Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, October 19. 2016

No debate for me

Election is over. Hillary did not win, Trump lost a winnable contest. He lost it not because he is of below average intelligence but because he is not educable, not trainable. He is as disciplined as a 3 year-old, and that, rightly, worries people. He can't take anything seriously, and it's all about him. No serious campaign, just carney: Orange-faced Man! His opponent at least is consistent and predictable - if only consistently and predictably corrupt, venal, and dishonest. And consistently exercising poor judgement for further back than most people can remember.


For what it's worth (nothing), I will vote for Trump anyway. I think he would hire good people.


If I am wrong about the election, I will happily eat a few crows. But I am passing on "debate", aka The Donald Trump Show. If he were not in it, would anybody watch?

Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 19:10 | Comments (31) | Trackbacks (2)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack
Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Oct 23, 09:33
PingBack
Weblog: iowadawg.com
Tracked: Oct 25, 16:31

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I will also be voting for Trump, partly because he's not Hillary Clinton, assistant chief to a crime family and partly because he was the only one to listen to the average Republican voter.
But I'm also not going to bother watching the debate. Lots of sound bites little substance. America in the 21st century.
#1 grant1863 on 2016-10-19 19:12 (Reply)
I wouldn't miss this for all the money in The Clinton Bank Accounts........................
#2 I.......... on 2016-10-19 19:19 (Reply)
Other than travel, salaries and benefits, office expenses, entertainment, and fundraising expenses the Clinton foundation is not supposed to be enriching the Bill & Hillary.

I would not be at all surprised to find out that they have a big fat offshore bank account that is funded by kickbacks or even donations themselves.
#2.1 mudbug on 2016-10-19 22:30 (Reply)
November 9, we will know...most likely.
#3 Sam L. on 2016-10-19 19:20 (Reply)
I'm not inclined to watch the "debate" either, but may. I will be voting for Trump regardless, in a state (West Virginia) whose 5 electoral votes are locked in for him anyway.

Hillary has a clear agenda (and sub-agenda) that seems bad for the USA. Donald has a nebulous agenda (at times), but obviously loves the USA and kicked the everlasting nuggets out of the GOPe, who have taught me well to despise them with a blue-white hatred. Why?

Over time, the Democrats have become unapologetically venal, corrupt & tyrannical ... but they have a fighting instinct. The GOPe -- on the other hand -- stinks just as terribly in its motivation, but without the will to fight.

The Vichy GOP
#4 Matt Burchett on 2016-10-19 19:40 (Reply)
"It ain’t over till it’s over."
(Yogi Beara)
#5 Phil Taylor on 2016-10-19 19:46 (Reply)
Dead right, I'd say, though personally I haven't the stomach to vote for Trump.
#6 David Zincavage (Link) on 2016-10-19 20:57 (Reply)
Depending on the state you live in, not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary. Would you prefer that?
#6.1 mudbug on 2016-10-19 22:31 (Reply)
You must love the damage Obama has done to this country his two terms, because that is exactly what you will get for the next four to eight years Hillary will give us (if she lives that long).
#6.2 JC on 2016-10-20 07:19 (Reply)
i'm a female. Reasonably successful. I despise Hilarlty. Trump may not be the most enchanting candidate, but the Clintons are a disgrace.
#7 jma on 2016-10-19 22:04 (Reply)
Trump is a VERY flawed candidate. I will only vote for him because the evil I fear in him is not NEARLY as certain or as devastating as the evil I know to be in Hillary.

Sorry you feel defeated. Get a nap. Everything looks better in the morning.

Stay calm and vote on.
#8 Dangerous Dean on 2016-10-19 23:24 (Reply)
As the feeble minded one here at MF, I don't understand.

Trump fills arenas with thousands and thousands of people.

HRC can't fill a classroom with supporters, and yet people are claiming she is a stone dead certainty to win the election.

So how does HRC win when she has no public support and Trump loses with legions of followers?

Is it because the fix is in?

If voter fraud is of no consequence why do the dems fight tooth and nail against voter ids?
#9 feeblemind on 2016-10-20 02:11 (Reply)
feeblemind: Trump fills arenas with thousands and thousands of people. HRC can't fill a classroom with supporters, and yet people are claiming she is a stone dead certainty to win the election.

Clinton rally in New York

feeblemind: So how does HRC win when she has no public support and Trump loses with legions of followers? Is it because the fix is in?

Such a conspiracy would include all the major polling organizations, then, on election day, the coordination of 50 state elections, many under Republican control.
#9.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-20 09:42 (Reply)
Quite true. On the other hand the GOP appears more and more to be a wing of the democrat party.
#9.1.1 Jim O'Neil on 2016-10-20 15:29 (Reply)
It would be hard to argue that considering Republicans have used the filibuster with unprecedented frequency, won't give Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing, and have threatened to default on the national debt when they didn't get their way on the budget.
#9.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-20 16:01 (Reply)
You only need a few key precincts in a few key states to throw a closely contested election. I predict that this election will be won by the person winning the most precincts with more than 100% of the registered voters voting 98%+ for the winning candidate.
#9.1.2 arcs on 2016-10-20 18:09 (Reply)
Get off your butt and get out and vote. Electing a successful business man as President is such a novel idea let's give it a try.

