All hail our new leader: Trump
This post isn’t about Trump. It’s about his supporters.
Not all of his supporters, either. But a certain very vocal percentage. I’m not sure what that percentage is. More than half? Less than half? Much less than half? What I do know is that the group I’m referring to doesn’t just support Trump in the ordinary fashion of people supporting their favored candidate. They appear to support him in the very same way that a great many of Obama’s supporters looked at him: as The One, the only person who could magically save us by—fill in the blanks.
It’s different for right and left, of course, in terms of exactly what these groups want from the savior, and what they see that savior accomplishing. Often, very very different. But the phenomenon is similar, an irrational appeal to emotion and magic—an appeal which, by the way, each candidate (Obama and Trump) has carefully fostered and encouraged.
Now, all candidates are fairly egocentric. And they must brag; it goes with the territory. Did any candidate ever get elected by saying “Oh, I’m not so great, and maybe I won’t accomplish as much as the other guy would?” Of course not. But Obama and now Trump take it to new levels.
Trump was criticized yesterday for his Bush and 9/11 remarks, which happened to fit into the anti-GWB pattern I had already noticed in the post I wrote yesterday before I ever saw those newer remarks of Trump’s. But in all the furor about Bush and Trump and 9/11, few seem to have commented on something else that Trump said in the same interview [emphasis mine]:
While speaking about national emergencies, Trump said that he would be a better president than his rival candidates or earlier presidents.
“I think I’m much more competent than all of them.”
Does that not remind you of someone? Our current president, perhaps? It is an excellent example of what I’m talking about—that appeal to the idea that he is obviously more wonderful than all the other candidates, in ways that don’t have to be proven or demonstrated, but merely asserted.
And many of his supporters seem to believe it. One form this takes is the oft-repeated claim that Trump is the only person who can beat Hillary Clinton. It’s curious to me, because this is a version of the old “he’s most electable” song, one that many of the same people supporting Trump have been so critical of when offered on behalf of other candidates in recent years. But is it even true?
I see no evidence for it; see these polls, for example. Polls are flawed and variable, of course. But they give an indication—the only real indication we have, especially if you look at a great many of them. So far the indications from polls are that Trump does not do better than many of the other Republican candidates against Hillary Clinton.
But perhaps evidence is not necessary when one is acting on faith. And more than anything, what I see fueling the Trump supporters is a combination of faith in Trump plus anger at the GOP. I’ve wondered from the start why more of that energy isn’t being directed to support for Cruz, because Cruz would seem to me to be the natural preference of those who are angry with “establishment” Republicans and want a conservative to be elected.
But for some reason, that’s not the way it’s gone so far. I maintain that the reason is that Trump taps into a drive on the right, similar to the drive on the left that helped give us Obama—that is, the desire for a leader who will magically fix everything by sheer force of his personality, his promises, and his own tremendous and towering faith in his own untested and unproven abilities.
The candidates who claim to have the most magic are usually the least qualified. Trump remains a braggart and a buffoon. He will wear thin as did Obama.
Stark:
Obama didn’t “wear thin” fast enough or with enough people.
Humans are weak. They search for a Hero King to save them, because they are weak. They don’t want to fight, they want to be told to fight. They don’t want to figure out what to do, they want someone to Order Them To Do Something.
This is how humanity always has been. Humanity will never learn.
But for some reason, that’s not the way it’s gone so far.
There’s an anti Leftist set of communities online and in various fandoms, who feel like Trump talks their talk.
Cruz isn’t from that contact, Cruz is more in that Harvard ish circle of social status.
Trump is close to that as well, but Trump has tapped into an existing community of anti Leftists. They didn’t exist before 2008, as far as I know.
Since the anti Leftist communities are new, the ones not based on politics or Republican politics I mean, the anti Leftists still think “elections” are going to save them in this country. If they had Awakened at around the same time as the Al Anbar Awakening, they might have a different pov by now.
Trump’s recent claim that GWB was somehow responsible for 9/11 is par for his course. Just shows how nutty he is.
Of the top 5-6 now, he’s the only one that might lose to Hillary.
Let Trump be Trump.
At this stage he’s annoying all the right people…
That is good.
what I see fueling the Trump supporters is a combination of faith in Trump plus anger at the GOP”
What I see fueling Trump supporters, chiefly, is desperation.
It’s as though some large contingent, though yet a minority of the population, had been overcome with despair. In both sense and sensitivity a great foreboding had overcome them. They have remembrances of America for Americans and they remember it well. They remember the celebrations, holidays and parades. They have them still but things had changed and not a little. There was now Indigenous People’s Day, the 4th of July had usurped Independence Day. The Parades? The flags still waved but they were Mexican — Cinqo de Mayo, and Polish – ÅšwiÄ™to Konstytucji (Constitution Day – Poland’s Constitution), and Rainbow, Gay Pride Parade. I don’t think the point needs belaboring.
One day a poor man’s Jeremiah tosses his hat into the political ring and the sense of doom is now mixed with a sense of hope — not much more. Any enthusiasm had ought not be mistaken as being so much for the man but for the hope. Jeremiah had lamented over the great alien influx. Had come out and said what no-one had said in a very long time — Americans First. The majority had pointed out Jeremiah had warts and boils. It mattered little to the desperate.
So, supposing that — God forbid — Trump, in spite of all the negative aspects of his record and personality — supposing that through SOME MIRACLE of democracy’s stupidity — supposing that he manages to survive the entire process (very, very unlikely) — but supposing he actually (hard to imagine) becomes the Republican nominee for President in the general election — supposing such a horrendous thing really, really happens….. (and, to make it interesting, there’s no 3rd Party candidate)
would you vote for Trump , or sit the election out?
Purely as a hypothetical, of course.
would you vote for Trump , or sit the election out?
This must be part of that Romney vs sitting out argument people had from the day.
G6loq,
He is annoying me with his blowhard, uninformed talk. I am not a Dem, nor am I establishment, but I do like people who read up on issues before they open their mouths. And I don’t want a president who thinks Hillary would be a great negotiator with Iran.
vanderleun:
Why ask such a distant hypothetical?
But my answer is: I’ll cross that bridge if and when I come to it.
At the moment, the alternatives of Trump vs. Hillary fill me with more despair about politics and the American people than I’ve ever felt in my life, and that’s saying something.
G6loq
Maybe he is wrecking the Left’s OODA cycles and maybe he isn’t.
But the question of which side he’s batting for in the war to come, is still unresolved. There are not enough open source data or analysts, to make a definitive conclusion.
Which side is he? Well, like PillowC said about knowing what’s in the bill, we’ll know what’s there when they get into power.
At the moment, the alternatives of Trump vs. Hillary fill me with more despair about politics and the American people than I’ve ever felt in my life, and that’s saying something.
The fact that people assume HRC won’t be in jail by then is probably the issue, right.
Can a President become enthroned when they are in jail or being prosecuted? Would it be Chirac, you would get automatic pardons?
Ymarsakar:
I would bet money that Hillary will not be indicted.
“What are the talents requisite for such a performance?
