Conspiracy Corner: Are Trump and Hillary Tough?
never a dull moment in post-election 2016

Excellent comment from Seattle Sports ... [not sure the last word in the screen name!]  


I'm traveling right now so please excuse this comment in he wrong article/place, for some reason I couldn'5 find the original post.

Speaking of the Bill James article with his view of the election - I personally see his statement of the slipping away of toughness and the rise of sensitivity to an extent. However, I sent this article to a friend and her response was quite different. Paraphrasing: this author (with no idea who Bill James is) is complaining about people complaining, that Trump isn't tough but rather one of the most petty and sensitive mode politicians we've ever seen, and that the anti-PC sentiment isn't about getting back to people being tough - using your words carefully is a small thing to do on your Owen part with very little negative impact on you but large impact on others (using a different or replacement word is a simple task), and that this idea of rejecting PC speech because you don't like modulating your speech so as not to offend others is a hollow argument - we change our speech to not offend others all the time at our choosing (we just want to be able to offend other people when we choose).

So this idea that other should be tougher and be able to brush away our offensive language isn't an increase/returning of "toughness" at all. She says this anti-PC crusade is really very in tough - so weak any complaining so much that we have to change a few words "so terribly hard to do, changing a few words to not be offensive and hurtful, can't believe we ask society to this". She says this is the crowd that should toughen up.


Well put!

This is a big debate going on at BJOL:  IS Donald Trump 'tough'?  My own two cents there was:  even if we stipulated that Donald Trump has no ability to push through difficulty (?) ...

Trump's personal toughness would not be relevant to the conversation.  (I will cheerfully stipulate that Hillary Clinton is almost freakishly 'tough':  tough emotionally, very tough physically, very tough intellectually.  I'm not sure she campaigned on the idea of personal toughness, however ...)

Certainly Donald Trump will cry "FOUL!" each and every time he thinks the system is being unfair to him.  Bernie Sanders did a little bit of this also.  That may be a question slightly different from "does he have the tensile strength to face opposition and push through it?"


The point of James' article is this:  far left wing would happy to see a continuation of the PC rules that say "if we don't like what you are saying, we will roll out the -ism cudgel."  Because we are sensitive and you need to respect that sensitivity, or we will apply labels to you.  This is the point of James' article.

The question is whether AMERICA has reached the point at which the far left has cried "WOLF!" on racism one too many times. That is the question at hand. What the 50th-percentile voter thinks.  Perhaps the 50th-percentile voter was merely saying that it's tired of Clinton Inc., or saying something else.  Democrats and Republicans have to figure this one out, and pronto.


Has the left become too whiny, in the view of the 50th-percentile voter?  Perhaps the 50th-percentile voter thought that safe spaces, cookies and coloring books had something to do with it.  

It's hard to explain to the 50th-percentile voter the *moral urgency* of referring to a person as the gender they self-identify with.

It's hard to explain to them why "microaggressions" (??) against blacks, gays and women are comparable to Hitler's speeches, while Mike Pence can't go out in public with his family without overt hostility directed against him. 

Young leftist millenials don't see much evidence that America whines a lot, but perhaps they don't belong to the group that must speak -- if at all -- in a voice coerced by those they disagree with.


Perhaps President Obama is right, and that the 2016 election was a hiccup, and that his vision of America must prevail in the long run.  Or perhaps Steve Bannon is right and Republicans will now govern for the next 50 years.  It certainly seems to ME that this is a pivot point in American history, and that Political Correctness is near the heart of that pivot point.




Seattle Sports Outsider's picture

The point of James' article is this:  far left wing would happy to see a continuation of the PC rules that say "if we don't like what you are saying, we will roll out the -ism cudgel."  Because we are sensitive and you need to respect that sensitivity, or we will apply labels to you.  This is the point of James' article.


