On writing and thinking about Trump
It’s pretty obvious that the blogosphere and the media in general have been saturated with Trump discussion ever since last summer, when Trump entered the race and picked up a lot of support almost from the start. It’s been hard to resist talking about him almost incessantly, despite vows to stop or the deep conviction that dominating the media is exactly what he wants, and that it works to the detriment of the other candidates.
But there is a reason for it, and the reason is not just sensationalism or doing Trump’s bidding by getting him publicity. Trump really is a fascinating phenomenon that is unique in my lifetime, both as a personality and as a force that has shaken up the political scene, particularly the GOP. And so the discussion continues…
Trump’s candidacy has been a sort of plaque discloser of revelation about pundits and politicians. He has made some very very surprising bedfellows—Falwell Jr. and Chris Christie, for example (Sarah Palin was unsurprising). He has had some surprising supporters in the media: Greta van Susteren would be one, but there are many others. Talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh have tried to straddle the line of a bogus (to me, anyway) “impartiality” that seeks to avoid offending a large percentage of their listeners on either side of the Trump divide, yet seems to have angered quite a few anyway. Others such as Mark Levin, who started out as tepid Trump supporter (despite having had the goods on Trump and excoriated him for it four years earlier) have ended up huge detractors—in my opinion, too little too late.
One thing we’ve had no lack of, however, is prognostications and analyses. I’ve noticed that a lot of mainstream pundits seem to me either to be saying things about Trump that are obvious or things that are stupid. He is a political black swan who has not only shaken people up, but he’s made a lot of people sound foggy in the head. I think Trump does that because he really is different compared to most past US politicians. People have trouble understanding him, and so they write to try to understand him, and it’s a work in progress.
Now, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I’ve got the scoop, the One True Understanding of Trump. But still, I’ve been puzzled by the extent of some of their puzzlement.
For example, take a look at this from Rich Lowry:
Donald Trump never ceases to amaze, but his answer at a CNN town hall about the pledge he had taken to support the Republican Party’s nominee was still jaw-dropping.
Not only did Trump say that the pledge is null and void as far as he’s concerned, he also went further and told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he doesn’t want the support of Ted Cruz…
Every rational calculation says that Trump should seek to preserve the pledge. At this point, he is more likely than anyone else to be the nominee and benefit from the support of his competitors. He should want to use every possible lever of unity at his disposal given the threats of an independent conservative candidacy should he win the nomination. And yet, he’s done the opposite.
Who can guess why? Stupid pride? A manliness contest, where he wants the likes of Ted Cruz eventually to have to offer his support even after he says he doesn’t want it? A disdain for every political convention, even one that might help him?
Whatever the reason, it is yet another sign that Trump is all about himself. In this sense, he is already what the RNC feared when it got him to sign the pledge””a third-party candidate. He’s running against the Republican Party from within the Republican Party. He cares nothing about its values or its interests. He favors it exactly to the extent it can be subordinated to him and no further.
What’s the mystery? I don’t see it as a mystery, if you start with the basic principle that Trump is a narcissist and attention-seeker above all, who is interested in personal domination and power. That statement applies more or less to a lot of politicians, of course, but for Trump it’s even more applicable. In addition, most politicians described that way also have some allegiance to a basic and standard political position (left or right, Democrat or Republican). Trump does not (except for the fact that I actually think—and I could be wrong even about this—that he does have positive regard for the US as a country, although he would choose himself over the country if need be).
Here are the ways in which I interpret what Trump did regarding the pledge:
(1) All pledges and promises are mutable and meaningless to Trump, made to be broken in a moment and then made again if Trump sees doing so as the best track for him to take at the time. In other words, his initial pledge was pragmatic, temporary, and meaningless, and I never took it seriously and am surprised that anyone else did.
(2) Trump’s opinion of himself and his powers has always been high, but has increased with this campaign and the obvious adulation of so many people. He thinks he can win without the support of the GOP and is only too happy to say a big FU to it (as are his supporters; in fact, that’s one of the biggest motivations many of them have for supporting him).
