If Trump were in the public eye being Trump and causing these kinds of things and trolling people on Twitter and being weird it would be very entertaining. But doing all that as president is a mess. It's just not where he should be. He won fair and square so it is what it is, but I would hope even the Hillary haters see that. I kind of like the dope, just not as president.

He told the "porn star" in 2011, long before he was president, that he was afraid of sharks. Trump does troll, but this is not an example of trolling.

The evangelicals say the porn star is fine, but the sharks must go.

"Can you believe evangelicals prefer a guy who cheated on his wife with a porn star over the continuing march toward unlimited tax payer funded abortions? What's up with that?"

I have decided that I was inoculated, because I knew a few like Trump before Trump. They might be smart in a narrow business domain (or they might not!) but they bluster their way through that domain and expect to do the same outside it. I don't like that, and so didn't like Trump, even in the Taj Mahal days.

One of the key aspects of intellect is knowing where your expertise stops, but it seems like a healthy third of the population don't do that. Of course, most don't fall in it so spectacularly as Trump. They survive their pretensions.

Next time let's pick a President who can do more than parrot a Fox News feedback loop (to assuage the incompetence he must now feel daily).

So which is better? A medium grade intelect like Obama who really thinks he knows how to run everything, or a medium grade intelect like Trump who delegates things to the experts to run.

A medium grade intellect who doesn't act like a narcissistic petulant baby.

To go meta on you, my rationale for not liking Trump, is that the guy can't put together a coherent rationale for pretty much anything.

The tax plan? People like tax cuts, but the economic growth-for-debt argument never survived a rationale. Friggin' Mnuchin pretended he had a secret one written, until oops he didn't.

And so we get tax cuts and more debt just because.

Oops, missed my reply.

"A medium grade intellect who doesn’t act like a narcissistic petulant baby."

narcissistic petulant baby describes both Obama and Trump

"A medium grade intellect who doesn’t act like a narcissistic petulant baby."

Obama is gone. Can't we just forget about him?

I would say Bob and TMC are better than that, but I don't think I'd be honest doing so.

A "rationale" is a strong word and concept.

A rationale is a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief: "He explained the rationale behind the new policy."

Obama was a great one for providing rationales. You may not have liked them, but he usually started by naming facts, working through options, making logical connections, and arriving somewhere. From uninsured people to Obamacare, whatever.

Compared to what? Immigration negotiations famously blew up last week as Trump talked to Graham and Durbin and Miller and Kelly and spun like a weathervane, agreeing with each in turn. At the end it was agreed Trump didn't have a policy, leaving a big fat hole in the center of government.

Or the Wall? Every darn attempt to justify a physical wall fails as studies show less money spent elsewhere catches more illegals. But Trump fans "give him" the wall because they know this is who he is.

The anti-rationale President.

"Obama was a great one for providing rationales. You may not have liked them"


"but he usually started by naming facts"

Not often. Usually something masquerading as a fact that holds up to 3 minutes of scrutiny if your not familiar with the subject. If familiar, you already know it's not true.

"working through options" Just one. His own.

"making logical connections" No.

" and arriving somewhere." Only where he wanted to end up in the first place.

I think all you are doing TMC, is demonstrating that a rationale that ends up left can't be accepted, or even processed, by someone far right.

On the other hand I, the moderate, can process quite a few right sided opinions and rationales from Tyler. I might not agree in the end on some of them, but I don't have to hide behind that irrational wall of "no, no, no!" I can say yes to the facts and logic which make sense to me.

But Trump doesn't even try to appeal on that level. His stump speech and now Twitter schtick is all there is.

Go back to the travel ban. Was there a rationale that these were the most dangerous travelers? No, just the idiot connection that "Muslims are bad and these are Muslims." Which of course idiots loved.

To borrow a bit from Thor or Viking or one of those, Obama might have been trying to appeal to the 110 IQ voter, but Trump isn't aiming nearly that high.

"Every darn attempt to justify a physical wall fails as studies show less money spent elsewhere catches more illegals."

Any examples? The goal is not to catch illegals but to keep them out. Works like a charm in Israel, Hungary, etc.

This is what I'm talking about. A rationale on cost and benefit:

"Physical barriers certainly have a significant place in border security. But any major expansion of the existing barriers should be done in the context of cost-benefit analysis. By any reasonable accounting, the surge of spending on border enforcement has already reached a point of diminishing return."


It continues:

"Cracking down on visa overstays and on employers who hire illegal workers would do far more to improve immigration enforcement than spending an additional $12 billion or more on steel and concrete."

It has been asked before. Why not crack down on employers instead?

Mises Institute has a rationale as well:


Anonymous January 24, 2018 at 2:05 pm

Obama was a great one for providing rationales. You may not have liked them, but he usually started by naming facts, working through options, making logical connections, and arriving somewhere. From uninsured people to Obamacare, whatever.

