wasn’t thrilled with rubio at first, but taibbi and walter kirk brought up a great point. even if trump is as anti war as he claims, you can’t fill the entire administration with like minded individuals. you need a few people behind you that can back up the, “we’re offering the carrot but we’re also brining the stick,” methodology.
DOS has just been about laundering ideology and money for the longest time. Their assortment of porcine lipstick and rouge is adapted to any occasion. They may be safely ignored.
I could see Gaetz being the Fredo of the Trump administration. From the cocktail waitresses to the yelling "I'm smart" after Trump fires him for getting rolled repeatedly by DOJ lifers
I looked up Gaetz (I don't follow political news so I didn't know who he was).
After reading about his drama and also noting the fact that he got married in 2021, this is almost surely about Gaetz. Also, Steve is not stupid: he knows that the amount of information he gave here (assuming it's accurate) would be almost enough to identify the person even if he doesn't use his name.
The whole premise of Ned & Stacey (FOX 95-97) was that Ned (post-Wings Thomas Haden Church) couldn't get a promotion at work without being married, so he and Stacey (pre-Will-&-Grace Debra Messing) enter into a sham marriage. It only lasted 35 episodes so perhaps the premise was already passe by that time.
IIRC *Mad Men* made a point once that when a guy working there got married his pay got raised because it was expected that he'd be providing for her and any children as well and he needed it. Which also implied they expected more loyalty from a married man to the company, since they were paying him more, and since, as a married guy, he was less likely to jump ship to a new town when work got rough.
Remember when companies supported families and planned for long-term employees?
> He replied something like, “But is anybody who is married really happy?” I shall follow his future career with great interest.
Senior senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) made an abortive attempt at the presidency in 2020 and will run again in 2028. He dated Rosario Dawson March 2019-February 2022. The timing implies she was a beard, but he was also rumored to be dating then-NJ Attorney General (and current US DEA administrator) Anne Milgram, who is white but doesn't look like the type of white woman who dates black guys.
It almost goes without saying at this point that former congressman and NYC mayor Ed Koch would have Bess Myerson as his public escort even though he was a closeted $3 bill.
Oh, so there is an actual "type" of white woman who dates black men? Scientists will be waiting breathlessly for this important information to add to human development.
Uh, no, there ISN'T an actual "type". A person may THINK that they "know for 100% certainty" that a person will go for a different race, and then...doesn't turn out that way after all. There is NO "type" of white woman who goes for black men, ergo, there's no 100% answer as to WHICH specific white woman would hook up with a black man.
For example: nothing in the mid. 70's, would have suggested in her profile of living in an upper middle class all white suburb, whose white siblings dated exclusively white men, who had 2 white parents, that one day she'd hook up with one of the most famous (later infamous) NFLers of the decade. Nothing in the profile to suggest that "Her? Nicole Brown? Oh yeah, she was always wanting to bag a black man since she was 12 yrs old, why that's all she ever talked about."
That's why it's often such a surprise, especially when upper middle to upper class white women go for black men.
So again, the scientists are waiting breathlessly for this information that will help them in human development, since there is NO 100% certainty as to WHICH specific individual white woman will one day hook up with a black man.
That's actually not accurate at all. Conservative Christian/fundamentalist women, who attend church nowadays will be exposed to various equality claptrap thus making them susceptible to dating outside their race. Also, if they happen to attend a church that has some blacks, well...there you go.
Yes, this is a stereotype, but in actual fact, it doesn't quite hold up. Yes, the liberal ideology does tend to theoretically make them more receptive to dating out, but in actual fact they don't actually date out any more than say, other types of white women do.
Nicole Brown's family was more money focused than actual politics. And of course none of her other sisters dated out, they all married white men. I don't think that Nicole herself could spell the words "politics" "ideology" or "liberalism". Perhaps in her case, the hot chicks, its whichever man who's either in great shape, or looks good, has tons of money reaches her first, then that's who she'd be interested in. But the tons of money and being famous in the US, those specific factors definitely played a role in her choosing OJ.
After all, if Nicole had been in contact with say, Warren Beaty, or say, a young George Brett, or Pete Rose, then she'd have hooked up with those types of guys.
For hot chicks, the factors that count the most are fame and money, and color doesn't play a direct role in their choice. She didn't go for Laquarius Johnson, the garbageman from Compton; she went for one of the NFL's most famous players of that era.
Beyonce could beg me to divorce my wife and marry her and I would still say no. Not only does black culture not appeal to me, I could not care less about Beyonce's singing. I am as distant from pop culture as Mars is to Earth.
