Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

If you compare the real world to utopia, the real world will look bad. If you compare the real world to dystopia, the real world will look good. The problem with the Never Trumpers (e.g., George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Stephen Hayes, and William Kristol) is that they compare Donald Trump to an ideal conservative candidate. Obviously, this makes Trump look bad. It would make any Republican look bad. They need to compare Trump to Hillary Clinton, for that's the alternative. It reminds me of an old joke:

Two men are camping in the mountains. One morning, as they crawl out of their tents, they see a grizzly bear charging them from half a mile away. One man proceeds to put his running shoes on. The other man chides him: "You can't outrun a grizzly bear!" The first man replies, "I don't have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you."

The point is that the basis of comparison matters. Donald Trump doesn't have to be the ideal or perfect conservative candidate in order for one to be justified in voting for him. All he has to be is more conservative than Hillary Clinton, and anyone with a brain knows that he is.

IN THIS year’s presidential election cycle, we have a candidate with the exceptional and remarkable good fortune to have, as an opponent, a consummate and exhaustive reprobate. It is, however, our bizarre and inexplicable misfortune that we cannot discern which is which.

Paul Avella

Littleton

Note from KBJ: Speak for yourself, Paul. I know which one is the reprobate.

A mix of the old and the new in Glasgow. Click to enlarge.

Bill Cosby plays the race card. When all else fails, portray yourself as a victim.

Here.

Here.

Who is this mysterious man with Hillary Clinton? Could he be a foreign agent controlling her for some nefarious purpose? Just sayin'.

Addendum: Watch this video:

What is going on?

I do not think than anyone familiar with what has been published in the last [sic] ten years, in England and the United States, on the philosophy of government can doubt that this subject, which is the meeting point of moral, political and legal philosophy, is undergoing a major change. We are currently witnessing, I think, the progress of a transition from a once widely accepted old faith that some form of utilitarianism, if only we could discover the right form, must capture the essence of political morality. The new faith is that the truth must lie not with a doctrine that takes the maximisation of aggregate or average general welfare for its goal, but with a doctrine of basic human rights, protecting specific basic liberties and interests of individuals, if only we could find some sufficiently firm foundation for such rights to meet some long familiar objections. Whereas not so long ago great energy and much ingenuity of many philosophers were devoted to making some form of utilitarianism work, latterly such energies and ingenuity have been devoted to the articulation of theories of basic rights.

(H. L. A. Hart, "Between Utility and Rights," Columbia Law Review 79 [June 1979]: 828-46, at 828 [italics in original])

Mr. Bad Guy (1985). "Yes it was plain to see / Yes it was meant to be / Written in the stars."