Exceptional intelligence, noble character and originality seem neither indispensable nor perhaps desirable. The main requirements seem to be: audacity and a joy in defiance; an iron will; a fanatical conviction that he is in possession of the one and only truth; faith in his destiny and luck; a capacity for passionate hatred; contempt for the present; a cunning estimate of human nature; a delight in symbols (spectacles and ceremonials); unbounded brazenness which finds expression in a disregard of consistency and fairness; a recognition that the innermost craving of a following is for communion and that there can never be too much of it; a capacity for winning and holding the utmost loyalty of a group of able lieutenants.”
Hoffer, Eric (2011-05-10). The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics) (p. 114). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
>or sit the election out?
I took a vow to never again vote for a Democrat. If two Democrats are running, which would be the situation in that hypothetical election, I would have to sit it out. As to the argument that Trump would in any case be better than Hillary, I’m not convinced.
This comment is much longer than are most M J R comments. Please bear with me . . . thanks in advance . . .
I’d like to propose a reason that I’ve not seen before, to consider supporting Donald Trump’s candidacy. First, the caveats:
Donald Trump is a juvenile jackass. He is full of bluster (and of something else, but we won’t go there). He has taken positions in the past and even present that are decidedly not what most of us on this forum would appreciate. That makes him very unreliable as far as adhering to any principle other than Donald Trump. At least with President Hopenchange, we [most of us here] *detest* what he stands for and what he is doing, but he’s reliably evil. I could go on, but what for?
As neo tirelessly points out, “polls are flawed and variable, of course.” And as M J R tirelessly points out, those polls never take into account the votes of illegals or of dead people. (In particular, the latter never answer calls from pollsters.)
Here’s where I’m going with this. It is November 2016, the day after Election Day. Hillary! has lost narrowly. Given all the fraudulent voting shenanigans, the vote is close, even if it shouldn’t be close. As surely as night follows day, the left is already agitating in the streets — just as they did in 2000 and in 2004. [Even though 2004 wasn’t even close there was agitating; it’s just that the utter lack of closeness put a bit of a damper on the leftist agitating.]
Anyway, it’s time to gear up for another round of Bush v. Gore.
The GOPe, ever anxious to go along to get along, is simply out-gunned as to resources to fight the Democrats — who will not abide another Republican victory, not if it can be reversed via (endless) recounts and the courts. They have enough resources in enough borderline “purple” states to ensure this. They won’t even need the Supreme Court this time.
So the GOPe (predictably) caves, after making the requisite noises. After all, Hillary!’s not the end of the world. She’s very much one with the establishment. She won’t rock any boat that a card-carrying member of GOPe cares about.
EXCEPT — the opposition nominee is Donald Trump, who just happens to have the resources, the energy, and the determination to fight all the battles and see to it that small-d democracy is served. No other candidate has the resources, the energy, and the determination. GOPe may have the resources — not the energy or the determination — but won’t part with it, no, not if there’s a reliably establishment nominee on the other side with whom they can *comfortably* live.
That’s where I’m going with this.
I believed in 2012 that Romney, while flawed and not terribly reliable himself, was the *last* hope for USA. I still believe that. But on the microscopic chance that I’m wrong, I see Donald Trump as a last-ditch Hail Mary pass to the end zone to see if there isn’t one last-ditch thing we good guys can do to reverse the authoritarian tide.
MAJOR, IMPORTANT CAVEAT — I *don’t* like my logic or my conclusions. I *don’t* like Donald Trump, for reasons hinted at above and for others that aren’t worth the bandwidth here. No, I am *not* a Trump-bot. No, I am *not* all in, or even partially in, for Donald Trump. But that’s where this particular flow of logic is taking me now. SOMEBODY HELP ME!
Please . . .
All politicians play a game to some extent, but the hustlers take it to a whole new level. And Trump is a hustler in the same mode as the Clintons.
He, like the Clintons, is totally untrustworthy. And, yet, to some he’s worth their vote. Go figure.
I remember that the last few elections when I thought that a lot of people were looking for a right wing Obama. They wanted a political savior. This annoyed me since I believe that the only sensible way to view an election is as a choice of evils. You have to choose the lesser one. In a perfect world there would be no government because we wouldn’t need it. But we don’t live in a perfect world and it can never be made perfect.
The great irony is that these people are acting like liberals.
“neo-neocon Says:
October 17th, 2015 at 4:24 pm
vanderleun:
Why ask such a distant hypothetical?
But my answer is: I’ll cross that bridge if and when I come to it.”
I see you are determined to evade my carefully calculated troll trap. No matter….
M J R’s logic is less flawed than anyone’s, as far as I can see. This bizarre campaign season tosses up any number of flaky possibilities, but there’s a certain amount of sense to that scenario.
Trump is an egomaniac, maybe only slightly less narcissistic than Obama, and the “magic” he proposes is eerily similar. He does have experience and some demonstrable successes on his side, though, unlike Obama. His would be a rollercoaster administration, but there’s a chance for some desirable outcomes. God help me, that’s where my thinking is at the moment.
I’m with MJR on Trump. And kind of amazed to see myself here.
But when I look at Clinton and the Coalition of Evil that the SoDems have assembled I cannot see anyone but Trump willing and able to call a spade a spade. To stand up in public and call Hillary corrupt, and a liar. And there will be no misunderstanding. I believe he will also call out the media, the lobbyists, the sycophants.
There will be no nice way to win this election. We need a battering ram. There is a lot of housecleaning and rebuilding to do.
The actual business of being President — that is doable. Consider 8 years of Barack Obama.
Folks, you’re looking at the impact of being a ‘first mover’ buttressed by Social Proof emotional ‘logic.’
Trump grabbed the bully pulpit — first.
Long before Walker was ready.
Unlike Walker, Trump strode the stage as if he knew what’s what.
It takes quite a while — and some brains and clear judgment — to realize how much you don’t know.
Donald does not figure to attain that level of introspection.
But then, few do.
Curiously, Walker evidenced just that level of introspection.
&&&
Trump also showed that he was a master of the talking heads// oratorical bombast.
Scott Adams’ blog has some very incisive words WRT Trump.
I’ve said it, I’ll say it again, Trump will be gutted in the final run.
That’s why the MSM is laying low. The MSM selected the GOP’s candidates for 2008, 2012 and is on target to select the field for 2016.
The truly bizarre polling for Jeb Bush as a rival to HRC are pure lies.
Jeb has NO constituency in the Republican field. Ann Coulter is right, No-one other than Democrat pollsters can find Jeb supporters. I can understand that Jeb would draw great strength from illegal immigrants, and their naturalized cousins that got here earlier.
ALL of Jeb’s ‘support’ will cross the aisle and vote for a REAL Leftist, that’s for sure.
Dr. Carson and Carly Fiorina have ZERO political experience — as in holding an elected office.
Hence they are dead meat at the head of a ticket. They need to be a ‘wingman.’
Cruz is the last man standing who could actually function as a fully developed adult.
I believe that Wall Street is attempting to bury him.
The MSM is ‘whiting him out’ — denying Ted Cruz any media time. This freeze out is entirely deliberate.
For they see the exact same ‘structure’ for next years’ campaigns.
> Scott Adams’ blog has some very incisive words WRT Trump.
And he classed Hillary as an equally accomplished “wizard”. I laughed at that. Scott Adams is a funny man.
In the off chance its the hillary or the donald, I vote libertarian.
