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]

Trump v Putin

The wonderful Gary Kasparov finds that Donald Trump reminds him of someone:

Trump doesn’t talk much about policy and is incoherent when he does. This makes it difficult for the pundits to make useful policy contrasts with the other candidates. This is by design. When Trump’s lies and flip-flops are pointed out, he presses on twice as loudly as before. What Trump does talk about relentlessly, instead of policy, are simple words with positive connotations. “Strength”, “power,” “greatness”, “energy”, “winning”, “huge”, “amazing.” Trump delivers these words, over and over, with the bravura of a carnival barker and the righteous anger of the oppressed, the trademark combination of the populist demagogue.

Trump also refers regularly to how he will demolish any and all critics and obstacles, from entire nations like Mexico to elected officials like Speaker Paul Ryan. He doesn’t talk about boring things like legality or procedure or how any of these threats and promises will be carried out. Before anyone can even ask, he’s on to the next audacious claim. “It will be taken care of!” “He’d better watch out!” “We’ll take the oil!” “They’ll pay for it all!” “It will be amazing!” Bold, decisive, fact-free, impossible, who cares? His followers love it.

All of these rhetorical habits are quite familiar to me and to anyone who has listened to Russian media—all state controlled—in the past decade. The repetition of the same themes of fear and hatred and racism, of victimhood, of a country beset by internal and external enemies, of how those enemies will be destroyed, of a return to national glory. How the Dear Leader apologizing or admitting error shows weakness and must never be done. Inspiring anger and hatred and then disavowing responsibility when violence occurs. It’s a match. As is the fixation with a leader’s personal strength and weakness, intentionally conflated with national strength and weakness.

This is by far the best anti-Trump article I have read. This is probably because, rather than be simply repelled by the man, it attempts to understand what is going on.

I appreciate that Mr Kasparov is a genius but even so I wonder how well he understands terms like “trademark” (in this context), “bravura” and “carnival barker”. And what’s wrong with “taking the oil” – especially if it’s Gulf oil?

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

64 comments to Trump v Putin

  • Just a note

    Now I like Gary Kasparov even less. What Trump does is what everyone would do if they didn’t just recite the same written-for-them lines verbatim every time. And he does it extremely coherently considering the difficulty of doing so every day while being constantly monitored. Putin does the same because he, like Trump, decides every opinion and policy on one basis: will it be good for my country?

    Everyone else are either aspergery nerds (Cruz, Sanders, Paul), empty cyphers (Rubio), mendacious (Cruz?) or self-interested weasels (Hillary). That is why Putin can win in Syria and the West cannot. That and the fact that one can have both courage and flexibility if you have such an honest starting point. If you are a ‘super-patriot.’

    The time for political abstract nonsense is over. That can only successfully exist in fairly homogeneous, high-trust societies. America is neither. America needs someone like Trump. Just like Russia needed Putin to save her from Yeltsin, Kasparov and the other crooks.

  • CMTinPHX

    Scott Adams (of Dilbert) has been chronicling this since August:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/

  • Ljh

    While one may not hail Putin as a respecter of individual or national freedom, unlike every handwringing leader in the West, he realised the best way to fight Isis was to hit their oil cashflow and did, simultaneously gaining Russia a strategic toehold in the Eastern Mediterranean and huge influence over any negotiations and the fate of the Qatar oil pipeline. I doubt Trump is as good a strategic thinker but Hillary has proven herself disastrous. Good bit in zero hedge : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-18/marc-faber-i-would-vote-trump-because-hillary-clinton-will-destroy-whole-world

  • Bruce Hoult

    Of course English is Kasparov’s third language (at least), but I can’t see a problem with his usage.

    A barker’s job is to attract attention to his show (candidacy/party), and Trump shows impressive skill (bravura) in doing so while sucking all the attention away from other candidates — as well documented by Scott Adams for seven months now.

    Having followed Kasparov’s career — both chess and political — for many years now, and having read his new book “Winter is Coming”, I believe his analysis of political strategy is as insightful as his analysis of chess strategy. Predictions he’s made in public (e.g. Larry King or similar) ever since the late 80s have often turned out to be very accurate.

