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 As president [Hillary Clinton] wouldn’t merely run off with the White House silver (again) and line her pockets to an extent which would make Ferdinand Marcos blush. She would do real, permanent, damage to the republic, to an extent which neither Trump nor Sanders could match. She’s greedy, evil and dangerous; Trump is merely greedy and Sanders is merely evil.
– Laird, serial commenter in this parish and oft-times wordsmith.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
On Friday 20th January 2017, will the transition team be moving in all the ‘evidence’ that might want to wait for a statute of limitations to expire before turning up, like the Rose Law Firm billing records? It might be the biggest convoy that Washington has ever seen.
I’m pretty sure Sanders is also greedy, but simply too stupid to realize it.
I’m honored.
CayleyGraph, Sanders has never made any real money in his life; if you look at his financial reports (required under federal law) he is essentially destitute. If he really is “greedy” (whether or not he realizes it) he’s clearly to stupid to accomplish it. I’m of mixed feelings as to whether that’s a point in his favor!
I figure anyone who thinks they could accomplish their impossible goals if only they had more money (in Sanders’s case, all the money in the USA) counts as “greedy”.
I mostly came back because, as I was letting my mind wander, it suddenly occurred to me that I might not’ve been clear that I thought Sanders was “too stupid to realize it”, and not Laird. Fortunately, it seems I didn’t screw up too badly this time.
Tut-tut! Such disrespect towards your next president, Laird.
🙂
From http://caucus99percent.com/content/bernies-tax-return :
This would give after-tax income for TY2014 as $ 149,240.
At http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2016/04/20/bernie-sanders-a-member-of-the-top-10-according-to-new-tax-filing/#4c987a044fd9 ,
Forbes writes:
Maybe they’re reduced to eating cat food due to non-deductible expenses not shown, such as the mortgage payments on the D.C. condominium and the rental property in Vermont…. Still, wouldn’t the standard personal exemptions cover the cat food at least? *g*
I shall hold fast to my supposition that she is Shelob, succeding Sauron, the relationship as foreseen in the Two Towers:
Indeed, so it seems, Mr Ed. So it seems.
(I’ve always thought that that’s one of the Professors best portraits.)
After Hillary, Chelsea? Clinton the third?
JRRT, perhaps more than any other writer understood pure evil.
Julie,
Do you have a cat. I do. “Reduced to eating cat food”… Yeah, right. Have you seen what that stuff (and I do mean “stuff”) costs. And if I give The little Monster his “With Salmon and Trout” it is 4% salmon and trout and the rest? God in His Heaven knows and Satan in His Hell was prime contractor. But if they’d found it in Iraq in 2004 then St Tony of Blair would have won the Noble Peace Prize.
There is a distance to go for Hillary yet. She may well win in November, but if she does then I can’t see the States pulling out of the tail-spin they have endured under first Bush The Lesser and then Obumble. It may well be a terminal election, of sorts, though I expect the Clittons (pun intended) will have taken as much as they can carry before it all comes tumbling down. But… despite the enthusiasm for her from the left-leaning media, she isn’t there yet.
My dear Nick! You wound me strangely! Our Neko definitely got company’s best all-natural all-organic god-awful-smelling $ 200/oz. canned cat food. *sniff*
And another kind of *SNIFF*, followed by a gagging sound. It’s enough to put a girl off cat food forever. From now on, it’ll be plain dry Purina Dog Chow for this lass, provided the PTB leave enough in my wallet to make such luxuries as food even possible.
PS. He only got a little each day. It was the only way he would take his pills. :>( But he seemed to like the stuff a lot.
Rodham the Second perhaps, but Chelsea is a Clinton in name only as she is clearly fathered by Webster Hubbell founder of the Rose Law Firm in 1973, where Hillary Rodham-Clinton joined him in February 1977.
Bill Clinton married Hillary for many reasons, but the fathering of children with her was not one of them.
Clinton and Trump are both greedy, evil, and dangerous. But as P.J. O’Rourke correctly observed, Clinton is “wrong within normal parameters”. That means she would have the full support of the Democrats in Congress, the Democrats in the Deep State, the Democrats in the judiciary, and the Democrats in the media/academic complex in perpetrating her desired crimes and follies.
Trump would have no such support, which makes him less dangerous.
I wish I were as destitute as Senator Sanders.
Clinton will not be President. I doubt she will even make it through the convention and get the nomination.
Trump may or may not get to the nomination, but I doubt he will be elected.
The violence and corruption that does and will mark this campaign will make any normal process impossible.
The critical electoral cycle is not this one, but 2020, assuming it will occur as scheduled.
That is not in any way assured.
No.
Actually “Bernie” Sanders and Donald Trump would damage the Republic just as much as Hillary Clinton.
Indeed Donald Trump even more so – as he would destroy opposition.
