# National Review devotes an entire issue to "Against Trump" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 22, 2016, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868 "2016-01-22T07:16:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/81 "2016-01-23T03:38:25Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > To me that doesn’t seem like a repudiation of the Laffer curve itself, but rather an argument of where current US taxation rates exist on the Laffer curve. The curve just posits that a happy medium exists, it doesn’t purport to say whether we are ahead or behind that happy medium. It could just as easily be an article of faith for socialists who think taxes could be a bit higher. Am I wrong? In principle, the Laffer curve is a truism. (There may not be an actual single point in between that creates a maximum given the complications of our system.) In politics, the Laffer curve was used solely by conservatives to justify any and all reductions of taxes on the grounds that higher productivity would replace the lost revenue. In practice, the positive use of the term is equivalent to the positive use of the gold standard. You can safely dismiss anything ever said by anyone who bases their policies on either. (And I do mean anything, not just economics.) ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/82 "2016-01-23T03:40:00Z")
double post, see below. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/83 "2016-01-23T03:42:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, for one thing, nobody knows what a [Laffer curve](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laffer_Curve) actually looks like. It’s a truism that 0% taxes and 100% taxes will each yield zero revenue, but no economist has any solid theoretical basis for plotting any point between those ends. I’ll end my hijack here, but I don’t think this is true. Or let me refine my statement… the exact point on the curve may be incalculable, but based on the harm in wealth inequality we can see which direction we ought to go. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/84 "2016-01-23T03:49:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think Candidate Trump is _far_ worse than Cruz. I find the latter personally odious but he isn’t calling all Mexican immigrants rapists or proposing to expel all Muslims. That just makes Trump more honest, not worse. Ted Cruz would be worse for mexicans than Trump, no matter what words each uses to describe them. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/85 "2016-01-23T04:10:01Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t think Trump is a talented politician, so much as a howling imbecile, hooting to a party whose base is howling imbeciles. > > Trump is a powerful manifestation of Dunning-Kreuger. He’s so inept that he doesn’t know how inept he is. And to the inept core of the GOP, his swagger attracts them because in their cartoonish view of reality, the goon with the puffed up chest must be the alpha. I’m not saying Trump would be a competent politician or good at the job of governance. I’m saying he knows how to read his crowds and tell then what they want to hear w/o making it sound like he is pandering. The guy has pretty amazing social skills in a way. He somehow manages to walk a tightrope between pandering and driving away his base, and it is a tightrope that most people fall off of but Trump just keeps standing while 99% of other people would’ve fallen off by now. You can’t do that unless you have exceptional social skills on some level. LBJ was good at governance, but terrible at getting elected (that is my understanding). Trump is the opposite, probably terrible at governance but excellent at getting elected. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/86 "2016-01-23T04:14:01Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I agree with this snippet from Michael Medved: > > Quote: > Worst of all, Trump’s brawling, blustery, mean-spirited public persona serves to associate conservatives with all the negative stereotypes that liberals have for decades attached to their opponents on the right. According to conventional caricature, conservatives are selfish, greedy, materialistic, bullying, misogynistic, angry, and intolerant. They are, we’re told, privileged and pampered elitists who revel in the advantages of inherited wealth while displaying only cruel contempt for the less fortunate and the less powerful. The Left tried to smear Ronald Reagan in such terms but failed miserably because he displayed none of the stereotypical traits. In contrast, Trump is the living, breathing, bellowing personification of all the nasty characteristics Democrats routinely ascribe to Republicans. You forgot xenophobic, ignorant, bellicose, arrogant. Trump could be a great thing for the democrats if he wins the primary because ideally he will drive latinos and women even further away from the GOP. Women made up 54% or so of the electorate in 2012, and Latinos are growing rapidly and approaching the same % as black voters. However who knows, maybe Trump will figure out a way to get 51% of the vote. He has managed to get this far so I wouldn’t put it past him. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/87 "2016-01-23T04:57:08Z")