I like that they’re all pretty young, I dislike that at least a couple seem to be loose cannons (at best).
After his previous experience though I can’t really blame Trump for preferring people who are entirely reliant on his own goodwill. Such people tend to be loyal and his previous admin was plagued by disloyalty, even among ostensible professionals.
Trump is clearly trying to portray his administration as youthful to the world (given Trump's age, not a bad idea) and contrast his administration with the Deep State guys (Pelosi, McConnell, Graham, Schumer, etc.) who are all geriatric. Even RFK Jr, who is up there in years, is in incredible shape and retains that Kennedy youthful good looks even now in his gray years, and Tulsi Gabbard is not some flabby political hack or masculinized woman but publicly keeps herself trim, attractive, and feminine, even if she's more jock-girl than fancy-party girl.
Plus most of these guys, as you say, are now more proven loyal to Trump than the first admin's guys, like Barr, who has badmouthed him. RFK and Tulsi are politically dead if they cross Trump, even though they were both D's. Vance saw what happened politically when Pence turned on Trump and likely remains wary. Gaetz knows he will be burned at the stake (politically) if he recuses himself as Jeff Sessions did when they try the impeachment crap again, and thus he'd better fight. All the guys under 50 know crossing MAGA means they torch their political chances outside of Deep State sinecures, and these folks have long careers to think about. Thus, the guys Trump has picked should (*fingers crossed*) be more anti-Deep State than his first term hacks.
The ultimate image? It's morning in America, and the new blood is taking over; the old guard best beware.
"The lady and I then briefly extolled how domestic monogamy made us happy and it might make the nominee happy too.
He replied something like, “But is anybody who is married really happy?”
Sounds as though he wasn't actually listening to both of your replies, perhaps due to a preconceived bias vs marriage for whatever the reason that only he would know.
Only US President who was a bachelor was James Buchanan, and he left office in 1861.
Bill Clinton made sure to nail down Hillary fairly early in his political career so it wouldn't become an issue.
Their first child was Ruth, who died at the age of 12 in 1904. She is most famous for being the purported namesake of the Baby Ruth candy bar, although it didn't receive that name until 1921, when Babe Ruth started to make his name for the New York Yankees.
I was too paranoid to marry (alimony), but I'm also not running for President. ;)
I think the thing Steve may not realize about a lot of the young people on the right these days (or, more likely, sees and doesn't get why) is that there really isn't much sense of chivalry. You can definitely see from stuff like the trans sports articles and the occasional biographical aside that Steve is a boomer and a product of the days when most people had healthy relationships and marriages. Lots of young people have gotten into their 30s or later without ever being in a positive relationship with the opposite sex--it's why you see all this man-hating 4B stuff on the left and stuff like "Your Body, My Choice" on the right. (After all, to evangelicals and Catholics, the point is that the fetus is a person and it's *nobody's* choice.)
I can't speak directly to the young women's fear of revenge porn, gross Tinder comeons, or choking (fear of playboys and violent men predates our current Kali Yuga)--I don't have the 'lived experience', as progressives say. But I can say from our end, working in a very liberal field and being a somewhat-early example of the type, women are these alien creatures you're supposed to defer to who can destroy you with a single accusation and yet you're somehow supposed to surpass them in a workplace that's rigged in their favor in order to be attractive, and then marry...whereupon she has the right to dissolve the union at any time and collect a share of your earnings anywhere from a few years to perpetuity. So you spend your whole married life trying to make them happy, whereupon they lose attraction (because most women hate sub guys) and the thing you're fearing happens anyway.
The pattern with Trump is that he always gets betrayed. This time he tried to choose carefully, but I'm sure he'll be betrayed by these new people as well. You have to look at patterns. Also, Trump is very changeable, the people around him come and go at a moment's notice. The roster of people who've dealt with him for a few months only to depart a short time later is huge.
Trump always looks like he is being betrayed because he does not study the backgroiund information, is mercurial, and cannot manage a staff. The joke before 2015 was that there was no organization in The Trump Organization.
"This was at a classic hotel, I forget which, in Hollywood or West Hollywood. It boasted perhaps the darkest restaurant in SoCal. It had been a favorite of Nancy Reagan when she wanted to catch up over lunch with old friends"
Are you misremembering (maybe on purpose; I've done that (-‿◦). )? Whenever I have a chance to get back to LA, I stay at the Hotel Bel-Air and they tell me that was her favorite lunch hang out. The Nancy Reagan Chopped Salad is even on the lunch menu at the restaurant from time to time. It was her favorite spa salad so they named it after her.