(3) If in fact Trump doesn’t win, that’s okay with him too. I know that many people would disagree with that statement of mine, because Trump loves to win and hates to lose. I agree with them on that—he loves to win and hates to lose—but I think in this case it depends how you define “win” and “lose.” If Trump loses the nomination he can tell himself that he has won because so many of his supporters will cleave to him and it will probably mean that the eventual GOP nominee will lose. So, if he can’t get the nomination, he will have wrecked the hopes and prospects of those (the GOP) who have kept him from it, and revenge is very much a kind of victory, too. If on the other hand Trump gets the nomination and loses the election, something similar would be operating: Trump will have gotten revenge on the GOP, and he will have built an extremely loyal following and demonstrated his enormous power over the media and his followers. Of course, none of this takes into account the very real possibility that Trump is actually okay with a Clinton victory or even has had it as his intent the whole time (I don’t think the latter, because I think his ego wouldn’t allow it, but I do concede that it’s certainly possible).
In summary, I would have been surprised had Trump not broken this pledge, and I will be surprised if he does support another nominee if he himself is not the choice of the GOP. That’s why I’ve always been puzzled by those who have said they think there will be a Trump/Cruz ticket; I’ve long thought that if Trump were to win the nomination he would choose someone willing to be subordinate to him, even abjectly subordinate, such as Christie or Carson or someone else who was not even a candidate for president this year.
And if he doesn’t get the nomination, would he run third-party? I’m not sure about that, but I tend to think probably not. I think he’s fueled by the idea of either getting the GOP nomination itself and sticking it to them that way, or destroying them in the process. If he’s already destroyed them whether he runs third-party or not (which I think he may have), no need to waste the energy in a third-party effort that would be very unlikely to end up with his being elected president.
> I would have been surprised had Trump not broken this pledge
Me too. Trump is not a man-of-his-word, handshake sort of guy, and has no trouble finding cause to justify his actions. He will do what he wants, and what he wants is determined by no one but himself.
Lowry is reading a script. He doesn’t understand that he’s at the Improv.
The first rule of improv is, always go with the bit. Whatever it is, commit to it. If you have to change it midstream, then commit to that. Just keep it going. Improv can survive anything but a lull.
It’s refreshing to hear someone on the political stage say they don’t want someone’s (someone on the same stage) support. That sort of thing is usually reserved for unsavory reputations and would include him (Trump) for the likes of, oh say… Kasich who’d already stated as much.
However much Trump remains in the dark about government and its sausage making operations he is, I believe, keenly aware of the process of last man standing politics, i.e., primaries. He is as acutely aware of his persona non grata position in the Party as he is aware of his popularity with a large contingent of voters.
“Facts are better than dreams.” – Winston Churchill
The facts are that Trump is not a man for all seasons and that it may well be a dream to support his candidacy. But they are facts also that GOP/Cons candidates, for national office, have been a detriment to this country in that they were presented, presented themselves, as significantly other than what they inevitably turn out to be — cuckservatives, to one degree or another. The most egregious of them, one successful, one rejected out of hand, were George W Bush and John McCain. The others were of the category ‘also ran’. Thirty years of what can be considered, justly, as Party contempt for the productive class of this nation is enough. Dreaming that this time the cucks are different is as much a dream as any dreamt by Trumpeteers. It lies heavier on the mind to think Bush III, Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz, are mold breakers than to think as much about Trump. The odds are not the gods, but however they are stacked, despair inclines more to the GOP/Cons. And hope more to Donald Trump… as silly as that may sound. The first measure of a candidate should be to question his perspicacity as to what it is that is paramount to the nation. The second measure matters not at all when the first teeters on the brink. On this Mr Trump trumps all pretenders.
If you’re doing a bit about a campaign manager, say that he didn’t assault the girl. If there are witnesses, say they’re making it up. If there are photos, say that they prove your version. If he’s arrested, say that she was assaulting him. Keep it going.
If you don’t know what your abortion policy is, make up what you think it would be. If you’re asked about it in detail, fill in the blanks. If pressed, change it, then say that it confirms what you previously said.
