain’s nuclear submarines had a wake up call today – when the BBC mysteriously went off air for 15 minutes. Secret orders to captains say orders to launch a strike are to be opened and acted upon only if the submarine cannot tune in to Radio 4’s Today programme for a given number of days.”

    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/radio-silence-puts-subs-on-nuclear-1157478

  • I sneeze in threes

    As does Shaun Gabb.

    “I recommend this, a speech given by Sean Gabb on Monday night to the Young Conservatives. Said he: close down the BBC”

    http://www.samizdata.net/2009/02/sean-gabb-stuns/

  • Jerry

    ‘…chasing after those who fear foreigners (all Muslims, Mexicans, etc);’
    I don’t fear them – I’m tired of SUPPORTING THEM. The illegal trespassers from the southern boarder are coming here for the ‘freebies’ ( healthcare, education, food stamps, name it ) and then send most of what they earn BACK to Mexico.
    The groups of Muslims I’ve seen so far are NOT families but primarily young men and I have no wish to add them to the droves I ALREADY have to help feed, clothe, educate, medicate, and tolerate their disdain for my country ( catch pictures of Cinco de Mayo in Los Angeles sometime if you doubt me ).

    The muslims’ reasons for coming here ( besides being supported by the taxpayers )are, the I suspect, not well intended and they can devote their full time efforts toward those goals since ‘working for a living’ is not really necessary here !! In any case, I not only don’t want to support ANY more of them, I don’t want any MORE of their backward, seventh century, savage-based, incompatible misogynistic, so called culture shoved in my face !

    If Trump can stop that alone, it’ll be a good start.

  • RickC

    Instapundit shared a tweet from someone going by the handle Political Math that makes sense: “The world makes a lot of sense when you realize that the #1 priotity of Trump supporters is to tell you to go [explicative] yourself. And I don’t mean this as a slur: Trump supporters are really just *more* sick of bullshit out of DC than they care about Trump.”

    I personally feel more in sync with Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist who writes, “I hate Donald Trump, people who love Donald Trump, people who hate Donald Trump, and media who cover Donald Trump.”

    I get the Trump phenomenon, he’s the finger most Americans’ have been wanting to give our betters for some time, particularly to the Federal government. But frankly, while giving the finger to the powers that be might feel good in the short term, he would be a disaster in office in the long term. No more so in my way of thinking than a Hillary or Sanders however. P.J. O’Rourke also summed it up recently when he wrote that the only candidate even remotely worth consideration, if the Constitution and limited government mean anything to you is Rand Paul but he has no chance of getting elected; hence we are screwed.

  • lucklucky

    “Secondly, the media love sensationalism, and celebrities, and Trump is both, so they naturally flock to him as moths to a flame. What they can’t seem to comprehend is that their antagonism not only doesn’t hurt him, or any of the non-traditional candidates, like Dr. Carson, but actually enhances his favorable ratings among his disgruntled supporters, who despise the media anyway.”

    A big class of voters have been forming in Western world: Those that despise journalism.

    Which in fact is nothing more than political proselytism instead of journalism.

  • bobby b

    Trump is a possible contender only because of the same ignorance that brought Obama into power.

    Far too many voters give more consideration to picking the best dancer or the best survivor on some tv show than to whom they vote for as president.

    Technology and social organization keeps many alive who, in past eras, would have died of stupidity. This is called progress.

  • Apparently in the wake of the Iranian Revolution, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the USA and actually deported thousands of them.

    But Trump saying America should not allow any more muslims in until the US security service has got its act together makes him Hitler.

  • John Galt III

    veryretired,

    Trump is a Democrat. He gave to Carter and Mondale and not one penny to Ronald Reagan. Those are indisputable facts. Bill Clinton urged him to run. That is a fact.

    He keeps saying he won’t form a third party like Perot, Wallace and McCarthy so long as he is ‘treated well’ which can mean anything he wants.

    He will form a 3rd party in early 2016. He will say he was not treated well. He doesn’t need money. He’s self funding, so his campaign organization will remain intact.

    Hillary Clinton will win as the vote on the right will be split. Trump will be paid off handsomely by the Clintons in access and contracts not direct money.

    The press will report none of this in the greatest fix in US election history. Breitbart and a few others may see the truth but that is about it.

  • JohnW

    I’d suggest that policies which involve imposing tens of thousands of displaced citizens from Islamist hellholes like Syria and Libya on the reluctant populaces and creaking welfare systems of Western liberal democracies are about as extreme as you can get. They are, in fact, a form of tyranny.”

    Not tens of thousands – tens of MILLIONS.