As to your dinner companion's question, “But is anybody who is married really happy?” I would have asked him, "Is anybody who isn't married after a certain age really happy?" Mutual memories are the best memories and the sooner you start building them the happier you will be as time goes by, as it surely does. "Hey, remember the time back in 2024 when we...-- Oh, right, that wasn't you...that was...hmm...what was her name? Oh, well. Never mind."
The Hotel Bel-Air is and always has been sublime, even after they renovated it like 20 years ago or whatever. I too stay there whenever I get to LA, and it's worth every penny, and it's a lot of pennies. Weirdly I even dig being in the midst of the occasional blowout Persian-Jewish wedding celebration there: always interesting to see the greasy underside of latter-day American self-consciously classy richesse.
Once in maybe 1991 I was having dinner at the Hotel Bel-Air with friends (and it was definitely prettier pre-renovation at the restaurant) and as I emerged from the men's room and rounded the corner I nearly collided with Larry Fortensky, Mr. Elizabeth Taylor. Of my many celebrity encounters this is probably my all-time favorite–only perhaps topped by the time Parker Posey asked me if I was some kind of fascist for not believing we can talk to dolphins.
There's a Substack author who's fairly prominent on our team and a very traditional, devout Catholic. Handsome, charming and a total player. Just not the marrying type, and if you aren't you have no business getting married.
To my observation, a third of the marriages are successful--people who've found their soulmates, a third are just scraping by, and another third are toxic and miserable.
Whatever. You're also not supposed to say goddamit when you hit your thumb with a hammer. You're not even supposed to type goddamit when instructing people on the sin of saying goddamit.
He's mostly aged out of it at this point and probably just stays celibate.
I apologize for sounding flippant because I am genuinely not. I've gotten more operational about religion as I've aged, which is more how it's viewed and practiced outside the Protestant US.
This sounds to me like our future (I hope) Attorney General, ex-Rep. Matt Gaetz. I don't know the personalities of a lot of the other nominees that well, so there's a high probability that I'm wrong.
As for President-elect Trump's picks, I read a comment earlier today (sorry, can't remember where) that the proposed officials are largely nominees to run departments and agencies that had targeted them for abuse in the past. I like that concept.
From the cover photo, you'd think he works on an oil rig. You'd be wrong, he went to Princeton and Harvard. But modern conservatism is making a deliberate decision to market itself to a downscale audience, and either not knowing or not caring that they're repelling the next generation of political and business elites.
The MAGA movement started with people who were kinda dumb but feisty and that helped kick it off, but it’s time to move on and have really intelligent and capable people in charge. That’s what I was hoping with Trump’s appointments, especially with JD involved but it seems it’s not going in that direction.
I think they are more heterodox than midwit but point taken. Ideally we'd have more Eisenhowers Adlai Stevensons, Moynihans and Gingriches in public service. I think Gaetz really is pretty sharp but he likes shaking things up and being heterodox.
I think Gaetz is probably smart. RFK and Gabbard strike me as maybe 120-125 IQ, along with inexperienced. We will need very intelligent and capable people in charge, especially if we’re talking about reforming or “dismantling” systems. I’m still hopeful we can shift away from MTG types and toward JD or Vivek types, without coming off as elitists.
But it’s not all about getting the median voter on your side, it’s also about being really smart and capable and getting other smart and capable people on your side. We shouldn’t be the party of dummies.
He went to Princeton as an undergraduate and he got a Masters of Public Policy from the Kennedy School at Harvard (full disclosure--I went to Princeton as an undergrad, but graduated 15 years before he did). He is a good example of the incoherence of leftists these days about academic excellence. They claim that they are the party of the smart people, but, when they are confronted by opposition smart people, they accuse them of being inexperienced beneficiaries of privilege. And, it's a bit rich of the left to claim that he has 'no experience' when he has not only served in the military but written books about military policy.
Sailer has criticized Trump for "dumbing down the Republican Party."
A lot of Sailer's core readers and fans take exception to that, but those who saw the RNC-Convention 2024 would have to admit there is a point.
Those who endorse the "dumbed-down" version of the Republican Party essentially want destruction, want to dispossess the Hostile Elite, and see no other path. It is a dilemma, but the downsides should be kept in mind. (See: "President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho").
The "next generation of political and business elites" are the ones that pays for LGHDTV+ and BLM, right? In 2021 finance hired no white men, do you think they will choose D?
I am saying that that elites changed a lot since 1988: Mary Harrington calls them "Conservative ink", people that are 140+ iq, go to the Ivys but do not follow traditional Wasp esthetics.
Nancy and Frank shared the same politics. Moderate Republicans and pro-choice on abortion. Frank was the son of Hatpin Harriet Sinatra, ward-heeler of the Italian ward of Hoboken and neighborhood abortionist.
