The wide gaping difference between Nationalism and Fascism...

[DiogenesLamp]

It is the same argument made by Alexander Hamilton. SEE: My Tagline.

To answer that, one must look at a President trump.   

...

Bringing 2020.. and hopefully ALL conservative seeing clearly this time.

I did not follow your argument.   You needlessly multiplied the complexities and invoked disputable probabilities beyond what I can effectively grasp.     I also do not think that your argument very well supported the premise that it would be good for Hillary to be President.   


My argument in favor of a Hillary Presidency is much simpler.


https://youtu.be/-OcMwfuTuzw

[DiogenesLamp]

No Hillary is no tyrant, not even a fascist.  Hillaey is just a good Ol'e coruptocrat.. she used to be a far left ideologue.... but now.. She must get elected to stay out of prison and steal some more from us.

Have you ever heard of Filegate?   


What thing is there in Hillary's history that can possibly make you think she won't be a Dictator?


Are you familiar with what the left has increasingly become?   

[Fantom]

I did not follow your argument.   You needlessly multiplied the complexities and invoked disputable probabilities beyond what I can effectively grasp.     I also do not think that your argument very well supported the premise that it would be good for Hillary to be President.   


My argument in favor of a Hillary Presidency is much simpler.


https://youtu.be/-OcMwfuTuzw

Opps... guess my replie was worth more that the $0.50 you get paid a post to shill for trump.

Thanxs for playin'.

A Simple Bricklayer.

P.S. Is that your youtube?.. If not than you are a plagerist as well in claiming it as your argument. What you really mean is you have no original content.

[Fantom]

Have you ever heard of Filegate?   


What thing is there in Hillary's history that can possibly make you think she won't be a Dictator?


Are you familiar with what the left has increasingly become?

I've heard all of it ..believe me, and I am just learning of all trumps foulness. Same coin.. two sides.

[DiogenesLamp]

Opps... guess my replie was worth more that the $0.50 you get paid a post to shill for trump.

You are,  without any actual evidence,   accusing me of being both a Trump shill,  and *paid*.   

By the logic inherent in your statement,   that must therefore make you a "paid Hillary shill."   


I very much doubt that is true.   I think it is your logic which has the error in it.   



I do not care for Trump.    I am merely grown up enough to realize that his is the train we are going to have to ride if we don't want Hillary.   

[DiogenesLamp]

I've heard all of it ..believe me, and I am just learning of all trumps foulness. Same coin.. two sides.

You have an example where Trump used the power of government to get private government files to use against his political enemies?   


Well out with it man!   We need this information to be revealed immediately!   


If you have proof of this claim,   I will join you in your boycott of the election.   


On the other hand,  if this is just some "talking out your @$$",   then you really ought to stop it.    It is just as unethical to make up bullsh*t about Trump as it was for Trump to make up bullsh*t about Cruz. 


Ethical people should not do such things. 

[Fantom]

You are,  without any actual evidence,   accusing me of being both a Trump shill,  and *paid*.   

By the logic inherent in your statement,   that must therefore make you a "paid Hillary shill."   


I very much doubt that is true.   I think it is your logic which has the error in it.   



I do not care for Trump.    I am merely grown up enough to realize that his is the train we are going to have to ride if we don't want Hillary.

You asked for a reply. I gave one, detailed.

Maybe you can actually rebut it. Or offer another.. your alternative. Something other than a documentary far removed in time and space from America... where are you posting from?...Hungary?

That you did not, tells me all I need to know about you.. that and your wiggling and squirming. As well as the pre paid advert you posted at the end of your current post.

Take your "trump train" and shove it shill.

[DiogenesLamp]

You asked for a reply. I gave one, detailed.

Maybe you can actually rebut it. Or offer another.. your alternative. Something other than a documentary far removed in time and space from America...

I guess the point was too subtle for you to grasp from that video.   That's a shame,  because I thought my response was rather clever... and funny. 


My point in support of a Hillary Presidency is that she will cause things to become so bad that people will revolt and do to her what the Romanians did to their Dictator couple. 

Well,   *I* thought it was funny anyway. 

where are you posting from?...Hungary?

No,  but i'm getting Hungry.   I am probably not going to do this for much longer.   The real world beckons. 