  • Patrick Crozier

    No, his usage is fine – that was what bugged me. I’m suggesting someone else wrote it or edited it.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Trump’s Democratic potential opponents aren’t exactly pattern-books of specificity, either. They know, as Trump knows, that mentioning details will get you nibbled to death by ducks, or at least by partisans who will take every analogy and metaphor literally, and every “may” or “might” as an iron-bound plan of action.

    Republican candidates traditionally disappear in a welter of explanations about what they actually meant. Democratic ones don’t, and Trump doesn’t.

  • Darin

    There is no comparison between Trump and Putin. Just like there is no comparison between gangsta rap fan and the real deal.

    The wonderful Gary Kasparov
    We were there before.

  • Just like Russia needed Putin to save her from Yeltsin, Kasparov and the other crooks.

    Seriously? You think Putin has ‘saved’ Russia?

  • Mr Ed

    Darin,

    Mr Kasparovv has the guts to risk his life and liberty standing up to Putin, and he also expounds to millions the benefits of liberty. If he treads on the toes of pygmies from time to time, I think he may be excused not noticing.

    It also appears to me that the direct evidence that Mr Kasparov supports the New Chronology is tenuous, if not mischievous, and the sort of thing Putinbots or useful idiots will trot out.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Just a note,

    Putin does the same because he, like Trump, decides every opinion and policy on one basis: will it be good for my country?

    Trump is refreshing, formidable, and dangerous. Don’t let Trump’s wonderfully intransigent political incorrectness cloud your thinking: this man is out for himself. And democracy precludes the incentives required for political leaders to benefit their nations insofar as they are self-interested; indeed, the opposite is a much more accurate characterization.

    The time for political abstract nonsense is over. That can only successfully exist in fairly homogeneous, high-trust societies. America is neither.

    Very true.

    America needs someone like Trump.

    Well, there’s too much to say on this, but in a nutshell: to need and to deserve are plainly different things. And peoples get the governments they deserve.

  • Alisa

    Even if Kasparov is in fact a broken clock (which he very well may be), what stake does he have in the US elections? From where I sit, it looks like he is just sounding his opinion, like all of us imperfect mortals. And it just so happens that he makes some very good points.

    Back to the real issue at hand, Trump supporters seem to take the opposition to their candidate as saying that he is the worst thing that will ever happen to the US since Obama, and I don’t think that this is what “we” are saying. Speaking for myself, I just think that he’s going to be as bad or just mediocre as the other bunch. Once in office, he may surprise us all for the better or the worse (probably both). So may will any other candidate, including Cruz whom I am supporting.

    Trump supporters seem to be craving for a Strong Man in Charge, as Kasparov points out. That is certainly understandable, as long as one is being careful what one is wishing for.

  • Just a note

    Yes, Putin did save Russia. For example.

    God knows what would have happened if Russia did not have someone as sensible, sober and steady at the till. Not every political situation calls for Jefferson and politics is not Jefferson or bust. There is a time and a place and value in remembering the art of the possible.

    Nor is supporting Trump really about craving ‘a strong man in charge.’ Although, I’m sure some do. I’d settle for just one with a spine and a little courage. Someone whom, when a bank comes to lobby for a new regulation to help itself out, will simply say ‘I get that you’re self-interested and I don’t mind but I’m not going to do what you say, after all, you would say that.’ Or when an immigration group says ‘let my cousins into this country or you’re racist’ he will reply ‘I don’t blame you for your ethnic self-interest but it is the job of the American government to decide based on what is good for the American people, not cower in the face of your inflammatory language.’

    These things are simple and yes. like Putin, Trump is imperfect. Isn’t everyone? But he is obviously the man for ‘now.’ Like Putin was obviously the man for Russia when he took power, look at what happened to life expectancy! He won’t fix everything but everyone else will just make things worse. And, if all goes well, there will be a time when Trumpism provides diminishing marginal returns as America regains some sort of social cohesion and we can all go back to arguing for our own particular ‘social-individualist meta-context’ again. Or whatever it is we want to do.

