A New Republican Candidate Just Announced.

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

49 Responses

  1. Dark Matter says:

    Well, at least I know who to vote for in the Primary.

    Thanks.Report

  2. Burt Likko says:

    Weren’t Republicans supposed to have had a really deep farm team? Asa Hutchinson ain’t it, my fellow Ordinarians.Report

  3. CJColucci says:

    Just waiting for the first person to suggest that because Hutchinson isn’t a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, proto-fascist crook Team Blue is somehow obliged to vote for him, or at least to refrain from criticizing him if he somehow becomes the candidate of Team Red.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci says:

      I heard that Hutchinson is so moderate, that George Soros is backing him.

      Lets all spread that news.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to CJColucci says:

      I’m sure if he makes any progress in becoming President he’ll transform into a proto-fascist super-racist in Team Blue’s eyes.Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

        Well, maybe. If so, it will be because he’d have to make that transformation to make any progress toward the nomination.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to CJColucci says:

          Are we supposed to think there will be less drama and more truth for the President than we had for critical Supreme Court seats? Blue wants to believe these things so they’ll find (or make up) a reason to believe them.Report

          • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

            Believing what you want to believe and making up reasons for it is simply color-blind human nature. As the last five or six years makes abundantly clear. You’ve made your prediction, so we’ll wait and see.Report

  4. DensityDuck says:

    oh, you found a racist transphobe who’s slightly less racist and a little bit less transphobic than the rest? BFD.Report

  5. DensityDuck says:

    phil, buddy

    when the accusation that people level against you is that you’re so inflexibly devoted to ideology that attempting to accommodate your demands is impossible because you’ll never accept the outreach of outsiders as meaningful, and when they say that efforts to engage you seriously are a waste of time because you’re less interested in discussion than you are in sermons, and when you want to show that they’re wrong and that you have genuine ideas and concerns that are more than just primal not-the-mama screams at a tribal opponent

    you shouldn’t agree with them when they troll youReport

    • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

      Density buddy – you should remember that what you think is hilarious trolling can still be true for folks on the other side.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

        I know you think it’s true.

        That’s the point.

        When you wonder why it is that Republicans always seem to advance frothing-mad racist transphobes as candidates and never anyone reasonable, remember this conversation.Report

        • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

          The last “reasonable” republican I saw on the campaign trail was Jeb Bush when he ran for governor in Florida the first time. You will not he’s not run since loosing the nod to Trump. If Republicans were serious about appealing to folks like me in a general that’s where they’d go.

          Hutchinson has a track record. Anyone can evaluate it. And to get a nod instead of trump he’s got to push even farther into territory that damns him and the GOP.

          I get the you don’t like it. I get you think i’m not bright. I get you think this is all fun and games.

          Remember this. Gov. Hutchinson, Gov. DeSantis,a nd President Trump advocate for policies that hurt people I love, including my children. I am not backing down from that fight.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

            From what I understand, every single Republican running for president since Richard Nixon in 1960 has been compared to Hitler.

            (They probably thought about going after Eisenhower as well but, for a handful of reasons, it never took off.)Report

            • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

              Nixon was an actual crook. I don’t recall Reagan or Bush 1 being compared to Hitler by anyone worth reading. Bush 2 started to turn that way, but Trump actually tripped across the fascist line.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                I’m not talking about Nixon in 1974 being compared to Hitler.

                Daley compared him to Hitler in 1960.

                “Anyone worth reading”

                Okay, then. That evolves into “this time it’s different than that time”, I am guessing?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                So did I miss the OT staff meeting where today was try and prove how stupid we think Philip is? Cause I’m not laughing.

                Because it is different – there are actual policies that have translated into actual laws that are leading down a historically familiar if disgusting path. before, people were poking at hints or personalities.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                If I say “X happened” and your response is “I don’t remember X happening in any important way”, then that tells me that me providing evidence of X happening won’t be particularly meaningful because of the *TWO* different outs you’ve provided yourself.

                1. Your Memory
                2. The importance of the thing happening.

                And so it’s not even disagreeing that X happened.

                And that’s exhausing.

                But the real point is that if you have enough Type I errors, you’re going to find yourself with Type II errors eventually.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                Lots of X’s happen. And Are minor and unremarkable. At some point, the numbers of X’s becomes remarkable. We have reached the point where the number of X’s as expressed by actual laws has become remarkable.

                Neither of those outcomes is indicative of any error. Especially Statistical analyses, as you allude to.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                The number of false Xs is remarkable if you’re coming out and saying “X is happening!” without wrestling with all of the other times that “X is happening!” was said and was wrong. Not only wrong, based in obvious posturing.

                Oh, X is happening, you tell me? Well, that’s X for you. Happens a lot.