No he wasn't. He was good at telling a story - a narrative as I believe his team liked to call it. Obamacare is a great example. Nothing he said was particularly factually based. But he did sound very plausible. Trump does not sound plausible.

Compared to what? Immigration negotiations famously blew up last week as Trump talked to Graham and Durbin and Miller and Kelly and spun like a weathervane, agreeing with each in turn. At the end it was agreed Trump didn’t have a policy, leaving a big fat hole in the center of government.

And yet out of all of that, Trump comes out ahead. He faced down the Democrats who deployed their ultimate weapon against him. And it didn't work. The Democrats are in utter disarray with the Base turning on their Representatives, with the Dreamers picketing Schumer's house - not Trump's I notice, and with Democrat moderates breaking ranks. Trump is now free to do pretty much what he likes on immigration. So if he doesn't have a policy, how come he is winning all the time? OK maybe he does not have a policy? How does he do this? He is the Jack Sparrow of Washington. Is it more humiliating to be beaten by a buffoon who does not know what he is doing or a genius who merely acts like one?

Or the Wall? Every darn attempt to justify a physical wall fails as studies show less money spent elsewhere catches more illegals. But Trump fans “give him” the wall because they know this is who he is.

Who cares? Any paper measure will remain a paper measure and can be undone by the next administration. Or even by the Deep State while this President is in office. But a Wall is going to be there for a long time. So build it. Who cares what the so called experts - who invariably have turned out to be lying partisan hacks - say?

The anti-rationale President.

And yet we are not quite sick of winning but we can see a point where we will be.

You did that wrong. Obamacare was about getting more insurance coverage. It got more insurance coverage. It worked in a very basic sense.

What you want to do, is say "yes, it increased coverage, but at too high a cost." Though I believe it cost a lot less than Mr. Trump's trillion in new debt?

Or, you could argue as Tyler does, that "coverage isn't health" and that there are inefficiencies in that way.

But don't pretend there was no rationale. There was, just one you didn't like. It was a way to expand health care coverage in the US and it did.

Anonymous, I watch Fox from time to time and "it" is smarter than Trump. So don't bash Fox. If Trump listened to Fox, he'd know that -- as mskings says above -- he won and now he can stop the narcissistic trolling and start governing like an adult.

I'm glad Trump doesn't take any crap from the Trump Derangement syndrome far left crowd, but he doesn't have to be an infant either.

Sure, sure. Ignore the tweets. Blame his critics.

But the Wall is still the one thing he wants from immigration reform.


So give him the wall. Listening to the Krugmanite left who was for paying to dig and refill holes at breakfast, suddenly care abouy cost effectiveness is obnoxious and hilarious. Give him the wall. But the Democrats can't and won't because the "Browning of America" electoral strategy of population displacement depends on border crossings leading to Democrat votes after an 18 year delay.

Thomas, I think most interesting thing on this page is that no one took up "Why not crack down on employers instead?"

We know, why. Right? It is all a farce, and Trump still wants illegals to trim the hedges at his various golf courses.

"So give him the wall."

I'd rather Congress decide what to spend money on. There's at least the chance that they'll choose drones.

Woke @BillKristol is 🔥 https://t.co/M9sBCpCzum

I don;t see how having a president who is fun is a problem, on the contrary. To be fair, the fun is not his work alone, it is the predictable way (-> comics of repetition) in which every of his bad teen joke provoke a storm of indignant reactions of very serious people of all types. For example he says "I have a bigger button than Kim" and predictably, you see for one week in the NY editorials by pundits, opinions by scholars and analysis by journalists on this single tweet, all replete with outrage and virtue-signaling. That's a form of comics I think will never get tired of.

Agreed, the trolling he and Kim do back and forth is hilarious, and the media outrage over it is more so.

When I was young, presidents were expected to be dignified and worth of emulation. But now a reality ahow star is president. It gnaws my innards.

His tweets are a big part of how he got to be President. Why would he change that? It's just like FDR's fireside chats.

Trump needs to tweet because the media lies about him. All the time. 24/7 in the case of CNN. Hysterically. They hate him and they want to bring him down like they did with Nixon - and pretty much succeeded in stopping George W's agenda.

So he needs to keep doing it. It is yuugely successful. Trump is winning bigly because of it.

As for people who object, let's keep in mind what they do find socially acceptable - how many times did Bill Clinton fly to the pedophile's island on the Lolita Express without his bodyguards again? How did the Clintons parlay a successful political career into assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars? And here is an example of a political leader the Left loves: no one is complaining about his tweets:


Seems like Trump has jumped the shark.

And it was a yuuuuge shark. A record breaker, for sure. Nobody has ever made that kind of jump.