Republicans often sell out on their smaller government promises (think of Richard Price Controls Nixon, George “Compassionate Conservative” Bush, and so on) – but at least they formally stand for this position. And many in the party (at the Federal level – not just the State and local level) really do stand for smaller government.
Donald Trump does not stand for smaller government.
On the contrary Donald Trump (if he wins) will transform American politics from a debate over the size and scope of government to a debate over RACE and ethnicity. Both sides would be collectivist – just different brands of collectivism, as with the Marxists and Nationalists of the Germany the Trump family left.
There is a reason why truly evil people such as Patrick Buchanan (whom Donald Trump himself, quite correctly, called a “Hitler lover” only a few years ago) support Donald Trump.
The victory of Donald Trump would not mean the victory of the “bad side” – it would mean the end of any real divide at all.
BOTH parties would be the “bad side”.
They would be arguing for government goodies for different racial groups – but both parties (the Republican as well as the Democrat) committed to ever bigger government.
Mr Trump wants the government to look after the health care (and everything else) of all those wise enough to support him.
And Mr Trump wants to use the power of government to destroy people who oppose him – even WHITE people such as the owner of Amazon books and the Washington Post.
Mr Trump has no more belief in the Rule of Law than Mrs Clinton (or Mr Sanders) does.
The victory of Donald Trump would transform American politics.
There would be (to cite Tolkien) two evil cities (not one) facing each other over a land filled with rottenness.
The Democratic Party is already a lost cause – Hillary Clinton is not the exception, she is the norm. Indeed many Democrats think she is a “moderate”.
Should Mr Trump win the Republican Party will also be a lost cause – the decent people within it (and there are still many decent people in the Republican Party) would leave it in despair.
And hopes of a Third Party breakthrough are fantasy – as Gary “I have not used pot – in the last five weeks” Johnson shows. People who are “unsure” whether the United States should have opposed Adolf Hitler in World War II are (at best) a joke.
No – a Trump victory would be the end.
The Republican Party would fall into total evil and no free market party would rise to replace it.
And the “capitalist free market” (which is the media would falsely pretend Donald Trump is) would be blamed for the economic collapse over the next four years.
A collapse caused by the monetary bubble of the Federal Reserve and the ever growing burden of “entitlements” on the fiscal side.
But a collapse made worse by Donald Trump’s 1930s style Trade War policies.
An open socialist would elected in 2020.
To complete the “fundamental transformation” of the United States.
Or what was left of it.
Why do people think that those who really HATE the United States (such as Dr Sean Gabb’s “Libertarian Alliance”) are so friendly to Trump supporters?
They know exactly what they are doing.
The one good thing about the Trump campaign is that it has disclosed what elements of the American “right” are uninterested in principles. Or actually hostile to good principles.
Large sections of the American “right” have been shown to be total scum – not interested in either limited government principles or in civilised behaviour.
For civilised behaviour is important – civilised standards of personal conduct eventually fundamentally effect how government is used. Whether there is the Rule of Law – or the rule of arbitrary WILL.
Even a statist with the “manners of a gentleman” is fundamentally different from one who does not have such principles.
Those who can not tell the difference between Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler are blind indeed.
Certainly Mrs Clinton is just as bad as Mr Trump – although she tries to hide it.
But should the American “right” fall into the trap of Mr Trump all choice will be over – with both sides as rotten as each and the Republic utterly doomed.
After Mr Trump is defeated in November the key figures who supported him should be carefully remembered.
They, the key traitors (for that is what they are), should be removed from all positions of influence.
It must be made clear to them that there will be no forgiveness.
That they are finished – outcasts.
That the Mark of Cain is upon them.
There is no room for National Socialism in the Republican Party or the Conservative movement.
Paul Marks, why are you so obsessed with the Libertarian Alliance? They are an irrelevance.
I do agree with you on Trump. Trump, Hilary or Sanders doesn’t matter, they are all collectivists in one way or another.
A problem that many conservatives have is that many of them are fundamentally good people who believe in such nice things as consensus. They would rather conduct policy with leftists who make an effort to be polite and reasonable sounding, than with somebody with identical views to themselves, but who is considered a ruffian. Lets face it, the only thing that Romney et al dislike about Trump is his attitude. His policies, and past support for Democracts, is not the rub.
@PM: “Large sections of the American “right” have been shown to be total scum – not interested in either limited government principles or in civilised behaviour.”
That is a very unfair statement. I agree to some extent about the “limited government” part; there certainly are lots of social conservatives, generally lumped in with the “right”, who are quite happy to see larger government as long as it supports their values. (Although I would argue that this is a rather small portion of the right, as was proven by the failure of the Cruz campaign; the libertarian-ish contingent is much larger.) But “civilized behavior”? It’s the left who are consistently destructive and boorish, not the right. I’ve been to Tea Party rallies where they leave the place cleaner than they found it, and there is never any violence unless they are physically attacked. But have you seen photos of the aftermath of leftist rallies? Trash everywhere and property destruction rampant.