...I think her point would be, in an American society of free speech, anyone has the *right* to say anything they want (PC or non PC; offensive or not offensive), but along with that right to say what you want comes the right of the other side to respond in the way they choose (sensitivity or brush aside, with little reaction to to label with an -ism). It breaks both ways. Both parties are harmed when a group decides to be un-PC and a group is harmed when -ism labels are applied. The "impact" of that harm is really about the same. Feelings are hurt by what someone said (un-PC or being labeled an -ism)? I guess weshould all toughen up then. B

I might agree. 


For sure, according to the Constitution, the OSU students have a right to call for cookies and crayons when somebody expresses doubts about transgender bathrooms.  They can *legally* call me a "homophobe" (or whatever the label is when you disagree with transgendered individuals) for that and I can *legally* counter with my opinion on a blog.  

We're not talking about what's legal.  We are having a public discourse about what is ethical.


The problem is, the media has (or had) the power to media-lynch people, to label them, and to drive them out of public discourse.

The practical situation is:  suppose Moe is in favor of tight border controls (and a 30' high wall).  Are you okay with people calling him "racist" and trying to drive him out of his Mayor's office?  or will you, I, Diderot and Silentpadna stand up and denounce the de facto "punishment" of politically-incorrect opinions?

The issue isn't whether Keith can *take* it -- he can.  The question is whether we are, as a society, discourage the PC labeling that is designed from the ground up to suppress opposition.

Do YOU actively condemn the calling of Moe a "racist" in that situation?  Do *I* write in to the New York Times and cancel my subscription when their "reporters" do so?  This is the discourse.

Anonymous's picture

I'm of the opinion that all speech is free, but all speech has consequence. The policital or social punishments given out in regards to PC/un-PC speech are the very nature of public discoure. That's what an election becomes - who's *opinions* align with a particular voter. It should be pretty clear from this election that supposed "un-PC" speech didn't result in a punishment via vote. Whether the media wants to try to punish is up to them. Whether the public wants to allow the media to punish someone is also up to them.

If Moe called for tight border controls (and a 30' high wall), I say feel free. If people want to label him as "racist" (though he be far from it), I'd also say feel free. But I'd also say they're wrong.

The example of this election is a great example of that supposed "punishment" of un-PC speech was overblown. The media attempted to punish. A good portion of the public said baloney on that. The "PC" mdeia/crowd had been winning the public persuasion game before (us, the public, had allowed it), until the un-PC crowd decided to change the strategy and not accept the punishment (got tougher). Trump owned the downside of his un-PC speech and rejected the punishment.

Let's also acknowledge that labels, -isms, and offensive/un-PC speech fly voraciously from both left/right directions. It's ironic for conservatives to label a small slice of college age liberals as "whiny, safe room needing, etc, etc" while also crying foul when a small slice of conversatism is tagged with any number of "unfair' offensive labels. It's also ironic for liberals to label a slice of Trump supporters and deplorable/racist and then also cry foul when an "unfair" label is applied to them.

Apparently, neither side is a big fan of being label.

Personally, I'd advocate for society to be more restrained on both accords - less labels AND more PC speech. I think it would serve us all better to be more considerate in our conversation with/about others. But I acknowledge our contemporary American culture is very much not this was on the ground. So for me, it's either get rid of both or get rid of none (and I don't see how I could be ethically against/for one and not the same for the other). Looks like getting rid of none is the American default - so let's all get a little tougher about it and recognize it for what it is - talk.



Sound like a statement of reality ;- )   of course we want free speech, and of course our words have consequences.  +1 amigo.


Honest question, Anonymous.  I can rattle off 9,000 labels that the far left will slam on anyone it doesn't like -- Hillary's "deplorables" list of -isms, among many other prejoratives.  Like Keith said, vote against gay marriage and you are automatically a "homophobe" and bigot.  It is propagandistic -- a tactic based in repetition rather than in argument.

Against this you balance a simple description of the college-student safe space demands, and call it square, both sides equally need to get better?  I don't get it.  

Could you give more specific examples?  What are the right-wing labels-at-hand that are comparable to calling somebody a racist, a Nazi, a misogynist, etc.?  Can you give me an example of the labels used by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc. that are comparable to accusations of Nazi-ism?