Little, small, insignificant detail: the pledge was broken in the first place by Cruz.
Cruz: I’m not gonna fulfill the pledge.
Trump: Fine, the pledge can be considered dead.
And the article is to blame Trump for it???
JurassiCon – Do you have any falsifiable view on this election? Is there anything that you can say, in advance, “if this happens then I’m changing my assessment”?
Yann – I think that Trump added the caveat “if I get treated fairly” to the pledge pretty early on. And he’s subsequently said that he’s been treated unfairly several times.
Neo-Levin never came out as a “supporter” of Trump. Like me, he liked what he was hearing, at first. I, too, held the same point of view as Levin with regard to Trump in 2012. But people change, as you know personally. A lot has gone on in this country in 4 years and Levin, to his credit, was open-minded. And as soon as Trump jumped the shark, Levin spoke out. I know that for a fact, because I had already concluded that Trump was not presidential timber and a “no go” unless it was between him and any Democrat. My son was still interested in Trump, but by way of listening to Levin, dropped Trump like a hot potato, when he went after Cruz. Within time, Levin came out for Cruz openly. His new format, LevinTV is the best news source I’ve encountered in years, perhaps ever. He is a principled conservative, a history scholar (and very good at presenting it) and a patriot. Levin has done a comparison of Trump and Hoover that exposes Trump’s tariff plans and other things in an exemplary way. I have an Aunt in Florida who was a Carson supporter and ended up voting for Trump out of anger toward Cruz (thanks to MSM coverage of blame). I offered to buy her a subscription to LevinTV and she bought one herself and is sold on it, like my son and me.
Yann:
I’m not blaming Trump for breaking the pledge per se. I am explaining why I was not surprised he broke it. That’s a different thing.
Trump breaks his word and backtracks often (Cruz much less so). I fault Trump for that.
In fact, though, regarding Cruz, I have to say that I didn’t expect most of the candidates who took the pledge to ultimately back Trump if he got the nomination.
Nor do I think Lowry is criticizing Trump for breaking the pledge. As I read it, he’s criticizing Trump because he thinks Trump is stupid not to want Cruz’s support if Trump’s the nominee.
Sharon W:
That’s why I wrote “tepid supporter.” I watched some of what Levin said at the time, and although he neither endorsed Trump nor “came out” as a supporter, he was a de facto tepid supporter in my book. That’s what I’m referring to.
And this despite the fact that in 2011 he completely had Trump’s number, and excoriated him. All of a sudden, in 2015, Levin stopped doing that. It seemed very hypocritical to me.
Neo, years ago my uncle said to me, “I reserve the right to be smarter today than I was yesterday.” If giving Trump a hearing 4 years later, and responding to his words and conduct in real time is hypocritical, then I guess that makes me a hypocrite.
There is a way out of all TDS:
Ted Cruz Jokes About Running Over Donald Trump with Car (VIDEO)
“In the beginning there was the word” ….
I would like to hear from Trump fans about 4 questions:
1) Will Trump break 200 votes in the electoral college?
2) How many GOP house members will want to campaign with Trump?
3) How GOP senate candidates will want to campaign with Trump?
Oops…
4) Is your support of Trump such that you are willing to give the dems control of the senate and put a dem in the WH for another 4-8 years?
Nick,
Yes, if on April 1st Trump yells April Fools and promises that from day one of his administration the borders will be open for all comers, I would reassess. I can easily imagine a hundred more scenarios. None of them have yet surfaced.
This seem to be Trump against the world race and it is amazing he’s still doing rather well.
That’s the phenomenon.
Name me another candidate in our lifetime that has done what Trump has so far?
I think Trump’s “deal making” is that the suckers (you and me and the folks who deal with him) think giving your word on something, like a deal, is stupid. Once you’ve done that, you’re committed but he’s free to get more by reneging-which was his intention all along. The only thing in the world that counts is Donald and Donald getting what he wants.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that Hillary Clinton could end up being indicted over her private e-mail server, once the FBI concludes its process. And regardless of what the Attorney General or the FBI does, the Congress has the power, RIGHT NOW, to not only hold hearings, but even to impeach Hillary Clinton (as the only punishment is a prohibition from future federal office). So why not get things on record and find out what really happened? Or does the inaction of the current Congress indicate something else?