Perhaps he will have a cameo in the next Sharknado film?

Motivation for human behavior is weird, if predictable. There are roughly 323 million people in America, roughly 7.6 billion people worldwide, so it's not surprising that some of them are motivated for the most ridiculous reasons. That's why advertising, and politicians. Of course, it's also evidence that humans don't behave rationally as economists assume but are motivated for reasons that defy rationality. Sumner objects to Cowen's Rule # 3 for reasons that are, well, irrational, so there's hope.

On the shark thing though, it could be attention and recency.

"Hey, I like sharks ... maybe I should be doing something if they are under threat."

(I do not like sharks that much.)

Maybe, but Willem of Occam inclines to the "knee-jerk" explanation.

So that is what we have become. A narion controlled by a Banana Republic tyrant.

Banana republic....like Brazil?

According to scientists, Brazil is actually a stable democracy, unlike its neighbours. Suffices to say, while their neighbours were destroyed by constant civil wars, Brazil kept the same benevolent Emperor for almost half a century.

'their'? Not 'our'?

The character is evolving. It's fascinating.

Also, 'scientists'?

I really don't know what you are talking about. I am a fellow American of yours.

If you are American why do you spell 'neighbours' like a foreigner?

Because I like that spelling better, it seems more logical. To be American is to bee free from mimdless ukases.

And yet, still unable to afford a phone with a large enough keyboard. If only you were Brazilian. Oh well, at least your country invented the airplane and has the best food in the world.

I really don't know what you are talking about.

I'm talking about the United States, your country and mine. We proudly invented the airplane at Kitty Hawk, and we have the best food in the world! We also invented the typewriter, discovered the prion, and defeated the perfidious Brazilians in the Great Southern War of 1891. Surely when you were in school you learned the rousing anthem from that war, "Benjy's Boys"?

It is not true! We have never fought a war against Brazil! We were allies against Hitler and against the Dominican Republic in 1965. And I guess you've never eaten Mediterranean food.

"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Trump the Barbarian on what is good in life. "To pass a tax bill, to stop a shutdown, to see the Schumers driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

And to grab their p***ies!

Of course, you refer to Bill Clinton.

. . . to revoke the (ACA) individual mandate.

. . . to see the economy and stock market boom.

He must be superman. He killed a couple hundred jihadis while the government was shut down.

I don't grab anything, I just have them blow me.

You mean Trump was just bragging on tape, not actually telling the truth, since he in reality, he can't get any without paying for it?

Clinton is laughing while pointing out the best parts of the Starr Report to a new generation.

So that is what we become, Cimmeria. As in a stupid pulp!!

What is your mouse's name? Ask her/him to speak more slowly while you're typing.

Grow up, freak!

I apologize.


By the way, and tenuously related, I've discovered an easy and yummy breakfast. White rice, a couple eggs over easy, with Otona-no Frikake on top.

A yummy fishy taste, and who knows, maybe that "bonito" really is shark.

PB&J on toast is the breakfast of champions. If not available, last night's pizza works.

Cold pizza and black coffee are good, but not egg-rice-furikake good.

(one can of course heat that leftover pizza and put a fried egg on top there too .. would furikake be a bridge too far .. or awesome?)

Donating money for sharks? ha

Sounds like a year-plus later, Hillary-worshipping whack-a-doodles persist in racing around with their hair on fire.

Trump 2020! .

You're the worst of the bunch, so I'll ask you directly. Obviously you preferred anyone winning to Hillary. And you got your wish, she lost. She's done, forever. So, are you glad Trump is president, or would you prefer a different Republican? Would you prefer Mike Pence for example? Why do you keep talking about that loser Hillary?

Crickets. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I take that as a compliment.

These are a few of the things that make me glad: rising consumer confidence; lower taxes, higher stock, housing, gold prices; lower unemployment; fewer regulations; fewer illegal invaders; defeated ISIS; more rational federal judges, etc.

Pence would have been better than any of the other 2016 GOP losers.

Judge the man by his accomplishments not his tweets.

I am far right. I listen to WBAI AM radio in NYC - they are almost as far left as I am out to the right. They hate the Clintons, too. Listen to the BAI types, me, and the lying media and see who you believe.

Of course, if one hates America, likely one hates someone, like Trump, that puts Americans first.

You're still not answering the question, do you actually like that knucklehead as president, or would you be happier with a non-Trump Republican doing all the same accomplishments (all the stuff you listed would have happened under just about any Rep with a fully Rep Congress)?

He may be a knucjklehead, but he gets things done.

You guys had your knuckleheads - Clinton and Obama - who screwed up. Who would you have preferred over them?