That you did not, tells me all I need to know about you.. that and your wiggling and squirming. As well as the pre paid advert you posted at the end of your current post.

Okay,  now i'm going to have to go look and see what you are talking about.   Hang on a minute. 

Okay,  I went back and looked,   and I can't figure out what you mean when you refer to a "pre paid advert you posted at the end of your current post."      Whatever it is you are seeing,   i'm not seeing it. 

Take your "trump train" and shove it shill.

If you want to ride the Hillary train,   that's fine.   But do not labor under the delusion  that you aren't going to be riding one train or the other. 

[The_Reader_David]

... There is no bigger Capitalist than Mr. Trump, and certainly he is a Nationalist...

The problem is capitalists (big or small c) are not necessarily supporters of liberty -- not even of free-markets.  Trump was quite happy to use the power of the state to dispossess a widow of her home to build a casino on the land, an exemplar of the phenomenon called "crony capitalism," in which moneyed interests (capitalists) with political connections use the power of the state to gain advantage against competitors -- to be distinguished from free-market or laissez-faire capitalism in which the state does not act in the market on behalf of anyone.

Fascists and even the left, post-Soviet collapse, are quite happy with crony capitalism:  the wealthy are co-opted to go along with whatever the state's agenda is for fear of losing the advantage cronyism with the ruling fascist or left party conveys.  (cf. the rapidity with which "corporate America", Trump included, jumped on the band-wagon for letting those suffering from the delusion that they were "born in the wrong body" use the restroom or locker room corresponding to their delusional "gender identity".)

[INVAR]

The problem is capitalists (big or small c) are not necessarily supporters of liberty -- not even of free-markets.  Trump was quite happy to use the power of the state to dispossess a widow of her home to build a casino on the land, an exemplar of the phenomenon called "crony capitalism," in which moneyed interests (capitalists) with political connections use the power of the state to gain advantage against competitors -- to be distinguished from free-market or laissez-faire capitalism in which the state does not act in the market on behalf of anyone.

Fascists and even the left, post-Soviet collapse, are quite happy with crony capitalism:  the wealthy are co-opted to go along with whatever the state's agenda is for fear of losing the advantage cronyism with the ruling fascist or left party conveys.  (cf. the rapidity with which "corporate America", Trump included, jumped on the band-wagon for letting those suffering from the delusion that they were "born in the wrong body" use the restroom or locker room corresponding to their delusional "gender identity".)

Exactly and Amen.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No,  McCain won that primary fair and square because all the other candidates self destructed before the primary ended.   The establishment did not choose him,   the people chose him,   and they chose him because all the other choices were worse.  (Huckabee,  Romney,  etc.)   Now i'm also pretty sure the "establishment"  didn't want Trump.   They started out with Jeb,   went to Rubio,  then Kaisch,   and finally after a great deal of frustration,  ended up backing Ted Cruz. 
Trump pulled some dirty tricks and wrecked Cruz's chances,   but now he is the last man standing.   

Amen.  You are exactly right about why McCain won.  And same about Trump.  I've been banging "the people chose those nominees" drum for a long time, but there's a lot of opposition to that because it doesn't fit with the preferred narrative of "the establishment" controlling/dictating everything.  Because if you buy into "the establishment" as the villain, you can fix that far more easily than if the problem is the voters themselves.  And the solutions are different as well.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't even understand this argument.   Hillary would do every thing in her power to be a dictator.   Hillary would be exactly wrong in every policy decision she would make.    Hillary would deliberately and methodically activate the tools and powers of government to harass and destroy us. 

I agree that Trump is very likely to be better than Hillary, and if the only thing that concerned me was who would have the Presidency in the next four years, I'd vote Trump.  But there are two other points that complicate things:

1) As I said -- and you didn't really address this -- I expect whomever gets elected to have a very rough time of it, to only serve one term, and for the opposition party to do very well in 2018 and 2020.  We'll probably be in an expansionary cycle by then, so we're looking at 8 years for whomever wins in 2020.  Based on that longer terms view, 2020 could be another opportunity for us to finally elect a conservative.  If we elect Trump in November, I see very little chance of that happening in 2020.  The chance of getting a good conservative for 8 years is a big deal and an opportunity that might not come again.

