Trump v Clinton: who do you support?

[fohat]

I didn't see this posted in the thread: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

Scott Adams really has him nailed. I didn't think so when I first read this many months ago. But... damn.

Thanks for that.
Excellent!

[seebart]

1988: The Year Donald Lost His Mind:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ind-213721

Ben Carson hops aboard the Trump train: 'He's actually a very intelligent man':

http://mashable.com/2016/03/11/ben-cars ... dgerL17mqH

Reporter Files Criminal Complaint Against Donald Trump's Campaign Manager:

http://gawker.com/conservative-reporter ... 1764288589

[chuckdee]

I didn't see this posted in the thread: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

Scott Adams really has him nailed. I didn't think so when I first read this many months ago. But... damn.

Thanks for that.
Excellent!

Another good one for you.

Penn Jillette on Trump (reproduced from http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-t ... ump-431837 so you don't have to jump through their hoops)

WHY PENN JILLETTE IS TERRIFIED OF A PRESIDENT TRUMP
BY GRANT BURNINGHAM ON 3/1/16 AT 12:50 PM

If his reaction to Donald Trump has been any guide, comedian Penn Jillette puts a lot of effort into trying to see people's good side. Perhaps that’s why the staunch libertarian—who appeared on Celebrity Apprentice, the GOP front-runner’s reality TV series—counts himself friends with a diverse group that includes Glenn Beck and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.

It’s not that the comic and magician can’t be caustic, or even brutal. He once made an on-air joke calling Hillary Clinton a bitch in 2008. And you definitely wouldn’t want to be on his wrong side during an episode of his former series Bullshit! on Showtime. However, Jillette’s tendency to try to find some common ground with people in power—though the Clintons seem to be an exception—is probably why he had nice things to say about Trump, albeit with some straining, when he joined Celebrity Apprentice in 2011. But not anymore.

“The problem is, I know Trump, so my optimism has been squashed like a baby bird,” he tells Newsweek.

Even now, Jillette says he’s pretty sure he liked Trump more than anyone else who has been on the show. Several of his co-stars “absolutely loathed him,” he says.

Jillette appeared on two seasons on Celebrity Apprentice, including one in which Trump fired him because “he didn’t like me,” Jillette says, “and I thought that was completely fair, because he decides.” The two were frank, Jillette says. “Everything bad I had to say about him, I said to his face.” And Jillette kept on saying what nice things he could think of about the host. “I think he’s very good, very compelling on that show,” he says.

The mostly decent rapport changed—publicly, anyway—when Trump the TV star became Trump the candidate. Jillette says he went on TV and said that while he liked Trump as a reality TV host and as a person, he disagreed with him profoundly on political issues. (And there was also the business of Jillette's joke that Trump’s hair looked like “cotton candy made of piss.” That comment seemed to sour the relationship permanently.)

Soon Trump was tweeting that he thought Jillette’s Broadway show was terrible (or so he’d heard). It could have been just another celebrity Twitter beef, with the added weight of one participant being in the running to become the leader of the free world, but even then Jillette didn’t respond in kind.

@realDonaldTrump Sorry you couldn't make the opening, but we know you're busy. Would have liked to have seen you. Be well.

— Penn Jillette (@pennjillette) July 16, 2015

It’s also probably why he started this interview by saying everything nice he could about Trump. “I really like him because of his absence of filters. I really like the glimpse we get into the human heart we get when someone loses their filters,” he says approvingly. He quotes one of his longtime heroes, Thelonious Monk, who said, “A genius is the one most like himself.” “In a really weird way, Donald Trump has achieved that,” Jillette says, adding that the outspokenness is a trait held by Bob Dylan, another of Jillette’s heroes.

“If he weren’t running for president, you’d be seeing essays from me about how much I learned from Donald Trump and how much I loved being on the show,” Jillette says.

But that’s where the niceness stops.

Like most of the country, Jillette says he’s now coming to terms with the fact that despite the pundit predictions and popular wisdom, there is a real possibility that Trump could be president. “It’s beyond my imagination,” he says.