Look on the bright side–if any of that does happen, then we can take a break from talking about Trump!
Yankee,
How does congress impeach someone who is not a federal office holder? Of course a President Trump would simply order SCOTUS to impeach and convict hrc should he against all odds actually become POTUS.
With HRCGS locked in as the Democrat nominee…
None of the GOP contenders feels the need to kiss up to each other to obtain cohesion in the Fall.
The Trump/Cruz ticket was first muted by TRUMP, himself.
Now, it’s plain that too much water has gone under the bridge.
Trump has managed to entirely alienate Rubio and Cruz.
Kasich is irrelevant — other than to gift the nomination to Trump — before even opening his mouth.
Harding was the last Dark Horse to win the nomination — and the election — when the GOP was dominant.
I can’t imagine a dark horse defeating the MSM-Democrat machine.
I have become much more bullish about Republican prospects in the past week. I now think that:
1. Trump’s support will top out comfortably below 50% of Republican primary voters, denying him a majority of the delegates.
2. The Republican establishment will coalesce behind Cruz, notwithstanding their intense personal dislike of him, as they realize that the candidates down on the ticket will fare better with Cruz at the head.
3. Cruz will choose Kasich as running mate.
4. Cruz will get the nomination.
5. Trump will not mount a third party challenge. See Megan McArdle.
5. A Cruz/Kasich ticket will stand an excellent chance against Hillary. Most political scientists who have studied the issue have concluded that the incumbent president’s party, when the incumbent himself is not running, loses about 4 points off the bat. Additionally, Hillary is a God awful candidate: sleazy (without the lovable roguishness of her husband, a terrible speaker, old, and identified with the establishment which no one likes much.
7. In any event, the Republicans down the ticket will do okay.
This is NEVER gonna happen. Trump is basically protectionist when it comes to economics and supports low immigration policies. He’s more of an old school republican than a modern conservative.
Let’s remember than America grew in the XIXth with a highly competitive inside market heavily protected from the outside. Before that, England did the same during the Industrial Revolution. China is doing the very same now. What Trump wants is to go back to XIXth America: protected market, no welfare, wild competitive inside market based in meritocracy, closed borders and cultural homogeneity (forced if necessary). Many people miss that and want it back.
Those policies are just the opposite of what large multinational want. High unskilled immigration has been promoted because it lowers salaries: cheap workforce. Both Republican Party and Democrat Party follow the lead there. Republican Party is NEVER support Trump, because it would mean to enter war with lobbying and Wall Street. And nobody in Washington wants that.
You’d rather see Republican Party supporting Clinton before Trump.
You have a recent example of it in France. Le Pen is quite similar to Trump. To stop her (right now Le Pen’s Front National is the first party in France), conservatives and liberals (socialists) standed TOGETHER for the last elections.
y81,
I can’t see Cruz, if he is the nominee, picking Kasich as VP. He might offer him a cabinet slot. I think Cruz is more likely to pick Fiorina, Rubio, Walker, or Haley, If I had to bet I think he would pick Rubio. I agree that with Cruz as the nominee the down ticket may well be okay. Its a strange season with the threat of an indictment haunting hrc and DJT haunting everything else.
A lot of business is done on a handshake…
From a businessman’s perspective both sides uphold an agreement or no one has to… He agreed with the understanding that if he won fairly or despite all the machines against him, he would get their support
Is funny you don’t get this because it’s pretty simple, they are charging against him and your looking at the s if the promised we make are in isolation… They are not because that would be one sided stupid
Go back to when he made his promise and tally up the dirt thrown at him or the machinations to get rid of him… 100 day plan to beat your own teammate… Broker convention conspiracies. Candidate losing, but staying in to force convention.. Another losing candidate throwing crap to get him and Cruz to fight… Cruz joking he would kill Trump if the opportunity arises. Heck field mother is a political force fit illegals, and now the tweets she wrote are appearing… And the prosecution is in fir Clinton…
We can easily make this list longer with most of it being then trying to ruin him because the largest public group wants him and not the others…
At what point did the people he promised to broke that?