2)  As rotten as Hillary is, we are still going to have a Republican House at the minimum.  We may even have a Republican Senate too, and 2018 is likely to keep things the same or even better for us.  That will make it very difficult for Hillary to enact anything as wide-ranging as ObamaCare, or the Stimulus, etc., both of which required Democratic majorities in both chambers.  I understand that she could still cause a lot of problems, especially with the Supreme Court.

So in terms of the merits, the question for me is whether 4 years of a constrained Hillary will be better or worse than the 8 years of an unconstrained Democrat I think we're likely to get in 2020 if we elect Trump.

Of course, the fly in all this ointment is that my view of 2020 is admittedly speculative, and Hillary is a certainty.  That's what makes it a tough choice.

 

[Mesaclone]

I agree that Trump is very likely to be better than Hillary, and if the only thing that concerned me was who would have the Presidency in the next four years, I'd vote Trump.  But there are two other points that complicate things:

1) As I said -- and you didn't really address this -- I expect whomever gets elected to have a very rough time of it, to only serve one term, and for the opposition party to do very well in 2018 and 2020.  We'll probably be in an expansionary cycle by then, so we're looking at 8 years for whomever wins in 2020.  Based on that longer terms view, 2020 could be another opportunity for us to finally elect a conservative.  If we elect Trump in November, I see very little chance of that happening in 2020.  The chance of getting a good conservative for 8 years is a big deal and an opportunity that might not come again.

2)  As rotten as Hillary is, we are still going to have a Republican House at the minimum.  We may even have a Republican Senate too, and 2018 is likely to keep things the same or even better for us.  That will make it very difficult for Hillary to enact anything as wide-ranging as ObamaCare, or the Stimulus, etc., both of which required Democratic majorities in both chambers.  I understand that she could still cause a lot of problems, especially with the Supreme Court.

So in terms of the merits, the question for me is whether 4 years of a constrained Hillary will be better or worse than the 8 years of an unconstrained Democrat I think we're likely to get in 2020 if we elect Trump.

Of course, the fly in all this ointment is that my view of 2020 is admittedly speculative, and Hillary is a certainty.  That's what makes it a tough choice.

Given the slot open for Scalia, and stories of Ginsberg's age and intent to retire soon...plus Breyer and Kennedy surpassing the 80 year mark...its likely the next president will appoint at least 3 new justices over the next 4 years. We cannot afford to miss that train, because those 3...be they liberal...will create a 5 seat liberal majority with Sotomayor and Kagan that will surely endure for the next 2-3 decades if not longer. Further, I would suggest waiting to see who emerges a the VP pick before making any big decisons, Bill, and if that is a solid conservative we can expect that person to at least be the leading contender to for the Presidency post-Trump. It will also tell us a great deal about where a Trump presidency will reside ideologically...because Rogue that he may be, he still cannot escape the political realities involved in maintaining support in the legislature and within his party base.

We have to have deep concerns about court appointments beyond the SCJ. 8 years of radical appointments has done great damage to those who respect and hold to the Bill of Rights...another 4 in succession under Hillary could tip several of the District Courts in absolutely the wrong direction...and these courts collectively set far more precedents than does the SCJ. So it is incredibly urgent that we stop this liberal wave in the judiciary IMMEDIATELY in my opinion.

On the positive side of the agenda, if Trump can win this thing and we hold the Senate, 3 new conservative justices sets in place constitutional protections for all of our key rights for a very long time. Thomas, Alito and Roberts joined by even TWO solid conservatives moves this thing firmly in the direction of originalist intent. Add a 3rd and our judiciary is secure at the SCJ level for, most likely, the rest of our lives.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

There is no viable third candidate,  therefore there is no third choice.   




Start Trek is a fantasy,  and that is where this sort of thinking belongs.    We will get two choices in November.   Trump will be one of them,   and if Hillary doesn't get indicted or lose to Sanders   or die of stroke or something,   she will be the other.

So which member of parliment did the colonist have to elect so King George would set them free? Since we aren't still petitioning parliment to ease up on us, I'm thinking they took a 3rd option (not to say that is the best option open to us today of course); there are always options. You passed over my earlier example so I thought Star Trek would be more your speed.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We have to have deep concerns about court appointments beyond the SCJ. 8 years of radical appointments has done great damage to those who respect and hold to the Bill of Rights...another 4 in succession under Hillary could tip several of the District Courts in absolutely the wrong direction...and these courts collectively set far more precedents than does the SCJ. So it is incredibly urgent that we stop this liberal wave in the judiciary IMMEDIATELY in my opinion.