“I’m feeling so, so, so guilty, because I feel like, along with millions of other people, I played right into this. The cynicism of the Clintons, the careful, tightrope walk of all politicians, forced me, as an atheist, to get down on my knees and pray that someone would come along with some kind of authenticity,” Jillette says. “Well, someone called my bluff, goddamn it.”

Jillette claims that Trump, Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton are the only three politicians he's heard of who people like less after meeting.

“The stuff [Trump] is saying on immigration, the stuff he saying on torture, the stuff he is saying on war, is absolutely unforgivable,” Jillette says. “He is coming out directly against the Statue of Liberty.”

There’s also the issue of nuclear weapons. He notes that another presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, has joined Trump in promising to use them. “I’m a pure and utter peacenik. I want a president who sings the praises of people, sings the praises of peace and sings the praises of working together for a great country,” Jillette says.

“Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t have laughed about waterboarding,” he adds.

Jillette’s libertarian politics appeared occasionally on the topics he debunked for his skeptical show Bullshit! that appeared on Showtime from 2003 to 2010. He’s also occasionally been a commentator on cable networks, sometimes appearing on Beck’s program to blast Obama.

And he’s never been shy about what he doesn’t like about the current president, which includes Obama’s use of drones, his perceived expansion of the federal government and his continued stance against legal marijuana. Which is why it’s such a shock to hear him say, “If you told me right now I could have another eight years of Obama, I would not hesitate to grab at it."

“He is unquestionably good and unquestionably smarter than I am, which is putting the bar pretty low. I want a president that is kinder, smarter and more measured than me," he says.

“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice.

He’s also taking what positives he can find from the 2016 campaign. He says that Jeb Bush’s belly flop as a presidential candidate shows that Citizen’s United, the Supreme Court case that opened the door to well-funded super PACs, didn’t decide the outcome of elections. Bush was a candidate with huge money backing who couldn't buy his way into office.

Jillette also says Trump has proved that the American people appreciate someone speaking openly. “Someone who is paying attention can do the same thing that Trump is doing with hate, and do it with love, and become president,” he says. “That’s kind of beautiful. There’s nothing more optimistic than that.”

And as for Trump, Jillette says there’s still a chance that tides could turn for the seemingly unstoppable real estate scion turned reality TV star.

“Donald Trump does, when it comes right down to it, fuck up everything,” he says. “He fucks up his casinos. He fucks up his buildings.... Maybe he’ll fuck up his campaign before he fucks up the country.”

[vivalarevolución]

Wow, that is pretty scathing, coming from Penn Jillette.

There are a lot of things I admire about libertarianism, I'm just a huge fan of public lands and ecosystem land management, so that conflicts with the emphasis on private property I so often encounter in the libertarian philosophy. Divvying up property without a systems view of how landscapes and ecosystems work together often leads to degradation of the biodiversity and resiliency.

[fohat]

There are a lot of things I admire about libertarianism, I'm just a huge fan of public lands and ecosystem land management, so that conflicts with the emphasis on private property

Yeah, that's me. I consider myself a Libertarian for all things related to a person living his life, but I see concepts such as "money" and "property" as more public commodities that are significantly divorced from the existential "individual".

Modern American people (usually hard-core right-wingers) who attempt to cloak themselves in false "Libertarian" clothing usually do it as a code word for selfishness and resistance to accepting their responsibilities to the society that they live in.

I do not consider Ayn Rand to be a Libertarian, I consider her ideas to be a lame attempt at providing a mechanism for humans to justify following their most base instincts as conscience-less predators.

[webwit]

I'm a libertarian because I want to get rid of the lizards, not public lands.

[chuckdee]

I'm more fond of Voluntaryism myself. But my order of preference tends to come from my own personal movement: Democratic -> Republican -> Libertarian -> Voluntary.

I'm just a huge fan of public lands and ecosystem land management, so that conflicts with the emphasis on private property I so often encounter in the libertarian philosophy. Divvying up property without a systems view of how landscapes and ecosystems work together often leads to degradation of the biodiversity and resiliency.