What about their side… Oh you have to make him a narcissist and more so you can ignore that the promise was not a one sided pledge regardless of what the peopke asking him to promise do it not do
At what point does the actions of the others allow him to ignore his pledge to them and was it really a one sided no mutual benefit lock fit nothing
i had to ditch the phone as the spell check and such on the new lollipop droid is horrible and a step back in technology to my old phone with an older version.
anyway
you guys are so used to our politicians maintaining promises on one side in the face of broken verbal contracts.
reagan, we will give amnesty if dems built a wall, they got amnesty, no wall
obama makes a deal with Iran, not a week goes by and iran is breaking it left and right, and obama is keeping the promise?
at what point does the other side in an agreement act in a way to break that agreement?
are you guys that dense that you think his narcisism matters? and compared to you and i and such, he has a lot to be proud of, despite being hated, and no real bad things about him compared to a huge list of left dems… cocain addicts, cheaters, sex scandals, gay prostitution, drunken binges, cigar sex, flying to pedophile island, imbezzling, violating treaties to sell crack to fund overthrows, and so much more.
and what do we really have on trump? a cokely thing which was outside the time frame neo said was acceptable in another post. golf course, ignoring how they reneged on that to him. divorce? the 100k for the dying girl? the house paid for the farmer who committed suicide to save his family? his use of the court too much for your tastes? him being his biggest supporter, and we dont like that (as we would rather have our wealthy successful people be humble.. why? biblical? makes us look bad?)
the question remains that regardless of whether you like him or not, they are basically willing to ignore the majority that does like him, deny the people their vote if they think its wrong, manipulate to do that, violate their oaths of office, violate their agreements (which because he is disliked is ok, cause if you dont like someone you made an agreement with, just ignore it, right), and on and on
and he is supposed to keep it? why? to what benefit other than the 50 delegates from carolinas?
if he did keep it with all those piling on, would you like him more? would he make more money? would he look the chump?
“Breach of Contract” and Lawsuits
A business contract creates certain obligations that are to be fulfilled by the people or companies who entered into the agreement. In the eyes of the law, a party’s failure to fulfill an end of the bargain under a contract is known as a “breach” of the contract. Depending on the specifics of the contract, a breach can occur when a party fails to perform on time, does not perform in accordance with the terms of the agreement, or does not perform at all.
Did the people he promised to keep up their side of the promise? are we even looking at their actions?
if i offer to pay you 1000 for your car, and i dont, do i get to keep your car?
none of the other things has anything to do with this, his hair doesnt, his divorces dont, his response to rubio dragging his wife in, and tons more.
all immaterial as to whether an agreement is kept..
only a politician would try to hold someone to a promise after the politician broke it.
read my lips, no new taxes
now elect me again…
chuck Says: Trump is not a man-of-his-word, handshake sort of guy, and has no trouble finding cause to justify his actions
Really? then you dont know him, and your not paying attention… period… no one that wealthy stays wealthy breaking agreements without cause to a judge that would make it hurt to punish them.
you dont get to keep your money if you dont keep your promises, and if your not willing to fight when people dont meet terms. period
by the way..
if that was his business reputation, who the hell would do business with thim then? yeah, i am going to give him 30 million as my share for a project with the idea he will break his promise and i will lose all or some of that money.
sorry… but one thing i have found out that the higher you go up the chain, the less people cheat…
the ones that do cheat are wll known for it, or are eventually found out.. but remember if you ran a company of 30,000 people, delegating to others a lot of what has to be done as there is no way to do it, do you really know what ever part of your company is doing? how?
im really getting tired of people believing what the left says of people who have money, as some norm, when the point of them saying it is to get you to hate people with money..
go ahead. tell me who that has more than 100 million is liked at all? the only ones i know are the ones with leftist approval, like ted turner.
but everyone else is an evil villian and you guys dont even notice it. what a farce…
no wonder you dont understand trump!!!!
everyone has a different fantasy image of him from media that hates him, and who knows very little about him personally and usually never met him at all.
how would you know anything despite that
the fact no two people can give an accurate description of him, his actions, and what his business is really about and does, is a freaking clue that you dont know him.
no wonder your all confused about him..
the more you read the press on him the less consistent his image is because its not real!!!!