On the positive side of the agenda, if Trump can win this thing and we hold the Senate, 3 new conservative justices sets in place constitutional protections for all of our key rights for a very long time. Thomas, Alito and Roberts joined by even TWO solid conservatives moves this thing firmly in the direction of originalist intent. Add a 3rd and our judiciary is secure at the SCJ level for, most likely, the rest of our lives.

I respect that point.  The Supreme Court is incredibly important.  I'd add that the other aspect of a Trump Presidency that hasn't gotten as much attention is his cabinet -- not in terms of "advice", but in terms of their control over the regulatory state.  Having good Republicans in those cabinet posts is incredibly important.  Also, the military, and the rapidly accelerating push towards making it an engine of social change. I strongly suspect Trump is the kind of guy who will leave all that stuff to the generals, and eliminate the mandates.  It is likewise essential for that to happen quickly because once there are too many women in combat arms careers, it cannot be as easily reversed.

I know there are naysayers out there who say "well, how do you know his appointees will be any better than Hillary's"?  The answer is that is impossible to "know", but it looks like the folks he is gathering around himself as advisors/allies are still much more conservative than what we'd see with Hillary.  So in terms of "which is more likely to appoint people I like", it isn't even close.  Hillary is a firm 0% on that.

So, these are the things that keep me open to Trump, because if I had to go just on him, it would be a very easy decision to just sit this one out.

Unfortunately, I think his campaign looks increasingly like a trainwreck.  I think he'd have a decent shot if he just stopped saying dumb things, but that appears to be asking too much.  So regardless of how people like me eventually vote, I think he's losing an awful lot of otherwise winnable votes.

@Mesaclone

[Mesaclone]

I respect that point.  The Supreme Court is incredibly important.  I'd add that the other aspect of a Trump Presidency that hasn't gotten as much attention is his cabinet -- not in terms of "advice", but in terms of their control over the regulatory state.  Having good Republicans in those cabinet posts is incredibly important.  Also, the military, and the rapidly accelerating push towards making it an engine of social change. I strongly suspect Trump is the kind of guy who will leave all that stuff to the generals, and eliminate the mandates.  It is likewise essential for that to happen quickly because once there are too many women in combat arms careers, it cannot be as easily reversed.

I know there are naysayers out there who say "well, how do you know his appointees will be any better than Hillary's"?  The answer is that is impossible to "know", but it looks like the folks he is gathering around himself as advisors/allies are still much more conservative than what we'd see with Hillary.  So in terms of "which is more likely to appoint people I like", it isn't even close.  Hillary is a firm 0% on that.

So, these are the things that keep me open to Trump, because if I had to go just on him, it would be a very easy decision to just sit this one out.

Unfortunately, I think his campaign looks increasingly like a trainwreck.  I think he'd have a decent shot if he just stopped saying dumb things, but that appears to be asking too much.  So regardless of how people like me eventually vote, I think he's losing an awful lot of otherwise winnable votes.

@Mesaclone

Amen on the highlighted portion, brother.

He has to learn to articulate things with SOME modicum of political correctness...which sounds contradictory as I do despise the concept of PC in general, but there is a line that needs to not be crossed. Maybe this last one will drive home that point and he'll use SOME more care with the words he chooses.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

He has to learn to articulate things with SOME modicum of political correctness...which sounds contradictory as I do despise the concept of PC in general, but there is a line that needs to not be crossed. Maybe this last one will drive home that point and he'll use SOME more care with the words he chooses.

Jonah Goldberg @JonahNRO
.@Timodc @amyewalter What's the difference between New Donald Trump and New Coke?
New Coke actually existed for a while.

Trump is 70 years old.  He ain't going to learn.

[Mesaclone]

Trump is 70 years old.  He ain't going to learn.

I know a lot of 70 year olds who would strongly disagree with that mentality. As would I.