Though there are some libertarians that ascribe to that philosophy- that everything has to be owned by an individual- that's a pretty radical interpretation. What is really is (from admittedly, my own, though not original interpretations) based on homesteading. What we have right now is right to own under the sufferance of the Government. Eminent Domain FTL. That's the part that usually comes to loggerheads. It doesn't mean that the public can't own property, just that the public can't (mis)appropriate it, just because it's for the greater good. The first person to exercise ownership does, until he passes that mantle to someone else- be it an individual or the government.

My favorite breakdown: https://mises.org/library/what-libertarianism

And for anyone interested in Voluntaryism: http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html

[webwit]

Isn't that just a subset of libertarian? Just like that American breakdown. Any good libertarian has his or her own views.

[chuckdee]

It can be considered a subset of Libertarianism, but it has also been compared to Anarchism. Where it falls on that scale depends on to whom you talk. But it is an important distinction. At the core, Libertarians are a part of the system. A true Voluntaryist rejects electoral politics entirely, along with the trappings of such, i.e central government. Myself, I view it as as unrealistic view of human nature to believe that without central government, something else wouldn't pop up that resembled a central government no matter what it was called.

[fohat]

as an unrealistic view of human nature to believe that without central government

Until recent times, say post-Industrial Revolution, there was enough room for people to spread out and mostly leave each other alone, if they so desired. In today's "global village" with instantaneous communication and extremely rapid transportation to anywhere, combined with exploding population, there is simply not enough space or resources for people to live without regard to their all-too-immediate neighbors.

Yes, for a few more generations it may still be possible to find an isolated place, if you are willing to venture into ever-more-remote areas and give up your "modern conveniences" but that will only be a reality for a tiny and ever-shrinking minority.

[chuckdee]

In today's "global village" with instantaneous communication and extremely rapid transportation to anywhere, combined with exploding population, there is simply not enough space or resources for people to live without regard to their all-too-immediate neighbors.

People can't even be civil to each other in word when instantaneous communication is put into the mix, so if you can't control the words coming out of your mouth, I think it's naive at best to think that without a central rules body, people will be able to control their deeds.

[vivalarevolución]

It can be considered a subset of Libertarianism, but it has also been compared to Anarchism. Where it falls on that scale depends on to whom you talk. But it is an important distinction. At the core, Libertarians are a part of the system. A true Voluntaryist rejects electoral politics entirely, along with the trappings of such, i.e central government. Myself, I view it as as unrealistic view of human nature to believe that without central government, something else wouldn't pop up that resembled a central government no matter what it was called.

I read the Voluntaryist link you provided. What I can't figure out in the philosophy is the mechanism for protect these voluntary transactions, agreements, and individual rights. It seems Laissez-faire with regards to any sort of governing agency.

Also, assigning value and establishing ownership to external property, natural resources, etc., is very tricky, and discounts the actual way that ecosystems that provide the natural resources actually work. By attempting to assign value to a natural resources, you turn it into a commodity and devalue all the other things that this resource provides. For example, the natural resource is an important part of an ecosystem that works together to provide clean water, but the value assigned to the resource may not account for that.

Just think of a tree. As a commodity, it is for lumber, paper, nuts, fruit. But that tree also can clean the air and water, prevent erosion, be used as a windbreak, provide animal habitat, provides aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual value for humans, and many more functions I can't recall right now. And that tree works together with lots of other trees, plants, and animals to create an entire ecosystem with very difficult to quantify value.

And I'm not just talking about trees, the same can be said for something as seemingly lifeless as the soil in a desert (cryptobiotic crust).

That's where I seeing assigning value and property rights often fails. By assigning a certain value to something, the other functions are devalued. An ecosystem is not like a keyboard, which has a very defined function and value. An ecosystem is complex, dynamic, ever changing, and the basis of life. By assigning value to parts of it and devaluing other parts, it only leads to poor management of that land and ecosystem.

[seebart]

Trump rally canceled after descending into chaos in Chicago UIC pavilion:

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35791008

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/tr ... -news&_r=0

[fohat]

descending into chaos

We are getting closer to my dream scenario where Trump secures enough delegates to legitimately claim the Republican nomination, but Party leaders freeze him out - and he makes a 3rd party independent bid.