Just a thought. I don’t know how many states now have open primaries where voters can cross party lines. We have that system here in Washington. The result is that the progs cross the line to vote for the man/woman they believe they can beat. It is a corrupt system, IMO. It can allow the opposite party to select the nominee they want to run against. I wouldn’t bet against the dems trying to leverage those types of state primaries to try to get Trump nominated.
Roy Lofquist, thanks for that quote from Hoffer. It seems most apt in these days of inexplicable political trends.
I have old Navy friends who are in the tank in a big way for Trump. My explanation for it is that they have been waiting for a long time for someone to speak up, fight back, and not be afraid of the media. Trump does that. I have said that the GOP candidates need fast response media teams to get out ahead of rumors, innuendo, and outright lies by the media. Trump is his own fast response team and he does it in such a way that the media cannot ignore him.
All that said, I don’t doubt for a minute that the media teams who are doing opposition research on Trump are salivating at all the vids and far out statements by the Donald.
One thing we have to remember is that it is early. Only political junkies are paying much attention right now. Come January many more people will begin to pay attention. The polls that matter will begin with the vote in Iowa. After March I believe that there will only be four or five GOP candidates still running – maybe only two. One of them will be Trump because he has the money to stay in. And, IMO, that’s a revolting development.
blert:
On the topic of who supports Jeb Bush, here’s my post, written a year and a half ago.
gracepc:
It is very frustrating to me that most people who attribute special qualities to Trump are unaware that other candidates share the very qualities they believe are unique to Trump.
You write:
There is one candidate who’s been doing it and doing it, since long before Trump was doing anything of the sort: Carly Fiorina. (In fact, didn’t Trump used to keep calling Hillary Clinton his friend?) I’d like to see a clip of Trump talking about Hillary that’s anywhere near as hard-hitting as this from Carly Fiorina, which occurred in early August.
In fact, you’d do well to read this post.
“would you vote for Trump , or sit the election out?
Purely as a hypothetical, of course.”
Yes. Next question?
I appreciate the question, and with all due respect to Neo, those conservatives who answer anything but an unqualified yes need to engage in some introspection. I understand all of the arguments against Trump, all of the critiques of his character and sincerity, all of the incredulity and frustration with his rise; and, I agree with most (though not all) of the same. But if one responds they would abstain in a Trump v. Hillary two person race (and yes, it’s going to be Hillary; I hope her debate performance put any reasonable doubt to rest), I question *his* sincerity and seriousness as a conservative as much as he questions Trump’s
Sitting out this election, no matter what the GOP ticket looks like, is unthinkable. If gumming up the works for the next 4 to 8 years is the best we can do, so be it.
I see huge similarities and I’m bothered by the herd rushing into idolatry the same as the Obamunists. The narcissism is the same, but the ideology is different. The other difference is, Trump’s narcissism is based in reality. He really IS more competent. But no personality is going to save us. We need to save ourselves. Trump is a natural leader, but what will he lead us TO? I’ve always been a Ted Cruz guy. He IS competent, courageous, articulate and brilliant, but he’s NOT a narcissist, he IS a Patriot, he IS a student of history. He actually gets on his knees and prays to God instead of thinking he IS God.
I’m also with M J R, but with a cagier calculation: we are given a system that requires an elective King – yet we blanche and bitch when He suits its largeness? (Obama is too big to be merely “King.”)
i think this is realism. Therefore my donation is going to one int the top tier needing it most, Dr Ben Carson. Out of the top outsider candidates, he can benefit from my small sum most, methinks.
Cruz may be too intellectual to catch fire – time will tell – and its unclear if the best mind can get populist enough to grow enough followers who may have a learning curve too steep for the times and temper. Meanwhile, Rubio is gaining multiple billionaire’s support – thus, my palty contribution matters less to him. (Come new years and actual voting dates, I will re-evalutate.)
I think my very small contribution matters more, now and soon, than voting does later. Who agrees with me?
I think seeing “Trump” as a puzzle to be solved is an amusing diversion but ultimately a fools-errand. He’s only a cypher of what ails us.
I’m glad he’s being a public lightening-rod, because lacking this, the people shall surley lose their way. Trump is cementing the core issues for the Right base, and all the important candidates are filing out their dance cards accordingly: to staunch all immigration, grow the economiy, and seriously reform and restructure all dept spending and obligations. And then do the Right things to revive Constitutionalism and return our broken rule of law back to simplicity and predictability.
Yet, reading this analysis of how the unchecked naturalization of unasimilated immigrants already (and inevitably) undermines the electoral Right, I grow pressimistic for any just future: the Rubicon may have already been crossed in 2012.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/10/report-limitless-immigration-creating-permanent-democrat-majority
If so, our slim chance to regain anything like traditional Patriotic (libertarian) Liberties is doomed to fail in 2016, whoever stands for the Pubbies for Prez.
Like M J R says, “Hail Mary,” indeed.
WSJ has up a new piece on the Middle East crisis and crumbling of America’s place in it.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-path-out-of-the-middle-east-collapse-1445037513
I cannot but help read Henry Kissinger’s concise critque as also a realist strategic road-map for the next, hopefully Republican, president to impliment.
We have done worse for so long, his crystal clear prose is most commendable.
I just read this piece and American Thinker and then read the comments. The Trumpsters are all over Bush. Their ignorance and provinciality is appalling. They do not seem to understand that Bush had to tame down possible attacks on Muslims at home, that he had to keep other Muslim countries from turning against us, that the international community as a whole (including Muslim countries) would not have been able to stay with us to build our intelligence network, that we had to maneuver through touchy situations in Pakistan to get even minimal support against the Taliban, etc, etc.
These people apparently never followed events after 9/11. I guess they were too busy watching The Apprentice and The Kardashians. If their message can’t get through to conservatives like me, how will they ever reach independents and Dems? They aren’t LIV; they are No Information Voters. Maybe we should give them some Kool Aid.
When the (self-described) conservative faction of the GOP dispensed with governing as an agenda and settled for just hating Obama–and this view was endorsed/encouraged (and, perhaps, to some degree created) by both the GOP Establishment and the advertisers targeting conservative voters the window for Trump was created.
This happened a long time back.
Trump is running a campaign taken, literally, from the comments sections of major conservative news sources.
I think there’s something additional, and very sobering, going on.
Americans (i.e., non-Leftist and patriotic) have realized that the old Checks and Balances have largely collapsed, and they’re hoping Trump will prove a Sulla in need. They’re judging that the era of primo inter pares is over, no matter how much we mourn it, because we’ve seen what happened to the two landslide Republican elections we had to return “our” party to Congress: Ffffffft! nothing.
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Lucius-Cornelius-Sulla
Sulla’s history is sobering as well.
” And more than anything, what I see fueling the Trump supporters is a combination of faith in Trump plus anger at the GOP.”
Not being an ubermensch endowed with perfect objectivity and a categorically superior insight into reality, but a poor probably deluded fool who is motivated similarly to many folks who post here (if I understand them correctly, and I hope I do), I plead guilty that my support for Trump is “fueled” by a combination of faith and anger at the GOP. As usual, Neo, it strikes me that you get it exactly right. I just want to quibble over the “more than anything” part.
And I will admit that I have nothing as objective as the current polls to rely upon, other than to note that Trump has been crushing his GOP opposition for several months now pretty much everywhere, with pretty much every demographic.