JurassiCon – Interesting. How did you react when you found out that Trump hired immigrant workers? Did that feel like April Fool’s Day? And then when he defended it. He said that immigrant workers would do work that American citizens wouldn’t. That’s right out of the Chamber of Commerce. You must have felt betrayed by that, right? I mean, when he says it was work that Americans wouldn’t do, you know he meant that they wouldn’t do it for low wages, right? Are you ok with billionaires hiring immigrants to keep labor costs low?
But at least Trump said that he’s not going to soften on the issue. Wait, he said the opposite. He said that he was changing on immigration during one of the debates. I guess you can take comfort in the fact that he doesn’t take what he says in debates seriously. Because if he meant what he said, it sure sounds like he’s going to betray you.
Artfldgr,
4 bankruptcies and creditors stiffed. So much for handshakes or the good of ones word or honoring contracts. Once or perhaps twice I can understand. 4 is a bit too much from my POV. I would not shake Trump’s hand with your hand.
I’m in basic agreement with neo in all but the following: “If on the other hand Trump gets the nomination and loses the election, something similar would be operating: Trump will have gotten revenge on the GOP, and he will have built an extremely loyal following and demonstrated his enormous power over the media and his followers.”
I can’t agree that if Trump wins the nomination but loses the general election and basically every republican and conservative votes for him, that even then he would see a loss as revenge upon the GOP. On the other hand, if he loses because enough republicans and conservatives refuse to vote for him, then I think he would see his loss as justice returned for the GOP’s failure to back their own nominee.
Win or lose, Trump has already built an extremely loyal following and demonstrated his enormous power over the media and his followers.
Yann at 5:22 has a point.
parker,
I don’t consider myself a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination but… why would Trump want to publicly associate with Ryan, McConnell, Graham and McCain? And, if he were to restrict himself to the few actual conservatives in Congress, would the above Congressional leaders not view that as an insult? As for the number of electoral votes he might gain, that is dependent upon the timing of ISIS’s future attacks.
#4 is an argument to deny the party’s nomination to Trump. However, if Trump wins the nomination, your point becomes an argument to support Trump. I base that upon the premise that if Trump’s supporters see his loss as a result of (to them) petty pique, the GOP will never again win a Presidential election.
blert.
I agree, a dark horse will not defeat the MSM-Democrat machine. If it loses, it will be because ISIS has struck America, either more severely than 9/11 or in a series of attacks against which the administration is seen, even by its supporters, as inadequate to the challenge.
y81,
Cruz choosing Kasich as his running mate would be a clear betrayal of everything he purports to stand for…
1. In regards to parker’s question about impeachment, the House would vote on Hillary’s conduct as a public official, during her time as Secretary of State, with the high crimes and misdemeanors covering the Benghazi matter and the secret e-mail server matter. A majority vote would send the case to the Senate.
2. Once at the Senate, the House managers would present the case, with the Senate deliberating and then voting on the evidence. Since Hillary is already out of office, she can’t be removed from anything, but the Senate could vote to bar her from all future offices, with two-thirds necessary for conviction.
3. The Constitution can be interpreted in this way to give the Congress the power to exclude someone from office. With such a use, it is not about removal, but rather about prevention. And the Founders would view this as a wise safeguard, especially when faced with someone like Hillary Clinton, who has been surrounded by scandal for her entire political career, and who may have committed serious crimes, as well as compromised national security.
4. See also William Belknap, Grant’s Secretary of War, who resigned just before being impeached. Aaron Burr is another hypothetical example, had he ever run for office again. For a recent example, Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed from office as a federal judge in 1989, for perjury and bribery. The Senate, however, did not bar him from future office, so he ended up in Congress, as a Representative from Florida, from the 1992 election onward (as a Democrat, needless to say).