  • Paul Marks

    Donald Trump is a degenerate.

    He is also (if he has any real political opinions at all) a life long Progressive who has backed leftist politicians (politicians who were NOT in a position to help his business) and leftist causes for DECADES.

    Even I have been shocked that some so called “libertarians” have backed Donald Trump – both in Britain and in the United States.

    I did not think that my opinion of these FAKE “libertarians” could go any lower – but with their support for Mr Trump it has. They are scum, they truly are scum.

    They do not support him because they do not know of his Herbert Hoover 1930s style Trade War position – they support him because they DO know. They (the FAKE libertarians) hate the United States (and the West in general) and they wish to destroy the United States (already facing a Credit Bubble financial system and unsustainable “entitlement programs”) – and leave the Western World open to our enemies.

    It really is as bad as that.

    These FAKE “libertarians” are traitors – traitors to the West. Traitors to liberty – which, contrary to their demented notions, is not the same as chaos. The chaos of burning Western cities and the screams of the dying.

  • Paul Marks

    As for Mr Putin – it should be noted that even Dr Sean Gabb has broken with this person. Having critics murdered and nationalising the “commanding hights” of the economy (in Russia energy and soon) is too much even for Sean. As is preventing the creation of trial by jury in Russia and getting rid of all dissenting radio and television stations (and on and on).

    Putin defenders are defending a murderer and life long KGB man (the fanatical hatred that Mr Putin has for the West can be felt by five minutes watching his “RT” television station, I do that so you do not have to) – the only answer that Putin defenders deserve is the statement “go away”.

  • Putin does the same because he, like Trump, decides every opinion and policy on one basis: will it be good for my country?

    No; Putin decides his policies on the basis of whether it will be good for himself.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Just a note writes: Now I like Gary Kasparov even less. What Trump does is what everyone would do if they didn’t just recite the same written-for-them lines verbatim every time. And he does it extremely coherently considering the difficulty of doing so every day while being constantly monitored. Putin does the same because he, like Trump, decides every opinion and policy on one basis: will it be good for my country?

    You are either a fool, a paid shill for RT, or quite possibly both.

    Now that wasn’t very nice or fair, was it? But then, if you make comments by implying that a person of the intelligence of Kasparov – who has been a long-term critic of Putin and his works – isn’t genuine, but recites opinions “written-for-them”, then don’t expect those of us who can see Putin and Trump for what they are to be nice or fair back. I trust I have made myself crystal clear.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Again, and I know I’m a broken record on this, support for Trump has little to do with who Trump is and much to do with who he isn’t. He may not be who he’s presenting himself as, either, but a vote for him is still a shot across the bows of the establishment that may cause it to change course, and it’s not a shot that can be fired with any other candidate except, possibly, Cruz.

    Besides, the Democrats have already called him ‘Hitler’, which shows that they respect him as a serious opponent.

  • NickM

    I can’t believe at this site of all places there are Trumpsters. Or Pooties. Trump is effing deranged (I am being charitable). Putin is just evil. I find people commenting on a libertarian blog in favour of a “Strong Man” bizarre. Stalin and Mao were “Strong men” too. If you want an example of the “Strong Man” in action look at Turkey.

  • I can’t believe at this site of all places there are Trumpsters. Or Pooties.

    Trump, like Putin, is a lightning rod that attracts people craving certainty and simple solutions in place of realism and objectivity. And it is a safe bet that anyone not abominating either has no concern whatsoever for liberty (or indeed prosperity and rationality).

    At least with the preposterous Trump one can get a few laughs from his studied lack of political correctness and the dyspepsia that causes. But there is nothing funny about Putin or the полезные дураки who support him: scum one and all.

  • Again, and I know I’m a broken record on this, support for Trump has little to do with who Trump is and much to do with who he isn’t.

    And you are no doubt correct.

    …but a vote for him is still a shot across the bows of the establishment that may cause it to change course

    My view now is that if Obama could not drive the GOP back into Reagan-mode, then nothing this side of systemic collapse is going to induce the establishment to change course. Nothing. Once we run out of bubbles to burst, then and only then will what the future has in store for us start to come into sight.