I believe it is immoral for a person on our side (sorry to use that stupid, weakling, irrational generality – – “our side” – – but I think many folks will understand what I am talking about) to not vote, regardless of the GOP nominee, because anyone running on the GOP ticket must be, at least marginally, better than a leftist (IOW, whoever the Democrat nominee necessarily is).
Assuming for argument’s sake our nominee is a clueless quisling beholden to one or a few plutocrats, he will still be better because there are certain natural restraints on a Republican president. He buys us time, whereas blowing things up (I believe) will imminently extinguish any chance of preserving constitutional America.
Using George Bush as an example based on his actions: he was a poor president, he was not a conservative or a constitutionalist leader, and he failed to grasp, or care about, or know what to do about, the fundamental crises. He was not only wrong on islam, wrong on immigration, wrong on our untenable financial position, wrong on the motives and machinations of the left and its takeover of American culture, but he was also an advocate for precisely the opposite actions needed to address these crises.
But we did get one good SC justice, and we didn’t get a comprehensively subversive administration. Meanwhile the Tea Party arose and conservatives got started in the new media, both very good things. Conservatives gradually and more deeply understood the leftist takeover of our culture, which (I hope and believe) is leading to efforts (perhaps futile, but maybe not) to address this gargantuan reality. If we got Gore or Kerry, things might very well be over by now, Obamas long before Obama.
Everybody has a faith whether he knows it or not. There is some fundamental premise of his thinking which cannot be proven or disproven necessarily, even to himself. My faith is that I don’t know. Life is a mystery, and the mystery (or is it just “mystery”) is built into daily existence.
I have not the faintest idea who the best candidate would be. I cannot grasp the metaphysical factors which would reveal who can win or who could be the best president.
One of the greatest things about Reagan was the fact that he gave a speech a hundred times over the course of years before many audiences demonstrating his principles. He read Human Events weekly. We did not know until after his death that he was erudite and an intellectual but we heard from his mouth during his life enough words, both prepared and spontaneous, to prove he thought and felt the way we do.
Even so, as a much younger person who admired Reagan, I supported Phil Crane initially, thinking he was more capable of governing from a conservative perspective. Maybe he could have been, but in aged retrospect I am pretty sure I was wrong.
Sarah Palin was (is) similar to Reagan in this respect.
To my mind, Cruz is the closest person in this election to Reagan and Palin in stated and historical terms inspiring confidence that “this person thinks and feels the same way I do.”
No one else is very close, I believe.
Winning and governing are the two issues. Regarding winning, the chief problem for a Republican in the general election is the highly effective, brilliant propaganda of the media, always done in conjunction with the various others sectors of leftist dominated culture, always aimed at the enormous segment of the easily manipulated and poorly informed, and never opposed or confronted by Republicans, but always kowtowed to.
It is understood, kowtowing is probably the best strategy when there is no means to oppose successfully – – not that it is tried by Republicans. So we will have an election where SHUT UP – – the underlying tactic – – will again carry the day or try to.
Obama is a nice man. Hillary deserves empathy. Moslems are respected fellow citizens who should be regarded as such. Indecorous language and ideas are forbidden (unless uttered by a Democrat, in which case they were never uttered).
On the one hand, we have a candidate (Dem) supported in every way imaginable by a thoroughly corrupt and infiltrated culture, on the other we have a candidate (GOP) floating on a lonely ice floe. The easily propagandized and manipulated grow in number daily, ironically motivating Republicans to be more circumspect and more submissive to the Narrative, more supportive (unintentionally) of SHUT UP.
Here is where my faith comes in. I believe the complete opposite of SHUT UP is needed to win. With every “Obama is a nice man” and “Hillary deserves empathy” another 100,000 of the well informed drop out at the Orwellian phoniness of it all. The easily manipulated dream their dream and never wake up.
“Hillary is a liar”. Is that a wake-up call? “Hillary is a corrupt thief”. “Hillary hates America”. Is that a wake-up call? “Sanders is a communist” Is that awake-up call?
Well, it is reality.
The opposite of SHUT UP takes understanding of how SHUT UP works, fortitude, and a killer instinct. Destruction, not politeness or courtesy, is wanted. (Side thought: why do you think the finger-wagging Clintons preached against the “politics of personal destruction” while that was their chief tactic?)
I do not see the killer instinct, either inclination or aptitude, in any candidate but Trump. (Exception: Cruz has the inclination, I doubt his aptitude). My faith tells me some of the others might have an inkling, some (Bush) do not. None of them have demonstrated the aptitude.
Trump’s reiterated message that the media is dishonest works because he calls out particular people and particular practices. For those who have not watched or listened, he has engendered a more objective, respectful attitude as a result. You can see it and hear it. That is practical evidence of effectiveness.
I have not the faintest idea where this will take Trump, and maybe the kowtowing and playing by the polite rules is the better bet (although that means we have lost already).
I feel spiritually oppressed by our culture. (I am very grateful for my life and grateful for the life America has given me; I am not oppressed in the material sense). I feel oppressed by the leftist tedium, the leftist prohibitions, and the sycophantic absurdities of the propagandized and easily manipulated even though they are mostly nice people and well meaning.
In his Richmond speech, Trump did a riff on “Merry Christmas”. To this day I say “merry Christmas” to anyone and everyone (and often get a “Merry Christmas” back from anyone and everyone, a wonderful lesson). Wow, thank you Donald Trump, you did stir my emotions, you did form a bond. But how forbidden! How daring! I can’t get your back, but I will try! I think you would have my back!
“Bergdahl should have been shot.” OK, I realize this is probably not a possibility. That went out with the Civil War (except the guy after WWII). But it spoke to my heart. There would need to be a whole lot of Fiorina or Cruz speaking persuasively to my intellect to overcome that.
Trump says he will build the wall; deport illegals, take care of vets; repeal Obama care; restructure the tax code; diminish our debt; cut down the cost of government; rebuild the military; renegotiate trade deals to our great advantage; and get along in mutual respect with the Putins of the world.
No one knows to what extent any or all of these things can be done. We can only know they cannot all be done, or done to the extent he promises.
That is just as we know the confident assurances of any politician are ridiculous when they are made, except for maybe BO’s promise to destroy this country to the best of his ability. There is a great deal of corruption between “I will try” and “I will do” and that is not even taking into consideration the question of whether they mean it or not. But the corruption has never stopped a single politician from saying he will do something. It’s innate.
And it is something that the propagandized and easily manipulated can get.
Viewed from the perspective of reality, Reagan’s promise of Morning In America was total nonsense. From my personal point of view, it inspired tremendous faith and a bond.
I do not believe (as I did initially) that Trump was doing this on Hillary’s behalf or to derail the Republican’s chance to win the presidency. That is a matter of faith. It is a matter of faith that Jeb! is not in the tank for his close “sister-in-law” Hillary, or that Rubio does not represent the interests of his plutocrat sustainers.
I have seen how the GOP losers lose. I have seen how the GOP promisers do not keep their promise.
My faith tells me Trump is not a loser, and he is on my side. And, yes, I do want to make America great again.
See how emotional I am?
neo at 12:28 AM: if you repeat that video a few hundred more times it might start to equal what Trump is doing daily, but folks might not watch it after the first few times.
Is your faith in Carly sustainable?
I watch her and my faith is not stirred by this isolated instance. Certainly to my faith it does not demonstrate the comprehensive nature of the problem.