Nick,
Why bother yourself (and I myself) with what he had done as a businessman? He’d made no promises, taken no oaths, to do other than what he had done. He’d double crossed on-one, certainly not me. He’d lied to no one and stated unequivocally why he did what he did. He was, essentially truthful about what he’d done and why he did it.
As to what anyone says at the dog and pony shows otherwise known as debates — it matters not a nit to me. It’s utter nonsense from all candidates when it’s not claptrap from MSM operatives. That grown men, serious men, would subject themselves to such indignities says as much about the state of the zeitgeist as anything. The boob tube is never boobier than in the midst of a “political debate”.
My reckoning on Trump is he had made a public promise of what he would attempt to do for the nation to keep it a nation. His was the first of its kind, forceful and unequivocal. Will he do it? How the hell should I know. Can you guarantee, does anyone know, what their Bush, or Rubio, or Cruz will do? I have only this specter and dozens more like it that make Trump my preference:
Kathy Shaidle has the better headline: Business got its victory. Butt pirates got their booty. And religious traditionalists got to eat shit. And so the Republican conservative wheel spins.
Round and round it goes where it stops everyone knows.
It’s long been obvious to me that the GOP/Cons constituency are men with money. Not the workers, producers, builders, taxpayers, the middle class, the cis-gendered, the Christians — but the men with money.
Cue Liza and Joel.
GB,
2 things…
ISIS will do what ISIS does, but they are not stupid. Why would they want to stage multiple attacks, and it would take multiple attacks before November, to make voters give Trump or Cruz enough votes to win 270 electoral votes? Even in such an imagined scenario, I doubt Trump could top 200. Any dem wins the ISIS seal of approval.
You seem to believe Trump’s support is coming from the republican base. I believe that so far most of his support has come from p*ssed off people who rarely vote and dems switching over to vote for what they see is the best ‘republican’ for hrc or a surrogate to face in the general.
Yankee@8:21,
“The Constitution can be interpreted…”
Ok, but highly unlikely assuming the gop can retain control of the senate with Trump at the head of the ticket; which I think is very unlikely. If hrc is the nominee and defeated, best let her and slick willy stew in their own juices. History will judge them, unless the wannabe Stalinists win control for decades.
JurassiCon – So, if Trump said that he was lying about immigration during a debate, you’d be ok with it? And you don’t mind that he has no principled objections to immigration, only a promise. Would you really have a problem if he said anything against that promise before the election? He’s reversed himself on any number of things since the campaign started, so you apparently don’t consider his word to be important. It’s hard to believe that you care about his word about immigration.
Again, what is your falsifiable condition, the thing that he could do before taking office that could make you change your mind?
Neo called Trump an interesting phenomenon. Several decades ago my neighborhood
was hit by a tornado. That, too, was an interesting phenomenon,
Once when I was job hunting, I was considering a particular privately owned company. An acquaintance who knew tho owner cautioned that although he may not lie, be careful that he is saying what you think he is saying. Good advice for people dealing with Trump; although what he says today is clarified tomorrow. BTW, the man who employed me was later indicted.
It might be a waste of time to argue with anyone that uses the term cuckservative.
Nick,
This is a simple as I can possibly make it.
I don’t care if the entirety of Trump’s (or any other candidate for that matter) presentation during a “debate” was playing a kazoo through his ass. In fact it would be not just more entertaining but more edifying. Someone propose it to FOX. CNN is far too sophisticated.
To what extent does a promise not allude to a principle?
I, and I expect most people, have no objection to immigration. I, and I suspect most people, object to fifty plus million immigrants since the notorious immigration law of ’64 (I think it was). I personally object to killing, i.e., aborting fifty plus million children in exchange for fifty plus million foreigners dedicated to nothing more than the sick, backward, primitive, corrupt cultures they come from.
It Trump were to secure the borders, expel the invaders, impose a moratorium on all immigration for a minimum of forty years, regain and retain American sovereignty, and foster fair trade deals I couldn’t care less what he does with the rest of his term. He could run his real estate business from the oval office — a far, far better thing than Willy Clinton had done in that office.