Personally I don't consider it a moral equivalency to call the "safe space" crowd whiney.  YOU would disavow the use of the Nazi label by the left, because it is repugnant.  But I wouldn't disavow the description of the "microagression" plaintiffs as "whiney" -- I don't consider it repugnant, I think it's FAIR to call them that and even understated to describe that crowd as "whiney."  

Also, I'm not talking about Donald Trump calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig; that's a personal insult on his part.  There's no systemic attempt to label any female group as "pigs."

But I'm sure you could come up with systemic right-wing labels -- a single term used as a slur, used pervasively across many platforms (Drudge, Breitbart, Coulter, Hannity, etc etc) -- that I WOULD disavow.    Which ones are you thinking of?


Just for fun.  Name the major newspaper or TV channel that throughout 2016, tagged every Trump story -- even "reporting" of factual events -- with the following "Editor's Note" at the bottom of the column space:


"Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liarrampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S."


Bonus points:  which major newspaper or TV channel tagged every Hillary story with something analogous?

Bonus bonus points:  which MSM media outlet objected, in any way, to the above string of labels affixed to all HuffPo's "reporting" of Trump stories?  (Plot spoiler:  none.)


The point isn't, Donald Trump is okay.  

The point is, the free press was supposed to be the 4th leg of American political freedom, there to report even-handedly on the Left and Right -- so that the American voter could decide the fate of the country.   It's why the press has its own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Seattle Sports Insider's picture

A few words used as labels/slurs from the right wing:

Thug, socialist, elitist, commie, wellfare queen, moonbat, whiny, entitled, Muslim - and those are only the ones I was remotely OK with posting on this forum. 

Of course Nazi/Fascist/Hitler labels/slurs are like Pat Venditte fastballs - they come equally from both sides and are not that effective as a weapon. 

Granted, the left has been much more effective at persuading the general public to buy into the labels they place on someone over the last 15 odd years, while the right hasn't been until recently (though late 80's, early 90's they were pretty good at it too, Bush focused his labels on foreign nations - infamous axis of evil). Donald Trump was strategically using labels/slurs to help him win his campaign (Little Marco, Low Energy Jeb, Lying Ted, Crooked Hillary, etc). You might say the "media" has a bigger platform to sell its labels, but that's not really the case  - Fox News, vast right wing radio, online/social media. Like the Yankees and Dogdgers complaining about the other team trying to buy its way to a championship - well yeah, of course, but you're both doing it and its just one of the weapons each team is using to try and win.

Sounds like both teams are using the same tactics, just one team has been better at it recently so the other is salty about it. Time to toughen up. if the point is that the "free press was supposed to be the 4th leg of American political freedom, there to report even-handedly on the Left and the Right so that the American voter could decide the fate of the country" - has a "nuetral" press ever existed even can it even possibly exist in reality? Unlikely. Name a "nuetral" press outfit at any point in history, and I'll find someone who disagrees. The press is just a tool used to persuade people - the free press idea just allows both sides (or all sides) to use it equally. It is not a "nuetral" 4th leg of the American political freedom. The Fourth Estate is just another battleground for warring political factions. So neither side has moral high ground when it comes to using it as a weapon. 

Oh, and that HuffPost garbage was a total joke. They're akin to Acess Hollywood to me - just mindless entertainment.



To take one example, "socialist" is not equivalent to "racist."  Many people self-describe as "socialist."    There was no "racist" movement challenging for the Democrat nomination and garnering 25% of the U.S. vote.

There may be angry intent on the right in using the word, but obviously it is not as "hurtful" as the word "racist" intrinsically.  If you see "socialist" as a massively hurtful label (like "Nazi") then I can see why we are talking past each other.  ;- )

One other example, "commie" is certainly not a charitable term but I don't remember the last time I saw the term used by a major news outlet or communist.  I don't know of any effect that it has on people, that some commenter in a chat thread calls Bernie Sanders a "commie."  