    MI5 are screaming for more funding because they cannot keep up with the current terrorism threat levels and the authorities prefer to protect the rapists of children rather than be accused of racism – 5000 suspected cases in Rotherham alone – not the widely reported 1500 which was the MINIMUM estimate.

    Of course, we can always rely on the police to run away bravely. I gather, run you “kuffs” is a reference to “kuffars” or “non-believers” as they are known in Islam.

  • veryretired

    To expand a bit, Hillary will withdraw sometime before the convention next year, probably claiming health issues, but in reality because she will be blackmailed with the threat of indictment by the current ruling gang’s Dept of “Justice”.

    Anyone who thinks that the criminal Chicago syndicate that literally invented the current front man will let that power go is delusional. The convention will be stampeded by the various power blocs, including the violent BLM movement, which was formed by the current regime’s very own political action committee earlier this year, to nominate a pre-selected candidate whom they know they can control completely.

    The other Dem candidates, who are only window dressing anyway, will quickly endorse the candidate, who will solidify the party’s support with the progressive, minority, and leftist female voting blocs.

    Meanwhile, Trump will go on, as his ego requires anyway, regardless of the Dem candidate, to run as an independent and split the vote that any truly conservative or even establishment RINO might have counted on.

    It will not be too surprising is the illegal campaign fund mechanism that the current leader of the regime used for the last two elections is expanded and enlarged even more to draw in more untraceable money from all around the globe. The relentless drives to register and allow illegals to vote, along with multiple voting by college students and others, will pad the vote totals, just. as they were in the last elections.

    The American public, foolishly believing the progressive nonsense that has been the common wisdom in our social/political thought for the last several decades, and which is now taught from kindergarden in the schools, may very well end up with an other totally corrupt puppet fronting for the same criminal enterprise that the current shill has stooged for.

    The 2020 election, if it occurs, will actually be the critical one, not 2016.

  • JohnK

    Long lost cousin:

    The USA could launch Tridents and Minutemen, but if they have not been targetted that would be a futile exercise. In the Cold War every missile had a target, now they do not, and it would all need to be programmed into them before a launch could take place. It was all part of the de-escalisation process in those brief happy days when the Cold War (and history) ended.

  • Rich Rostrom

    Trump can’t even state his own positions accurately.

    His campaign website has (had?) a proposal to abolish or reduce the H-1B program, which allows businesses to to replace American workers with indentured foreigners at lower pay. This is one of the many genuine immigration reforms that are needed.

    But when queried in person on this issue, Trump waxed eloquent on the benefits of H-1B.

    I’d vote for him over Clinton. I’d also vote for a lead pipe to the kneecap over a .44 magnum bullet to the forehead.

  • Rich Rostrom

    I’ve seen Love, Actually (t’other night I rewatched the scene where Jamie proposes to Amelia in the restaurant in Marseille). And I always thought the U.S. President was a clear reference to Bill Clinton.

  • Eric

    John, ICBM retargeting can happen in just a few minutes. Detargeting was never more than a symbolic gesture.

  • JohnK

    Eric:

    Even if it did just take a few minutes (I have no way of knowing), it’s another delay, which would not have been acceptable in the Cold War. But as I said, fear of Trump having control of the non-existent button is a red herring.

    Here’s the question though: if the choice is between Clinton and Trump, who do you vote for? It can’t be Clinton, ever.

  • llamas

    I have no issue with Trump’s position on Muslim immigration. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    However, for all of the reasons stated above (which can be boiled down to the simple essence ‘he’s always been an opportunistic, amoral, statist thug without a consistent principle’), I will not vote for him if he is the Republican candidate. I would rather have Hillary win, although I cannot bring myself to vote for her either. With her, at least, we would only have 4 or 8 more years of what we have now. With Trump, there is absolutely no way to know what kind of clown show we would end up with, since he cannot articulate or maintain a consistent position about – anything.

    One thing I have not seen discussed – maybe he hasn’t even thought about it – is what he proposes to do with his property empire if he becomes the candidate. It is self-evidently a massive conflict of interest for him. I can’t imagine that his personality would allow him to relinquish control of it.

    It’s a total mess. They told me that if I voted for Romney, the nation would descend into a nightmare of disarray, corruption and hypocrisy – and they were right!

    llater,

    llamas

  • Alex

    In light of the disgrace that is Rotherdam, the UK deserves whatever criticism it gets regarding Muslims. It’s currently being covered up. You Brits are describing a rape as “grooming” for god’s sake (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/10/rotherham-grooming-ring-targeted-teenagers-over-three-decades-court-told). If you don’t want to be criticized for actively supporting the enemy, stop supporting the enemy.