  • Patrick Crozier

    Indeed. Sadly, the only historical situation similar to our own that I can think of is the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Of course, on that occasion the establishment got wiped out.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Perry de Havilland (London)
    March 20, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    My view now is that if Obama could not drive the GOP back into Reagan-mode, then nothing this side of systemic collapse is going to induce the establishment to change course. Nothing.

    But Obama has never threatened the establishment, which Trump does, or at least his supporters do; and the GOPe has never been pushy about running things so long as it gets a share of the loot. If the establishment gets its ears trimmed, though, politicians are going to have to lean towards representing their constituents rather than their parties. Those that don’t will pay a price.

  • Eric

    Trump, like Putin, is a lightning rod that attracts people craving certainty and simple solutions in place of realism and objectivity.

    Sadly, the person likely to be facing him in November shares all his bad qualities and none of his meager good ones.

    I can’t believe my fellow citizens are going to force me to choose between a self-dealing criminal and a carnival barker for the highest office of the land.

  • Regional

    Eric,
    ‘choose between a self-dealing criminal and a carnival barker’ That’s both of ’em and Hillary Clinton is batshit mad.

  • JohnW

    I have learned a great deal about the GOP and the MSM recently, especially with regard to their lies and smears about Trump.
    But most of all it’s been fascinating to hear their propaganda constantly repeated and regurgitated by those people who really should know better:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwJZGlC5lXM

  • God knows what would have happened if Russia did not have someone as sensible, sober and steady at the till.

    Indeed, and had he quit in 2008 he would have gone down in history as the best leader Russia has ever had, given that the bar is set so incredibly low. But no, the windfall from the high oil prices went to his head and he thought he was Catherine the Fucking Great, so rather than getting the traffic lights to work he started demanding Russia be “respected” on the world stage and is in the process of sending the country straight back to where it found itself when he took over.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    …so rather than getting the traffic lights to work….

    Struth. The paved Russian highways viewable on YouTube are pretty bad, and driving to Yakutsk is via a six-hundred mile long dirt road. Twentieth Century infrastructure would be a far better investment that Twenty-first Century weaponry.

  • The paved Russian highways viewable on YouTube are pretty bad, and driving to Yakutsk is via a six-hundred mile long dirt road. Twentieth Century infrastructure would be a far better investment that Twenty-first Century weaponry.

    There was a telling episode in Ewan McGregor’s Long Way Around when they battled for weeks on their bikes through eastern Russia along mud roads, no proper accommodation, appalling food, bridges washed out, etc. and made the short crossing to Alaska (equally remote)…where there were perfect asphalt roads, motels, shops selling food, GPS, etc.

  • Mr Ed

    But what is the point in paving Russia? In the Falkland Islands, I’m told, there is an 25 or so mile gravel road from Port Stanley to RAF Mount Pleasant, with the odd bit of tarmac along it, and it makes no economic sense whatsoever to tarmac it. Whilst Russia has (for now) a much higher population than the Falklands, and is much bigger, is not the eastern portion of Russia simply not an area that it would make any sense to build trunk roads, public or private (as if!), due to the population densities and lack of industry?

    Alaska has had the benefit of the US economy, the mild depredations of the US government, an oil industry, with the minor setback of a Japanese invasion in some Aleutian Islands in WW2, whereas Russia has had the economic hara-kiri of almost 74 years of socialism, then inflato-kleptocracy.

    OTOH, paving Russia could be a crowd-funded ‘experiment’ to demonstrate (as if) the Keynesian multiplier effect and how building roads does not create economic growth?

    If building roads makes places prosperous, Pitcairn Island doesn’t need to sell honey, it just needs a motorway.

  • Hmm

    I see much over-analysing and thus misinterpreting Donald Trump and why his supporters act as they do.