**Wesley Clark** : He somehow manages to walk a tightrope between pandering and driving away his base, and it is a tightrope that most people fall off of but Trump just keeps standing while 99% of other people would’ve fallen off by now. You can’t do that unless you have exceptional social skills on some level. I’m not impressed much with that, it’s hard to fall off the floor. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/88 "2016-01-23T05:36:28Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I’ll end my hijack here, but I don’t think this is true. Or let me refine my statement… the exact point on the curve may be incalculable, but based on the harm in wealth inequality we can see which direction we ought to go. The Laffer Curve doesn’t touch on wealth inequality at all. It only deals with the relationship between tax rates and government revenue. I mean, I’m not saying anything at all about its correctness or not of the way it’s drawn, but wealth inequality is an irrelevant factor. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/89 "2016-01-23T05:37:32Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You think throwing away your vote on Bush is more sane than making sure Cruz doesn’t get win? The idea that people “throw away their vote” is what is insane. It has no rational basis - no matter who you vote for, your one vote isn’t going to be the one that turns defeat into victory. And if you believe you’re part of a voting bloc with the power to decide the election… why not use that power to put someone good into power instead of settling for the second worst candidate? The President should be someone with the morals to refuse to drive people into poverty selling them false hope, and the brains to refuse to sabotage our intelligence-gathering capability with barbaric methods _that don’t fucking work_. Trump is neither. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/90 "2016-01-23T05:39:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > He’s not a good salesman. He’s a swaggering cunt. That level of confidence is attractive, but I’m pretty sure Trump couldn’t make a living selling cars or timeshares, if you stripped his fame and wealth away. He’s so ignorant that he has no self-doubt. Which is why dumb people think he should be in charge. They assume he knows what he’s doing. > … > If the GOP base weren’t composed of ignorant, misinformed, angry people, Trump would have no success at all. He’s just a key that fits the lock of the GOP base. Read what you wrote. Yes, Trump is the key that fits the lock. That either means he’s a yokal who has repressed it for a long time, _or he’s a salesman with a solid sense of what people want to hear_. I’m betting on the latter, since he modifies his pitch with his audience, judging from his business history. And he’s wise enough not to fuck around with briefing books before a debate. It doesn’t matter how many howlers the guy tells: the base doesn’t want facts. They want sweet dreams and Trump is willing to deliver them. Unfortunately, sales is just one aspect of being a President. Trump also has a short attention span, too short to focus on policy or even seriously managing his properties. That’s why he went into virtual bankruptcy in the early 1990s. (The banks let him off easy, because they correctly figured they could get a better price for his properties if he remained at least barely solvent. And selling essentially on their behalf.) That’s why he segued away from property development and into branding. > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I enjoyed reading the National Review take… But it’s nothing but entertainment without an analysis of why the majority of their party appears to be lining up behind a candidate who is either bugfuck insane or trying very hard to cultivate that impression. Until they confront that reality, the party will continue to fracture. > [@elucidator](#): > > Quibble with the “majority” behind “a candidate”. Several highly motivated minorities line up behind one of several bugfuck crazy shoebats. But none of respective certifiable candidates has a majority unto themselves. Doesn’t mean shit to a tree, but I was in a quibbling mood, > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Fair enough. Point still stands, though. Yes. Point still stands. 60-65% of the _Republican_ polling is going to outsiders who have no business running for the Presidency. This compares with 10-30% back in 2012. It’s a big change. Thread: [Introducing the Jimmy Carter Outsider Index, 2016 Republican Primary Edition - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=770735) For professional movement conservatives, Trump poses a dire threat. He has a rich appreciation of the conservative id without strong ideological commitments or tribal loyalty. He threatens their lock on those with temperaments both perpetually resentful and reality indifferent. So he must be stopped. The politicos in contrast fear Ted Cruz since unlike Trump Cruz can’t be disavowed and can’t be negotiated with. Cruz could split the party into 2, with him leading the _smaller_ of the 2 parts. That’s deadly in an electoral system without proportional representation.\* So both front runners have their intra-party haters. \*…unless Cruz focuses like a laser on the South. Which he may be doing. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/91 "2016-01-23T05:39:31Z")
Of course NR came out against him. Their endorsement has been for sale for years, and he didn’t pay them any money. All this means is that Trump isn’t playing by the “pay-to-play” rules Romney did. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/92 "2016-01-23T06:17:00Z")