The man is a keen observer of the marriage state. Very lucky couples with good chemistry go through a period of surreal hormonal exhilaration when they first meet. I've seen that last two years.
When it's over, the woman is in charge of the relationship, controls the frequency and tenor of sexual relations, and in doing so ignores the guy's needs: that's 99 of a hundred marriages.
At that point, the guy is stuck AF, especially if the kids have arrived. Legally, he's her indentured servant for as long as he lives, or for as long as family court decides to punish him for daring to leave. That she swore an oath with him about being each other's "to have and to hold" means not one ten thousandth of a gnat fart to anyone but him.
Sure, we all see the exceptions and remember those. The unmemorable luckless pedestrian plugger is the norm.
Maybe one guy in a hundred is willing to be a bully and use abusive methods to extort sex from a partner who isn't into it. That's not marriage, it's a hostage situation. In my experience, very few men are clueless or mean enough to even think they want to go there. Those who do go there are even farther from happy than the paycheck-drone who just decides to make the best of it, be the butt of every joke, tiptoe around the wife's guilt-infused eggshell fragility, learn to tune out the pointless chatter, and keep the masturbation skills, um, handy.
Once every million couples or so, a pair discovers their heart's twin in each other, and they form a true duprass. So of course that's what we teach everyone to expect from love and marriage. Most often what passes for true love has more to do with proximity and timing than real personal bonding. When they finally tire of the serial drama and start thinking it's time to be grownups, men tend to marry the last girlfriend. It can be just fine. For a realistic look at your chances of being treated as well as the dog, watch her mom and dad. If he's a chubby neuter, you can plan on getting most of your affection from the dog.
If a man has a modest success in life, he will find no shortage of younger women who are attracted to influence and wealth. A promotion to a job that requires travel is a good bet if you are more about the sex than the love, and if you have the wit to be discreet. Again, this is not most guys, even in daydreams. Guys are dogs, they want a pack. They want to know someone needs them, and is counting on them. They see themselves as loving deeply, and want to think of themselves as being true. They long for the validation and affirmation of a reciprocated desire, and the joy of a fun and easygoing sexual relationship. Kinda sad.
Maybe my (current, second and I trust final) marriage is the one in a million you suppose, but that's mathematically unlikely. Anyway, what you describe hasn't been my experience–even in the earlier failed case. There's a lot to be said for love, which I guess is why so much ink has been spilled over it.
wasn’t thrilled with rubio at first, but taibbi and walter kirk brought up a great point. even if trump is as anti war as he claims, you can’t fill the entire administration with like minded individuals. you need a few people behind you that can back up the, “we’re offering the carrot but we’re also brining the stick,” methodology.
Isn't it, in this case, "We're offering the stick. Your pet Migrants have to go. But we're also offering the carrot."
not sure how the state department plays into what happens domestically though, which is where rubio will be.
State pays hundreds of immigrationist NGOs and discuss with international bodies: it matters too.
DOS has just been about laundering ideology and money for the longest time. Their assortment of porcine lipstick and rouge is adapted to any occasion. They may be safely ignored.
Gaetz
I could see Gaetz being the Fredo of the Trump administration. From the cocktail waitresses to the yelling "I'm smart" after Trump fires him for getting rolled repeatedly by DOJ lifers
Gaetz is not the only possible candidate, however:
The most-plausible candidates: Gaetz, Doug Burgum, Mike Waltz. Also technically possible but unlikely: Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth.
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/what-do-you-think-of-trumps-picks/comment/77418362
Would Gaetz make sense as a guy in LA?
Burgum is the guy who actually ran for president already so I might lean toward him
I interpret a recent comment by Steve Sailer as eliminating Burgum as a contender:
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/what-do-you-think-of-trumps-picks/comment/77421036
(Burgum married in late 2016; he wouldn't have had such an interaction, posed such a question, in late 2019.)
Stephen Miller is married with kids.
The meeting happened ca.2019, some weeks or months before the Covid shutdowns of March 2020. Stephen Miller was not married at the time.
See further discussion on the contenders here (have narrowed it down one main candidate with other long-shots):
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/what-do-you-think-of-trumps-picks/comment/77438142
I looked up Gaetz (I don't follow political news so I didn't know who he was).
After reading about his drama and also noting the fact that he got married in 2021, this is almost surely about Gaetz. Also, Steve is not stupid: he knows that the amount of information he gave here (assuming it's accurate) would be almost enough to identify the person even if he doesn't use his name.
