Conservative columnist George Will says he's voting for Biden

[citygator]

His 2016 prophesy:


One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.”

Will pans the GOP front-runner as a “fundamentally sad figure,” arguing that he has every “disagreeable human trait.”

“His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration,” Will writes. “His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded.”

 

[Mac1958]

“His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration,” Will writes. “His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded.”

Yep.

This is why I disagree with those who say Trump has a big ego. I think it's the exact opposite.

 

[dblack]

Lost me at George Will and conservative...

Don't feel bad. Few Trump supporters understand the term "conservative".

Sort of like you and libertarian. You claim to be libertarian then shill all day for the mega monster socialist party, the Democrats

LOL - I always giggle when you use the word libertarian. I'm kind of curious though - is it that you're too stupid to understand the concept? Or too dishonest to represent it accurately? I spose it doesn't matter. Troll on.

You didn't say anything. How am I not a libertarian? For example ...

Uh... here's a hint. "Authoritarian" and "libertarian" are opposites. Seriously. Look it up.

Libertarian Party Press release on recent unrest | Libertarian Party

Posse Comitatus by Executive Director on Scribd June 2, 2020 For Immediate Release: President Trump’s implication that he will deploy the American military on American soil to battle Americans is yet another failure in leadership. Given the opportunity to act as peacemaker, the president...

www.lp.org

President Trump’s implication that he will deploy the American military on American soil to battle Americans is yet another failure in leadership. Given the opportunity to act as peacemaker, thepresident chose instead to escalate the division across the country, risking even more violence andbloodshed. Rather than focusing on the crime that was committed and using the investigation as afocus for de-escalation, he took the unconscionable step of openly advocating for the deployment oftrained warriors to fight their own countrymen.

So you have nothing. Exactly as I was obviously pointing out.

That you can't read? Did you follow the link?

If you support Trump, and claim to be libertarian, you are deeply confused. Or dishonest. Which is it?

My point is that you endlessly defend the Democrats, who are worse.

That's a lie. But, as a Trump follower, maybe you just can't help yourself. Feel free to quote me endlessly defending Democrats. I'll wait.

 

[kaz]

I would disagree that one is more aligned with corporate interests than the other. They both sunk in deep, once you look below the skin, as you put it. It just shows in different ways.

The first in the amount of money that flows from corporate interests in to coffers of both parties.

OK, that's a fair point. To clarify, I think the people in the Republican party have a lot more libertarian people in it than the Republicans actually elected to office. There are only a few libertarian minded elected Republicans. I have to agree with you on the party itself. There is little difference with the Democrats, they support big corporations not free markets.

The second is the whole idea of free trade and competition. While we are familiar with how the left affects free trade through government regulation, have you you looked at the affect the other side has? When conglomerates are allowed to grow so vast there IS no competition any more. Rather than a healthy competitive ecosystem, you have an elephant controlling the space, and a bunch of mice scurrying for crumbs. The elephant controls the trade and stifles or buys up the competition. You only have to look at how the giant media conglomerates have swallowed up all the smaller presses and most of our media (left and right) is in the hands of a few. Or look at the tech giants and Amazon and social media. Who owns it? Where is the strong competition? Why are anti-trust laws not enforced?

This isn't actually accurate. The reason that conglomerates reach the point of little competition is BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. That's what all those campaign contributions are going to, buying influence. Free markets would mean they can fail, but government doesn't let them do that.

For example the 2008 housing bubble. Government caused the crisis by bullying corporations into making bad loans and then funding them with free government money. Then when the bubble burst, government bailed them out. It was the corporatists in both parties who did that. We who support free markets wouldn't have forced them to make bad loans or bailed them out when they did

Corporate interests have their hands deep in the pockets of both and they manipulate the political landscape to favor their sponsors.

Yes. Remember that when you make arguments like you did about "regulation" as if that's a good thing. Actually, "regulation" is how the government tilts the field in FAVOR of companies, not against them.