  • John Galt III

    veryretired,

    Well connected author James Rickards (‘Currency Wars’ and “Death of Money’) also believes Hillary Clinton won’t be around at the end. You could be right on that one.

    In any case I do not trust Trump to throw the election to the Democrats in some way.

  • Gene

    llamas, one thought that occurs to me, inspired by your comment about “what kind of clown show we would end up with,” is that President Trump, who I agree would probably be mercurial and unpredictable in the extreme, might actually provoke a new degree of assertiveness on the part of the House and Senate.

    One critique of the 21st-century U.S. is that Congress has essentially abdicated much of its responsibility in the face of a president enamored with his own wisdom and executive orders, plus the growing administrative state that has been entrusted by default with enforcing laws any way it damned well pleases.

    A Congress that aggressively recaptures its powers could be one positive outcome of such a clown show.

  • David Aitken

    If Trump runs as an independent, he won’t be on the ballot in all 50 states. They all have different procedures and some, like Oklahoma, are VERY difficult. The deadlines are fast approaching and some may be past.

    See this: http://ballot-access.org/2015/11/28/november-2015-ballot-access-news-print-edition/

    Scroll down for 2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

  • Flubber

    Right now the only politicians who advocate for proper border control are Trump and Farage. They get the shit kicked out of them every day by the media. They certainly have their flaws.

    But let me ask you guys this: Do you see any evidence whatsoever for libertarianism anywhere in Mexico or the Middle East or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia etc etc.?

    If the West doesn’t halt the massive flows of immigration there will be no more west. The powers that be have decided that mixing us up and making us all a shade of brown will usher in the NWO.

    So argue about petty stuff if you like – the issue is ethno and cultural survival.

  • Laird

    I don’t have much use for Trump, either, basically for the reasons articulated by llamas. I don’t go so far as to think that Hillary would be preferable, though; a president has only a limited amount of power (granted, Obama has stretched that to, or beyond, the boundaries) and I frankly can’t see that a President Trump could do a lot of harm. Surellin (post at December 10, 2015 at 1:33 pm) makes a good point, too: Trump has succeeded in shifting the terms of the debate, and permitted public discussion of a whole raft of topics which are extremely important to the electorate but which are anathema to the professional political class.

    Do I think Trump would actually bar entry to the US of all Muslims? Of course not; no more than he could actually “build a wall” on our southern border and make Mexico pay for it. He’s already backed off on that statement by acknowledging that Muslim US citizens who travel abroad should certainly be permitted to return. But he is forcing the country, and especially the spineless political class, to face the reality that there is a real problem with Islam and domestic terrorism is a serious manifestation of it. I think he’s right that we need to exercise far more caution in permitting Muslim immigration (including supposed “refugees”, most of whom do not meet our statutory definition of the term) and issuing travel visas to people from Islamic countries. (The whole visaless entry process needs to be re-examined, too, thanks primarily to you Europeans who are permitting wholesale migration of Muslims into the Eurozone; you’re likely to lose your visaless travel privileges here as a consequence.) And we should be closely monitoring the movements of Muslims entering the country on tourist and student visas, and aggressively acting to be sure they don’t overstay their welcome. Today we do none of that, which is simply insane.

    Trump is a consummate negotiator (as well as a showman), and among the basic rules of negotiating are to ask for more than you expect to receive and to include some things in your offer which you are prepared to abandon. (Someone I know refers to his income tax filing as “a first offer toward a negotiated settlement”, and he always includes a few deductions he knows will be disallowed so he has some bargaining chips to give away.) Trump is asking for the moon and he knows he won’t get it. But he’ll get far more than he would by taking a more measured approach.

    Jonathan, I have no problem with Brits (or anyone else) criticizing American politicians; goodness knows it’s generally deserved. But I found the Alastair Heath essay you linked to be just silly. He borders on the hysterical. Lighten up. This is bombast and hyperbole, designed to get the blood flowing, especially among those of us who are thoroughly disgusted with the Republican elites. Of course it’s rank populism, which by definition is utterly without principle. But it’s permitting Trump to do something which has not been possible for any Republican presidential candidate since Reagan: he is defining the terms of the debate. He is forcing everyone else (whether you love him or despise him) to discuss what he wants discussed. Last Sunday Obama made a presidential address from the Oval Office, only the third time in his entire presidency he has done so. Twelve hours later Trump drove him off the front page and sucked all of the political oxygen out of the room. Extraordinary. And, frankly, refreshing.

