Wednesday, August 3, 2016

For once, Donald Trump and I agree about something...

Display, Smithsonian Museum of American History

     One of the many benefits of not being, ahem, crazy, is that you can find value in those who oppose you.
     Had the sane path been available to Donald Trump, he might have shrugged off Khazr Khan’s scathing, Constitution-waving takedown at the Democratic National Convention, saved his silver bullets for a target more worthy than grieving Gold Star parents, even those who criticize a certain reality TV star. He could have defied expectations by saying something gracious.
     Instead, Trump leaped with a snarl into the spiked pit the Democrats had dug for him, then wriggled there for days, howling.
     The rational gambit isn’t available to Trump. One of the top hundred reasons he should never be president is he can’t restraint himself, can’t prioritize and is deaf to both grace and nuance.
     Four reasons, I guess.
     I, on the other hand, like to give credit where due, just because I can. All part of being a fair and decent guy. As much as I disliked George W. Bush, he was certainly strong on ....

To continue reading, click here. 

8 comments:

  1. What I willn't believe is that you gave George Bush credit for anything. You wrote a column (not sure how to look up) at the end of his Presidency saying exactly that there was nothing good from it. You would not even give him credit for addressing AIDS in Africa.

    This is standard oppositional crap. The new guy is terrible (fascist, communist, child beater) the previous standard bearer was much better and believable.

    You can's stand Trump I get it. But don't pretend to make yourself better by pretending 8 years later you ever gave Bush credit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know I shouldn't have bothered, but you're so completely wrong, and so bold in your ignorance, that I had to give you an example. See above. Sheesh.

      Delete
  2. It's a fundamental principle, politics ain't rigged until you participate, if not, they're would be nobody who sent you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe it's "Crooked Hilary," Neil. It was "L'yin Ted." And "Low Energy" what's his name. I forget what the fat guy from New Jersey, the Black physician and the Cuban American were titled. Important to keep these useful distinction straight.

    Giving every politician a "handle," could be Trump's lasting contribution to the political process. It takes me back to my youth, growing up in a Welsh community, where the limited number of family names fostered a similar practice. It was "John Jones Carpenter," or Emlyn Williams Dentist." Of the three Winifred Parry's in the town the one who lived in a little cottage next to the Welsh Presbyterian Church was "Winnie by the Church."

    Tom Evans

    ReplyDelete
  4. A couple of years ago, Jonah Goldberg, the poster boy for unearned journalistic privilege, wrote a column espousing the bright idea that voting shouldn't be too easy because a vote means more if it takes a lot of effort to cast, or something.

    I would love to see him standing in line for hours at a polling place in the broiling Arizona sun.

    Bitter Scribe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How's this for a tempting proposition: make voting "opt-out" only. If you like the way things are going, think everything is hunky-dory, don't bother to show up. Your vote would be cast for the incumbents, who are most likely to win anyway. If you're dissatisfied, pissed off, fed up, want a change, get up early and vote often. And for kickers, let the votes actually cast count double. Right now, people inclined to be cynical know that their one vote isn't really important -- so why bother? I think there'd be quite a few more people coming out to vote, if they were sure that otherwise they'd be voting for the political hacks they despise.

      john

      Delete
    2. Wow John, some of your freethought ideas have some interesting potential, and have given me food for thought. Vote early and often, lets make it as a matter of law that votes can be literally bought, payment made directly to the U.S. Treasury. Set a price like $200 for a Presidential vote, $150 for a Senator, and $100 dollars for a Representative. This would mean in a good year, a poor person's private vote would be the equivalent of $450 dollars worth of a vote buyer's voting. This would be an incentive for people to cast what was once considered a worthless vote, the laws preventing the sale of your private vote would remain in place. To buy votes, just fill out a form selecting your candidates and the number of votes for each, do the math and mail in the check to the Federal Voting Office. To provide true transparency, all bought votes would be in the public record, no secret bought votes. Under these rules few would bother sending a check to a candidates campaign fund, Citizens United, or the Clinton Foundation. They would prefer to buy the votes directly because they would get more bang for the buck. Here is the best part, voting would start a month early, they could maintain and update a big tote board. People and corporations would get into a buying frenzy for key races, much like the crazy way people buy lottery tickets when the prize exceeds one billion dollars. If the rich want to buy the government, this will guarantee they will have to pay their fair share. I bet the looming debt crisis would be a thing of the past.

      Delete
  5. Great!

    I'll have my people get in touch with your people and we can form a corporation, get a patent on the business model you just described and bound into the one percent in one gigantic leap.


    John





    ReplyDelete