Moron bites (#8)

Actually, this is raw psychosis rather than stupidity, but I don’t have a dedicated slot for that yet. David Brooks in the NYT:

In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium. One of them could win the election, take the oath, give the speech and be riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. I will still refuse to believe it.

This is actually the precise definition of madness, isn’t it? Stop reality, Dave wants to get off. The title of the piece, by the way: Stay Sane America, Please! That boat has clearly sailed.

(Still January 2016 — it’s going to be an interesting year.)

January 26, 2016admin 23 Comments »


23 Responses to this entry

  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    So he’s on yer side, then. Rooting for Hillary.

    I know I’ll get a huge amount of flack for this, but I doubt there’ll be a whole lotta difference between Sanders and Trump. (Not that we’ll ever really be able to test that theory.) Both are currently mouthing what their bases want to hear, but the interior attitudes of both men with respect to the American People (not all of it bad) seems rather similar to me. Each, in their own way, assuming they get their way for more than a microsecond, might stave off collapse for another 10 years or so.

    Tho’ TBH, I think the markets may be groaning under a weight right now to much be done about.

    We are, after all, simply electing a Ronald McDonald. David Brooks must still believe in the magic.


    admin Reply:

    I have to insist upon the significant difference between saying:
    (a) “If Trump wins in 2016 it will be strategically unfortunate” and
    (b) “If Trump wins in 2016 I’m simply going to refuse to believe it!”


    Izak Reply:

    I actually agree, and Pat Buchanan has been saying basically the same thing.

    It’s very odd to hear all of this anti-Bernie Sanders stuff on the outer-right (podcasts mostly), while, at the same time, he and Trump are basically A) the two most anti-globalist candidates who could be president, B) the two most anti-immigrant candidates who could be president, C) the two most non-interventionist candidates who could be president, and D) the two most socialist and economic protectionist candidates who could be president.

    I’m not even saying that this is a bad thing necessarily, but let’s just get real here.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    For cuckolding you need both a cuck and a bull, so this actually makes a lot of sense.

    If Trump wins the presidency he should ask Bernie to be his running mate.


    Xoth Reply:

    Let’s posit Trump tomorrow switches to the Democrat Party. What changes?

    Grotesque Body Reply:


    He’d either get walloped by Hillary for the Dem nomination, or there would be a lot of rent-seekers left without a party to vote for. Expect a lot more vibrants needing designated space to destroy and cars to light on fire.

    B.B. Reply:

    B) the two most anti-immigrant candidates who could be president

    Despite Bernie Sanders denunciation of Open Borders as a Koch brothers proposal, his own immigration policy is hardly restrictive. He has a worse rating from Numbers USA than Hillary Clinton:


    Izak Reply:

    Actually, I should have clarified: in the context each respective party. Although the NumbersUSA info on him is surprising. I suppose I may have overestimated Sanders because of his opposition to H1Bs. I’m also surprised that they consider Cruz better than Trump.

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 6:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    Was the USA ever sane?


    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 6:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Was democracy ever sane?


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    As a symptomatic signifier, associated with the USA’s regime of ideological self-mediation, it can only reflect that regime’s ironic self-contradictions. As an actual, implemented practice, where has there ever been an actual realisation?


    Alrenous Reply:

    Sic et non. Depends: sane for who?

    Worked out real well for George Washington. Worked pretty well for his backers in congress. Rest of Virginia? Not so much.


    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 7:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stacy Says:

    Poor David. The sad little bobo doesn’t want to leave paradise. He’s never had a firm grasp on reality, so continuing as before seems appropriate.


    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Moron bites (#8) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 11:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    I think you’re taking him too literally. This is a game theory thing.

    He wants to shame everyone into voting right. But he can’t just say, ‘shame on you,’ because nobody cares. So, he has to playact as if it were affecting him deeply. “This voting/election/poll result is so bad I’m going into denial as if I were doing the five stages of grief, therefore, you should feel bad.”

    The thing about sophistry is the population develops resistance. The metaphorical flyover voters who Brooks wants to shame have realized he’s not one of them. They no longer think of Brooks as American. This of course reduces Brooks’ influence. In frustration, he playacts harder, which causes further othering, which reduces influence, and the cycle continues.

    Now if they would realize that Brooks does speak for the elite. That (in a bit of a side point, but still illustrative) there hasn’t been a president who was genuinely what they think of as ‘American’ since at least Wilson.


    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 2:07 am Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    I certainly would like to see one of them win just to give Brooks a chance to melt down and go back to Canada, where things are going just great with Zoolander as PM….


    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 4:10 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Tellingly, before the start of last night’s Channel 4 documentary, “The Mad World of Donald Trump,” they issued a warning – just like an explicit sex or violence content warning – about the “provocative” views expressed in it, as if to establish from the outset that Trump’s views are somehow deviant and abnormal, or even vaguely obscene.
    And then of course, as could be guessed from its title, the programme proceeded to voice doubts as to Trump’s sanity – “narcissistic personality disorder” being the general diagnosis – before inevitably interviewing someone who compared him to Hitler.
    In other words, pretty much what you’d expect from Channel 4.


    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 11:38 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    isn’t such hysteria happening at every election, sort of standard expression of patriotism.


    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 1:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    I consider this one of the most glaring examples of woman-talk being employed by men. Imagine a soccer mom, frowning at a shop clerk “I am refusing, simply re-fu-sing to believe you don’t have this shirt in my size!”

    It is kinda solipsistic.


    Thales Reply:

    So, you’re saying that Our Miss Brooks is a sissy? Oh, say it ain’t so…

    BTW: best disclaimer ever.


    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 3:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mariani Says:

    As if nobody has ever tried “not my president!” before


    Thales Reply:

    But who wore it better?


    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    Even if Bernie knows that open borders would ruin socialism, does anyone think he has the stones to resist it? Look what happened when BLM took his mic.

    I can imagine him being like Angelica Merkel, totally crippled by not wanting to be mean.


    Posted on January 27th, 2016 at 7:20 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment