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.
All this about the popular vote is nonsense. Clearly, if the rule of the game were popular vote instead of electoral college, national election campaigns would be planned entirely differently.
As it is now, candidates must appeal to broad sectors of the country and to a broad geography instead of just to the largest urban areas. The electoral college, like the Senate, gives some importance to states with differing interests or without large urban centers. That was part of the deal. Our republic was designed with many systems to prevent majorities from overpowering the rest.
The fact is that everything you liberals wanted to do, except rebuild America’s bathrooms to suit a more transgendered sensibility, is done -- and it probably could have been done without all the intellectual terrorism inspired by Karl and Fritz and Max and Ted and Herb, scaring the pants off the victims and silencing the bourgeoisie. So you can take your street armies and your racist BLMs and La Razas and your segregated dorms, your “Studies” degrees, your “mostly peaceful protests,” and demobilize the activists and tell them to go get a job.
... a deeper dive suggests that actually, in the end, she (Clinton) does stand for something, and that's government intervention in every single problem that exists, anywhere. It may not seem like policy played a role in this election, but I suspect in the end that's like saying that water plays no role in fish behavior. It was always in the background.
Clinton's campaign pushed out several policy memos and briefs, and what they all had in common is that they called for federal involvement in every single solution, with very few exceptions. She is known for being an interventionist in foreign policy, supporting military action in Syria and Libya and elsewhere. If she thought any particular outcome was a good idea, she wanted to a federal law to make it happen or a government subsidy or grant to push it along.
The idea that government, especially federal government, is supposed to solve our problems is a sickness. In America as I see it, government's first job is to do no harm. Its second job is to get out of the way so people can solve their own problems.
The pretensions of the imperial presidency are going to haunt Democrats for the immediate future, but they’ll quickly rediscover their belief in limits on the executive. While they’re rediscovering old virtues, they might take a moment to lament Senator Harry Reid’s weakening of the filibuster, an ancient protection of minority interests in the less democratic house of our national legislature. They might also lament Senator Reid’s attempt to gut the First Amendment in order to permit the federal government — which in January will be under the management of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and — incredibly enough — President Donald Trump — to regulate political speech, deciding who can speak, about what and when, and on what terms. Perhaps they’ll thank those wicked “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court for saving basic political-speech rights. If they are smart, they will rediscover federalism, too, and the peacemaking potential of a school of thought that says in a diverse nation of 320 million souls, there is no reason that life in rural Idaho must be lived in exactly the same way as it is in Brooklyn or Santa Monica. As Charles C. W. Cooke pointed out, the same people who until ten minutes ago denounced federalism — which they mischaracterize as the doctrine of “states’ rights” — as an instrument for the suppression of African Americans are now embracing secession, which, in the American context at least, has a little bit of its own racial baggage.
Business loves open borders. It keeps labor abundant and cheap. An immigrant from Mexico will work cheap, but that guy will get food stamps, housing, medical care - all sorts of benefits by which the taxpayer is essentially subsidizing their low wages. So low wages are not really cheap except for the employer. Dems love open borders - they believe it means more Dem voters. Do open borders take American jobs? Of course, regardless of the arguments of both lib and conservative pundits. They either take jobs, or they take government assistance.Many Repubs want more open borders for the supposed economic benefit. Trump wants immigration policies that work for American employees.
Trump wants tough international trade. Business wants free trade. Why? Often, imports are cheaper (whether labor or products). However, at the point of sale, such imports are not cheap. They are whatever the market will bear, of course. The benefit to the consumer is greatly overestimated. Generally speaking, Dems, Repubs, and business like free trade. Trump wants tough trade deals and tariffs if they can help American workers.
Leftist pundits (which is almost redundant) always write that, sorrowfully, but only when their team loses. Of course the country is divided: It's a big country and there are only two teams. I happen to feel that division and disputation is mostly good and healthy.
A good Repub plan would be to turn it into something entirely different. For starters, an interstate marketplace with all sorts of medical insurances offered.
It became easy to say that a “crude” Trump and a “crooked” Clinton polluted the 2016 campaign. The real culprits were a corrupt Washington elite, who were as biased as they were incompetent — and clueless about how disliked they were by the very America they held in such contempt.
True the Dems became the party of banks, big corporations, lesbians, and feminists and abandoned appeals to the rural areas, the shopkeeprs, etc. - but they are wrong about Trump's appeal, which is heavily to the old Dem base. Lefties keep bringing up Trump as authoritarian, when he is just Populist even to the point of complaining about Amazon. Of course, old-fashioned populism no longer works in a world of multinational corporations and relatively free trade. If you somehow broke up Amazon, for example, Mr. Ma in China would buy the pieces and keep running it.
Whoever takes over what’s left of the Democratic Party is going to have to find a way to appeal to a broader cross section of the country. It may still be true that in the long term, Republicans can’t win with their demographics, but we found out Tuesday that the long term is still pretty far away. Democrats have to win more white voters. They have to do so in a way that doesn’t erode the anti-racist or anti-sexist planks of the modern party, which are non-negotiable. If only there were a model for this.