But I saw "misogynist" ROUTINELY applied to our very President-elect in many news outlets this past week.  "Commie" is not pervasive, is not effective at marginalizing U.S. Congressmen or judges, and is not a label I see often used by the right-wing pundits.  Maybe I'm watching the wrong channels.  ;- )


Appreciate that on Huffington Post.  YOU don't take them seriously because you are a reasonable man.  

Tell me, though, how seriously is the Huffington Post taken by Beltway politicians?  It is a top-30 U.S. website, it is Pulitzer-prize awarded (which of course Drudge and Breitbart could never be) and Wikipedia characterizes it as politically neutral.  This is my very point, that such a site is considered by leftists to be more mainstream than (say) Fox News.


But amigo, I warmly appreciate the dialogue and will give you the last word.  :: daps ::

Seattle Sports Outsider's picture

Good stuff. My last comment - the relative offensiveness/effectiveness does not factor into the moral value. There is no way to measure which label is more hurtful instrinsically - they are hurtful at different levels for different people at different times. What we perceive as "intrinsically" more hurtful is dependant on the sales job and social context of the labeller. 

There is no intrinsic moral difference between a drunk driver who makes it home safe and a drunk driving who maims another person - the moral worth of drunk driving is equal regardless of practical effect and harm. 

Politically, labels are used weapons designed to supress, minimize, and remove dynamic individuality - on both sides. Equally morally defficient, some with greater practical effect and harm.



To attack the speaker, rather than the message, implies (1) the attacker has little or no substance to work with, (2) the attacker is emotional rather than reasonable, and (3) likes to hurt people when he can.  

There is tons of this done on the right -- IMHO in the comments pages to major articles, much more than from the leading pundits --  and some of the far-right stuff is (post-election) going as much over the top as anything else.  Am sorry to see it.

Great job SS.  Keep it comin' amigo :- )



tjm's picture

Seriously, Doc, what would he have prosecuted her for? A private email server that has been investigated for two years and determined by a Republican FBI director to be an error in judgement that no reasonable prosecutor would seek an indictment for.

I don't see this as manipulation, at all, unless you mean manipulation of the people whose votes he sought. I mean, c'mon, having speakers lead "lock her up" cheers at your nominating convention and now you sayit's something you don't care that muich about? Sheesh. 

I'm at a loss to understand how one could see the left as the party of greivances when cultural greivance is just about the only thing we've heard from Fox News and the entirety of the Republican media enterprise for the whole eight years of Obama's presidency. 


If she hasn't done anything wrong, and it's apparent to anybody reasonable that she has done nothing wrong, then yes.  You would take issue with the idea that Trump has done her any favors whatsoever.

Fair enough amigo.  Please press the point for all it's worth.


Yes you've got 2 of Comey's 3 statements on the issue that fall out to Hillary's favor.  And you have distrust of Comey's intentions on both sides.  Also:


Trump has Rudy Guliani telling him that the Foundation pay-for-play is a simple conviction -- even the % of CF donors who got face time with our Sec of State is a matter of public record --

he has Sessions wanting to renew the FBI investigations starting Jan. 20,

he has Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter telling him that a President should allow the FBI to simply do its job without Presidential interference, and

he has much if not most of America polling that Hillary should be indicted.

Fair enough?


So from TRUMP's point of view here are his options on investigations, from most hawkish to most dovish:

1)  Guliani - run around publicly declaring an easy racketeering conviction

2)  Sessions angle - declare a renewal the FBI investigations per much of America's desire

3)  Stand aside, do nothing, and hand it off to Sessions as AG

4)  State his intention to NOT prosecute

5)  State his intention to NOT prosecute and do it very early, to put it behind us

6)  State his intention to not prosecute, do it early ... and explain on Twitter it's "because she's a good person"

Given the range of options, yes, it looks to me like a gracious attitude on Trump's part.  