The Importance of Being Married from "The Departed:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAReS2JnJ18
The whole premise of Ned & Stacey (FOX 95-97) was that Ned (post-Wings Thomas Haden Church) couldn't get a promotion at work without being married, so he and Stacey (pre-Will-&-Grace Debra Messing) enter into a sham marriage. It only lasted 35 episodes so perhaps the premise was already passe by that time.
IIRC *Mad Men* made a point once that when a guy working there got married his pay got raised because it was expected that he'd be providing for her and any children as well and he needed it. Which also implied they expected more loyalty from a married man to the company, since they were paying him more, and since, as a married guy, he was less likely to jump ship to a new town when work got rough.
Remember when companies supported families and planned for long-term employees?
> He replied something like, “But is anybody who is married really happy?” I shall follow his future career with great interest.
Senior senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) made an abortive attempt at the presidency in 2020 and will run again in 2028. He dated Rosario Dawson March 2019-February 2022. The timing implies she was a beard, but he was also rumored to be dating then-NJ Attorney General (and current US DEA administrator) Anne Milgram, who is white but doesn't look like the type of white woman who dates black guys.
It almost goes without saying at this point that former congressman and NYC mayor Ed Koch would have Bess Myerson as his public escort even though he was a closeted $3 bill.
Oh, so there is an actual "type" of white woman who dates black men? Scientists will be waiting breathlessly for this important information to add to human development.
They don't have to wait; anyone with eyes who isn't a retard such as yourself knows the answer
Uh, no, there ISN'T an actual "type". A person may THINK that they "know for 100% certainty" that a person will go for a different race, and then...doesn't turn out that way after all. There is NO "type" of white woman who goes for black men, ergo, there's no 100% answer as to WHICH specific white woman would hook up with a black man.
For example: nothing in the mid. 70's, would have suggested in her profile of living in an upper middle class all white suburb, whose white siblings dated exclusively white men, who had 2 white parents, that one day she'd hook up with one of the most famous (later infamous) NFLers of the decade. Nothing in the profile to suggest that "Her? Nicole Brown? Oh yeah, she was always wanting to bag a black man since she was 12 yrs old, why that's all she ever talked about."
That's why it's often such a surprise, especially when upper middle to upper class white women go for black men.
So again, the scientists are waiting breathlessly for this information that will help them in human development, since there is NO 100% certainty as to WHICH specific individual white woman will one day hook up with a black man.
Nicole Brown came from a liberal family. Liberal white women are more likely to be romantically involved with black men than white conservative women.
That's actually not accurate at all. Conservative Christian/fundamentalist women, who attend church nowadays will be exposed to various equality claptrap thus making them susceptible to dating outside their race. Also, if they happen to attend a church that has some blacks, well...there you go.
Yes, this is a stereotype, but in actual fact, it doesn't quite hold up. Yes, the liberal ideology does tend to theoretically make them more receptive to dating out, but in actual fact they don't actually date out any more than say, other types of white women do.
Nicole Brown's family was more money focused than actual politics. And of course none of her other sisters dated out, they all married white men. I don't think that Nicole herself could spell the words "politics" "ideology" or "liberalism". Perhaps in her case, the hot chicks, its whichever man who's either in great shape, or looks good, has tons of money reaches her first, then that's who she'd be interested in. But the tons of money and being famous in the US, those specific factors definitely played a role in her choosing OJ.
After all, if Nicole had been in contact with say, Warren Beaty, or say, a young George Brett, or Pete Rose, then she'd have hooked up with those types of guys.
For hot chicks, the factors that count the most are fame and money, and color doesn't play a direct role in their choice. She didn't go for Laquarius Johnson, the garbageman from Compton; she went for one of the NFL's most famous players of that era.
Beyonce could beg me to divorce my wife and marry her and I would still say no. Not only does black culture not appeal to me, I could not care less about Beyonce's singing. I am as distant from pop culture as Mars is to Earth.
@ Derek
YZ is the board crank over at Steve's other blog; please don't waste more than a few seconds of your time on him
Thanks for the advice. Twenty seconds tops on YZ.
Because on some things, I'm smarter and better than you. You just got to Steve's blog a year or two ago? Not very long.
Unlike yourself, I don't put others down in personal attacks (signs of a psychopath or child rapist, but whatever).
Best to keep it professional and not personal.
Booker is the mirror of Lindsey Graham except he's several shades darker. Coming out homosexual may actually help Booker in the Democratic primaries.
They’re MAGA loyalists. Not much experience, around 120-130 IQ. Was hoping for something different but I guess this is where we’re at.
If RFK jr. takes away my biannual Flaming Hot Cheeto binge I will storm the capitol.