    Trump acts the (blustery, brash, vague) way he does because that is how he successfully manages the leftist Media. It is that simple. He uses what works for him. He is a businessman who has had to work with the progressivism that has infected both media and politics throughout his lifetime in order to make his business successful- and by doing so he looks like a progressive: That doesn’t mean he is one.

    The most singularly important thing about Donald Trump, and why he is currently successful is that he openly expresses his love for America. Every single one of the other presidential candidates tempers their love for America with some PC item/agenda. America is not yet like England or Europe – where it is currently a thought-crime to hold ideals of national identity.

    The people that vote for Trump see Trumps “American-ness” and identify with it themselves. The people who hate the establishment GOP and want to burn it all down identify with his love for America. The workers losing jobs to immigrants identify with his love for America… etc, etc. Even American Libertarians love America and that makes him attractive to them.

    Donald Trump isn’t degenerate, or progressive, or Hitler (as so many bleat online now) Donald Trump, businessman, is the only presidential candidate who openly ALWAYS puts America (The Ideal) first and foremost and does so with the simple message:

    -I’m successful because of America
    -I can make America successful again.
    TRUMP = SUCCESS = AMERICA.

    The clincher is that, despite (or even – with) his flaws he IS visibly successful. That is why all the brashness works – its not a flaw, its a banner!

  • CaptDMO

    “I appreciate that Mr. Kasparov is a genius…”
    Having never met either of them, so is Theodore Kaczynski.
    Charles Manson sounded brilliant in his jailhouse interviews.
    (and the mandatory) Hitler wrote an (apparently)engaging political thesis as well.
    What does “idiot savant” mean?

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Mr Ed
    March 21, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    But what is the point in paving Russia?

    Prosperity follows roads, not vice versa. It follows better if it doesn’t sink in to the axles or get its tires torn off the rims.

  • Just a note

    Er… I know it was not so elegantly written but I was referring to the fact that politicians all have speech writers and teleprompters. The main implication being that they are poll based, shallow and artificial. Not whatever it is that you are writing about.

  • Just a note

    You seem to hate him with a deranged passion. That is all I got from your post.

  • Just a note

    The opposite of strong is weak, or feeble. George Washington was a strong man.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Regional, that seems to me like a pretty accurate summary. Except that the carnival barker does sometimes have the knowledge of which string to pull to win a prize, or which duck to shoot ditto.

  • Mr Ed

    PfP:

    Prosperity follows roads, not vice versa. It follows better if it doesn’t sink in to the axles or get its tires torn off the rims.

    Are you suggesting that Pitcairn Island will become prosperous if roads are built on it?

    Are you suggesting that there is some form of economic law at work?

    Did Venice become prosperous by building roads?

    A road is a means to an end, almost always a ‘public good’ these days (the old ‘turnpikes’ of England are long gone), but the facts on the ground in Russia would, I contend, go against the bare proposition that building roads leads to prosperity. What is needed is capital and its efficient application towards profitable ends and trade, and no kleptocracy. A road may facilitate trade, but there has to be a reason to trade and the means to do it. In Russia, certainly at the eastern end, I would imagine that building roads would be simply a ‘flat pyramid scheme’. I’ve no knowledge of the Arctic and Siberia, but I imagine that the railway may be more of an artery out in the far east of Russia, and it may make more sense to stick with the facts on the ground of what is there.

  • is not the eastern portion of Russia simply not an area that it would make any sense to build trunk roads, public or private (as if!), due to the population densities and lack of industry?

    Well, I lived 4 years on Sakhalin Island and decent roads would have been a Godsend.

  • Mr Ed

    Tim,

    Would you have been prepared, given the opportunity and spare capital, to have invested in a company that built and maintained the roads?

  • I’ve no knowledge of the Arctic and Siberia, but I imagine that the railway may be more of an artery out in the far east of Russia, and it may make more sense to stick with the facts on the ground of what is there.

    Yeah, I’ve taken the roads between Khabarovsk, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, and the De Kastri oil terminal in the back of a Kamaz truck over what passed for roads.

    What is needed is capital and its efficient application towards profitable ends and trade, and no kleptocracy.

    Indeed, and this is what is preventing decent, much-needed roads to be built.

