This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I wish William F Buckley were around to denounce Trump. Because I'd love to see Buckley get booed off-stage by an angry mob.The days of the right's 'respectable, erudite' leadership excommunicating the 'bad' conservatives is over. Move over, Victor, because the Bushites are becoming Democrats, and they're bringing War and Wall Street with them.
I wonder what a William F Buckley blog would look like. Would he respond to random comments? Don't know. He did respond to random letters.My favorite response from a reader (if I remember right): "[for the following reasons] cancel my subscription." WFB: "Cancel your own G.. Damned subscription." A friend gave me the book of that title.I wish bloggers would have the same gumption to respond to posts.
I almost never agreed with WFB but I greatly admired his intelligence, wit and eloquence. I loved the way he would eviscerate his opponent while giving them a sly smile (or was that a smug smirk?). I always made sure that I had a dictionary on hand when Firing Line came on. No one would ever claim that Buckley dumbed down the level of a conversation.
I remember with great fondness watching Firing Line way back in the 1060s. (I guess that from an early age I was destined to be a nerd!) WFB was largely responsible for me being a Republican until sometime in the mid 1980s, when I discerned the slow drift into Republican craziness during Reagan's second term.I was happy being a Democrat right into Obama's second term, when I once and for all renounced partisanship altogether. Now I long for the party of Eisenhower and Gerald Ford to return, so there would be an actual choice for voters. As it is, we have two parties of Crazy to choose between.
Bringing up Buckley prompts this question for me- do the troubles of the Republican party since the fall of Soviet Russia indicate that WFH's "fusionism" project never really made much sense except as anti-communist coalition?
"watching Firing Line way back in the 1060s."Bob,I know it was a typo, but forgive me for recognizing the irony.http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-battle-of-hastings
Yeah, I only feel that old at times! I'm glad my finger didn't slide to the left, or else I'd have to tell you about my time in the Civil War! (For the record, I fought at Monocacy Junction.)
Too funny,As Patton fought with the Carthaginians (if the the 1970's movie is correct).
the right always thinks of politics as disease. Trump can't go from liberal to conservative a a change in his thinking once liberal always liberal ,.it is a disease and a taint that can't go away,Here is my post on Metacorck's blog for Money Is science one gene away from destroying religion?
Is science one gene away from destroying religion?
"Buckley was not a great man. He was, like all narcissists, an insecure, mentally damaged coward, elevated to his position by an establishment that saw him as a useful idiot who would happily suppress the most fierce advocates for freedom, from John Birch to Ayn Rand." - http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/william-f-buckley-a-case-study-in-narcissistic-personality-disorder/
B.Prokop: "WFB was largely responsible for me being a Republican until sometime in the mid 1980s ..."That's not really believable.B.Prokop: "... when I discerned the slow drift into Republican craziness during Reagan's second term."Riiiight!
Look, we all know that Trump will not be a great president, probably not even a good one. We all would like a better choice than Trump.But the choice before us is --1) Trump2) a Democratand (for at least the past generation) no Christian votes for Democrats, not for *any* office. For there is no such thing as "I vote for the man, not the Party".
Trump or Hillary the Demonrat, PC establishment horror. It's an easy choice.
"That's not really believable."Ilion,In 1974, I voted for Barry Goldwater (for Arizona senator). In 1976, I voted for Gerald Ford. In 1980, I voted for John Anderson (a Republican). In 1984, I voted for Ronald Reagan.You can start believing.
anyone who think s Trump is the better deal is a fool a total foolall the evidence agaisnt Hillary is rumor and old baggage and stories about she said stuff about the women who slept with Bill. she may have have one any have done,(1) Trump will increase nuclear proliferation. I have three paths to nuclear war with Trumpthree major issuesInuclear war'(2) climate change(3) the ne Manchurian candidates, Putins lap dogEVIDENCE
Oh, wait. What was "not really believable"? The fact that I was a Republican up until the mid-80s, or that WFB led me to Republicanism? 'Cause they're both true. I even subscribed to The National Review until 1976 (when I was in the Army and let all my magazine subscriptions lapse, due to my frequent moves).
Nick said...Trump or Hillary the Demonrat, PC establishment horror. It's an easy choice.>>>sure is, ignorant, abusive, selfish fool with no experience will probably start a nuclear war vs a woman who knows what she's doing and was a fine senator and sec of state
Anyone who thinks Hillary isn't a sack of garbage at best is too partisan to think objectively.That said, Trump is a sack of garbage, and anyone who doesn't think so...
I get what you're saying, Legion. Right now I feel like Poland in the late 1930s - caught between Hitler on one side and Stalin on the other. No matter which way I turn, I don't like what I see, and I feel threatened. There are no good alternatives this year.
My plan is to vote to undo the establishment. Anything that results in liberal progressives (SJW's) losing is fine by me.
My rational for voting.1. In the primary I vote as close to ideal as I can find (they always lose).2. In the general I vote on percentages: 100% is a king who would do everything I want. 0% is a tyrant who would do everything I don't want. Our Republic gives me between a 60% king and a 40% tyrant. This year's election is between a 44% and a 47%. I'll vote 47%.3. All my state's electoral votes will go to Hillary, so all my reasoning is meaningless. That's my Republic.
"All my state's electoral votes will go to Hillary"That's my situation too. Nate Silver says there's a grater than 99.9 percent chance of Maryland going for Clinton, so I have the freedom of voting for whomever I wish (or even abstaining), knowing it will make no difference whatsoever.In a counter-intuitive sort of way, it's actually rather liberating.
"Anything that results in liberal progressives (SJW's) losing is fine by me."Looks to me like the biggest loser in this election is the Republican party. Trump seems to be determined to drag as many Republicans down as he can in his upcoming loss.
Hmm.. I just noticed the typo in my last posting. Perhaps Trump is starting to affect me. He wants to make America grate again! No more bags of shredded mozzarella in your grocery store. You'll have to buy it buy the block!
"Looks to me like the biggest loser in this election is the Republican party."Yay! And I'm a Republican (for now).
"Yay! And I'm a Republican (for now)."Strange that you would be saying that considering your early comment that it is the demise of the progressives you are after. Though I don't share the common view that Hilary is an awful person or would make a terrible president, the fact that Trump could not beat her is pretty strong evidence that the alt-right movement supporting him is in a clear minority in this country.
Just to add, I think the next biggest loser after the Republican party is the conservative Christian movement. They've pretty well demonstrated their capacity to prostitute their movement to a man who has lived a life contrary to the values they proclaim.
Hal,It's not strange at all. I support conservative principles that aim to hold on to basic, traditional principles and neither R's or D's are conserving anything.
Hal,Isn't it okay for a Christian to support a person's concerns, solutions and timetable for action, but not support their values and beliefs? What's wrong with being tolerant of other people?
StveK, I don't understand what tolerance has to do with determining who is worthy of being President of the US.
Hal,It's relevant to your comment about what's contrary to Christian values. It's not contrary to Christian values to be tolerant of people who have different values and beliefs and to support them based on what they want to do.
Post a Comment