Okay, It’s Trump — Free Fire Zone

We can’t overlook the latest news about the American Presidential campaign. It’s a virtual certainty that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee, and in all likelihood he’ll be running against Hillary. Neither appears to be a creationist, so that’s one less thing to worry about.

This strange drama will be going on until November, and we’re already bored with it. However, but there’s nothing else going on we can post about, so let’s discuss it. We promise not to do this too often.

You know the rules. Say what you will — with proper language to avoid the profanity filters. You know your Curmudgeon is a Republican, but that never seems to restrain your commentary. Okay, the comments are open. Have at it.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

34 responses to “Okay, It’s Trump — Free Fire Zone

  1. Anonymous

    Say it isn’t soooooooooooooo!

  2. Vulcanthunder

    I still hope by some miracle Sanders can win. I switched from Republican to Democrat just to vote for Bernie. If it’s Clinton I’ll either stay home or hold my nose and vote for Trump.

  3. The choices: demagogue, socialist, or congenial lawyer/congenital liar.

    Name your poison.

  4. Just saw a picture of Trump and possible running mate – Gary Busey 🙂 Don’t say it won’t happen – that’s what they said about Trump being the nominee!

  5. SC, as a republican, what are your thoughts on trickle down economics?
    Here’s Brownback’s example in Kansas:
    Trickle-Down Economics Has Ruined the Kansas Economy

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    I still don’t get why Hillary is hated so much. I can see being turned off by her smugness/teflonness that she shares with her husband. But she knows diplomacy and can maintain the status quo. Her as a liar? Trump makes her look like a monk.

  7. It’s quite clear that The Donald will have himself as Vice-President for no one else could do the job as well.

  8. Dave Luckett

    In all decency, I can only comment on what effects Trump will have, if elected, on the foreign policy of the United States.

    I was thinking of moving to the bush anyway. Now I’m thinking of moving right down to the southern tip of Western Australia, where the air comes off four thousand miles of ocean, and where it’s possible to dig a real deep cellar, and stock it with canned food, bottled water, seed grain and simple agricultural tools.

    Or maybe not. What would be the point of surviving the destruction of civilization, anyway?

    I don’t think the majority of US electors are crazy enough to actually vote for Trump. I hope not. But the problem is the one that many have described: years of deadlock and deliberate sabotage in Washington have produced a profound disgust with the political process itself. Clinton is a product of that political process, if ever there was one. The reaction is understandable: to elect a complete maverick, an iconoclast who’d do something, anything, to break the mold.

    The punchline to the old joke comes to mind: Anything? Or the Humphry Appleby syllogism: “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it must be done.”

    Maybe Trump would break the mold. The question is, what else would he break? Clinton wouldn’t, but would she do anything at all? China will be watching with profound interest – as will we all, of course. But I suspect that one of China’s first acts after the new inauguration will be to accelerate its colonization and militarization of the South China Sea, perhaps to start charging “navigation fees” for passage through what it refers to as its territorial waters, just to see what the US will do.

    And maybe supply, say, 40 Shenyang J-11’s plus their shipkiller missiles to Argentina, with a quiet assurance that if Argentina should wish to again contest Britain’s illegal occupation of the Malvinas, the Argentine government could count on China’s support in the UN. Now, that would be, er, interesting.

  9. What blows my mind is that the majority of Republicans, especially from the South, have voted against their economic self-interest in, arguably, each of the previous five elections for POTUS (the one question mark is 2008). And a significant percentage of the same sector is about to do it AGAIN. When I consider that the filthy rich non-white-male televangelists–Creflo Dollar (talk about irony), Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn (can you hear the goofy music, too?), etc ALSO supports Drumpf along with the Wonder Bread Jeebus Wheezers, we see an answer, just as we did especially in 2004. Religious “authority” once again is being used to control, terrorize, and demand acquiescence to what the preachers say, at risk of some form of damnation or other suffering should they commit the unpardonable “sin” of voting “liberal,” or Democrat (never mind that the only true liberal to run in the last 44 years is Sanders). This is done to keep their flock poor, scared, and paralyzed. This same group is so sick of feeling that way that the need both a scapegoat and a messiah. Enter the Drumpf, the self-anointed messiah who provided a category of culprits–the beltway in total. Never mind that this messiah has no Wise Men visiting him. Everyone else knows he won’t kick the gamblers out of the temple for the good of the people. He’ll use them to consolidate his base of the 1% and trickle-up the scraps scattered about his frothing, rabid supporters. They’re flocked, if you will.