                On top of that, there’s the whole situation where we say “New Phenomenon is as bad as X!” when New Phenomenon is merely a cultural hot button from the last week or so.

                That’s a good way to normalize X. “If New Phenomenon is as bad as X, then that means that X was only as bad as New Phenomenon. Huh.”

                Now, get this, I am someone who is also opposed to X.

                That’s actually why I think that normalizing X is *BAD*.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                You are opposed to fascisistic oppression of the LGBTQ+ community, and the denial of women’s body autonomy, the stripping of the vote from Black Americans, and the casting of Democrats as pedophiles? Do tell.

                Because those are the X’s I care about. And they are now becoming law when prior they were hushed whispers that were easily dismissed as the fever dreams of crackpot in basements. Which they were.

                As Chip often notes, the mask has been ripped off. So we call it what we see.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                I don’t think you’re stupid, but the sick thing is, that’s just another thing you think I said that I didn’t.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                I didn’t reference anyone. Why do you assume its you?

                And why are all sorts of other people allowed to feel and say similar things here but not me?Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                You’ve specifically said to me that I must think you’re stupid, or that I act like I think you’re stupid. You said it, that word, “stupid”, in reference to my opinion of you.Report

              • KenB in reply to Philip H says:

                I saw a comment on Twitter a while back (who knows if it’s reliable, i haven’t checked) describing a study that was done on people with sub-90 IQs — apparently the researchers found that this population didn’t understand the concept of hypothetical questions. Like, when they were asked “how would you have felt yesterday afternoon if you didn’t have breakfast and lunch”, they would answer “what are you talking about, I did have breakfast and lunch”.

                It’s a truism that “politics is the mind-killer”, but reading the above got me thinking about this in numeric terms. Like, someone could have an IQ of 105 and have normal intellectual capabilities, but once they start talking about politics, they get a -20 applied to their IQ and suddenly they can’t grasp how hypotheticals and analogies work, and they struggle to engage in deductive reasoning. But they’re used to thinking of themselves as basically smart & capable and don’t realize that they’ve become situationally stupid.Report

              • Philip H in reply to KenB says:

                If your intent was to be … reassuring … you missed the mark. Frankly it comes of a tad condescending, though not nearly as snarky as others here might be.

                I have openly and repeatedly said that I am challenged by the inability to read between the lines (and not just because I’m married). I’ve had actual cognitive testing done relating to this – When I entered grad school my father was convinced I was math dyslexic and had an education psychologist friend run me through what was then the standard testing to determine that. turns out I’m part of the population who thinks in words and paragraphs, not pictures, and since most higher math is letters I couldn’t reason through all the letters in calculus because I couldn’t “see” the relationships the way a successful mathematician does. Which is why nearly all of my answers are off of what is written, not what was meant. Yes that’s my cross to bear and no one else’s. But its not about measured intelligence, or its situational loss.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                I don’t remember you ever saying that. I interpreted a lot of those moments as attempts to spin. I’ll back off, at least somewhat.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to KenB says:

                The more sophisticated version is something like this:

                “The Average American Male is 5’10”.”
                “I know a guy who is 6’3″!”Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to KenB says:

                KenB: I saw that too, along with the follow-up showing that it was a 4chan greentext of questionable provenance meant as support for the idea that black men were genetically inferior.

                So I didn’t put much stock in it then, and certainly not now that I’ve seen it used for support of any number of ridiculous ideas with the argument being “well, if you were SMART, like ME, you could IMAGINE how this MIGHT BE REAL, therefore WE SHOULD DO IT…”Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to DensityDuck says:

                That said it’s entirely possible that many people think in terms of tribal red/blue affiliations without recognizing it, because it’s not a mode of engagement with the world that feels wrong, and in most cases it gets you were you need to go so it doesn’t even come out wrong. And this is not a thing that implies the use of racially-coded language to describe, there are plenty of quite intelligent and well-learned people who think this way just because nobody’s ever challenged them about it.Report

              • KenB in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Any time you start talking about differences in intelligence, there will be people who direct it in unfortunate ways, but that doesn’t mean the info itself is wrong. The AI doomers use this same sort of thing to convey how utterly unfathomable a superintelligent AGI could be in relation to even the smartest among us.

                Anyway, the thing I find most interesting is how different mental experiences and abilities can be from one person to the next, where it’s not just a matter of degree but that some people can have completely different modes of thought.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

            I’ll tell you what I want right now – a Republican candidate who opposes free stuff for blacks. Who supports equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Who doesn’t think that sodomy should be elevated to the same Constitutional status as race and religion. Who knows that low-income women should get their life together and find a husband. That’s all I’m looking for. Would you accept such a candidate?Report