    In the end I doubt that he will actually win the nomination, but if he does I won’t be distraught over it.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    What Laird said.

  • Alisa

    Yep. Although, unlike Laird (with whom I agree on the unlikeliness of Trump’s nomination and all the rest) I would be distraught about him winning the election.

  • Mr Black

    Why do so many on the right like to pretend that the problem with muslims is the handful of killers that pop up each year to commit terrorism? If that’s all it was we could solve that problem in the same way as we can take down an organised crime ring. But the problem, the REAL problem, is the muslim culture hates our guts and wants to see us torn down and trampled. Even, sometimes especially, the muslims who live among us. I have little fear of terrorists, but I have a huge fear of what will happen in 20 or 30 or 40 years when muslims are a majority of the electoral vote in some western nation. We all know exactly what they’ll vote for and we all know what that means for our society. They will transform the nation into a hardline sharia-compliant hellhole. I’d rather that future never occur and never have even a remote chance of occurring, and I’d rather we do something about it now instead of in 30 years where there are more of them than there are of us. Whatever Trumps faults, he is the ONLY politician who is telling the truth that it is muslims as a whole who are the threat and not just the few killers. If you think Trump would be bad for civil liberties now, I suggest you look damn hard at what kind of societies muslims create when they have the numbers.

    I would not be at all upset if he kicked off a general resistance to islam in the west by opening up that line of conversation. Perhaps we need to discuss the fact that mosques are not houses of worship but are recruiting stations for terror operatives. Perhaps we need to discuss that for every killer they produce there are hundreds if not thousands who quietly support that killer and his objectives. Perhaps we need to discuss the idea that these people should not be allowed into western society, at all. I and many others are sick to death of dishonest “intellectuals” telling us that muslims are mostly good people and we shouldn’t discriminate when every poll of muslim attitudes shows they are anything but. They bide their time, but they all understand that the end of the line is they win, we lose.

  • Frank S

    You’ve got it, Mr Black. The immediate future decades do not look good for Europe, for freedom, and for building on the traditions of enlightenment.

  • Ellen

    As a Minnesotan, I remember a situation very similar to a Trump presidency: we elected Jesse Ventura as governor. (Long story short, he was a wrestler, actor, and talk radio star – and mayor of Brooklyn Park just a few miles down the road from my domicile.)

    Those were more prosperous times. The state had a budget surplus. He wrote checks out to the taxpayers, since they were the ones creating the surplus. The current legislature, in less prosperous times, has also managed a surplus. They are figuring ways to spend it.

    I’d just as soon have Jesse Ventura back. But the legislature dug their heels in and refused to cooperate with him.

    Sometimes when the bogeyman wins the election, the result isn’t as bad as feared. Other times, of course, the results are worse. The only things I am sure of right now are that Clinton is a pathological liar and incompetent, and Trump is saying this that need to be said. I’ll go for anyone but Clinton (or Sanders), but I’m hoping for Cruz.

  • Regional

    You Europeans seem to forget the Seppos consider you an Embuggerance.
    Go head and ban Trump and don’t whinge at the consequences if he becomes POTUS i.e. European politicians could be barred from entering the U.S.A.
    While we’re at it, nominate one European leader you wouldn’t throw an anvil if you came across them floundering in the ocean.

  • Eric

    Ah Trump. When Time magazine picked Merkel for its “person of the year” he tweeted “I told you @TIME Magazine would never pick me as person of the year despite being the big favorite They picked person who is ruining Germany”.

    I’m ready to vote for him just to see him interact with Frau Merkel.

  • Bruce Hoult

    I really have to protest at the way some here characterise the H1-B visa!

    I was granted an H1-B in 2001, to work on web development in Chicago. The salary was US$120k, which I was fairly happy about and would not classify as “slave labour”.

    I don’t remember the precise details in the USA, but there is a minimum salary required, some demonstration that you couldn’t find a qualified and available US worker etc. Sure, you can game the system a little, but only to some extent.

    I’m currently working in Moscow on the Russian equivalent “Highly Qualified Specialist” visa. One of the conditions of this visa is a salary of not less than 2 million rubles a year, which is about three times the average Moscow salary. Again, hardly slave labour. (and I’m getting a good bit more than that…)

  • The Wobbly Guy

    Minimum salaries are easily worked around using kickbacks to employers. God knows how often it’s abused in Singapore.

    You don’t need a welfare state for hordes of people to want to come to your country. Better wages (after exchange rates, even after kickbacks), would do it.