They appear to support him in the very same way that a great many of Obama’s supporters looked at him: as The One, the only person who could magically save us by–fill in the blanks.
I have yet to see any of that and I hit a fair number of blogs and other sites with comment boards. Most of the people who support him do so because of his bringing out immigration as an issue and his willingness to fight against the Lefty media.
I have seen a lot of anti-Trump types accuse Trump supporters of this sort of thing, but little of it actually.
Maybe we need to see a few links.
Truth in advertising: I like the guy, but I also like Carson, Mrs Fiorina, Cruz (sometimes), Jindal, used to like Rand Paul (until he started sounding like dad), and would have liked to like Walker and Perry a little longer.
As you may gather, I’m wedded to nobody at this point.
formwiz:
Well, you and I must be looking at VERY different blogs. And I’d wager I look at a lot more of them then you, and read a tremendous number of comments as well.
It’s what I see, over and over and over, from a segment of Trump’s supporters (and I made it very clear in this post that it’s a segment, not the whole–but it’s a very significant and vocal segment.)
I, too, would have liked to have had the opportunity to like Walker and Perry longer. I thought at the outset that they were two of the best candidates. They just couldn’t get traction, and Walker definitely came across as bland. This campaign season, people seem to want something more intense (except for Carson, who’s so laid-back it comes across as intense or at least very different, if that makes any sense).
Tonawanda:
Faith? I don’t think in those terms with candidates. I think it’s a dangerous way to think. I used the term to describe Trump’s supporters because I see it in them, not because I think that way for myself.
I think in terms of consistency, trustworthiness, ability to communicate, intelligence, strength, steadfastness, feistiness, tone, courage, and of course policy and political philosophy. I judge character the way you judge it with anyone, and part of it is a gut reaction that cannot be helped (and often should be trusted, although not always), because we are human beings and we are constructed to size people up with our guts, too.
I have watched many tapes of Fiorina. I have seen her in person, too. I sense a steadfastness and courage, and her statements show a very clear mind and ability to state things clearly, too, and often extemporaneously. She does not pull her punches. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
In contrast, my gut says “Do not trust this man!” every time I hear Trump. But I’m not relying on just my gut, although I listen to it. He also has a history of statements that are not just liberal but leftist, and he is a petty, self-aggrandizing narcissist. He is that last thing—which is dangerous, in my opinion, as with Obama—in every appearance he makes, and almost every statement he makes.
The only “faith” I have in him is that he is a shyster con man and narcissist.
By the way—as I said, I have seen many Carly tapes and I’ve seen her in person. One of the biggest themes of her campaign—in fact, THE biggest theme, particularly at first—was her relentless attack on Hillary Clinton. That was what first drew my attention.
So your calling that video an “isolated instance” tells me you have no idea what Fiorina’s been doing, and no real familiarity with her at all.
“neo-neocon Says:
October 17th, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Ymarsakar:
I would bet money that Hillary will not be indicted.”
I’b bet the farm and give odds that DOJ under Obama’s orders she will not be indicted.
This shows just how corrupt the Obama admins are … but Dems don’t care. It’s like give us Hillary or give us death! I don’t know if our politics have ever been more corrupt but who knows maybe so.
Tonawanda:
This is Fiorina on Hillary, way back in February of 2015. I can’t figure out how to embed the video, but it autoplays at the site.
Let me emphasize: back in FEBRUARY.
And here’s Fiorina back in May:
There’s so much more in that vein. Isolated incident? Hardly. It’s the leitmotif of her campaign.
So far my (very small amount of) money has gone to Carly Fiorina in the hope that she can stay in the race long enough for the Trump phenomena to have peaked and withered away. It’s a faint hope, but watching the video again makes me wonder how anyone can discount that clear, sensible, hard-hitting voice. She would make kibble of Hillary, and if Biden’s the opposition, I think she’d even do well against the Democrat fondness for Uncle Joe. We just need to keep on hearing and seeing her well into 2016.
Tonawanda:
Here’s another video, from May of 2015:
Jan in MN:
People don’t hear her because they don’t bother listening, for one thing.
For example, in this thread, Tonawanda (who’s an intelligent, thoughtful, politically involved person) made a statement that Trump was the only one attacking Clinton. But that is a hallmark of Fiorina’s campaign. I offered a video to prove it; he said that one “isolated incident” doesn’t convince him. So I’ve offered video after video, and explained that she’s been hitting Hillary hard for Fiorina’s entire campaign. He hasn’t had time to react yet, but my point in mentioning this is simply to illustrate how people often assume this and that and the other thing is lacking if they haven’t seen it for themselves. And very few people have the time and inclination to do their own homework on this.
For Fiorina, who was largely unknown prior to this campaign, it is a problem that people don’t know her. Those who read blogs may have noticed that ever since she started rising in the polls there has been a very very concerted effort to discredit her in various ways. Immediately after the debates, when she had done well, there was a host of commenters talking about two topics (had many of them gotten their talking points?). The first was her HP record, which was an expected line of attack. The second was a speech she gave at HP in 2001 right after 9/11, that had a reference at the end of it to the golden age of Islam, centuries ago; the sort of thing that many people were saying at the time, including George Bush and Islamic history expert Bernard Lewis. So word was going out that she was a squish on Islam, and for a lot of people those blog comments were all they really knew about her.
Then a third campaign began: she’s a RINO, she’s a liberal, she’s a leftist, she’s for big government, she’s a statist. I’ve never seen anything that backs this up, it’s just repeated and repeated and repeated and thrown around the blogosphere and many people have come to believe it.
For me this shows Carly is smart enough to know that come hell or high water Hillary will be the nominee. The others are playing the field more or less.
Carly steady hammers Hillary every chance she gets and that (with sound policys of their own for the nations problems) is the only winning play for any of the rebulicans
Tonawanda:
One more thing: Trump has NOT been “crushing” the GOP opposition.
First of all, Ben Carson does fairly well against him. But second of all (and this is far more important), so far Trump has had a steady ceiling of around 25%. I don’t have time to look it up right now, but polls indicate that he is NOT many people’s second choice, compared to the other candidates. What does that mean? It means that, as candidates drop out (and they will), it is more than likely that their voters will turn to other non-Trump candidates rather than to Trump. His negatives are high, and he has (again, I don’t have time to give you the link) the highest number of Republicans saying they will never support him.
That indicates (although of course it’s not certain) that although his support is firm and strong among his supporters, it may represent a true ceiling, or at least close to it. One out of four is not so very impressive in the big picture, and when his opponents winnow down to just a couple I predict that their support will build.
That is not to say that I am certain of this. But that’s what the numbers and the trends tell me.
As I’ve written in other comments, I do not have faith in anything Trump says. Anything. He is a weathervane that blows whichever way the wind is blowing, and he’s riding what he (correctly) sees as a wave of anger against immigration and other things too. Trump is for Trump. Trump is about Trump. Trump’s arrogance is the very arrogance conservatives hate in Obama. Trump’s accomplishments, other than in real estate development, are nil. Trump has character issues, for those conservatives who used to pretend to care (unfaithfulness in marriage). Trump’s only plus is that he has a big mouth. Trump can’t articulate issues; he’s all about sound bites, and promises.
I distrust him profoundly and deeply, as deeply as I do Obama, for many different reasons but for some of the very same reasons.