  • Would you have been prepared, given the opportunity and spare capital, to have invested in a company that built and maintained the roads?

    No, of course not. Although my pal George owns just such a company and he does pretty well, but he’s semi-mafia. A good lad though, one of the few gangsters who actually gets the job done.

    But my point was that the state of the roads in Alaska vs East Russia was indicative of the vast difference in political, legal, and economic stability between the two countries rather than a complaint about the roads per se.

  • The opposite of strong is weak, or feeble. George Washington was a strong man.

    George Washington was also a man of principle. Neither Trump nor Putin are, for they are simply power obsessed opportunists with a different shtick to more mainstream power obsessed opportunists.

  • Mr Ed

    one of the few gangsters who actually gets the job done.

    Now there’s a marketing slogan for a Russian business.

  • Now there’s a marketing slogan for a Russian business.

    He was a quite interesting fellow. Born in in the port of Magadan, where the Road of Bones to the Kolyma river GULAGs starts, I think he was Jewish. He learned English, and came to Sakhalin looking for work as a translator. Somebody told him that forestry was the way to go (just before the discovery of the gas fields) and he bought a tract of forest somewhere north of Nogliki in the middle of the island. A few years later, this patch just happened to be one that Shell wanted to route the access road to one of their main onshore facilities through. Rather than sell them the land, he said he’d allow them through if he could get the contract to build the road. Unlike most Russian “businessmen” who would walk off with the money, George figured out if he delivered he’d have a constant stream of additional work which would make him very rich. So he started a company, built the road, and cleaned up over the next 10 years. Sure he was expensive, but he delivered and was genuinely grateful to the oil companies for giving him work, and maintained good personal relations with his client (which involved taking me on the piss).

  • George Washington was also a man of principle. Neither Trump nor Putin are…

    Putin does have at least one principle that he holds dear: that which is good for Russia must, by definition, be bad for the USA (and vice versa).

  • Just a note

    At what point should metaphysical principles derived from ‘the social individualist meta-context for the future’ take a back-seat to ‘looking out for the interests of the people of the country which you seek to govern?’

    They certainly do not mean the same thing in every situation, and I feel that very often libertarians tend to want to martyr not only themselves but also their friends, families, neighbours and people for their abstractions.

    I fully understand why. I used to think that way. Then again, I was an awkward teenage boy who was not fully socialised yet. What is everyone else’s excuse?

  • Laird

    Perry, show me a major political figure today who is not a “power obsessed opportunist”. Trump and Putin simply don’t bother to disguise it. That’s refreshing, in its own way.

  • At what point should metaphysical principles derived from ‘the social individualist meta-context for the future’ take a back-seat to ‘looking out for the interests of the people of the country which you seek to govern?’

    If you think Putin is “looking out for the interests of the people of the country which you seek to govern” then you are either a fool or a paid shill.

    Then again, I was an awkward teenage boy who was not fully socialised yet. What is everyone else’s excuse?

    If you think a murderous autocratic former KGB colonel is looking out for the interests of people in Russia who are beyond his personal political circle, then I suspect you are not socialised at all, let alone fully.

  • Laird, the operative word was “simply”.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Mr Ed
    March 22, 2016 at 9:14 am

    PfP:

    Prosperity follows roads, not vice versa. It follows better if it doesn’t sink in to the axles or get its tires torn off the rims.

    Are you suggesting that Pitcairn Island will become prosperous if roads are built on it?

    Oh, c’mon! Logic 101: ‘necessary’ isn’t the same as ‘sufficient’.

  • Mr Ed

    PFP:

    I take that as a concession, implicit, that the statement ‘Prosperity follows roads‘ is not a atatement of economic law, nor is it true. But I am often rather fussy about making propositions.

  • Eric

    I don’t think it’s a contradiction to say Putin loves his country and also enjoys the wealth and power that comes with being in charge of Russia.

  • Paul Marks

    It is a mistake to define Donald Trump supporters by skin colour (he actually does well with hispanics and blacks – of-a-certain-sort) or by poverty – many very poor people oppose Mr Trump (and his wild promises). The matter is actually CULTURAL.