 

[Polishprince]

Not surprised. I've always respected George Will, even though I don't always agree - he writes well, and knows his stuff. He's a real conservative.

We sure as hell need more people who can communicate without comical hyperbole, flatulent talking points and grade school-level personal insults.

Or, maybe more to the point, they should be given more air time.

Unfortunately, George Will, and similar thinking republicans like Romney and Kasich, refused to run for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Its not a matter of "Being Given" air time but paying for it. Mr. Will can support Biden, but he shouldn't pretend that he isn't in favor of the Biden Platform since he refused to get his conservative types to run. Where was Mitt this primary season? Or Bush, or Kasich?

If they had something different to offer than Sleepy Joe, they had an opportunity to offer it. Mitt Romney is incredibly wealthy, and Jeb's friends are very well heeled as well. They had the money

 

[dblack]

“His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration,” Will writes. “His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded.”

Yep.

This is why I disagree with those who say Trump has a big ego. I think it's the exact opposite.

Narcissists are typically driven by insecurity and a constant need for accolades.

 

[Mac1958]

Not surprised. I've always respected George Will, even though I don't always agree - he writes well, and knows his stuff. He's a real conservative.

We sure as hell need more people who can communicate without comical hyperbole, flatulent talking points and grade school-level personal insults.

Or, maybe more to the point, they should be given more air time.

Unfortunately, George Will, and similar thinking republicans like Romney and Kasich, refused to run for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Its not a matter of "Being Given" air time but paying for it. Mr. Will can support Biden, but he shouldn't pretend that he isn't in favor of the Biden Platform since he refused to get his conservative types to run. Where was Mitt this primary season? Or Bush, or Kasich?

If they had something different to offer than Sleepy Joe, they had an opportunity to offer it. Mitt Romney is incredibly wealthy, and Jeb's friends are very well heeled as well. They had the money

I doubt it's about the platforms. It looks like it's about the men.

Trump has forced us to add a new minimum requirement for Presidents: That they can maintain a certain level of dignity, decency and stability.

 

[bendog]

I liked his book men at work, too (-:

 

[kaz]

Lost me at George Will and conservative...

Don't feel bad. Few Trump supporters understand the term "conservative".

Sort of like you and libertarian. You claim to be libertarian then shill all day for the mega monster socialist party, the Democrats

LOL - I always giggle when you use the word libertarian. I'm kind of curious though - is it that you're too stupid to understand the concept? Or too dishonest to represent it accurately? I spose it doesn't matter. Troll on.

You didn't say anything. How am I not a libertarian? For example ...

Uh... here's a hint. "Authoritarian" and "libertarian" are opposites. Seriously. Look it up.

Libertarian Party Press release on recent unrest | Libertarian Party

Posse Comitatus by Executive Director on Scribd June 2, 2020 For Immediate Release: President Trump’s implication that he will deploy the American military on American soil to battle Americans is yet another failure in leadership. Given the opportunity to act as peacemaker, the president...

www.lp.org

President Trump’s implication that he will deploy the American military on American soil to battle Americans is yet another failure in leadership. Given the opportunity to act as peacemaker, thepresident chose instead to escalate the division across the country, risking even more violence andbloodshed. Rather than focusing on the crime that was committed and using the investigation as afocus for de-escalation, he took the unconscionable step of openly advocating for the deployment oftrained warriors to fight their own countrymen.

So you have nothing. Exactly as I was obviously pointing out.

That you can't read? Did you follow the link?

If you support Trump, and claim to be libertarian, you are deeply confused. Or dishonest. Which is it?

My point is that you endlessly defend the Democrats, who are worse.

That's a lie. But, as a Trump follower, maybe you just can't help yourself. Feel free to quote me endlessly defending Democrats. I'll wait.

This doesn't contradict what I said that the Democrats are worse than Trump.

You said I don't know what a libertarian is. So examples? What views do I have that are not libertarian. You endlessly arguing for full socialist Marxists. All I said is that's worse than Trump. It is.