And I agree there are MANY advantages to just declaring the e-mail and Clinton foundation problems to be in the rear view mirror.  Washington started this Republic off right by not being vindictive about the Whiskey Rebels, and the attitude has been serving us well ever since.

tjm's picture

Since it includes Guiliani's conclusion, which is apparently baesed on nothing but his political ambitions, Sessions's desires, which are based on who knows what, Limbaugh and Coulter who are apparently saying let the FBI do its job, which it has done, and polling which one guesses might have been influenced by half of America screaming that she was a crook, and out of this mess you conclude Trump is taking a middle ground?

You've cooked the books.


Not trying to cook anything.  But I am asking you to see Donald Trump's perspective for just a few moments.

He does not regard Rudy Giulani's opinions as baseless, the way you do.  On TV a few weeks ago, Giuliani outlined from an attorney's perspective 13 specific points of federal code he would deploy in a prosecution and tied them to information in Wikileaks released documents conceded by Hillary, among other things.  

It's fine to debate that  -- but Giuliani's opintion being "based on nothing" is not accurate.  Giuliani has been specific as to the basis of his opinion.  We are free to debate but we are not free to pretend no basis has been offered.  Any more than we are free to pretend that there is no basis for accusations that Donald Trump has said reprehensible things about women.

And, it is a given that Giuliani is an accomplished Mafia prosecutor.


Trump was presented with a range of options by those that he, Donald Trump, has deemed senior advisors.  You deem them worthless pundits, but he deems them the Presidential advisors.  Fair enough?


Donald Trump chose the most benevolent of the options available to him, did he not?  I'm confused here.  Trump banging the gavel and saying "case is closed, Hillary is a good person" -- when his advisors are protesting -- is not to be construed as an act of conciliation?

What would you have preferred he did, post-election, with respect to the allegations against Hillary?

tjm's picture

. . . but the opinion of the relevant authorities - FBI, main Justice and Congressional committees - who have investigated this for literally years and found nothing beyond bad judgement. What more investigation can one mail server stand? I don't understand the pre-occupation with this or Benghazi by normal conservatives. Chris Stephens was a friend of mine. I was greatly saddened by his death but there has to come a point in any investigation when you acknowledge the results, doesn't there? The fever swamp lust for this I get. But mainstream conservatives? What am I not seeing?

Screaming about this stuff for years doesn't make it true.


after all these years...and all these scandals (anyone remember Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc.?) much will it take to ask, "why has none of this stuck?"

Because crazed Republicans didn't investigate enough?  Because they were doofuses as investigators?

There's no THERE there!

You can believe whatever you want.  But the reason Trump decided on the direction he did (which Matt correctly states is not in his power) is because there was nothing to it.  It was stupid...she apologized...but part of the world (as always) refused to move on.

And frinally, as for Giuliani, there is no more craven source.  He is corrupt and a conman.  People should wonder why he hasn't yet received a Cabinet nomination.  The answer is becase Rand Paul and others on the GOP side have said they won't vote for him.  

And all that "pay for play" stuff he criticized Hillary for is the largest case of personal projection in modern U.S. history.  It's all a matter of record...available on the Interwebs...for anyone who chooses to find out. 


I don't personally find it enlightening when such strong statements are made without supporting evidence.  At worst, it seems likely that your (partisan?) projections are a mirror image of the very forces you openly criticize as directing significant portions of the Republican base's agenda/motives (fear, stupidity, hatred, etc..).

Your perspective is a good one, diderot, and it's one that helps those of us who might have significantly different viewpoints triangulate on potential truth.  But when you declare, in no uncertain terms, that there is simply nothing to the issues which have inflamed vast swaths of the electorate, you're falling into the same (elitist?) pit that people who disagree with you claim is rotting American politics up and down the board.  That doesn't mean those people are necessarily right as a result of your (possibly) unwarranted confidence, but I do think it should serve as a cautionary data point for you in this conversation.