  • llamas

    Last night in Iowa, Trump came out in favour of Federal ethanol subsidies, and mocked Ted Cruz as a puppet of Big Oil for his opposition to them.

    This was a handy two-fer for me, because it a) shows that he’s just a vote-whore like all the rest and) proves what I’ve long syspected, namely, that he’s an economic and scientific illiterate as well.

    To vote for him would be like voting for Kim Kardashian. No, I take that back – I heard her on an NPR show a few weeks back, and she struck me by her comments to be a lot smarter than I had given her credit for. So I’ll say this – I’d vote for Kim Kardashian for President before I’d vote for Trump. There – chew on that.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Laird

    I don’t argue that Trump is an “economic and scientific illiterate” and a “vote whore”. Hillary is the same, as are most politicians. (Does Ted Cruz really believe that the earth was created 4,000 years ago? Does Bernie Sanders really believe that increasing the federal minimum wage would create jobs?) But I stand by what I wrote previously: as president he would be a lot less scary than Hillary. If those are the only two choices on offer (and “none of the above” isn’t an option) you can either stay home or hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil. I know who that would be. (And as far as I am aware Kim Kardashian isn’t going to be on the ballot, but if that’s incorrect I’d be happy to examine her platform!.)

  • Tranio

    Federal ethanol subsidies means that the US will use less foreign controlled oil, what’s wrong with that? More US jobs too growing the corn, making tractors and harvesters. I support Trump though being Canadian I can’t vote for him. Read Mark Steyn, his book America Alone from a few years back, forecasted the demise of Western Europe under a Moslem onslaught.

  • Jerry

    I have to agree with Mr. Black.

    The muslims / immigrants / refugees coming here are colonists !!

    There are NOT immigrating to make your country ( or mine ) a better place or to assimilate into our societies or to work to make their new country of residence a better place.
    They are coming to transform our countries into sharia controlled hell holes like the ones they left ! Our countries are being colonized right under our noses and we have appeasers saying all will really be OK once all the colonists, er, immigrants have all been settled into their new lives !
    BULL
    Let’s say we all get together, evenly divide up the masses of colonists and ‘take all of them in’ to our hearts, countries, welfare systems and care for them. Whew, glad that’s over. After all, once we do this there won’t be any more to ‘resettle’, take in, feed clothe etc. etc. right ? Yeah, Riiight !

    Now, do you really believe that there will be no more mosques built ? Do you really believe that there will be no more areas of your country ( or mine ) where you miserable infidels are NOT ALLOWED to go/travel and that those areas will remain constant in number and size ?

    Based on what we have ALREADY seen in Europe and the U.S alone, no one can be that naive or blind. Wake up. We’re being colonized. This is not immigration, its an invasion, sugar coated in a so called religion ( really a cult or a lifestyle ) so that the bleeders and take pity and feel superior and no one can object without being called a bigot or racist or worse. If wanting to stop this invasion makes me a bigot or intolerant or a racist or worse, so be it.

  • Dom

    Bruce Hoult,

    “Slave labor” is certainly an exaggeration, but my experience with the h-1b visas at my company is that they are paid less than an American would have been paid. That is, in fact, the purpose in hiring them.

    “You can’t find a qualified and available american worker”. Well … There is some leeway there. Some companies only need to show that an ad has gone unanswered. This is done by placing the ad in a paper with low circulation, reaching the wrong audience. There e as a video going around some years ago, showing a speaker explaining how companies can avoid hiring Americans by using h-1b visas.

    Let me ask you something. You were in web development. Do you really think an American could not be found who could do that work? Because I know some high school students who are pretty good at it.

  • llamas

    @Tranio, re Federal ethanol subsidies – Corn-based ethanol as automobile fuel does not reduce reliance on ‘foreign-controlled’ oil. Ethanol reduces gas mileage, and its production consumes vast energy resources, many of them oil-based or oil-dependent. And, in fact, right now, the US controls the world oil price due to its advances in fracking technology – which is why we have sub-$40 oil today.

    As to your other points – US jobs growing the corn and making harvesters – you are suffering from a classic ‘broken window’ delusion. Resources spent on economically-destructive activities are not an economic benefit but an economic drag, because they could and should have been spent on doing something constructive, but instead were wasted on diing something of no benefit.

    Ethanol as auto fuel is such a lousy idea that consumers have to be forced to use it (by Federal consumption mandates) and then forced to pay for it as well, by sending taxpayer dollars to ADM and Cargill to make the stuff. And then, to add insult to injury, taxpayers pay for it again in higher prices at the grocery store for corn-based food and other products. No other nation on earth indulges itself in this insanity.