Would you still accept Flaming Hot Cheetos if the color weren't quite so flaming orange?
I like that they’re all pretty young, I dislike that at least a couple seem to be loose cannons (at best).
After his previous experience though I can’t really blame Trump for preferring people who are entirely reliant on his own goodwill. Such people tend to be loyal and his previous admin was plagued by disloyalty, even among ostensible professionals.
Trump is clearly trying to portray his administration as youthful to the world (given Trump's age, not a bad idea) and contrast his administration with the Deep State guys (Pelosi, McConnell, Graham, Schumer, etc.) who are all geriatric. Even RFK Jr, who is up there in years, is in incredible shape and retains that Kennedy youthful good looks even now in his gray years, and Tulsi Gabbard is not some flabby political hack or masculinized woman but publicly keeps herself trim, attractive, and feminine, even if she's more jock-girl than fancy-party girl.
Plus most of these guys, as you say, are now more proven loyal to Trump than the first admin's guys, like Barr, who has badmouthed him. RFK and Tulsi are politically dead if they cross Trump, even though they were both D's. Vance saw what happened politically when Pence turned on Trump and likely remains wary. Gaetz knows he will be burned at the stake (politically) if he recuses himself as Jeff Sessions did when they try the impeachment crap again, and thus he'd better fight. All the guys under 50 know crossing MAGA means they torch their political chances outside of Deep State sinecures, and these folks have long careers to think about. Thus, the guys Trump has picked should (*fingers crossed*) be more anti-Deep State than his first term hacks.
The ultimate image? It's morning in America, and the new blood is taking over; the old guard best beware.
Let's just hope that reality matches the image.
"The lady and I then briefly extolled how domestic monogamy made us happy and it might make the nominee happy too.
He replied something like, “But is anybody who is married really happy?”
Sounds as though he wasn't actually listening to both of your replies, perhaps due to a preconceived bias vs marriage for whatever the reason that only he would know.
Only US President who was a bachelor was James Buchanan, and he left office in 1861.
Bill Clinton made sure to nail down Hillary fairly early in his political career so it wouldn't become an issue.
Grover Cleveland was a bachelor when first elected. He married during his first term.
He married his ward who was about thirty years younger than him.
playa. ✔️
Their first child was Ruth, who died at the age of 12 in 1904. She is most famous for being the purported namesake of the Baby Ruth candy bar, although it didn't receive that name until 1921, when Babe Ruth started to make his name for the New York Yankees.
I don't eat a lot of candy bars but Baby Ruth is one of my favorites.
I was too paranoid to marry (alimony), but I'm also not running for President. ;)
I think the thing Steve may not realize about a lot of the young people on the right these days (or, more likely, sees and doesn't get why) is that there really isn't much sense of chivalry. You can definitely see from stuff like the trans sports articles and the occasional biographical aside that Steve is a boomer and a product of the days when most people had healthy relationships and marriages. Lots of young people have gotten into their 30s or later without ever being in a positive relationship with the opposite sex--it's why you see all this man-hating 4B stuff on the left and stuff like "Your Body, My Choice" on the right. (After all, to evangelicals and Catholics, the point is that the fetus is a person and it's *nobody's* choice.)
I can't speak directly to the young women's fear of revenge porn, gross Tinder comeons, or choking (fear of playboys and violent men predates our current Kali Yuga)--I don't have the 'lived experience', as progressives say. But I can say from our end, working in a very liberal field and being a somewhat-early example of the type, women are these alien creatures you're supposed to defer to who can destroy you with a single accusation and yet you're somehow supposed to surpass them in a workplace that's rigged in their favor in order to be attractive, and then marry...whereupon she has the right to dissolve the union at any time and collect a share of your earnings anywhere from a few years to perpetuity. So you spend your whole married life trying to make them happy, whereupon they lose attraction (because most women hate sub guys) and the thing you're fearing happens anyway.
And they don't even like sports or video games.
Hi Steve S - I send you warm greetings from Hyde Park U Chicago . Great to finally meet you in person at your book signing this Fall here in Chicago .
Could you give me any names of the bright younger folks who ran your event here in Chicago.
I d like to support local Chicago talent especially young talent that hasn t burnt out in Conservative Inc
Regards John E
Nom D plume Jack Ryan
Also is there away for me to attach jog images here ? I d like to show you some of my political , cultural comics I did with the artist Farstar .
Thank you sir
The pattern with Trump is that he always gets betrayed. This time he tried to choose carefully, but I'm sure he'll be betrayed by these new people as well. You have to look at patterns. Also, Trump is very changeable, the people around him come and go at a moment's notice. The roster of people who've dealt with him for a few months only to depart a short time later is huge.