You never know what you never know!
#10 pocono pam on 2016-10-20 04:37 (Reply)
Hillary won the moment she announced her candidacy.
Trump knows that and therefore treats the entire election circus as the great publicity show it is. I'd not be surprised if he's the first ever candidate to make more money in donations than he spends on his actual campaign...

The whole thing is a joke to him, because that's what it is, a joke.
A sick, horrible, joke to have an election so rigged from all sides in a supposedly modern democratic nation, but a joke nonetheless.
#11 JTW on 2016-10-20 05:55 (Reply)
Thank God you weren't one of the founding fathers. We'd all still be speaking the "King's" english. Please don't tell me you also believe the ten day weather forecast.

Like I said before, we don't know what we don't know, but just in case you do know please tel me the winning lottery numbers, could use the money when Hillary becomes PREZ.
#11.1 pocono pam on 2016-10-20 06:04 (Reply)
I'm voting for Trump because the prospect of a Hilary presidency terrifies me. I think the fix is in though. I tried to watch the debate but just couldn't stomach it.
#12 LP on 2016-10-20 06:51 (Reply)
And this may be the way the 'fix' happens IF it is true.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/soros-connected-company-provides-voting-machines-in-16-states/
#12.1 Rich on 2016-10-20 08:25 (Reply)
New bumper sticker on order: #AnyoneButHillary

I'd vote for a dead cat before voting for her.
#13 Cleve Watson on 2016-10-20 08:23 (Reply)
The News Junkie: He lost it not because he is of below average intelligence but because he is not educable, not trainable. He is as disciplined as a 3 year-old, and that, rightly, worries people. He can't take anything seriously, and it's all about him. No serious campaign, just carney: Orange-faced Man!

The essential problem is that Republicans countenanced truthiness*: Tax cuts raise revenue; riggers are stealing the elections; Obama is not an American; the U.S. will be greeted as liberators; etc. If the debacles of the Iraq War, Katrina, and the Great Recession, didn't get people to reconsidered their fundamental beliefs, it's not clear what would.

Consider, if Obama is not an American, then he is not a legitimate president. So why hasn't he been removed from office? How did he get elected — twice; and why hasn't he been impeached or arrested or something. The birther lie about the first African American president created unrealistic expectations in the Republican base, and it just blew up with the nomination of a birther for president.

--
* truthiness, the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.
#14 Zachriel on 2016-10-20 09:33 (Reply)
Um, the right kinds of tax cuts do in fact increase revenue. There's decreasing returns on tax hikes when the total level of federal taxation exceeds 20% of GDP. Cuts below that level to a certain point do actually increase revenue.

That isn't truthiness. It's the mathyness part of economics.

The principle is pretty simple. After you hike taxes to a certain level (remembering there's also state and local taxes in the equation) it becomes too much of an actual drag on business and job creation, and in addition to the drag it becomes a disincentive to businesses and individual trying to calculate whether the extra work of creating more business and more jobs will be worth it.

If raising taxes increases revenue, we should be able to just tax hike our way out of any trouble. So give it a shot, see what happens. Upstate New York buys this approach. How could it possibly go wrong?
#14.1 Jablonski on 2016-10-20 10:59 (Reply)
Jablonski: Um, the right kinds of tax cuts do in fact increase revenue.

Since WWII, marginal tax rates have had only a minimal persistent effect on revenues as a percentage of GDP.

The real story is that revenues are the result of economic activity. A tax cut can have a short term stimulus effect, as can deficit spending. For instance, the Clinton Administration increased the marginal tax rate, and because the economy was expanding, it resulted in a very large increase in revenues, so much so that the the U.S. was running large cash surpluses.
#14.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-20 12:06 (Reply)
Z: For instance

Should be "On the other hand ..."
#14.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-20 12:11 (Reply)
I'm unaware of any nation that has taxed itself to prosperity.
#14.2 LWS on 2016-10-20 19:01 (Reply)
LWS: I'm unaware of any nation that has taxed itself to prosperity.

Or any nation that became prosperous without taxation.
#14.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-21 06:17 (Reply)
The News Junkie: No debate for me

Here's a recap:

When Trump called Clinton "such a nasty woman", the Internet lit up with references to Janet Jackson.

QUOTE:
No, my first name ain't baby
It's Janet... Ms. Jackson Madame President if you're nasty

Among commentators, the fact that Trump refused to say he would accept the election results was the main takeaway. For some reason, they keep saying that it's a first in American history, but they seem to have forgotten the election of 1860.

Then there was the #TrumpBookReport meme.

QUOTE:
Juliet. Such a nasty woman. She made Romeo kill himself. And believe me he could have done better. Look at her.
#15 Zachriel on 2016-10-20 09:57 (Reply)
Yeah, you can't trust anyone who won't go along with the election results. Remember when Al Gore wouldn't accept the result of the 2000 election? What a cad.
#15.1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-10-20 18:30 (Reply)
If HRC becomes POTUS, she can still be impeached once all the evidence that's been held back to get her elected finally comes to the fore, that is if you get said evidence past Loretta Lynch and James Comey.
#16 gman on 2016-10-20 10:39 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.