    Ethanol as auto fuel exists for one reason only – the Iowa caucuses. Were it not for that quirk in the US electoral system, nobody in his right mind would give it a moment’s thought, never mind Federal dollars. If Trump supports it, he is either a vote whore like all the rest, or an economic imbecile, or both.

    FWIW I think Trump has point regarding immigration from the Middle East. But even a broken clock is right, twice a day. For the rest, he is an amoral, statist thug, devoid of both coherent policies and consistent positions – on anything. Just see his two, completely-opposite positions on H1-B visas, as described above. He’s just making it up as he goes along. A Face in the Crowd, he is the Dusty Rhodes of our times.

    llater,

    llamad

  • Julie near Chicago

    Oh dear. Well, I haven’t read Mr. Heath’s article, but the quote sounds about right. Johnathan’s take sounds about right. Llamas’s remarks sound about right (and I love his latest, today at 9:06 p.m.), and I don’t know why Mid is missing here because according to him (and his observations confirm what I think I remember of Life on the Farm) the average farmer would just as soon get the gov the he** out of the farming business altogether. I’m inclined to agree with Laird that Trumpster would be less scary than Shrill, but that’s because there may be a shred of rationality in there under the rug. May be. Possibly. But I don’t think he’ll end up as The Candidate either.

    I thought that a month or so back he was reported to have signed the Pledge not to run against the GOP candidate, so not as an Independent or third-party candidate. Now that idea does seem to be in play again. ???

    Anyway, “Anybody but Shrill-Bill-&-Bernie, or whatever mannequin the Chicago Machine can shove down the Jackasses’ collective throat.” Self-preservation requires offsetting all votes for those. It’s not “lesser of two evils,” although (depending on the GOP candidate) that might be true; it’s the need to deny the job to any of these Jackasses.

    . . .

    Ted, by the way, seems to be a very good pol in the way of handling crowds and interviews. Stays focussed, yet turns every question into an opportunity to point out his experience and wonderfulness, however tenuously related. Does generally get back to the issue eventually, however, and so far shows a good control of his temper and his mouth. Whether he’s a good pol in terms of getting various movers & shakers lined up with him (as Scott Walker has managed to do) is something else again; but it helps if the President is a good politician (provided his agenda is in line with the real best interests of the country), which the Sith certainly is not, to the surprise of at least some Europeans and some of the Third World I guess. This creature can work certain crowds, and that’s about it as far as I can see.

    Also, What Ellen said, and a nod to Mr. Black.
    . . .

    As an aside, I’ve been told that the first automobile engines were designed to run on ethanol, so it’s not that you can’t have ethanol car-fuel but rather that gasoline engines don’t do very well on ethanol. I do not vouch for the truth of this claim, however. I have also heard (read) that the part of the corn used for ethanol is not the part used for food. I don’t vouch for that either; just note the claim.

  • llamas

    @ Julie NC – how sweet of you to say.

    Regarding ethanol from corn, you are misinformed – the whole corn kernel is used to make ethanol. The process is identical as that used to make cheaper brands of distilled spirits – there is no malting phase, the whole corn is ground into meal and goes straight into the mash process.

    Contrary to your thought, many farmers love the intrusion of the Federal gummint in their business. From price-fixing to crop insurance, few businesses have as many government safety nets as farming. Since farm states have inordinate impact on Federal lawmaking, the Juggernaut of Federal spending on farm progams seems inviolable.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Julie near Chicago

    llamas, making ethanol: correction appreciated, thanks. As to how farmers feel about the ethanol subsidies, I know at least one who hates, and Mid swears quite a few do. So possibly it’s a question of how many is “many.” (Naturally, there is zero chance that I am wrong on this, and if I’m right so is Mid *g*.)

    However. First, as I understand it, today a lot of farmers work their farms, and cropland that they lease to work, under contract to one or another of the aggregate-Ag companies (AMD, Cargill, others, including at least one good-sized turf-providing company that set the farmer to growing its turf). I am not in favor of the anti-Big-X knee-jerk reflex, but certainly common wisdom agrees with you that “Big Ag” is a powerful lobby. I would think that the relationship between these companies and the farmers who contract with them (in one way or another) would push the farmers in the way of accepting the Industry’s view as to what’s in their interest. (Co-operate or we won’t contract for next year, and more that I can think of along that line.)

    I also think that given the situation as it is today, some farmers can’t imagine getting along without the subsidies, the insurance, etc. This is the same reflex as “Who will provide the roads/education/hospitals, insurance, medical care/etc.,” with which we are all so familiar.