He is so very wrong about this. "Trump has been in the public eye for at least thirty years. He was never accused of racism until he opposed a Democrat."
I thought Hillary had it wrapped up months ago. I have been wrong about many things before, but I spoke about this with too much certainty and I burst Mrs. BD's balloon - but she never entirely lost confidence that Trump would win.
A friend in Calif. was so confident of Hillary that he promised his Trumpist wife that if Trump won, he'd quit ceegars. Now that was confidence. Mind you, he is a Trump voter too, but in Calif. what does it matter? I feel terrible for him now.
Trump's humble brief speech last night was good. He noted that he had somehow caught onto a movement that few realized was there. This is a revolt against the Elites, against Wall St., global corporations, crony capitalists, Davos, central bankers, academic totalitarians, political correctness, Jonathan Grubers, massive powerful and out of touch bureaucracies, careerist politicians, climate loonies, political dynasties, George Soros, the "intellectual-yet-idiots", and moonbats in general. It's about time. Let's be grateful that Pence is in there - he knows the world that Trump is getting into far better than Donald does.
Two things of note: Trump spent half of what Clinton spent. So much for money and politics. Second, this is the first time in a long while when Repubs will have had the White House and both houses of Congress. I guarantee they will disappoint you. Be bold and wise, you government people.
How did I vote? I voted for Melania because she is cute, and an immigrant. Here are a few fascinating reactions:
This wasn’t an election. It was a revolution. It’s midnight in America. The day before fifty million Americans got up and stood in front of the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them.
The Obama era ends not with a bang, but with a whimper. With a national consensus that maybe he didn't really matter so much after all. And those to whom he mattered the most were his enemies determined to undo everything he did.
Stunned to get up and check Drudge on the election results while getting ready to head to the gym. I was curious to learn how much Hillary won by. I guess that was a Hope and Change vote - plus a Hillary is Horrible vote.
Comments are open for all amateur pundits. I am going to do my Deadlifts now.
The U.S. government has just passed a new law called: "The affordable boat act" declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014. These "affordable" boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.
This law has been passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new laws ensures that every American can now have a "affordable" boat of their own, because everyone is "entitled" to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive 4 "free" life jackets; not including monthly usage fees.
In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who cant afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.
If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can't). If you don't want or don't need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or cant afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one or face imprisonment.
Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert; ghettos; inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat.
A government review board (that doesn't know the difference between the port, starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including; when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how many people can ride your boat and determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat. They will also decide if your boat has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories,(like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.
Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so...its only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.
Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers. Unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.
According to estimates and reports, the $2 million to $5 million event held in Rhinebeck, NY included:
$750,000 for catering, according to Brides magazine deputy editor Sally Kilbridge
$11,000 for the cake, which is reportedly gluten-free
$250,000 worth of jewelry for the bride
$109,000 for the tables and crockery for around 400 to 500 invitees
$600,000 in air-conditioned tents, complete with glass walls
$200,000 in extra security, paid for by the Clintons
$15,000 in high-class toilets, according to online gossip site TMZ
$500,000 in flowers arranged by Jeff Leatham, who’s worked with Madonna and other celebrities
Wine as a party favor from Clinton Vineyards (which has no relation to the presidential family)
A Federal Aviation Administration-enforced no-fly zone from 3 p.m.
Saturday to 3:30 a.m. Sunday over Rhinebeck, the small New York town
that includes Astor Courts, a picturesque mansion that’s hosting the
event and overlooks the Hudson River.
Is he any sort of thinker? Neither candidate is a thinker. One's ignorant and one is pure schemer. These are entirely normal political characteristics.
Is it possible that Mrs. Bill Clinton just isn't too bright? Her reckless greed is no secret, her poor judgment is widely acknowledged, but what about ordinary brains? If you recall, she could not pass the DC bar exam.
Why Is
Leon Russell, 
The True Story of Hacksaw Ridge and Desmond Doss:
Photo via 
Stockman:
Tacky, nouveau riche wedding.
Clinton Foundation Is The ‘Largest Unprosecuted Charity Fraud Ever’
Nobody doubts that
The Clinton Foundation’s $20 million off-the-books mystery
What plagues Clinton in the final days: The Chicago Way
Klavan: Why I'll Vote for Donald Trump
Donald Trump: America's Junkyard Dog
Douthat sounds like he'll go with Hillary
Harvard Prof: “Riot in the Streets” to Block “Sociopath” Trump
I guess he prefers the other Sociopath
Is Donald Trump a conventional thinker?
Is he any sort of thinker? Neither candidate is a thinker. One's ignorant and one is pure schemer. These are entirely normal political characteristics.
The question is why do they hate Trump and his voters so intensely?