[seebart]

Why is that your "dream scenario"?

[fohat]

Because it would split the Republican Party asunder and pave the way for Democratic victories up and down the ticket.

In the US 3rd-party runs are rarely evenly divided, usually the odd man takes a slice mostly from one side.

[seebart]

OK I see, is the Republican Party not already pretty split? That situation in Chicago was pretty chaotic from what I could see in the videos, I'm sure the Republican Party cannot be indifferent to something like this happening.

Protesters also in St. Louis:

http://mashable.com/2016/03/11/donald-t ... 7MCA04IOq9

[fohat]

is the Republican Party not already pretty split?

Beginning with the election of Reagan in 1980, the Republican Party solidified into a near-solid monolithic block and has thus been able to exert near-complete control of American politics ever since (occasional Democratic victories notwithstanding).

We have a saying, "There is only one political party in the US, the Republican Party." Because the so-called "Democratic Party" is a rather loose coalition of people with diverse interests and goals who do not feel much motivation toward unity.

When Newt Gingrich came into power in 1995, he took it to a whole new level, demanding absolute unconditional adherence to the party line and enforcing it with severe punishment when he was crossed.

It has remained that way ever since, particularly in the House of Representatives, but also to a lesser degree all over the country and up and down the landscape from local officials to national ones. Democrats seldom make the same demands for allegiance or abrogation of conscience, and thus never have a rock-solid block of power.

Fortunately and unfortunately, the emergence of the "Tea Party" faction made for a successful temporary coup, but sowed the seeds of discord that are now sprouting. My greatest hope is for the Republican power monolith to be broken, and watching it happen from within is particularly gratifying.

[vivalarevolución]

I'm wondering whose first amendment rights are being violated more: Trump and his supporters, or the protesters that he takes such glee kicking out of rallies and encourages violence against. Or are any rights actually being violated? Everybody can still say what they want, some are just yelling louder than others.

But I'm loving this. I love a good protest. Well done.

[seebart]

I'm wondering whose first amendment rights are being violated more: Trump and his supporters, or the protesters that he takes such glee kicking out of rallies and encourages violence against. Or are any rights actually being violated? Everybody can still say what they want, some are just yelling louder than others.

But I'm loving this. I love a good protest. Well done.

Yes but what's also important is the fact that Trump is not condemning these outbreaks of violence sofar, or he's not doing so enough. I mean these are his events, he should be calling the people out to calm down. This looks bad on his part IMO.

[fohat]

I mean these are his events, he should be calling the people out to calm down.

This is show business, and the overwhelming majority of the protesters will not be voting for any Republican in any case, so he is not giving up any votes there. It looks like a Roman Emperor loosing the lions on the Christians to me.

[vivalarevolución]

I'm wondering whose first amendment rights are being violated more: Trump and his supporters, or the protesters that he takes such glee kicking out of rallies and encourages violence against. Or are any rights actually being violated? Everybody can still say what they want, some are just yelling louder than others.

But I'm loving this. I love a good protest. Well done.

Yes but what's also important is the fact that Trump is not condemning these outbreaks of violence sofar, or he's not doing so enough. I mean these are his events, he should be calling the people out to calm down. This looks bad on his part IMO.

I agree. He actually encourages violence against protesters at his rallies. At some point, all the anger, hate, and encouragement of violence boils over into actual violence. What you speak becomes how you act. We are seeing it right now. I'm glad that people are being disruptive, that is essential to democracy.

Please keep it peaceful, though. I just hope the protesters remain peaceful themselves. If not, they become hypocrites.

[Blaise170]

I dislike both. I hope Sanders, Rubio, or Cruz win. If not I'll vote for Hillary, as Trump will be the worst president in recent memory.

[seebart]

I pretty much with you Blaise170 but I think it will end up being Hillary vs. Trump. This is pretty interesting...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bre ... e2e3d607b7

Former Breitbart Spokesman Says They're Lying

[ohaimark]

Beginning with the election of Reagan in 1980, the Republican Party solidified into a near-solid monolithic block and has thus been able to exert near-complete control of American politics ever since (occasional Democratic victories notwithstanding).