 

[Polishprince]

Not surprised. I've always respected George Will, even though I don't always agree - he writes well, and knows his stuff. He's a real conservative.

We sure as hell need more people who can communicate without comical hyperbole, flatulent talking points and grade school-level personal insults.

Or, maybe more to the point, they should be given more air time.

Unfortunately, George Will, and similar thinking republicans like Romney and Kasich, refused to run for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Its not a matter of "Being Given" air time but paying for it. Mr. Will can support Biden, but he shouldn't pretend that he isn't in favor of the Biden Platform since he refused to get his conservative types to run. Where was Mitt this primary season? Or Bush, or Kasich?

If they had something different to offer than Sleepy Joe, they had an opportunity to offer it. Mitt Romney is incredibly wealthy, and Jeb's friends are very well heeled as well. They had the money

I doubt it's about the platforms. It looks like it's about the men.

Trump has forced us to add a new minimum requirement for Presidents: That they can maintain a certain level of dignity, decency and stability.

So you don't think that Jeb or Mitt have the minimal level of "dignity , decency or stability" either?

 

[bendog]

Not surprised. I've always respected George Will, even though I don't always agree - he writes well, and knows his stuff. He's a real conservative.

We sure as hell need more people who can communicate without comical hyperbole, flatulent talking points and grade school-level personal insults.

Or, maybe more to the point, they should be given more air time.

Unfortunately, George Will, and similar thinking republicans like Romney and Kasich, refused to run for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Its not a matter of "Being Given" air time but paying for it. Mr. Will can support Biden, but he shouldn't pretend that he isn't in favor of the Biden Platform since he refused to get his conservative types to run. Where was Mitt this primary season? Or Bush, or Kasich?

If they had something different to offer than Sleepy Joe, they had an opportunity to offer it. Mitt Romney is incredibly wealthy, and Jeb's friends are very well heeled as well. They had the money

I doubt it's about the platforms. It looks like it's about the men.

Trump has forced us to add a new minimum requirement for Presidents: That they can maintain a certain level of dignity, decency and stability.

and the bar before Trump wasn't exactly high. LOL

The affair continued until the late 1940s. But it was not Johnson's last. He once bragged that he’d “had more women by accident than Kennedy ever had on purpose.” When Johnson became President, he continued to cheat on his wife, even in the White House. Once, after Lady Bird walked in on her husband having sex with one of his secretaries on a sofa in the Oval Office, an angry Johnson ordered the Secret Service to install a buzzer system to alert the President whenever his wife was close by. This incident occurred just months after he took office. A former Secret Service agent said, "if we saw Lady Bird heading for the elevator or stairs, we were to ring the buzzer."

Log in

Your life is the best story! Just start your blog today!

potus-geeks.livejournal.com

The 4 Most Impressively Weird Sex Lives of U.S. Presidents

Look, I'm not talking about regularly having sex outside. I'm talking about the weird stuff. The REALLY weird stuff.

www.cracked.com

 

[Coyote]

I would disagree that one is more aligned with corporate interests than the other. They both sunk in deep, once you look below the skin, as you put it. It just shows in different ways.

The first in the amount of money that flows from corporate interests in to coffers of both parties.

OK, that's a fair point. To clarify, I think the people in the Republican party have a lot more libertarian people in it than the Republicans actually elected to office. There are only a few libertarian minded elected Republicans. I have to agree with you on the party itself. There is little difference with the Democrats, they support big corporations not free markets.

The second is the whole idea of free trade and competition. While we are familiar with how the left affects free trade through government regulation, have you you looked at the affect the other side has? When conglomerates are allowed to grow so vast there IS no competition any more. Rather than a healthy competitive ecosystem, you have an elephant controlling the space, and a bunch of mice scurrying for crumbs. The elephant controls the trade and stifles or buys up the competition. You only have to look at how the giant media conglomerates have swallowed up all the smaller presses and most of our media (left and right) is in the hands of a few. Or look at the tech giants and Amazon and social media. Who owns it? Where is the strong competition? Why are anti-trust laws not enforced?