Trump always looks like he is being betrayed because he does not study the backgroiund information, is mercurial, and cannot manage a staff. The joke before 2015 was that there was no organization in The Trump Organization.
Trump’s problem during his first term was that he was more interested in posting on twitter than actually governing.
"This was at a classic hotel, I forget which, in Hollywood or West Hollywood. It boasted perhaps the darkest restaurant in SoCal. It had been a favorite of Nancy Reagan when she wanted to catch up over lunch with old friends"
Are you misremembering (maybe on purpose; I've done that (-‿◦). )? Whenever I have a chance to get back to LA, I stay at the Hotel Bel-Air and they tell me that was her favorite lunch hang out. The Nancy Reagan Chopped Salad is even on the lunch menu at the restaurant from time to time. It was her favorite spa salad so they named it after her.
As to your dinner companion's question, “But is anybody who is married really happy?” I would have asked him, "Is anybody who isn't married after a certain age really happy?" Mutual memories are the best memories and the sooner you start building them the happier you will be as time goes by, as it surely does. "Hey, remember the time back in 2024 when we...-- Oh, right, that wasn't you...that was...hmm...what was her name? Oh, well. Never mind."
The Hotel Bel-Air is and always has been sublime, even after they renovated it like 20 years ago or whatever. I too stay there whenever I get to LA, and it's worth every penny, and it's a lot of pennies. Weirdly I even dig being in the midst of the occasional blowout Persian-Jewish wedding celebration there: always interesting to see the greasy underside of latter-day American self-consciously classy richesse.
Once in maybe 1991 I was having dinner at the Hotel Bel-Air with friends (and it was definitely prettier pre-renovation at the restaurant) and as I emerged from the men's room and rounded the corner I nearly collided with Larry Fortensky, Mr. Elizabeth Taylor. Of my many celebrity encounters this is probably my all-time favorite–only perhaps topped by the time Parker Posey asked me if I was some kind of fascist for not believing we can talk to dolphins.
You're right about everything else too.
There's a Substack author who's fairly prominent on our team and a very traditional, devout Catholic. Handsome, charming and a total player. Just not the marrying type, and if you aren't you have no business getting married.
To my observation, a third of the marriages are successful--people who've found their soulmates, a third are just scraping by, and another third are toxic and miserable.
Can you be a devout Catholic and a player? Serious question--I thought it was monogamous marriage or celibacy.
Keep the praxis, believe the doctrine, confession yearly, commune yearly.
But you're not supposed to have sex before marriage.
Whatever. You're also not supposed to say goddamit when you hit your thumb with a hammer. You're not even supposed to type goddamit when instructing people on the sin of saying goddamit.
He's mostly aged out of it at this point and probably just stays celibate.
It's a good point.
I thought there were venial and mortal sins, but then again I am hardly an expert on Catholic doctrine.
I apologize for sounding flippant because I am genuinely not. I've gotten more operational about religion as I've aged, which is more how it's viewed and practiced outside the Protestant US.
This sounds to me like our future (I hope) Attorney General, ex-Rep. Matt Gaetz. I don't know the personalities of a lot of the other nominees that well, so there's a high probability that I'm wrong.
As for President-elect Trump's picks, I read a comment earlier today (sorry, can't remember where) that the proposed officials are largely nominees to run departments and agencies that had targeted them for abuse in the past. I like that concept.
My analysis, based on Sailer's description, finds three main plausible candidates:
Gaetz, Burgum, Mike Waltz.
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/what-do-you-think-of-trumps-picks/comment/77418362
Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense is Pete Hegseth. Here's his book on Amazon:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbecd4cf2-e4b6-413b-b5d9-3001ecb762e5_924x556.png
From the cover photo, you'd think he works on an oil rig. You'd be wrong, he went to Princeton and Harvard. But modern conservatism is making a deliberate decision to market itself to a downscale audience, and either not knowing or not caring that they're repelling the next generation of political and business elites.
The MAGA movement started with people who were kinda dumb but feisty and that helped kick it off, but it’s time to move on and have really intelligent and capable people in charge. That’s what I was hoping with Trump’s appointments, especially with JD involved but it seems it’s not going in that direction.
I think they are more heterodox than midwit but point taken. Ideally we'd have more Eisenhowers Adlai Stevensons, Moynihans and Gingriches in public service. I think Gaetz really is pretty sharp but he likes shaking things up and being heterodox.