    Of course, I imagine that there are also “The State gonna give me free phone” types out there too. But I do question whether the underlying urge for all this government “help” is as widespread as is believed. The same phenomenon exists among the “small-“businessmen, and even among the individual private citizens who don’t like Obamacare but who do think we need “health reform,” meaning some kind of government program to lower costs of both care and insurance. But I do think there are a lot of Joe-the-Plumbers out there in non-ag businesses; why not among farmers too?

    (Along this line, I was thinking “Everybody isn’t John Allison,” but then it occurred to me that even BB&T took the TARP funds, though it had paid them back in full by sometime in July 2009. On the other hand, I’m not sure that Mr. Allison was still running BB&T at TARP-time.)

    I do know of one national organization (if it’s still in existence) whose members are mostly small, family-farmers who for a long time at least were trying to educate the public and the pols to the idea that the farmers could get along just fine if The Gov would butt out. Interestingly enough, you find a lot of these people on the librul side of the fence as well as in the knuckle-dragging Idahoan militia types who grow potatoes for a living when they’re not shooting moose. (/sarc)

    So the bottom line, I’m withholding a general tarring-and-feathering of farmers for the time being. :>)

  • Laird

    Hats off to llamas for responding to Tranio’s post. There is so much wrong concentrated into those few sentences that I wasn’t going to bother.

    Regarding TARP, Julie, FWIW there were several banks (and I believe BB&T was one) which wanted to decline but were literally forced to take the money. Paulson gathered the heads of all the big banks into a room at Treasury and insisted that it be all or none, the rationale being that if only some banks took federal bailouts the public would perceive them as being weak and start a run. Risible, I know (Paulson was grossly unqualified and a terrible Treasury Secretary), but when your primary regulators gang up on you you’re highly unlikely to resist their “suggestion”. If you haven’t seen the movie “Too Big to Fail” I recommend it. I don’t guarantee that it’s completely accurate, but from what I know of events at that time (and I’ve spent most of my career in or around banking) I think it captures the tone pretty well.

  • mojo

    You can say what you like, doesn’t bother me a bit. I’ll just ignore you like all the others.

    Trump is a breath of fresh air in a stifling dark room, cheerily smashing the linguistic taboos of, well, pretty much everybody. He’s a pure expression of the founding spirit of America, the loud and proud cry of “Fuck You!”

    That’s what we told Georgie 3, and he had a real bad-ass military.

    What do you have to force my compliance, son? Disapproving looks? Corbyn? BWAHAhahahahaha…

  • I’m with Mojo. Trump is going to be President whether the Republican Party, the Democrats, the East and West Coast, the metrosexuals, the Cultural Marxists and all the rest like it or not. President Trump; get used to it.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Laird, thanks very very much for the info. I didn’t know about that, but I cannot say I’m overcome with shock.

    As for the movie, I hadn’t even heard of it. (My favorite about Business is still Other People’s Money. And the very thought of Gordon-the-Gecko [sic] and Wall Street are enough to make me nauseous, going by all I’ve heard and read about it.) So I will hunt up a copy, and thanks for the lead. :>)

  • Tranio

    Corn based food products are over priced because corn is being used to make ethanol says Llamas. Biggest corn product is fructose, corn syrup. This evil item is dirt cheap and is used in soft drinks and food manufacturing period. Poison to many people. You really think that the price of a bag of corn chips is affected by corn being used for ethanol?

  • Julie near Chicago

    The questionable reliability of Wikipedia notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that its editors are in the pay of Big Corn. Tranio, have a look at

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Obesity_and_metabolic_disorders

    Excerpt from the cited section of the article:

    In 2007 an expert panel assembled by the University of Maryland’s Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy reviewed the links between HFCS and obesity and concluded there was no ecological validity in the association between rising body mass indexes (a measure of obesity) and the consumption of HFCS. The panel stated that since the ratio of fructose to glucose had not changed substantially in the United States since the 1960s when HFCS was introduced, the changes in obesity rates were probably not due to HFCS specifically but rather a greater consumption of calories overall, and recommended further research on the topic.[40] In 2009 the American Medical Association published a review article on HFCS and concluded that based on the science available at the time it appeared unlikely that HFCS contributed more to obesity or other health conditions than sucrose, and there was insufficient evidence to suggest warning about or restricting use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in foods. The review did report that studies found direct associations between high intakes of fructose and adverse health outcomes, including obesity and the metabolic syndrome.[5]