I don't claim to know what Donal Trump, or Rudy Giulliani, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama know, or what their thought processes are.  That uncertainty is part of how we maintain objectivity, and objectivity clarifies just about everything.  There's a Chinese proverb that says 'To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous.'  Socrates said, 'Wisdom begins in wonder.'  The scientific method itself functions only when we attempt to disprove what we think is, or what we declare to be.  A position crafted via the scientific method is like a statue carved from a solid piece of stone; a position built without such rigorous efforts to chip away the falsifiable aspects is more like a clay sculpture.  It's easier to shape clay into the desired shape than it is to carve that shape from stone, but the resulting product is vastly inferior in every way imaginable.

I also have to agree 100% with Doc re: the magnanimity of Trump's chosen course re: the email/Benghazi scandals.  I think the only possibly greater display of magnanimity on his part would be to declare that upon assuming office he intends to grant the Clintons the benefit of his presidential pardon, and no one would think that is even a viable, let alone intelligent, course of action for him to take.

Still, I tend to agree with the general thrust of your comment: if there was indeed a smoking gun, I have to believe that our system of justice would have uncovered it by now (re: Benghazi or the emails).  If our system did indeed uncover that piece of evidence, but somehow repressed it, that would be more damaging to the Republic than a thousand incidents like Benghazi.  Thus, I have to believe (in order for our system to continue working) that there is, indeed, no 'there' there.  The alternative is simply unthinkable and I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that this line of reasoninng at least in some way informed Donald Trump's decision to publicly reverse his previuos position regarding the full-on prosecution of HRC for her various scandals.

Of course, I could be wrong about that assertion.  Personally, I think the Clintons have already been consigned to the dust bin of history and that the Foundation is now under such intense scrutiny that, wrongdoing or not, it will no longer be a factor.


I'm sure it's too late to be read...but anyway.

First of all, I really appreciate your reponse--very thoughtful.

Second, I'm not saying Hillary is a perfect person--of course she's made mistakes, as have we all.

Third, what I don't think can be argued is that she has devoted her life to public serivice--in direct contradiction to you-know-who.

Fourth, my main point is that it seems impossible that for a quarter of a century her political opponents could have investigated/harrassed her to near death...and electoral defeat...without finding anything to charge her with.  So again, my question--is that because the investigators are incompetent...or were perpetually misguided?  I believe in innocence until proven guilty.

Finally, people should understand all the good that the Clinton Foundation has done without including that it the litany of conspiracy theories.  And thus, my comment about Giuliani--his track record is demonstrated.



I like to engage with an interested party, but my internet connection is pretty bad so I often don't get the opportunity.

Let me take each of your paragraphs in turn, as is my custom in medium/long-form back-and-forths conducted by email (which this isn't, but hey, it's close).

First of all, I really appreciate your reponse--very thoughtful.

I appreciate your back-and-forth, too.  You and I have butted heads on here about political issues before, and it's heartening to have a conversation stay high-and-dry where it can be conducted productively.  That's not a comment about you specifically; it's more about the general climate of how we conduct ourselves these days.  And I dare say there are precious few places where it can even take place any more.

Second, I'm not saying Hillary is a perfect person--of course she's made mistakes, as have we all.

I don't think anyone believes their political representatives are perfect people.  They're all deeply flawed, perhaps no more so than in their desire to live in the fishbowl of political life.  It takes an abnormal person to actually *want* that life for themselves and their family.

Third, what I don't think can be argued is that she has devoted her life to public serivice--in direct contradiction to you-know-who.

This is an interesting point, diderot, and one on which I *think* much of the disagreement re; HRC's character springs from on 'both sides' of the discussion re: her character.  Camille Paglia has a beautiful quote in one of her Salon articles (a quote I can't find at present) which basically said that if one is 'speaking truth to power, and getting paid for it, that person is no longer speaking truth to power but is instead speaking on behalf of one power in favor of another.'  The thrust of her argument was that if you expect to be rewarded for given behavior, then you aren't really risking anything and that the *risk* is what, more than anything else, determines whether or not you are, indeed, speaking truth to power.