    As for the question posed above, how can HRC be called a liar, please consider her voting record as Senator, and her shockingly hawkish foreign policy as President Obama’s first Secretary of State. To then pose as a liberal feminist candidate is a disingenuous joke. Her BFFs on Wall Street are quite comfortable with the prospect of a Clinton-Drumpf contest, as they know either winner will continue their role as Wall Street employee.

  10. Eddie Janssen

    How long would it take to build a wall 2000 miles long, 4 yards high and a width of 4 yards?
    Don’t forget the preparations…

  11. DavidK asks: “SC, as a republican, what are your thoughts on trickle down economics?”

    Regardless of its origin, the phrase is mostly used as a pejorative term to denigrate the free enterprise system — like “voodoo economics.” However, it’s justified when applied to the corrupt practice (by both parties) of giving government aid to businesses with political connections.

    Consulting nothing but my memory, I think the expression “trickle down economics” was first used to criticize Eisenhower’s advocacy of foreign aid to the emerging nations of post-colonial Africa. It was, in actuality, a raw play to buy influence so the new countries wouldn’t fall into the Soviet camp, and in the Cold War days, it made sense. But it was (at least briefly) justified as a humanitarian measure to help their economies — the wealth would “trickle down” to the people. It was a silly argument and goofy economics, but I think that’s where the phrase comes from.

  12. See also: Horse and sparrow economics, from the late 19th century.

  13. From an international perspective, there is no doubt that President Trump will ‘make America grate again.’

    American politics–at least when viewed from overseas–generally appear as devoid of any genuine political debate as an election for Homecoming Queen or local dogcatcher. But this year’s presidential contest looks on course for setting new lows in gutter campaigning and mindless sloganeering on all sides, without regard for genuine debate about real-world economics, management of political power, or foreign relations. This is ‘politics’ of the playpen.

    Of course, one can argue about the ‘lesser of two evils’, but rather than about the personalities, I suggest weighing up the choices between the ‘lesser evils’ of the possible scenarios, viz.:

    [a] the chaotic damage a President Trump would inflict on the country and its relations with the wider world by actually attempting to implement some of his lunatic proposals (such as the ‘wall’ to keep out Mexicans, or a ban on travel to the US by Muslims),


    [b] the chaotic damage hoardes of enraged Trump-voters would inflict on the country once they discover a President Trump would not be able to actually do half the unconstitutional and utterly lunatic [beep beep boop] he proposes,


    [c] the governmental paralysis that will commence on the day of President H. Clinton’s inauguration as threats and motions of impeachment occupy the whole of congressional energies,


    [d] fill in the scenario of your choice here. &c &c.

    It is hard to see a good outcome anywhere in this election. And it is even harder not to feel grateful that I live overseas.

  14. I just wonder what planet the “If I can’t have Sanders I’ll vote for Trump” brigade are living on, and who is behind the spreading of this strange suggestion

  15. About Hillary as a liar: the “congenial lawyer/congenital liar” tags were authored by William Safire many years ago, long before H. R. Clinton was Sec. of State. He had originally written that she was a “congenital liar”; later stating he meant “congenial lawyer.”

    The “trickle-down economics” label came into wider use during the Reagan administration, more or less as a synonym for “Reaganomics.” (Going from memory here.)

  16. Reaganomics = supply-side economics = trickle-down economics = voodoo economics. Bush the Elder used the terms “voodoo economics”.

  17. @Paul Braterman: Hear hear.

    @retiredsciguy: That’s my memory too. The term was introduced during the Reagan administration and, far from being a pejorative, was intended to explain to all us little people (in Thatcher’s UK as well as in the US) how we’d all be better off if the rich got richer. It didn’t work, was shown repeatedly not to work, so is still being advocated by Tories, the GOP and far too many Dems. It’s the creationism of economics, if you like: the evidence shows it’s garbage but it refuses to die.

  18. Please, read the Wikipedia article “Trickle-down economics”. It is not perfect, but I trust it more than my fallible memory.

  19. I weep for the republic…

  20. Richard Bond


    During Margaret Thatcher’s term the income of people in work increased by 80% in nominal terms, though quite a bit less in real terms, since it was a time of relatively high inflation. As someone working in manufacturing industry at this time, I can assure you that I and my colleagues saw the benefits, with annual pay increases normally well ahead of the cost of living. For unemployed people on the various available benefits, their incomes merely kept place with the cost of living, which is not that creditable. However, the idea that the general reduction in taxation during that period only benefited the rich is nonsense.