    In 2010, Consumer Reports noted that “HFCS has roughly the same composition as cane sugar—about half glucose and half fructose—and the same number of calories. Concerns that it’s directly responsible for rising obesity rates or somehow intrinsically more fat-inducing than sugar are largely unfounded, though researchers continue to study whether the body handles HFCS differently.”[6]

    Epidemiological research has suggested that the increase in metabolic disorders like obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, is linked to increased consumption of sugars and/or calories in general, and not due to any special effect of HFCS.[4][41][42] A 2012 review found that fructose did not appear to cause weight gain when it replaced other carbohydrates in diets with similar calories.[43] High fructose consumption has been linked to high levels of uric acid in the blood, though this is only thought to be a concern for patients with gout.[4]

    Numerous agencies in the United States recommend reducing the consumption of all sugars, including HFCS, without singling it out as presenting extra concerns.

    Is the HFCS scare just one more in a long series of ginned-up panics (var. FoodemScariensis) stretching back to antideluvian times? I think of Alar, eggs, red meat, meat, mercury in fish, milk, wheat, sucaryl, saccharin, tomatoes, eggplant, lead in the ink in books pre-1970 or whenever it was. Lead in the solder in electronics until pretty recently–one of my online computer guys says that newer computers are really not as reliable as older ones because lead-based solder is no longer legal in the U.S. Of course everyone knows that all children eat copious quantities of paper printed with ink containing lead, and also of computers.

    I have no background for an informed opinion on the scientific facts, but the U.S. Government and the so-called “Organic foods” or “Natural foods” industries (including a goodly helping of “nutritionists,” “dieticians,” and alternative-medicine doctors) have a rotten record in terms of telling us what we should and shouldn’t eat; and the latter industry has got lots and lots of bucks in the game.

    When it comes to food, I don’t take any helpful advice or admonitions that “studies prove…,” to quote Dr. Sowell, without a very large dose of salt and what is called, for some reason, a “jaundiced eye.”

  • Laird

    Julie, don’t forget to add DDT and fluorocarbons (ozone hole fraud) to your list of government-induced scares.

    I loved “Other People’s Money” too, especially Danny DeVito’s speech at the shareholders meeting. A classic.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Yep and yep, Laird!

  • Richard Thomas

    I have little doubt that many, many farmers hate government involvement in farming. But like seniors, threaten to stop sending the checks and they’ll be dragging out the war wagons.

  • llamas

    @ Tranio – you don’t believe that US Federal mandatea for corn ethanol increase food prices?

    You don’t have to believe me – all you have to do is Google it, and a hundred sources, from the US CBO to the fine folks at MIT will show you that it is so.

    Now – is your hole deep enough for you, or would you like to keep digging? I give you fair warning, I’ve forgotten more about corn-based ethanol as auto fuel than you’e shown you know, so far.

    llater,

    llamas

  • jdm

    You can say what you like [about Trump], doesn’t bother me a bit. I’ll just ignore you like all the others.

    Man, the whole Jesse Ventura adventure repeats…

    I don’t have any real strong opinion about Trump, good or bad. You cannot avoid the notion that his indefatigable campaign is push-back against the activities of the political establishment (that includes the media) for the last 20, 30 years. As such, I favor his presence.

    On the other hand, he has a record, of sorts, favoring the very things that any good corporatist would and in this regard, it’ll be more of the same. Especially with “cooperation” between Big Government and Big Corporations (and small businesses be damned). For example, I expect we’ll need to “save” Obama-care by somehow directing still more money towards those insurance corporations that offer it. In this regard, I’m a’gin him.

    When Ventura won, unexpectedly, there was a marked change in his behavior. It was as if he realized the ramifications of his victory and, to his credit, decided to conform to some notion of what a good governor is and does. Unfortunately, this notion of good governance was that of being left-of-center (a traditional Democrat), and all that libertarian/anti-authoritarian campaign talk was just that. I’ll be real interested to see how all the anti-immigration talk sounds after an eventual Trump victory.

    That said, Jesse was not a bad governor and I don’t expect Trump would be a bad president (we have one now against which to measure). He will, of course, continue to shock and abuse the chattering classes for which he will retain his popularity. In short, I fully expect a Trump presidency to be more of the same, just louder and more entertaining.

  • Waat de Fook

    Trump is symptomatic of a ‘truth-deficit’ problem that afflicts the West.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHLcrfhwPtc

  • JohnK

    Llamas:

    I agree with totally about ethanol in fuel, it’s filthy stuff and an awful scam. However, America will survive ethanol in its fuel; I am not sure it will survive the demographic changes which are turning it into a third world country. If Trump were to repeal the 1965 Immigration Act the ethanol boondoggle will be a small price to pay.