You don't owe them anything. They hold their readership in contempt and they hate their own characters. Stop enabling them.
(1) People will start to argue harder and harder that Trump isn't really that bad, and he doesn't actually mean all the things that he says. Even while you'll never hear this from his campaign, it'll be a major theme among commentators, especially those tied to the Republican establishment.
The main thing driving this will be cognitive dissonance: if you believed that the American public had just nominated a not-particularly-crypto-Nazi, then you would have to conclude that the people around you are either evil or fools, and that's not something nice to think about. But if he's not really that bad, then it's OK. The second thing driving this will be the underlying urge of many disaffected (white, working or middle class) people to support him and the things he actually says; if you've got a narrative where it's not really that bad, it's fine to vote for this, then you can feel more comfortable considering it. And the third thing (affecting mostly professional politicians and media heads) will be simple professional party loyalty; the cost of defection away from a nominated candidate, in terms of career and so on, is just too high.
(2) You will hear a strong campaign from the Republican establishment (not Trump) that Clinton is the Devil and must be beaten. They won't be able to put together a clear story of why; to be honest, almost nobody ever has been able to. It's become so reflexive to see her this way that people have forgotten where it started. (That's not to say that Clinton isn't deeply flawed, but none of those flaws have anything to do with the weird conspiracy theories that will be circulating)
This is mostly a way for the people in the establishment, the ones with the most dissonance to deal with, to focus themselves on saying "not Clinton" so they don't have to spend too much time saying "yes Trump."
It's going to be an incredibly nasty campaign, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.
(Yes, Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. I know Sanderistas can come up with arguments until the cows come home about how it's still perfectly statistically possible for him to win 64% of the remaining pledged delegates or somehow convince all the superdelegates to join him but... no. There is no way that actually works. Sanders gets to shift the party platform but he has no serious chance of being the nominee)
And if, God forbid, Trump were to be elected? I suspect that we would find that he is quite an honest man after all, at least insofar as he has no incentive to lie. I suspect that his promises about immigrants will quickly become a priority for him, with a certain amount of reality gating. Things we'd actually see:
(1) Punitive taxes and/or seizure of remittances abroad. This would cause massive economic disruptions all over the world (about $125B per year, most of it going to poor communities) and would probably ultimately be moderated in some way, but not before causing tremendous pain and chaos.
(2) Laws demanding strong proof of citizenship to work, and enforcing severe penalties against employers who violate them. These would cause a different kind of chaos, because a good quarter of citizens don't actually have such strong proof. Presumably offices would be set up to help people get that, and deployment of the law would be staged -- but that assistance would be sharply canted towards white communities. The intent, and effect, of the law would be to cause mass unemployment among Latino and Black communities. This would, indeed, cause many to flee the country, but even more to be dropped into extremely dire straits. I have no idea how this would play out.
(3) Laws enforcing Draconian penalties against anyone who helps people without knowing their immigration status. This would run into actual trouble for Trump once it started to affect better-organized churches; the Vatican may actually end up being a major counterforce, and this might have long-term consequences.
(4) Laws restricting employment of legal immigrants in various ways. Not in service industries, but in places where a demonstration of nativism will be politically useful. This will often be used as a negotiating tactic against businesses.
(5) Actual wall-building might start in a symbolic fashion, but the absurd logistics of it would prevent anything other than a flashy display.
Of course, none of this even starts to deal with his plans to institute trade wars with both China and Mexico (two of our three largest trading partners), or the effects that would happen when the leaders of politically savvy rival countries (e.g., China) realize that he can easily be goaded into foolish moves. Or what might happen if someone else (e.g., Kim Jong Un) tried to rattle sabers; I doubt that he has any deep understanding of just why the US hasn't tried to blow up North Korea in the past. (Answer: we could do it, but in the process South Korea would be turned into rubble, and Japan would probably lose a city or two. And it might escalate into a full regional war.)
So even though I anticipate several months of people telling me how he really isn't that bad, and of the curious experience of seeing a politician's supporters get exasperated and angry ("you're not repeating that old lie again!") when I suggest that their candidate might be honest, I don't think that just because he's the nominee, he's suddenly going to change his
It's faked from the sidebar at http://degoes.net/ by substtuting "white culture" for the word "startups" and "nazi" for "geeky".
Lovely people, these SJWs. They can't win an honest debate, so they smear their opponents with fakery. See also accusing me of racism, an accusation she has not retracted despite having sufficient reason to know it is false.
EDIT: I originally had the screencap attached, but G+ pulled it in without its Twitter-feed context and I thought it was too defamatory to leave up even though my intention was to expose it as a fake. The twitter post is at:
"Real unemployment was above 10%, barbarians were reintroducing slavery and public beheadings in the Middle East, the national infrastructure was crumbling, the Presidential elections were convulsed by large-scale populist revolts in both parties, and what was the elite cause du jour? Unisex restrooms."
This is an official report, mind you, one commissioned by the mayor. Not simply some outside commentary by activists.
I wish that I could say that this seemed in any way inaccurate or unearned, but everything I have ever heard or seen of the Chicago PD makes this only seem more believable.
I honestly don't know how something of this scale can be fixed. Is it even possible for there to still be an honest cop anywhere in such a department? It's hard for me to imagine how you could survive as such for any length of time. (This is why I often say that good or bad cops are rare; what you see are good or bad departments.) But you can't replace nearly 12,000 officers overnight.
If you want to see just how low a police department can sink, here you go.
(NB: This report is just about the Chicago PD, not about the surrounding Cook's County Sheriff's Department. There's presumably a whole separate pile of dirty laundry there. But it's the political infighting between those two, the AG, the mayor, and a few other players which is likely responsible for an actually honest report coming out)
- George Washington UniversityPolitical Science, 2002 - 2006
Video shows that African-American woman who died in custody did not assa...
"You slammed my head into the ground," Sandy Bland can be heard shouting in the video
6 Reasons the System Is Rigged (A Guide for Grads)
You're about to enter a system that is so rigged against you that you'll think it's all an elaborate prank.
Commission Finds Fault With Two Eisenhower Memorial Aspects
This week's meeting, which began with a discussion of proposed landscaping elements, quickly turned to the two most controversial aspects of
Why Does Anyone Trust the National-Security State?
A lack of transparency and oversight has led to abuses time and again, in every era.
5 Hallmarks of Bad Parenting That Are Actually Good for Kids
Kids who grew up in the '90s couldn't leave the house without a speech on stranger danger and an extra dose of Flintstones vitamins. But it
We Give a F*** How the Site Loads by #dt on deviantART
Developers can be angry people sometimes. This is actually quite the understatement and :devdT: is no exception to that assessment. With web
How U.S. Steel Helped Break Down Racism, David Henderson | EconLog | Lib...
Fancying themselves as labor's aristocracy, craft unionists ignored the problems of their unskilled co-workers. Ethnic rivalries exacerbated
Debate: Does Democracy Work?, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Econom...
Last week I did an online debate for Learn Liberty with philosopher Helene Landemore. The topic: Does democracy work? Here's my opening stat
Guns Are Self-Defense Tools; 72-Year-Old Grandmother Fends Off Intruder
A bat's just not the same
Why "I Have Nothing to Hide" Is the Wrong Way to Think About Surveillanc...
Many don’t understand why they should be concerned about surveillance if they have nothing to hide. It’s even less clear in the world of 'ob
Members of Congress Don't Want Merged Airlines to Lose Any Spots at Reag...
More than 100 members of the House of Representatives are leaning on federal regulators to allow what will be the world's largest airline to