This isn't actually accurate. The reason that conglomerates reach the point of little competition is BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. That's what all those campaign contributions are going to, buying influence. Free markets would mean they can fail, but government doesn't let them do that.

For example the 2008 housing bubble. Government caused the crisis by bullying corporations into making bad loans and then funding them with free government money. Then when the bubble burst, government bailed them out. It was the corporatists in both parties who did that. We who support free markets wouldn't have forced them to make bad loans or bailed them out when they did

Corporate interests have their hands deep in the pockets of both and they manipulate the political landscape to favor their sponsors.

Yes. Remember that when you make arguments like you did about "regulation" as if that's a good thing. Actually, "regulation" is how the government tilts the field in FAVOR of companies, not against them.

I don’t exactly agree, but likely because we differ as to the role of regulation. The housing bubble sounds like a good example of over regulation, but there also examples historically where no regulation allowed monopolies to stifle competition. You see this with the dairy industry for example, and remember the breakup of Ma Bell? When you have large corporate entities killing competition by either buying them out, or squeezing them out you don’t have competition. If you want competition, you need a balance between regulation and freedom.

 

[Coyote]

Not surprised. I've always respected George Will, even though I don't always agree - he writes well, and knows his stuff. He's a real conservative.

We sure as hell need more people who can communicate without comical hyperbole, flatulent talking points and grade school-level personal insults.

Or, maybe more to the point, they should be given more air time.

Unfortunately, George Will, and similar thinking republicans like Romney and Kasich, refused to run for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Its not a matter of "Being Given" air time but paying for it. Mr. Will can support Biden, but he shouldn't pretend that he isn't in favor of the Biden Platform since he refused to get his conservative types to run. Where was Mitt this primary season? Or Bush, or Kasich?

If they had something different to offer than Sleepy Joe, they had an opportunity to offer it. Mitt Romney is incredibly wealthy, and Jeb's friends are very well heeled as well. They had the money

It is very seldom you will get someone to run against an incumbent in either party, for president. A few did attempt it, but they don’t get party support.

 

[Mac1958]

Not surprised. I've always respected George Will, even though I don't always agree - he writes well, and knows his stuff. He's a real conservative.

We sure as hell need more people who can communicate without comical hyperbole, flatulent talking points and grade school-level personal insults.

Or, maybe more to the point, they should be given more air time.

Unfortunately, George Will, and similar thinking republicans like Romney and Kasich, refused to run for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Its not a matter of "Being Given" air time but paying for it. Mr. Will can support Biden, but he shouldn't pretend that he isn't in favor of the Biden Platform since he refused to get his conservative types to run. Where was Mitt this primary season? Or Bush, or Kasich?

If they had something different to offer than Sleepy Joe, they had an opportunity to offer it. Mitt Romney is incredibly wealthy, and Jeb's friends are very well heeled as well. They had the money

I doubt it's about the platforms. It looks like it's about the men.

Trump has forced us to add a new minimum requirement for Presidents: That they can maintain a certain level of dignity, decency and stability.

So you don't think that Jeb or Mitt have the minimal level of "dignity , decency or stability" either?

Quite the opposite. The GOP didn't/doesn't care about that standard. Obviously.

 

[kaz]

I would disagree that one is more aligned with corporate interests than the other. They both sunk in deep, once you look below the skin, as you put it. It just shows in different ways.

The first in the amount of money that flows from corporate interests in to coffers of both parties.

OK, that's a fair point. To clarify, I think the people in the Republican party have a lot more libertarian people in it than the Republicans actually elected to office. There are only a few libertarian minded elected Republicans. I have to agree with you on the party itself. There is little difference with the Democrats, they support big corporations not free markets.