[DiogenesLamp]

I meant to answer this earlier,  but real life intervenes sometimes.  :)   

I agree that Trump is very likely to be better than Hillary, and if the only thing that concerned me was who would have the Presidency in the next four years, I'd vote Trump.  But there are two other points that complicate things:

1) As I said -- and you didn't really address this -- I expect whomever gets elected to have a very rough time of it, to only serve one term, and for the opposition party to do very well in 2018 and 2020.  We'll probably be in an expansionary cycle by then, so we're looking at 8 years for whomever wins in 2020.  Based on that longer terms view, 2020 could be another opportunity for us to finally elect a conservative.  If we elect Trump in November, I see very little chance of that happening in 2020.  The chance of getting a good conservative for 8 years is a big deal and an opportunity that might not come again.

Okay,  Now I have a better grasp of your thinking on this,  and were we in the 1980s or 1990s,  I might find that argument persuasive,  but I see this current time period as being very dangerous.   I see the geo political situation deteriorating to a 1960s cold war mentality,  (but with more,  and more dangerous players!)   and I see the economic situation as 1929ish.    You have more confidence in the future stability of this nation and this world than do I. 

I think we are on the razor's edge of catastrophe here.   
 

2)  As rotten as Hillary is, we are still going to have a Republican House at the minimum.  We may even have a Republican Senate too, and 2018 is likely to keep things the same or even better for us.  That will make it very difficult for Hillary to enact anything as wide-ranging as ObamaCare, or the Stimulus, etc., both of which required Democratic majorities in both chambers.  I understand that she could still cause a lot of problems, especially with the Supreme Court.

So in terms of the merits, the question for me is whether 4 years of a constrained Hillary will be better or worse than the 8 years of an unconstrained Democrat I think we're likely to get in 2020 if we elect Trump.

Of course, the fly in all this ointment is that my view of 2020 is admittedly speculative, and Hillary is a certainty.  That's what makes it a tough choice.

I think Hillary will make every bad decision that it is possible to make,  and that she will exert most of her efforts in attacking we people who represent the political opposition.   She will attempt to use the force of government to break us,  and she will precipitate foreign policy and domestic policy disasters in every imaginable way.   She will crash us,  both socially and economically.   

There is a new book coming out about the Clintons,  and it has hit Number 1 at Amazon.  It is written by a secret service agent and relates how vile and disgusting are the Clintons.   (Basically confirming the same information from other sources.)

My point is that I am pessimistic.  Strategy for 2020 is only useful if we have the capacity to get to 2020.   With Hillary at the helm,   I very much doubt we will survive that long.   At this point,   I'm not so much Pro-Trump so much as i'm  "Oh God,  please don't let that Nazi-Bitch get power!"   

Her history is replete with various examples of abuse of power,  and I have no doubt that she will stay true to form.   I do not believe we could survive four more years of Obama,   and Hillary will be worse,  because she's a true believer in communism instead of some idiot who mouths the jargon but doesn't actually understand the crap he's spouting.   

Have you seen the latest job creation report?   They have got so bad that not even the propaganda apparatus of the Obama crime syndicate can cover them up any more.   

When a system fails,  it fails suddenly.   Economically we are a patched up Jury-Rigged mess,  and it wouldn't take much to send us into an economic tailspin.   I think Trump will have a difficult enough time stopping us from crashing,  and with Hillary it will likely be a foregone conclusion.   

Socialist fools do not understand economics or the concepts that underpin a financial system.   


Hillary is doom.   

[INVAR]

I think we are on the razor's edge of catastrophe here. 

….Hillary is doom. 

I'm actually of the opinion that it doesn't matter which one of these vulgar people are seated on the Iron Throne.  Doom is inevitable because it has already been sown.

I think you are much more optimistic than I am.  I hold we are already in the midst of catastrophe and have not even felt the full effects of the velvet coup we already suffered.  The Constitutional Republic has already been made irrelevant as this society's government no longer operates within it's bounds, nor do it's agents and our representatives uphold it at all.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I know a lot of 70 year olds who would strongly disagree with that mentality. As would I.

It's not that a 70 year old is unable to learn.  It is that this particular 70 year old rejects the concept of learning how to speak tactfully out of principle.  I think he honestly considers any suggestion that he should change his style as rude/disrespectful/offensive.

Now, maybe I'm wrong about that, but it sure seems to be the case.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I'm actually of the opinion that it doesn't matter which one of these vulgar people are seated on the Iron Throne. 