I thought Trump was a progressive talking like a conservative solely to get my vote. Ergo, I was for Ted Cruz before Trump. However, Cruz, like they did to Romney, would have been shot down: he wouldn't have ridden out the trivia and libels as did Trump. Likely, Cruz would not have had the same, positive effects and he would have allowed himself daily to be beaten down by the lying media and et al.

I could not be happier.

So you like Trump better than any other Rep. Got it.

Lighten up, Shirley. I like him. Name any other republican that could do it. Dubya Bush didn't do it. GHWBUSh didn't do it. Jeb (I won't vote for another Bush dynast) couldn't do it. Ted Cruz couldn't do it. Christie is a democrat.

I like him because evil people (not you) are deliciously deranged over him.

He's been unfairly treated from day-one. Such resistance to an orderly, peaceful change in administration hasn't been experienced since 1861. Thank God, the resistance is composed of imbeciles. If things go the wrong way in 2020, you are going to experience resistance.

If you're against Trump, you're on the wrong side of history.

I call him a colorful character. You say "knucklehead," as you wish: emotions over logic. His qualification number one is he is not a democrat, or a RINO, or a cocktail party conservative.

It's not only never corrupt, incompetent Hillary. It's never any Democrat.

I can't. Please name a Republican that would not fold like a cheap camera under constant media and academia lies or achieve what Trump has accomplished.

Go ahead call me a white nationalist, white privilege, KKK, alt-right, racist, nativist, populist, or whatever other card you like.

msgkings January 24, 2018 at 2:02 pm

(all the stuff you listed would have happened under just about any Rep with a fully Rep Congress)?

Of course none of that would have happened under any other Republican. The media would not have allowed it.

Every time I turn on CNN and hear the wailing of their women, I love Trump more. He is making the Leftists - especially in the mainstream media - suffer. He is destroying their intellectually coherence, their sanity and especially their credibility with each and every tweet. Just look at the subject of this thread. The man is the God Emperor. No one else can do what he does.

Trump has the potential to be a truly transformative president, if the lesson libs took away was "see, you shouldn't take this bullshit all that seriously." Trump is proof positive against the West Wing/House of Cards trope that DC is packed to the gills with 3D chess Machiavellian super-geniuses.

But somehow that doesn't seem to be the lesson they're learning, and I can't understand why.

Instead of building a wall, I wish Trump would build a giant shark tank, and that he and the entire "resistance" would then jump into it together. Hard to decide which side is more annoying.


Really? Is this what counts as news? No numbers. Just statements from people with a vested interest in publicity and ginning up donations by latching on to whatever is trendy.

“We have been receiving [unspecified number of ] donations in Trump’s name since the story was published,” said Cynthia Wilgren, chief executive officer and co-founder of Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, "Most of the money [no % or number] has come from first-time donors," she added.

Captain Paul Watson, founder of the Burbank, Calif. based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, said his group had received “quite a few” donations from benefactors who specifically mentioned Trump’s comments.

No evidence that shark charities have been "flooded" with donations.


This is what counts as blogging.

Yeah. So true. Although, I was referring to the linked article at MarketWatch.com. I know. I know. It’s not a serious news source.

Shark conservationists are just the worst, with their "sharks are just big puppies" unscientific propaganda. One of my favorites is the claim that sharks attack out of mistaken identity, as if they know what the shark was thinking when it ripped someone in two. There's a video on YouTube of an advocate's calf getting ripped off from standing next to multiple sharks to try to prove that "lol they're really just harmless guys."

Sharks are magnificent animals that should be protected and attacks are indeed rare but the bullshit that advocates push makes me roll my eyes.

Yeah, like that ridiculous claim about it being safer to swim in an ocean of sharks than play golf. Sure, if that ocean contains the 98% of sharks that either aren't big enough to bite us, or don't ever do so anyway.

I believe you’re referring to Eric Ritter, shark “expert” and self-professed “avid conservationist” whose theory of slow breathing preventing shark attacks (“they attack because they smell our fear”) was significantly weakened in the video below:

His insane web site:

Sharks were there long before the dinosaurs and they likely will still be around long after us. Homo Sapiens is the endangered specie.

Which is pretty much what Trump says. But why should we care, they aren’t cute like wolves, large cats, foxes, etc.. and they are not particularly fantastic either.

But I fail to see why sharks, crocodillians, and mosquitoes get so much love from people who “love science?” I have read scientific analysis stating that the chief ecological benefit of alligators is thet they prey on Nutria, which are artificially introduced invasive species, and the only other mentioned benefit was that their burrowing increased water retention during periods of drought. As to sharks the ecological role is that of biological control of large marine fish populations, who are currently all being overpredated by humans anyway. And I have rarely read anything on the subject that did not claim that they keep populations healthy by preying on the weak and sick, but the only citations I find are to now discredited research on wolves.

Comments for this post are closed