Ackler; (also vanderleun and Tonawanda:
There are several reasons I didn’t answer vanderleun’s question about whether I’d vote for Trump.
The first is that (as he admitted) it was a set-up, a trolling-type question. But I sometimes answer that sort of question if I want to. Far more importantly, my mind and stomach recoil at the choice, which almost literally makes me feel ill.
So until absolutely faced with the actuality (which, as vanderleun admits, is not especially likely), I refuse to consider the possibility (although I realize that it is a possibility; I certainly don’t think it’s impossible). But I find the choice and the prospect of those two so reprehensible that I cannot entertain it unless I am forced, and fortunately I am not forced at this point.
The third reason (and this is closely related to the second and may actually be part of it) is that I see both candidates as unacceptable disasters, but in different ways. Hillary is a dishonest leftist, likely to carry on many of Obama’s policies, and I will not vote for her. But my strong, strong, gut feeling about Trump is that he is a con artist and liar, too. There is nothing about his politics or history that says “conservative.” My gut feeling is very similar to what my gut feeling about Obama is in terms of his narcissism, as well—in fact, if such a thing is possible, I think Trump is actually a bigger narcissist than Obama.
Everything Trump says or promises sounds like hot air to me, including his promises to build a wall (that is, to make Mexico build it; WTF?). I have been astounded that so many people think that could actually happen; that’s what I mean by “faith” and “magic.” When I look at Trump’s past political pronouncements, I see mostly a liberal and sometimes a leftist—a blowhard, a nasty man who gets off on puffing himself up and insulting others in kindergarten terms, and a self-aggrandizing person who may know how the business world of the deal works, but shows no evidence of having an idea how to get something done politically and no track record whatsoever in that arena.
In short, my gut tells me not to believe a word he says, and that goes for “and” and “the.”
Of course, if he’s nominated, I would have quite a decision to make. Another reason I defer it is that, as the campaign progresses over time, I will see more and more of him and hear more and more of him. Maybe there is something he will do or say that will make me trust him more, or feel better about him. At that point I might be able to answer the question.
You (Ackler) say that if a person abstains in a two-person race between Hillary and Trump, you “question his sincerity and seriousness as a conservative as much as he questions Trump’s.” I have no idea why, since Trump is no conservative, and it is not at all clear to me that a Trump presidency would be preferable to a Clinton one. They would both, in my opinion, be unmitigated disasters and tragedies for this country and for the world. They would be signs that America has gone stark raving mad. That’s the way I see it.
There is no comparison to any previous Republican candidate I can think of, either. To me, Trump is off the graph in terms of my objections to him, and nothing of the order of previous conservative objections to someone like Romney or McCain or Bush.
If Trump is nominated, I would love to be wrong in my evaluation of him. Perhaps if that day comes (and I hope it does not come, because I hope someone else is nominated whom I respect more), it will have become clear to me that Trump would be better than Hillary, in which case I of course would vote for him. Till then, the question is unanswerable.
“I think I’m much more competent than all of them.”
Come on … I have to believe the bar for being competent in our nations capital is VERY low … so that’s easy to think it and even say it.
I have NO political experience and at times I think I’d be more competent than some of those buffuns …Dems and Repubs.
For those who for some reason think Trump is actually a conservative, you might take a moment to consider this from Glenn Beck:
jack:
There is actually no evidence whatsoever that Trump is more competent in political deal-making than ANY of them, much less all of them. A real estate mogul making a business deal is not the same thing.
That said, perhaps he’s more competent than some of them. He probably is. But he’s not more competent than ALL of them. That is, by its very nature, a stuoid, boasting, childish, narcissistic statement that is out of touch with the political realities of the difficulties of working in Washington. There are plenty of competent, intelligent, hard-working people there. But they don’t have dictatorial powers. Trump thinks he will have them, or a magic wand.
“But they don’t have dictatorial powers. Trump thinks he will have them, or a magic wand.”
If Trump is elected. Retains the house/senate why shouldn’t he think he has “almost” dictatorial powers?
He and others have sit and watched Obama do it with less.
jack:
Those same people think the GOP is against what Trump says he wants to do. So he would need some sort of persuasive or dictatorial powers to get it done. Plus, there is a very good chance that the GOP will lose the Senate in 2016.
What’s more, there’s no way that the GOP will get enough votes to end the Democratic power of the filibuster (denial of cloture). That problem is the Senate’s.
Obama has “acoomplished” things either by passing them when he had a filibuster-proof Senate (even Obamacare counted on that; that’s why they had to use reconciliation, because Scott Brown’s election would have jettisoned it unless they had passed it earlier when the GOP didn’t have the votes to stop them). Otherwise, he’s used executive action almost entirely (that’s the dictator powers I mean). Trump would go the same route for some things, but be stymied in others by the Senate and Congress problem.
In addition, I’m specifically talking about things like Trump’s promise that he’ll somehow make Mexico pay for the wall. Magic.
As I said, if he gets elected, I’ll be happy to have misjudged his character and intentions.
More here on why Trump doesn’t answer questions.
Seems like a con artist to me.
And yet people trust this man. Go figure.
What was really funny was watching all those Democrat light adolescents get in front of Trump on the show and they would shake and be nervous and their entire attitude would change, because they were afraid Trump would say “you’re fired”.
It’s like watching some serfs bowing to the aristocrat.
That kind of culture is prevalent amongst the corrupt of America, and nothing has changed, regardless of whether people call themselves Democrats or Republicans.
The slaves think they are free, as they glory their leader.
Ymarsakar:
Wasn’t it Kissinger who said that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac?
I watched The Apprentice once, I think. Not my cup of tea.
The transcript of Wallace’s interview with Trump today is here. In which you can find stuff like the following:
He’s, like, what … helpless to do anything about sending his business to Mexico and China? Do any of his supporters ever really listen to what he says?
Oh, and he could have bought some U.S.-made TV sets — see this article from 2014: What’s New in Television? More TV Sets Are Being Made in the U.S.
Neo,
So far the Trumpsters are only focussing on national issues. Can you imagine what he would be like in dealing with foreign leaders? Aren’t we in a lot of trouble today because Obama has made our foreign policy so unpredictable? Trump would be even worse. He constantly talks about things he has never even thought of before. He is both lazy and arrogant.
The trouble is, the people who decide these things–the electorate–do not by and large agonize over the issues that concern people that comment here. They don’t care about the Constitution, the size of government, or even, apparently, the rule of law. The battleground is the culture, and the battle, for now, is lost. That doesn’t mean it can’t be won, but not many in public life try to win except in talk radio or on a few programs on Fox News.
Because in today’s world there’s so much distraction and diversion in the media, including social media, I’m pessimistic that an alternative message can seize enough citizen attention to move the electorate to thoughtful action. It’s distressing in a time when competent communication is sorely needed that our side’s foremost speakers are inadequate in making the conservative case. Every candidate should make it his mission to teach the audience. It can be done in an arresting way, and there are people who know how–Bill Whittle, for example. The candidates need to understand that people who don’t care about ideology need reasons to vote conservative, and that they need a message that can overcome the appeal of free stuff and simple feel-good ideas.
Trump’s theme of “making the country great again” is effective because, isn’t that what we all want? But we know what that would take–it doesn’t mean just throwing our weight around internationally. It would entail rebalancing power within the country. It would mean restoring local control, civic responsibility, quality education, a leading foreign policy and a strong military. These are dull abstractions, but a good communicator can make them exciting.