If you don't vote for King Joffrey you're voting for Mad King Aerys.

[INVAR]

If you don't vote for King Joffrey you're voting for Mad King Aerys.

Shouldn't that be if we do not vote for Mad Aerys Targaryen that we will be choosing the incestuous Queen Cersei??

I think that's the allegory since both of them ran the 7 Kingdoms into the ground.

One started a civil war out of spite and the other wanted to burned his entire city down with everyone in it because he demanded absolute devotion to his raging self.

Who's the Kingslayer?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Shouldn't that be if we do not vote for Mad Aerys Targaryen that we will be choosing the incestuous Queen Cersei??

I think that's the allegory since both of them ran the 7 Kingdoms into the ground.

One started a civil war out of spite and the other wanted to burned his entire city down with everyone in it because he demanded absolute devotion to his raging self.

Is any analogy ever perfect?  I avoided using Cersei because she is becoming a more sympathetic character and I was just making a funny.

That show just keeps getting better.

Who's the Kingslayer?

We probably won't find out until one of the tyrants is sworn in, but my guess is the Kingslayer will be a fan of Jodi Foster.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I meant to answer this earlier,  but real life intervenes sometimes.  :)   


Okay,  Now I have a better grasp of your thinking on this,  and were we in the 1980s or 1990s,  I might find that argument persuasive,  but I see this current time period as being very dangerous.   I see the geo political situation deteriorating to a 1960s cold war mentality,  (but with more,  and more dangerous players!)   and I see the economic situation as 1929ish.    You have more confidence in the future stability of this nation and this world than I do.

Well, guys like INVAR say it already is too late.  Others said in 2012 that if we didn't win then, it was all over.  Now, it's either win in 2016, or else.   So to a certain extent, it reminds me of Al Gore and his "if we don't stop carbon emissions in 10 years it will be too late" claim.  Okay Al, we didn't do what you said, and ten years have passed.  So can you shut up already?  In other words, I'm skeptical of the claim that we are at such a critical point that only the next four years matter, and we should discard what it means for 2020 and beyond.  Again, I wouldn't consider that a legitimate argument but for GOP control of the House.

In terms of economics, I think that if Trump actually goes through with the trade war stuff, that's likely to be as damaging as anything Hillary might do at least in terms of the next 4 years.  Hillary is more likely to make major structural changes that have a longer-lasting effect, but I think we're safe from most of those if we hang on to the House.  Internationally...I just don't know how much different Trump will be than Hillary.  I think he'll be better, but by how much....I'm just not sure.

As I said, Trump's VP pick and cabinet choices will be big for me, because I think they're fair harbingers of what he will do with the Supreme Court.  But with a decent VP, good cabinet, and solid judicial nominees, that puts him so far ahead of Hillary that it doesn't matter as much to me that I'm voting for Trump.

My own personal biases are also leading me to focus a lot on military issues.  I really want to hear Trump speak directly on the issue of forcing service chiefs to integrate women into combat arms units.  I can live him saying "I'm going to leave it up to each Service", but I cannot live with him agreeing with current policy of forced integration.  That would probably be a deal breaker for me.   
is

I think we are on the razor's edge of catastrophe here.

I agree.  I'm just not convinced that Trump is enough to keep us from going over the edge.  And if he isn't, then I'd rather be set up as well for 2020 as possible.  Because if the disaster (particularly economically) is as bad as it may be, that could be a major chance for a historic realignment if we have the right conservative running.

I should add this -- to me, the most important battle to be won isn't over immigration, or defense, or health care, but over the minds of the young, because if we don't change the trajectory of the 35-unders, we're toast.  Because then they'll be a bunch of socialists raising a bunch of socialists, and we'll never recover from that.  And Trump's core flaw -- in my opinion -- is that he is not, in any respect, an advocate of small-government conservativism.  So I believe that a Trump Presidency is likely to cement all those young people as anti-conservatives.  Whereas a failed Hillary Presidency cracks open that door in 2020 for what may be a real shot.

But the problem with all this argument on my side is that it is admittedly speculative, and I completely understand where you're coming from.  That's why I'm truly an undecided voter at this point (though I'd never vote for Hillary), and why I'm desperately hoping that Trump does enough to make me think he's the better (if very imperfect) choice in both the short and long term.