I think Gaetz is probably smart. RFK and Gabbard strike me as maybe 120-125 IQ, along with inexperienced. We will need very intelligent and capable people in charge, especially if we’re talking about reforming or “dismantling” systems. I’m still hopeful we can shift away from MTG types and toward JD or Vivek types, without coming off as elitists.
Downscale is where the votes and the armies are. You don't get sovereign power by preening and posing to other elites.
But it’s not all about getting the median voter on your side, it’s also about being really smart and capable and getting other smart and capable people on your side. We shouldn’t be the party of dummies.
You need to win elections before you can govern
Right but we won so can we be smart and do a good job now?
He went to Princeton as an undergraduate and he got a Masters of Public Policy from the Kennedy School at Harvard (full disclosure--I went to Princeton as an undergrad, but graduated 15 years before he did). He is a good example of the incoherence of leftists these days about academic excellence. They claim that they are the party of the smart people, but, when they are confronted by opposition smart people, they accuse them of being inexperienced beneficiaries of privilege. And, it's a bit rich of the left to claim that he has 'no experience' when he has not only served in the military but written books about military policy.
Sailer has criticized Trump for "dumbing down the Republican Party."
A lot of Sailer's core readers and fans take exception to that, but those who saw the RNC-Convention 2024 would have to admit there is a point.
Those who endorse the "dumbed-down" version of the Republican Party essentially want destruction, want to dispossess the Hostile Elite, and see no other path. It is a dilemma, but the downsides should be kept in mind. (See: "President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho").
The "next generation of political and business elites" are the ones that pays for LGHDTV+ and BLM, right? In 2021 finance hired no white men, do you think they will choose D?
This sounds like an interesting comment, but I'm not sure what you're saying.
I am saying that that elites changed a lot since 1988: Mary Harrington calls them "Conservative ink", people that are 140+ iq, go to the Ivys but do not follow traditional Wasp esthetics.
I graduated from one of those places in 1987 and lately have been interacting with it a lot again, and you're definitely right about that.
Buchanan was unmarried. Not a harbinger of hope, IMHO.
I'm more interested in Nancy and Frank
Nancy and Frank shared the same politics. Moderate Republicans and pro-choice on abortion. Frank was the son of Hatpin Harriet Sinatra, ward-heeler of the Italian ward of Hoboken and neighborhood abortionist.
“But is anybody who is married really happy?”
The man is a keen observer of the marriage state. Very lucky couples with good chemistry go through a period of surreal hormonal exhilaration when they first meet. I've seen that last two years.
When it's over, the woman is in charge of the relationship, controls the frequency and tenor of sexual relations, and in doing so ignores the guy's needs: that's 99 of a hundred marriages.
At that point, the guy is stuck AF, especially if the kids have arrived. Legally, he's her indentured servant for as long as he lives, or for as long as family court decides to punish him for daring to leave. That she swore an oath with him about being each other's "to have and to hold" means not one ten thousandth of a gnat fart to anyone but him.
Sure, we all see the exceptions and remember those. The unmemorable luckless pedestrian plugger is the norm.
Maybe one guy in a hundred is willing to be a bully and use abusive methods to extort sex from a partner who isn't into it. That's not marriage, it's a hostage situation. In my experience, very few men are clueless or mean enough to even think they want to go there. Those who do go there are even farther from happy than the paycheck-drone who just decides to make the best of it, be the butt of every joke, tiptoe around the wife's guilt-infused eggshell fragility, learn to tune out the pointless chatter, and keep the masturbation skills, um, handy.
Once every million couples or so, a pair discovers their heart's twin in each other, and they form a true duprass. So of course that's what we teach everyone to expect from love and marriage. Most often what passes for true love has more to do with proximity and timing than real personal bonding. When they finally tire of the serial drama and start thinking it's time to be grownups, men tend to marry the last girlfriend. It can be just fine. For a realistic look at your chances of being treated as well as the dog, watch her mom and dad. If he's a chubby neuter, you can plan on getting most of your affection from the dog.
If a man has a modest success in life, he will find no shortage of younger women who are attracted to influence and wealth. A promotion to a job that requires travel is a good bet if you are more about the sex than the love, and if you have the wit to be discreet. Again, this is not most guys, even in daydreams. Guys are dogs, they want a pack. They want to know someone needs them, and is counting on them. They see themselves as loving deeply, and want to think of themselves as being true. They long for the validation and affirmation of a reciprocated desire, and the joy of a fun and easygoing sexual relationship. Kinda sad.
Maybe my (current, second and I trust final) marriage is the one in a million you suppose, but that's mathematically unlikely. Anyway, what you describe hasn't been my experience–even in the earlier failed case. There's a lot to be said for love, which I guess is why so much ink has been spilled over it.