The second is the whole idea of free trade and competition. While we are familiar with how the left affects free trade through government regulation, have you you looked at the affect the other side has? When conglomerates are allowed to grow so vast there IS no competition any more. Rather than a healthy competitive ecosystem, you have an elephant controlling the space, and a bunch of mice scurrying for crumbs. The elephant controls the trade and stifles or buys up the competition. You only have to look at how the giant media conglomerates have swallowed up all the smaller presses and most of our media (left and right) is in the hands of a few. Or look at the tech giants and Amazon and social media. Who owns it? Where is the strong competition? Why are anti-trust laws not enforced?

This isn't actually accurate. The reason that conglomerates reach the point of little competition is BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. That's what all those campaign contributions are going to, buying influence. Free markets would mean they can fail, but government doesn't let them do that.

For example the 2008 housing bubble. Government caused the crisis by bullying corporations into making bad loans and then funding them with free government money. Then when the bubble burst, government bailed them out. It was the corporatists in both parties who did that. We who support free markets wouldn't have forced them to make bad loans or bailed them out when they did

Corporate interests have their hands deep in the pockets of both and they manipulate the political landscape to favor their sponsors.

Yes. Remember that when you make arguments like you did about "regulation" as if that's a good thing. Actually, "regulation" is how the government tilts the field in FAVOR of companies, not against them.

I don’t exactly agree, but likely because we differ as to the role of regulation. The housing bubble sounds like a good example of over regulation, but there also examples historically where no regulation allowed monopolies to stifle competition. You see this with the dairy industry for example, and remember the breakup of Ma Bell? When you have large corporate entities killing competition by either buying them out, or squeezing them out you don’t have competition. If you want competition, you need a balance between regulation and freedom.

You think the dairy industry and ma bell are ... under-regulation?

Dairy has massive government direct support with price support and government greatly restricts competition for dairy farmers both through tariffs and domestic dairy control.

And government by force removed ALL of Ma Bell's competition. They had none. That's free market?

 

[kaz]

Not surprised. I've always respected George Will, even though I don't always agree - he writes well, and knows his stuff. He's a real conservative.

We sure as hell need more people who can communicate without comical hyperbole, flatulent talking points and grade school-level personal insults.

Or, maybe more to the point, they should be given more air time.

Unfortunately, George Will, and similar thinking republicans like Romney and Kasich, refused to run for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Its not a matter of "Being Given" air time but paying for it. Mr. Will can support Biden, but he shouldn't pretend that he isn't in favor of the Biden Platform since he refused to get his conservative types to run. Where was Mitt this primary season? Or Bush, or Kasich?

If they had something different to offer than Sleepy Joe, they had an opportunity to offer it. Mitt Romney is incredibly wealthy, and Jeb's friends are very well heeled as well. They had the money

I doubt it's about the platforms. It looks like it's about the men.

Trump has forced us to add a new minimum requirement for Presidents: That they can maintain a certain level of dignity, decency and stability.

So you don't think that Jeb or Mitt have the minimal level of "dignity , decency or stability" either?

Quite the opposite. The GOP didn't/doesn't care about that standard. Obviously.

There's no way you can listen to Biden, Pelosi or Schummer talk for five minutes and think Democrats give half a shit about dignity, decency or stability. They're deranged and filled with vitriolic hatred

 

[dblack]

What views do I have that are not libertarian.

This topic will do.

You endlessly arguing for full socialist Marxists.

Still lying. Prove it. Quote it or STFU.

 

[Polishprince]

Not surprised. I've always respected George Will, even though I don't always agree - he writes well, and knows his stuff. He's a real conservative.

We sure as hell need more people who can communicate without comical hyperbole, flatulent talking points and grade school-level personal insults.

Or, maybe more to the point, they should be given more air time.

Unfortunately, George Will, and similar thinking republicans like Romney and Kasich, refused to run for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Its not a matter of "Being Given" air time but paying for it. Mr. Will can support Biden, but he shouldn't pretend that he isn't in favor of the Biden Platform since he refused to get his conservative types to run. Where was Mitt this primary season? Or Bush, or Kasich?