...

Fortunately and unfortunately, the emergence of the "Tea Party" faction made for a successful temporary coup, but sowed the seeds of discord that are now sprouting. My greatest hope is for the Republican power monolith to be broken, and watching it happen from within is particularly gratifying.

The Republican Party has two major demographics which often overlap. Those demographics happen to hold a pretty massive advantage in terms of wealth and power, which is why the Republicans have been so difficult to dislodge. There's also a large vocal component to those demographics -- they tend to be more politically active, at least in my experience, because their pastor tells them who to vote for.

1) Judgmental, fundamentalist Christians (who often think 'Murica should be quasi-theocratic)
2) People who vehemently dislike taxation of any sort

[chuckdee]

I read the Voluntaryist link you provided. What I can't figure out in the philosophy is the mechanism for protect these voluntary transactions, agreements, and individual rights. It seems Laissez-faire with regards to any sort of governing agency.

Which is the reason that I personally said:

Myself, I view it as as unrealistic view of human nature to believe that without central government, something else wouldn't pop up that resembled a central government no matter what it was called.

It is supposed to be governed by the fact that it is your property, and you set the value, and the other member of the transaction agrees on it's worth. All interactions are purely voluntary. But that eradicates human nature from the transaction, and presupposes that there will be no need for a protective mechanism, which is naive at best in my opinion.

[fohat]

presupposes that there will be no need for a protective mechanism

And this is the crux of the problem in the US, where most of the so-called "Libertarians" are actually greedy capitalists seeking to strip away all the "protective mechanisms" that inhibit their rapacious behaviors.

For that reason, even though I feel great sympathy for "libertarian-ism" on a personal existential level, whenever I hear the word "Libertarian" in a modern political context, my "bullshit sensor" screams RED ALERT! EVIL! EVIL!

[chuckdee]

And this is the crux of the problem in the US, where most of the so-called "Libertarians" are actually greedy capitalists seeking to strip away all the "protective mechanisms" that inhibit their rapacious behaviors.

To say "most" is a bit more cynical than even I like to be. There are those, true. But I think most of those are in the Republican camp, where they can wield more power.

[vivalarevolución]

I read the Voluntaryist link you provided. What I can't figure out in the philosophy is the mechanism for protect these voluntary transactions, agreements, and individual rights. It seems Laissez-faire with regards to any sort of governing agency.

Which is the reason that I personally said:

Myself, I view it as as unrealistic view of human nature to believe that without central government, something else wouldn't pop up that resembled a central government no matter what it was called.

It is supposed to be governed by the fact that it is your property, and you set the value, and the other member of the transaction agrees on it's worth. All interactions are purely voluntary. But that eradicates human nature from the transaction, and presupposes that there will be no need for a protective mechanism, which is naive at best in my opinion.

Thanks for the clarification. I will admit, I skimmed a bit.

Regarding libertarianism, Indiana actually has a somewhat strong Libertarian Party, winning 4% of the vote in the last governor election, showing strongly for many other state or national offices. I think it stems from the fact that the dissatisfaction with the Republican Party to actually support freer markets (it is heavily crony capitalism here), and the party's continued assault on individual rights. If you actually want to support the things the Republican Party claims to represent, you are better off voting Libertarian in Indiana.

I'm sure other states have this issue, but Indiana is essentially a one-party state. The politics are so far right that the Democrats are basically "Republicans Light". Voting participation is very low, sometimes the lowest in the entire country. And just when you don't think it can gets worse, these guys somehow find a way to come up with even worse ideas that make almost no logical sense.

It all makes for great entertainment, though. That's about it.

[vivalarevolución]

I pretty much with you Blaise170 but I think it will end up being Hillary vs. Trump. This is pretty interesting...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bre ... e2e3d607b7

Former Breitbart Spokesman Says They're Lying

And it took something like that for this guy to figure out Breitbart is lying?