Conservatives in the US feel, with good reason, that they have been abandoned by a Republican establishment which forced McCain and Romney on them, and they are lashing out to force some change within the party. Despite widespread calls for it, most don’t really believe that a third party (Libertarian or otherwise) is a viable option; the two-party duopoly is too strong. So they’re doing the only thing left to them: forcing the party to accept an outsider as its titular head. Trump will not be the destruction of the Republican Party (nor of the country, for that matter), but he might just be its savior. Not because he is particularly conservative in his political views (he is not), but because of the seismic changes his nomination and election would force on the party.
As President, Trump would be noisy, arrogant, often rude, sometimes unpredictable, occasionally an embarrassment, but generally pragmatic. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty fair description of the American character in general. He’s probably a good representative of this country, which at its heart does not want to be anything like Europe.
You gotta beat Political Correctness first. Drain it of its power, make it possible to speak unpalatable truths again in plain speech. Tell the media that their days of being democratic operatives with bylines are over and that nobody trusts them anymore as long as they insist on PC rules.
Then you might have a chance.
And of course, the issue of immigration. Several tens of millions of ethnic mestizos (and PRCs, for that matter) entering the US for various reasons and getting the vote will also irreversibly damage its institutions beyond what they have already suffered. California is already a democrat stronghold simply due to this fact. More and more states are slowly turning blue as liberals flee California to other freer states but bring along with them the ideology that wrecked California in the first place.
Control demographics and the culture of discourse, and you have a fighting chance of recovery. Fail both, and be damned.
Benghazi.
. . .
That is not something I can see Trump ordering, or condoning. Laird’s word: Indifference. If I’m the Prosecutor, Depraved indifference.
Indifference to the lives of real people. Real people who put their own lives on the line to save our own people. And indifference (at best) to the consequences for the country.
This is the most blatant, brazen, obvious failure of duty. It alone shows that Mrs. Clinton has no regard whatsoever except, perhaps, for the opinions (and political backing) of some of the members of her gang.
From which it follows that to allow her the WH is utter folly. She’s not going to behave any better once she’s there, unless (a) Bill is really running things, and (b) he’s not ga-ga. This last is not clear to me. Nor is Bill any better than Trump when it comes to double-dealing. Or personal character in general.
Certainly not for her country or its defenders or its people. (If there are faint stirrings to the contrary in there, she manages to overcome them in the event.)
.
Venezuela. Bernie. The ersatz-Indian female. …. Biden?
.
The buzz now is that the House isn’t a sure thing, and that the chances of the slightly-saner GOP’s holding onto it if Dems take the Main Prize are not good.
I’m seeing talk more and more to the effect that they are likely to regain the Senate.
I still hold with Laird on this. Although, Laird, I know I’m being dense, but why does Ted Cruz’s failure mean that the “social-conservative” side of the Right (or anti-Left) is on the small side and the libertarianish side rather larger? I should think he would appeal more to us heartless ones and less to the ones who want abortion to be a Federal crime (which it certainly should not, any more than any other murder).
Are you thinking of Plain Naked Christianity *gasp* on parade with Cruz, which sends lots of (but far from all) libertarians into blind hysterical panic, holding their blankies, sucking their thumbs and squalling at the top of their lungs?
If so, I agree, there is that when he’s wooing a certain segment of his fellow Christians; but in the debates at least I don’t recall his banging on the topic.
.
Anyway, Trump is not going to work to push back Big Gov, but neither is anybody else on the scene.
Speaking of California. Put any of the Dim Squad in charge and Californistan will grow like Lovecraft’s unhealthy forest life (“The Color Out of Space” — great story), growing at quintuple speed to engulf the country.
National physical safety. Trump would never have made that Iran deal — I think; at least, that’s the way to bet. I do not see him going precipitately nukular, although he might fail to appease when one of the Baddies feels strong enough to take us on.
Shrill does not wish to risk her neck in order to prove America’s strength (still less to protect her citizens — other then herself & gang, of course). I don’t have high hopes in that direction from any of the rest of the possible lineup, either. So appeasement is the best we can hope for there. (Do not expect any enhancement of the military, by the way.)
Unfortunately appeasement eventually runs out.
Oops. Laird–I intended no swipe at you. I just realized how my comment could be read that way. :>(
Anyhow, the whole thing proceeded on the basis of your comment, with which I agree (except for the noted spot that escapes me).
While the democrat operatives with bylines of the fourth estate will carry Hillary’s water just as they have for the Halfrican Queen, electing Trump would ensure the fourth estate actually lives up to their traditional brief of afflicting the comfortable (of the GOP) and comforting the afflicted (of the Dem-based permanent dole class). Electing Republicans is the only way to ensure public figure accountability, even if the press has to make $h1t up.