To me, public service is essentially the same thing.  It's supposed to be public service, not personal enrichment via the public trough.  The Clintons started with very, very little compared to many (most?) upper tier politicians, and now they're worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  I'm not saying that people should recuse themselves from engaging in post-public-office careers which are financially lucrative, but when someone rides the gravy train as high and long as the Clintons have then I don't think it's unreasonable to question their motives.

I do understand that most elected politicians, at least those at the Upper State or National level, engage in all manner of shady behavior during their 'service' to We, The People.  But I don't hold with the Noam Chomsky's of the world who encourage us to shrug our shoulders whenever 'both sides' of a given issue are engaged in equally bad behavior.  I think that if we spot something objectionable, we should do something about it.  The Clintons (and I think Bill Clinton was the best President we've elected in the last thirty years, FWIW) better represent the Political Elites and political corruption than any others today.

All that said, I think the damage has already been done to them and, if I was Trump, I'd drop the whole thing as much as possible.  The FBI and the IRS are going to do what they do, but I'd move on in the interests of unity.

Fourth, my main point is that it seems impossible that for a quarter of a century her political opponents could have investigated/harrassed her to near death...and electoral defeat...without finding anything to charge her with.  So again, my question--is that because the investigators are incompetent...or were perpetually misguided?  I believe in innocence until proven guilty.

In principle, I agree with everything in this paragraph.  In practice, I would quibble with the nature of 'innocent until proven guilty' and how it actually impacts everyday American lives, but you've got me co-signing this one as you've typed it up.

Finally, people should understand all the good that the Clinton Foundation has done without including that it the litany of conspiracy theories.  And thus, my comment about Giuliani--his track record is demonstrated.

Here, however, I've got to depart from your train of thought.  And I can do so with, I think, relatively simply: we don't define a criminal by the 99.999% of the time they spent being good, productive people who contributed to society.  We define them by that 0.0001% of their lives when they engaged in actively destructive behavior, and I think we hold coropration and foundations to similar standards.  When a serial rapist/murderer is sentenced to life in prison or given the death penalty, we as a society (in the legal sense) give not one whit about whether or not that horrendous human being is leaving dependents behind after he is removed from society.  We do have social security mechanisms of which those dependents can avail themselves, but we don't stay the hand of justice simply because 99.999% of the time he was breathing, that guy was doing good work.  We demand justice be delivered on behalf of those who have been harmed and on behalf of those who we would protect from similar harm in the future.

Not sure where this exchange should best continue, or how badly it needs to do so, but I'm good with (sporadically, I'm afraid) going back and forth if you'd like.  Ultimately, though, I agree with the general thrust of what I read as your position on all of the above: we really need to move on and focus on more productive things, as a society.  Time to circle the wagons and get on with life not as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, but as Americans.


Trump isn't the one who decides whether HRC will be prosecuted.  The DOJ will continue its investigation of the Clinton Foundation whether Trump likes it or not.  I doubt any jail time comes of it, since the foundation itself is now collapsing with the "to play" part of pay to play, but Trump once again demonstrates his lack of knowledge on this subject.


I believe that I've posted this story before;  Tiger Woods and Dan Jenkins

When Woods was busted with his pants down, a string of waitresses and porn stars behind him, his marriage now up in flames, his agent said to the press "Hey, give the kid a break."

Woods was 31 or thereabouts.

Jenkins was aghast and wrote about it.  He said that in his lifetime kids were 22 year old pilots, 21 year old navigators and 19 year old waist gunners making a slow bombing run over Dresden or Berlin.  They weren't very welcome, he reminded readers.  The claim that Tiger Woods was a kid and that excused his infidelities rather upset him. 

The fact that coddled college students (more coddled than every before) need safe zones and speech codes, even Play Doh sometimes, certainly didn't play well with MOTR voters.  Even the vast majority of my seniors (in high school) are fairly aghast at the idea of safe zones......and they are just a year away from college.  Trump didn't really speak out against those college kids, but Hillary and Bernie certainly spoke to them....encouragingly, at times. 