  21. I for one am tired of being trickled upon. I feel like a peon.

  22. Re: Congenital Liar

    I calculated a rough “truthiness” ratio from Politifact for main candidates by taking the percent of True, Half True, and Mostly True evaluations divided by False and Mostly False. The bigger the ratio, the greater the truthiness. At least this is real data, rather than anecdote or raw opinion. The numbers are:

    Hillary Clinton: 5.5
    Bernie Sanders: 5.8
    Donald Trump: 0.4

    For comparison:
    Barack Obama: 5.4

    Lest you claim this is a lefty conspiracy:
    Jeb Bush: 7.8

    My conclusion is that one of these is not like the others, and it isn’t Hillary. And a 15 fold difference is likely a lot more meaningful than the minor differences otherwise.

  23. @Richard Bond
    You were obviously very lucky both to be in work and stay in work. I was lucky too, as a freelancer, in that I was at least able to maintain my standard of living. But a lot of the people I knew were far less fortunate. I note, too, that you dodge the issues of inflation and unemployment — not to mention the rocketing upward of the number of homeless, especially among the young. And then there was “care in the community” for the mentally ill, which also contributed to the number of homeless.

    For the poor it was a rotten time, especially as some of the “various available benefits” you mention kept being curtailed.

  24. @paulpfish
    Is that ratio correlated to electability? If so, it predicts a landslide for Trump!

  25. I would remind my fellow Americans: it might be possible, via an international summit, to repeal the Paris Treaty of 1783 and thereby enable the return of the 13 colonies to return to the British Crown.

    An apology for the little fracas of 1776 would be in order, of course, as well as fresh oaths of loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law &c &c. And some token recompense would be fitting as well–perhaps a consignment of premium darjeeling to replace the cargo you so willfully spoiled in Boston Harbour?

    Actually, Georgia and the Carolinas need not apply….

  26. Paul Braterman says:

    I just wonder what planet the “If I can’t have Sanders I’ll vote for Trump” brigade are living on

    That was my reaction, but I’m trying to let the comments flow freely, without Curmudgeonly judgment.

  27. Charles Deetz ;)

    Thanks for replies on ‘Hillary=liar’ query. I think that there is a big difference between lying and being deceptive. And even lying for political expediency (what we might call ‘white lies’) is not the same as lying because you did something wrong/illegal/you regret. She is as much a liar as any politician, I think, but is she lying about anything ‘bad’ (i.e. killing Vince Foster)?

  28. michaelfugate

    I have no idea what went on in the minds of Republican primary voters. That it could come down to Trump v. Cruz, really? I will never understand.

    The reality is that the president doesn’t have as much power as people imagine. Bill Simmons’ interview with President Obama gives a pretty good background on what any president faces. If the Republicans hold on to Congress, Hillary will face the same battles. The thing Obama did was open the field to non-whites and if Hillary is elected it will open to non-males. Expanding the field is good.

  29. Stephen Kennedy

    Hillary Clinton is not a great orator, is somewhat socially awkward and seems to have a personality that is not particularly easy to warm up to. However, in selecting someone to be President these things are not particularly important to me. She does appear to be intelligent, thoughtfull, knowledgeable about how the U.S. Government and other countries’ governments work. I think she is an honorable person, even though she does not always communicate that well. She is certainly qualified to be President of the United States.

    Donald Trump is a crude, ignorant, hateful buffoon who would be by far the worst President in U.S., and maybe world, history. He has never held public office and I can not think of any that he would be even remotely qualified for let alone President of the United States.

  30. Ok, so Trump gets the Republican nomination. I see the entire rest of the Republican Party cutting him adrift, on his own, to fend for himself, while they establish the “New” Republican Party, and nominate someone more fit to be president who would have a better chance to defeat the Democratic nominee, presumably Hillary Clinton.

    Hey, it could happen. I hope it does.

  31. michaelfugate

    RSG says

    Ok, so Trump gets the Republican nomination. I see the entire rest of the Republican Party cutting him adrift, on his own, to fend for himself, while they establish the “New” Republican Party, and nominate someone more fit to be president who would have a better chance to defeat the Democratic nominee, presumably Hillary Clinton.

    Mary Lou Bruner?

  32. RSG: Didn’t the GOP try that in 1912?

  33. @Mark Germano: Yeah, y’know, ya gotta shake things up every hundred years or so.

    @michaelfugate: Oh, that’s good! perhaps our good Curmudgeon could insert her photo here?