Laird,
Quote of the day: 100% correct.
Second point, There’s two sides to ‘civilized behavior’. Being concerned with being ‘Taxed Enough Already’ is one thing. Saying that our children need to be protected from a 12yr old school boy in a dress in a public school bathroom stall, fearing for his own safety, and using such nonsense as a manufactured political wedge issue, is uncivilized.
Thailover (June 11, 2016 at 12:44 am) seems to think that uttering what he views as nonsense is uncivilised. If free speech is part of civilised society then it is on the contrary the very essence of civilisation. Any view can be expressed in a polite way, or in a way no ruder than its opponents use, or in a yet more vulgar way, or in a threatening or coercive way. The tea party left its demo areas cleaner than when it arrived; the occupy movement the reverse. At the moment, Sanders supporters seem in the lead for threatening behaviour and Hillary’s (barely, of course, given Sander’s policies) for state-organised coercion. So I know who are the more plausible suspects for lowering the tone of any debate. Where the tone is civilised, I recommend a broader view of what views are civilised – one that includes other people’s opinions.
On the particular issue, the more power teachers have to tell children, “Believe what I say, not your lying eyes and ears”, and make them scared to argue, the more danger I see to the kind of civilisation I’d like to live in. Is that opinion “uncivilised”?
Obama was elected for the sole reason that he is Black (though not of slave ancestors, as most US blacks).
Ms Clinton will be elected (and she will be) for the sole reason of being female.
What a weird republic the US has become !
At least The Donald is a real person (fickle, vulgar, noisy) – and not a heap of senseless PC platitudes.
The professional politicians have fucked the country up to such an extent that I can fully understand why a voter wouldn’t shrug their shoulders with indifference and go along with a Trump Presidency. Yeah, make America great again – baseball caps are the fount of wisdom. I’d settle for something far more humble; Trump surely couldn’t do any more damage than the succession of anointed members of the elite political caste who have maintained a near-monopoly on the Oval Office in recent decades, and hell, perhaps he might even make things better due to his differing background. At this juncture, I could justify giving a non-politician a go on the mere basis that they’re not a politician.
Niall,
What is uncivilized is precisely what I said is uncivilized. No amount of arm waving on your part will obfuscate that. Try as you might.
Niall,
Perhaps you can explain to me (because I fail to see it), why young transgendered school boys in makeup, wigs, and frlly blouses frighten you so and why the other school children need to be “protected” with legislation from said “sissy”, (a term often self-applied by M-F trans, not meant in a derogatory sense).
Last time I checked, (1) girls go into bathroom stalls and close the door to do their business. What they do outside the stalls can be done in public, i.e. check their makeup, etc. and (2) if you’re looking for male perverts, then the men’s room is their mecca. Anyone who’s been around the block 3 times is keenly aware of the truth of point number 2. One is not protecting children from “perverts” by dictating “you can’t use THIS bathroom, you must use THE OTHER ONE”. What that’s saying is that girls are to be protected, per se, and boys are not.
And (3) the person who REALLY needs to be protected in their most vulnerable condition is said little boy in makeup, wig and frilly blouse. Generally speaking, what he/she may face in the girl’s bathroom is mean talk outside the stall. What this person may face in a boy’s public school’s bathroom is much more physical, violent and horrific, and I expect you know this.
This is simply a much more watered down version of whether we put M-F transgendered into a woman’s prison or a man’s prison. The latter, of course, is as bad as airdropping them into Islamabad.
“Trump surely couldn’t do any more damage than the succession of anointed members of the elite political caste…”
Surely no more damage than the current President.
We can’t know what Trump will do, that may be frightening, but predicting catastrophe (like Paul Marks did) is premature.
Jacob said,
Indeed. Since he’s a glib populist, we have to wait and see how much of what he’s saying is merely to seduce the public, seduce trade unions to his side (i.e. being pro-protectionism for example), etc.
Right now, he’s smart enough to realize that this election is his to lose if he doesn’t fuck it up, so he’s being strangely unresponsive about pretty much everything when asked questions by the media or faux-media (talk show hosts). He won’t even give an opinion on Brexit. And by opinion, I mean what he would like to see himself rather than a forecast.
Julie near chicago said,
“So appeasement is the best we can hope for there. (Do not expect any enhancement of the military, by the way.) Unfortunately appeasement eventually runs out.”
Back in the day when Somali pirates were capturing and fencing cargo ships, I saw a news clip interview of Shillary blurting out idiocy in a crowded hallway, saying ‘we need to give the Samali government enough money that the people won’t want to be pirates’. The internet has been SCRUBBED of that news blurb. ‘Can’t find it anywere. It just highlights just how stupid Shillary is, to think that shoeless illiterate Samali pirates are fencing tankers and cargo ships without the help of their corrupt government.