People who have been in government too long are enmeshed in D.C. jargon, policy vocabulary. Fiorina’s great gift is simple, wise, straightforward talk–you want to hear what she has to say. She can be critical without being nasty and she can inspire people to want better for the country. I think neo’s right: the more she can be heard, the better chance she has.
expat:
Actually, Obama is predictable: help our enemies, hurt our friends (not always, but most of the time) and fail to intervene except with drones.
No one is afraid of Obama except our allies, and a few terrorists who are on the drone hit list.
I think more of our enemies would be afraid of Trump’s unpredictability because it’s really unpredictable, and he talks tough. My guess is that in reality he would not follow through and that they’d learn it’s bluster. Or, if he did follow through, it would be in an inconsistent and incompetent manner.
expat,
Well, Trump and Putin love each other. So there’s that. /sarc
oops. I bumped myself off mid comment. Hope this is not a repeat.
Once again I find myself in the box due to my own carelessness.
But when I look at Clinton and the Coalition of Evil that the SoDems have assembled I cannot see anyone but Trump willing and able to call a spade a spade. To stand up in public and call Hillary corrupt, and a liar.
What I should have said is — I cannot see anyone in the field of those who might get the nomination, (either by my preference or the polls) but Trump willing and able to call a spade a spade….
I personally do not think Fiorina is among those who might get the nomination.
I absolutely agree with you on her long term consistent record of calling Hillary and others out. I had seen the Matthews video and forgotten about the California one which was equally good. She would make a good candidate. But then again, I was a Walker supporter and we all saw what happened there.
I am not unaware of Trump’s failings. I am older than dirt and spent good portions of my career in WDC, Silicon Valley and overseas in former command economy countries. In my opinion,building on the liberal structure after 8 years of Obama and whatever you want to call the Democrat Party, these are dangerous times and I take this election seriously. Rightly or wrongly I am not as concerned with niceties as I am about winning and rebuilding.
You have a great blog with good commenters.
Neo,
You are right that Obama is predictable now to those who pay attention, but I don’t think many predicted how would act 7 years ago. Trump, on the other hand, probably will continue to change from day to day.
expat:
Change from minute to minute, rather.
gracepc:
Fiorina is now one of the frontrunners in the Republican field, starting from less than 1% just a short while ago. And she still isn’t even known about by all that many people. It is very early in the game.
Trump has the name recognition advantage. That’s about it. He may have peaked (accent on the “may”), although we just don’t know.
No one should write off any of the Republican top contenders at this point: Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz, Bush. They all have a shot at it.
Glad you like the blog.
Up at Powerline now:
Flim-flam all the way down.
Neo,
My mind is open and it is early.
About Carly, she has a lot of foreign policy and international relations experience that she might emphasize more, later in the campaign.
I have always admired her work in micro finance, especially for women, but there are lots of reasons that this could not work against her as well.
“could” — change to “might not”
My initial, emotional reaction, some weeks back when I realized how Trump was unlikely to go away — was that if it ended up Hillary vs Trump, I wouldn’t bother to vote.
I’ve been reading Ian Kershaw’s definitive biography of Hitler, and now am into the final volume, in 1939. I’ve come to see what happens when the situation devolves into arbitrary one-man rule. Nobody’s going to come out of working for Obama (at a high level) looking better than before. Just so, how would Secs of State or Defense fare under Trump? Would they have any real power, or be subject to whimsical overrule at any moment? Would being in his cabinet be totally meaningless?
Has America tired of democracy?
Lomg thread of comments…. the donald is not your savior, repeat that over and over until your brain is clear of trump kool aid.
I have no problem saying it up front:
If that buffoon Trump gets the nomination, I’ll be sitting out the election. I will not be responsible for electing a fool. At least, not by affirmation.
“Has America tired of democracy?” asks miklos rozsa.
If by “democracy” you mean “limited government,” yes. If by “democracy” you mean unlimited rule – as in de Tocqville’s Great Worry (circa 1840s) for the US and our future – “Democratic despotism” or unlimited popular rule – no.
America has tired of Constitutionally limited democracy. As a conservative Dutchman asked near the end of June, after the SCOTUS term, “Can we finally declare the (American Constitutional) separation of powers dead?” YES WE CAN.
We live under democratic despotism today, and we are electing a President to act like a King for us. Get used to it because it’s all we have, a kind of segmented, pure populism – and ultimately, unlimited MAJORITY rule.
Reading the comments since I last posted, I’m sure that Trump strikes a deeply unerving nerve for Neo – one that disturbes her and troubles her to (almost) no end.
I, too, wish we could elect a President constrained by a small and still constitutional government, perhaps like the one that Teddy Rooseveldt once oversaw. But we cannot because we do not have that option today.
Since Neo pits the consistent character of Carly against Trump’s questinable one, let me compile a list of recent narcissistic presidents in order to demonstrate that our fellow Americans are unmoved by her primary consideration of personality and character: Kennedy, Johnson (2X), Nixon (2X), Carter, Clinton (2X), Obama (2X).
It’s far easier to list the non-narcissists: Ford, Reagan (2X), Bush and Bush (2X).
Totaling the presidential terms, that sums to 10 held by narcissists, and 6 by non. Almost a 2 to 1 ratio.
Perhaps Carly’s strength of charcter will win out in January or February. But I’ve resigned myself to the fact that this consideration – a president’s personal character – matter’s not one whit to the American public, or else they would not have re-elected Clinton and Obama. If it did, a ratio of 2 presidential narcissists to 1 non-narcissist over the past half century would not exist.
Therefore, I believe the masses whipped up into a frenzy for a “flim-flam” man like Trump may well be the best that can be hoped for in these years of American denoumont.
Perhaps Neo is right and Trump is at his peak already. Plenty have said so, only to be proved wrong again and again.
But others have warmed to him and accept – if not join- the mania, already. Furthermore, either he or his men are helping to round out Trump’s policy stances with good sense and substance that is recognizably conservative. Citing clips and quotes in distant time are hardly penetrating nor persuasive demurrs to what Trump believes today.
I, too, wish it were otherwise, and that the best man or woman would win.
But too much tells us otherwise. And we must put away childish things because we are adults, and democratic despotism is the realistic expectation today – and yesterday, and tomorrow.
With this inferior present, what kind of leader can we best hope for? A winner and a serious leader for out side is the minimum – and Trump passes that hurdle well. And so far, he surpasses it through proving himself popular with the masses.
Trump or Ben or Carly or Cruz? YES!!!! And maybe – I love how a bitter scold put it at Instapundit: “Ricky Ricardo (Rubio) and John McCain (Jeb),” are the supposed conservatives.
My realism tells me we usually do worse.
The House of State is on fire and burning down, now! I don’t see how a “Ricky or John” can do much more than piss on the ashes. Even this atheist can pray that they are made of sterner stuff.
It does little good to overanalyze our leading prospects. “We” are not in control – “We” do not decide the winner, anyway.
“Our” ideal leadership doesn’t matter at this Rubicon. Only putting out the fires and rebuilding something worth having, matters. Namely, a polity recognizable to the Framers. That is the only foundation worth having that I know. And completely losing it is what’s at stake now.