M4M, you are a smart dude, I’m going to start watching everything you say. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/93 "2016-01-23T07:05:54Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Fight my ignorance here… what’s behind your disparagement of the Laffer curve? As I understand it, the Laffer Curve’s magnitude at real-world tax rates has not been empirically demonstrated to be large enough to measure? The problem is that tax monies end up feeding spending within the country, so they can’t actually shrink the overall economy per Laffer. In any case, even using Laffer’s model, it’s counter-intuitive that cutting taxes can bring in more revenue once the tax base is below 50% of GDP. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/94 "2016-01-23T11:49:05Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Read what you wrote. Yes, Trump is the key that fits the lock. That either means he’s a yokal who has repressed it for a long time, _or he’s a salesman with a solid sense of what people want to hear_. I’m betting on the latter, since he modifies his pitch with his audience, judging from his business history. And he’s wise enough not to fuck around with briefing books before a debate. It doesn’t matter how many howlers the guy tells: the base doesn’t want facts. They want sweet dreams and Trump is willing to deliver them. That’s bizarrely flawed reasoning. First off, yokels don’t necessarily only respond to other yokels. Second, Trump doesn’t have to be smart for his shtick to resonate. There were 17 people trying for the GOP nomination. Trump’s vapid manner was exactly what the nimwits that vote in the GOP primaries want to hear. If a hundred people guess a random number, the one that wins isn’t brilliant. He’s just the one who got lucky. I contend that Trump’s stupidity has luckily fit the GOP cult of ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/95 "2016-01-23T11:53:59Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > (also, is that cover meant to be a spoof or take-off of something?) [There’s been some hilarity about that cover on Twitter.](https://twitter.com/Mobute/status/690364217023696897) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/96 "2016-01-23T12:24:22Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I was referring just to the Republican history, and I’ll argue that the history you gave in that other thread supports my case. Saying that Iowa and New Hampshire are predictive because one extreme or the other wins would be laughable in any other context. “Buy my two $100 million market newsletters. One says Apple will dominate the market, the other says Microsoft will. And one is always right!” The only winners are Iowa and New Hampshire. Bah and humbug. I don’t get your argument here. It sounds like you’re now saying that Iowa and New Hampshire don’t predict or determine anything _because_ the winner of one or the other is bound to be the nominee. I’m also confused by your Apple-or-Microsoft analogy. The _candidates_ aren’t Iowa and New Hampshire. There’s a _bunch_ of candidates, but none of them seem to win without winning one of these two. That’s either predictive or determinative, or some combination of the two. And plenty of people are saying even now that no, a Republican doesn’t have to win one of those two states to be the nominee. Why, if Rubio finishes a solid second in New Hampshire, then yada yada yada. And sure, it could happen. But it would _break the pattern_. If the pattern continues to be predictive/determinative, then second in NH means Rubio can start negotiating for a pundit gig on Fox News. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/97 "2016-01-23T12:26:52Z")
Geez, it took an entire magazine issue to convey the conservative objection (“You’re supposed to use dogwhistles, not bullhorns, asshole!”) to The Donald? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/98 "2016-01-23T12:28:22Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > And the establishment isn’t going to go all-out since Trump’s successor as frontrunner would probably be Ted Cruz. To say nothing of the fact that he’s (not entirely unreasonably) consider it a violation of the understanding that he’d get a fair shot at the nomination, and consider himself released from the “no independent run” pledge. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/99 "2016-01-23T13:58:43Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Geez, it took an entire magazine issue to convey the conservative objection ( **“You’re supposed to use dogwhistles, not bullhorns, asshole!”** ) to The Donald? Bolding mine. That’s beautiful; so pithy. And so true. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868/100 "2016-01-23T14:02:02Z")
That pledge? Did anybody believe him when he made it? > [@elucidator](#): > > shoebats That’s a word now? Congrats, Ted Shoebat! You’ve santorumed yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-review-devotes-an-entire-issue-to-against-trump/743868.md?page=6)