In the late 60's and early 70's college kids marched, chanted, sat in and protested while their cohorts slogged through rice paddies.  Republicans won 5 of the next 6 elections.

In 1980, college students marched, chanted and warned that nuclear war was near if Reagan was elected.  Republicans won the next 3 elections in a row.

Safe zones?  Speech codes?  "Make America Great Again" hats as harrassment?  American flags as harrassment?  College kids are on the "march" again....or at least the ones we see on the tube?  Harambe halloween costumes as microaggression or cultural appropriation?

Another boon for conservatives? 

Is there a quiet working middle class that sees such youthful behavior as unproductive sloth and indicative of a failing cultural liberalism?  Do they respond against it with their vote?

I don't know.  But I do know that if I was setting chokers in the woods, laying pipeline in North Dakota (when the protesters get cold and go home), or punching the timeclock in Tennessee I just might respond that way.....even if I wasn't a Trumpie.

And if the voice of those folks (like it or not, after Bernie, Hillary was their voice) had ethical concerns up the wazoo and answered, "What does it matter?" when asked why there wasn't more done when a consulate was under attack and seems just a bit too Harpy-ish, I might hold my nose and vote for the other, other, way other voice barking on some other channel.  I can sort of understand it. 

He didn't get mine, but I think I can understand why so many wavering exactly the right swing states.....did pull that lever.

Hillary essentially said, "Things are fine, stay the course. The other guy is an idiot!"

Donald essentially said, "Things are a mess.  Those idiots are to blame!"

In swing state after swing state things did seem like a mess to the undecided voter. That, they could decide upon.

That things were in a mess (right or wrong) isn't the seemed that way to too many MOTR voters and Hillary was promising more of the same:  Speech codes, safe zones, Plah Doh and costume censorship.  OK, it's an over simplification but voters frequently vote for simple reasons after complex consideration.  In the end, it was the simple reasons that were the story of this election......not the complex ones.

Tip O'Neill (no relation to Tank) is credited with saying, "All politics are local."  Hillary's message was global, wide and (she thought) cerebral (I didn't find it that way).  Trump's was local and emotional.  Where it counted, THAT counted.

I will have to think about that:  Are marching, chanting, Safe Zoned college students the harbinger of Republican runs? 


Don't always have time to respond the way your ideas deserve.  But every single one of your posts is awesome.

I agree that the OSU-Student characterization is a simplification.  It is more a visual by which we illustrate the attitudes of those on the extreme left.  But I don't personally know anybody who wants a "safe zone."

:: daps ::


Toughening up: It's a generational thing and how you see it (and voted) might depend on whether you grew up listening to Johnny Cash or Everclear. Both are songs about absent fathers. The first is of a young man becoming a man filled with hatred but finally appreciating that his dad gave him a girly name to toughen him up. The latter is of a young man lamenting somewhat angrily about his absent father's half hearted attempts to show he cared, e.g., "you sent me a birthday card, with a ten dollar bill, I don't understand you, and I guess I never will."

Father #1 would be lambasted if not downright arrested for insensitive and abusive cruelty today. The kid would today grow up in a world of inclusion, and there would be no admonishing him: "kid, you gonna have to git tough or die." The child would celebrate his diversity, I suppose, and hopefully could find a college safe zone in case some mean kids did tease him.

Father #2? I dunno, maybe he'd get a short lecture on trying a little harder to show you care. But who's to judge, so long as he didn't do something really horrible, like tell his kid not to act so gay.

Who's the better father? Father #1 would be considered something of a monster in both generations. But...he toughened up his kid, so we older dudes cut him some slack. 

Father #2? Well, that's probably half the dads these days.

One other thing: hazing - in which you are treated cruel to belong to a club - is a thing of the past. That's probably a good thing, because it can be terrifying. But it was probably designed (or allowed anyway) to "toughen one up." But then, it, as well as other ways to "toughen one up" were done in an era that didn't include easy access to guns, before the era of the mass murderer who then killed himself, and lawyers/lawsuits. All you were allowed to fight back were your fists. 


Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.


  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.