    Imagine a free art gallery with serious paintings in it, or a free concert playing Bach or Mozart.

    How many Trump supporters would go?

    Nothing to do with poverty (remember I said free), and nothing to do with “race” either.

    Imagine yourself a Cuban immigrant in the late 1950s – washing dishes for 50 cents an hour.

    There are cultural (and intellectual) opportunities open to you – in spite of your poverty and your “race”.

    Do you take these opportunities – or do you go get drunk instead?

    Being a supporter of Donald Trump is the latter choice.

  • Paul Marks

    Mr Putin is a murderer.

    Mr Putin destroyed the emerging Civil Society that was coming back in Russia after the nightmare of the Soviet years.

    Mr Putin is the head of a vast criminal association that is strangling Russia.

    The idea that Mr Putin loves Russia is demented.

  • Just a note

    What a silly attempt to status shame Trump supporters. Trump is the boy who has pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes, yet you are doubling down on the tailors’status shaming trick. Hilarious.

    ‘Hey boy, you don’t see the clothes because you’re uncultured as are those who now agree with you.’

  • Alisa

    ‘Hey boy, you don’t see the clothes because you’re uncultured as are those who now agree with you.’

    Yep. It took The Boy just under 7 decades to notice the Imperial Nakedness – but hey, better late than never. The Naked Emperor is dead, long live the Emperor wearing the fig leaf.

  • What a silly attempt to status shame Trump supporters.

    That status being “crony ‘capitalism’ supporter” presumably? The guy has life long form for throwing money at Big Government Democrats but the moment he suddenly wraps himself in a “Make ‘Merica Great” slogan, he is the breath of fresh air we have all been waiting for? Really?

    Sorry but no, he is just more of the same and his entertaining politically incorrect marketing shtick does not alter that. But hey, you are living proof it works I suppose. Credulous does not even begin to describe it.

  • JohnW

    I’ll tell you what credulous is – expecting anyone with ounce of political radicalism to make any headway within the current political alignment.

    What Trump can do is serve as a catalyst for a new coalition of former opposites – like Dave Rubin and Milo – who support genuine liberal values; i.e. a new Non-Religious Right + Pro-Industry Left versus Cuckservatives + Regressive Left.

    Enjoy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OAnm0RpPkE&feature=youtu.be

  • Laird

    Great link, JohnW. Thanks.

    Perry, if you watch that link you might stick around for the next one that pops up, in which Milo is explaining his support for Trump. (Here’s a link.) It’s a bit long, but thought-provoking. I have never thought of Trump as a libertarian, but Milo puts him into the cultural libertarian camp, and there is a lot of sense to what he’s saying. And he says that a Trump presidency would be good for the country. (There’s a lot more than Trump in the clip, too.)

  • Julie near Chicago

    Alisa, LOL :>))

  • Alisa

    Thanks for the clip, Laird – Don’t know about Perry, but I enjoyed it.

    I have never thought of Trump as a libertarian, but Milo puts him into the cultural libertarian camp, and there is a lot of sense to what he’s saying.

    Milo merely points out that Trump speaks against PC culture, something cultural libertarians also speak against. That doesn’t put Trump in a cultural-libertarian camp, and it certainly doesn’t even begin making him a libertarian.

    And he says that a Trump presidency would be good for the country.

    He thinks that Trump may prove to be a do-nothing president (comparing him to Coolidge, of all people). I don’t think that is likely. President Trump will begin as a loose cannon – and loose cannons either demolish everything in their path, or get rigged back into place. Guess who will be doing the rigging, and into what position? My guess is that once Trump is in office, that will be the time when the establishment that is supposedly so afraid of him now will eat him for lunch, if not breakfast. I hear he wrote a book on the art of deal making, and we will indeed see some deals made.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Oh dear, Alisa. This batting 1000 on your part is become quite tiresome. If you see what I mean.

    *applause*

  • JohnW

    @Alisa & @Laird
    Plus Chaucer and Suetonius in the same interview is pretty damn great.