If they had something different to offer than Sleepy Joe, they had an opportunity to offer it. Mitt Romney is incredibly wealthy, and Jeb's friends are very well heeled as well. They had the money

I doubt it's about the platforms. It looks like it's about the men.

Trump has forced us to add a new minimum requirement for Presidents: That they can maintain a certain level of dignity, decency and stability.

So you don't think that Jeb or Mitt have the minimal level of "dignity , decency or stability" either?

Quite the opposite. The GOP didn't/doesn't care about that standard. Obviously.

The GOP ran Mitt in 2012, and Mr. Romney was a Pathetic Loser, barely put up a fight.

Mitt got cowed into showing his tax returns, and it earned him zero liberal support or respect. Actually, Romney's taxes showed that he was so patriotic that he didn't eve take all the deductions he was entitled to. Yet he was still ruined by it.

 

[Coyote]

I would disagree that one is more aligned with corporate interests than the other. They both sunk in deep, once you look below the skin, as you put it. It just shows in different ways.

The first in the amount of money that flows from corporate interests in to coffers of both parties.

OK, that's a fair point. To clarify, I think the people in the Republican party have a lot more libertarian people in it than the Republicans actually elected to office. There are only a few libertarian minded elected Republicans. I have to agree with you on the party itself. There is little difference with the Democrats, they support big corporations not free markets.

The second is the whole idea of free trade and competition. While we are familiar with how the left affects free trade through government regulation, have you you looked at the affect the other side has? When conglomerates are allowed to grow so vast there IS no competition any more. Rather than a healthy competitive ecosystem, you have an elephant controlling the space, and a bunch of mice scurrying for crumbs. The elephant controls the trade and stifles or buys up the competition. You only have to look at how the giant media conglomerates have swallowed up all the smaller presses and most of our media (left and right) is in the hands of a few. Or look at the tech giants and Amazon and social media. Who owns it? Where is the strong competition? Why are anti-trust laws not enforced?

This isn't actually accurate. The reason that conglomerates reach the point of little competition is BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. That's what all those campaign contributions are going to, buying influence. Free markets would mean they can fail, but government doesn't let them do that.

For example the 2008 housing bubble. Government caused the crisis by bullying corporations into making bad loans and then funding them with free government money. Then when the bubble burst, government bailed them out. It was the corporatists in both parties who did that. We who support free markets wouldn't have forced them to make bad loans or bailed them out when they did

Corporate interests have their hands deep in the pockets of both and they manipulate the political landscape to favor their sponsors.

Yes. Remember that when you make arguments like you did about "regulation" as if that's a good thing. Actually, "regulation" is how the government tilts the field in FAVOR of companies, not against them.

I don’t exactly agree, but likely because we differ as to the role of regulation. The housing bubble sounds like a good example of over regulation, but there also examples historically where no regulation allowed monopolies to stifle competition. You see this with the dairy industry for example, and remember the breakup of Ma Bell? When you have large corporate entities killing competition by either buying them out, or squeezing them out you don’t have competition. If you want competition, you need a balance between regulation and freedom.

You think the dairy industry and ma bell are ... under-regulation?

Dairy has massive government direct support with price support and government greatly restricts competition for dairy farmers both through tariffs and domestic dairy control.

And government by force removed ALL of Ma Bell's competition. They had none. That's free market?

Yes....Dairy does. But who really benefits? You have a few big Dairy entities, who have squeezed out the competition, and can then lobby the government for even better policies in their favor. The free market creates these giants, kills competition and government policies sustain that status quo And prevents new competition.

What did you have before there was any regulation, such as anti-trust laws? Huge monopolies developed. Don’t you think that is happening again? Do twitter and fb have any real competition? Who has lobbying power and provides large amounts of cash to campaign coffers in both parties? There is something with the system.

 

[kaz]

What views do I have that are not libertarian.

This topic will do.

You endlessly arguing for full socialist Marxists.

Still lying. Prove it. Quote it or STFU.

Well, you certainly proved my point on that you can't see what the Democrats are