Orson:
There’s a difference between having narcissistic traits or qualities and being a narcissist as a character disorder. It’s complicated, but let’s just say the latter is far more extreme.
Obama and Trump both, IMHO, most likely have the character disorder of narcissism. The other presidents you mention were merely narcissistic.
Neo, in your comments above you have voiced my opinions to a tee and then some. The only thing I would add is that I think Trump’s game is not really to get elected but rather to disrupt. He is smart enough to know that by attacking GW he would alienate a significant portion of Republicans, yet he did it anyway. This shows me that he either already knows he can’t get nominated or, more likely, that he never intended to go all the way. I still believe he is working on behalf of Hillary. When the time comes that Trump followers realize they’ve been conned, they will be so discouraged and bitter that they will just sit out the election. His goal is to sow discord first, and then to demoralize.
I’m with you on Trump Neo. He seems like an unstable narcissist with a good business sense, and that’s about it. He’s fine wheeling and dealing and should go back to that, and to reality TV. I think Hillary stands a good chance of getting elected if he is nominated since many will be against him and vote for her, as the lesser of two evils if nothing else. I won’t. I will vote libertarian as a protest vote. I also don’t think Hillary will be indicted — I am not certain, but I have that strong feeling.
It is horrible to think of those two as our only options. Especially with Ted Cruz, Rubio and others in the running and they are good choices, and yes – Fiorina. I still think that Cruz or Rubio may pull it out in the next few months and take a lead. Fiorina and Carson are still in the mix too though I don’t see either one winning the nomination, though who knows, this is such a crazy election so far. I could see either one for VP, and that would put them in a better position for the actual presidency later. Time will tell but please NOT TRUMP!
Most here have not actually paid attention to trump and their opinions of him match the propaganda…
how is that so if it dont work on them?
not to mention that the propaganda also has nothing actually bad to clip him with. not one incident in his whole life is bad enough to smear him with. women? he hires and pays them well… hair? yeah, thats the ticket… acts like a buffoon… yeah, after biden, how can you tell? not to mention that that is just a leftist slur from propaganda… havent you gotten tired of the weak willed yet?
when a person is dominant and you dont like them, they are arrogant, when they are dominant and you do, they are something positive.
its so funny…
that even the anti communists want communism
and they cant see themselves in the mirror
the republic is over…
there is no chance for it any more.
but i said that 10 years ago, and was lambasted that i was being too negative… well, no one said who you get to vote for is perfect (other than the left)..
but all you get to have to choose from is trump vs communist clintons (see bills schooling in russia, see hillaries wesleyan papers)…
and yet, you will help destroy your only chance…
dont remember that the same things you guys are saying about trump, they said about reagan. a buffoon, funny hair, etc.
you dont want it to be better…
what then would you talk about?
how would you self pleasure with armchair pomposity masquerading as erudition?
Orson –
Kennedy and Johnson together served two terms, not three.
Kennedy – 1961-63
Johnson – 1963-68
The plot against Donald Trump
Back in the days of Richard Nixon and Watergate, Donald Segretti had a word for it. Unfortunately, I can’t use that word in a family newspaper, but suffice it to say it had something to do with rats and everything to do with a vulgarism for political dirty tricks: using plants and double-agents in order to embarrass a candidate and boost their own man’s chances. Last week it was GOP front-runner Donald Trump’s turn to get, well, ratfreaked. A young woman at a campaign event in New Hampshire – self-righteous, hands on hips, a-quiver with indignation – popped up to…
néo says:
Trump was criticized yesterday for his Bush and 9/11 remarks, which happened to fit into the anti-GWB pattern I had already noticed
Jeb Bush agrees that 9/11 happened due to Bush/Clinton immigration policies
I had a boss like that. He’d say the darndest things and then… eventually we had to fall in line … intuitive with a knack for being right …
Its all about stupid surface stuff..
how many billionaire buffoons are there? does the term actually fit someone who has succeeded that way? if you think its money, then why havent ANY lottery winners cracked the billion mark with their big lump sum payments?
then there is even dumber stuff like this
GOP presidential candidate and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham says that he can do a far better job on the world stage than President Barack Obama. “Anybody who rides around on a horse without their shirt — I can HANDLE [emphasis added] that guy,” Graham said
see? akll about the surface…
not about substance.
buffoon is not substance
shirt wearing is not substance.
though i can bet that if putin and graham were put in a gym, graham would be crying in less than 15 seconds of the word go.
and underestimating KGB is not soeone you want in the presidents office… they have murdered more people than anyone, and almost NONE escaped…
meanwhile:
Shiite militias battling ISIS in Iraq aren’t getting the kind of logistical support they need from Washington and so they have begun attaching Russian guns to Abrams tanks and firing Iran-stamped ammo.
i guess the post office has the ammo
(actually not as theirs is legal to use on citizens, but illegal to use in war)
“One may smile, and smile, and be a villain. ” ― William Shakespeare
all that glitters is not gold – William Shakespeare
“God hath given you one face, and you make yourself another.”
I had a boss like that. He’d say the darndest things and then… eventually we had to fall in line … intuitive with a knack for being right …
He was rough and gruff and bombastic. He’d look at the inchoate data we’d be mulling and would stop by and ask ‘you’re sure you want to keep that position on?’ … you’d scramble to justify and the rationale had to be meaningful, not just shiny articulate. … He’d excuse mistakes but severely punish patterns. You were out.
Thing is there were big bonuses at year end, fancy outings, helicopters, shiny cars and so on…
Nowadays it’s the yakkers and takers punishing the makers…
Cruz knows ….
One of the things I’ve been looking at is strategic and logistical options to overturn the Leftist alliance’s mind control and brainwashing.
I generally concluded, same as others have, that it takes an entirely new generation, one that wasn’t steeped in Leftist victimhood and rape trauma or homo trauma or x trauma, to grow independent of the Left’s control and then once they begin hating the Left, the problem can take care of itself.
But most people didn’t see where that generation could be, except from the future after they retake the Institutions.
But I looked at it from another method. Which organizations are effective in fighting the Left and how many of those members were 15 years old, 5 years ago? How many were 20 years old, 10 years ago?
In 10 years, which is more than long enough to cover Bush II to Hussein O, how many 15 year olds would have become adults on the net? How many 10 year olds would have grown up with the internet as their primary social circle or secondary social circle?
There is a generational process at effect, one that runs parallel to home schooling or public schools. And the worst the public schools become, the more child rapists and rapists and crims they invite in, the more people escape to some cyber community for asylum.
neo advises me:
I am quite well aware of the first issue – the difference between terms. (I did use them sloppily ABOVE – but deliberately in order to be informal and nontechnical.)
Since the second question elevates the issue to a more technical level, I have to ask: and you don’t think Bill Clinton qualifies for being put into the same company of Obama and Trump?
REALLY?
If you do, perhaps you ought to recaquaint yourself with some of the compulsive and sordid behaviors many books have unearthed about “Bill?”
About pre-24/7 and cable TV presidencies, do a google search of
“robert caro lbj narcissist”
I get nearly 41,000 hits, and (although I didn’t go deeper or more systematically) enough “narcissist personality” on the first page to refresh my memory that the label for Johnson is fair.
LBJ surely qualifies.
I haven’t dipped into RMN bios in a long while, but I think you get the idea about quickly testing your claimed division on the presidents…YMMV!