What is it with your persistence that I supply you with a mind-changing scenario? I gave you one, but here’s another. If Trump ran his auto over me on Michigan Avenue, I would be moved to reconsider.
The term cuckservative is not of my own smithing. It has entered the contemporary political lexicon. It expresses a certain quality that Neo-conservative does not clearly express. And I will not be denied its fair use by anyone from the PC mutaween – either from the admittedly Left or pretentiously ‘conservative”.
This Rex guy has gone off the deep end. I wonder if he actually thinks that anyone on this forum is impressed with his garbage. Grow up–or is it too late for that?
KLSmith Says:
It might be a waste of time to argue with anyone that uses the term cuckservative.
This, +1000.
I’m so tired of the Trumpkins’ anti-intellectual, reductionist bullshit. The namecalling. The paranoid conspiracy theories and set-upon butthurt.
They’ve proven themselves to be deranged cultists, and I’m not in the mood to cater to their temper tantrums any longer.
Take your loser candidate and shove him up your asses. When he loses the nomination, stay home and while. The rest of the world will go on without you.
er, “whine.”
Oldflyer,
Come now… admit it… you are positively smitten… enough at least to offer a response.
Matt_SE,
Two words. Anger. Management
No Oldflyer, he has not gone off the deep end, but stands inches away from the abyss. He is cranky, Jurassic, and so p*ssed off he is lost in the forest and thus blind to the trees. He thinks a bombastic, ignorant, con artist is the answer to all that ails. However, he realizes there is a down side, yet he is willing to burn down the house and cares not about the cuckquences. Nihilistic best describes.
For weeks, rumors have circulated the web that individuals were being paid to protest at rallies held by presidential hopeful Donald Trump. Today a man from Trump’s rally last week in Fountain Hills, Arizona has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event. “I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad a little over a week ago about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.” Trump supporters have been claiming.
“Anger management”?
Lame. Come on, you can spew more Trumpian venom.
In case anyone is unaware: All this talk about “1237 delegates means Trump is the nominee” is BUNK. That so-called “rule” is a temporary rule that can be changed at the convention. Therefore, Trump is not guaranteed the nomination even if he gets 1237, or 1400, or even 2000 delegates. They can change the rule to suit their #NeverTrump plan, and make the requirement 1 delegate more than however many Trump has. On the O’Reilly Factor tonight, Eric Bolling confirmed this. There are 42 convention rules in the rule book. Rules #26 through #42 are Temporary Rules
“Trump supporters have been claiming.”
Wow, lets go with Trump supporters claiming. A sure path to victory.
I have no doubt that Soros funds anti anything loosely identified with the gop. So what?
Artfldgr,
Your argument is DJT was ignorant of “the rule book”? So much for hiring the brightest. Why did the donald not see this coming from Iowa?
4 bankruptcies and creditors stiffed for millions. What a handshake, word of honor, contract adhering giant of ethical champion is DJT. Pardon me as I faint from his imperial majesty blathering nonsense.
JurassiCon Rex:
You’ll not be denied “fair use” of the term “cuckservative”?
What a silly thing to say. As I’ve said before, the term is a “tell” about the person using it.
And no one is stopping you from saying anything you want. People here are merely reacting to it, with vigor. If you don’t want to come across as a doctrinaire, cranky, Trump-camp-follower, and you don’t want people to get annoyed with you, then don’t use words that convey a contemptuous and oh-so-cutesy/nasty-skirting of the edge of sexual innuendo/obscenity (the connotations are a combination of the F-word and the word “cuckold”), a word designed to get people angry.
It is a privilege to comment on a blog, not a right. If you or anyone else is banned here, that person can comment freely anywhere else.
SillyCon Wrecks:
it appears that Trump has already shot someone on 5th Ave, It was a head shot, took out the brain stem, but you still will vote for him and praise your killer. A Trump supporter forever, though brain dead. Anger lives forever (in Hell).
Artfldgr:
Yes, parties make their own rules for their own conventions. That’s the way it is, which should be no surprise to anyone. If any candidate doesn’t like it, he or she is free to leave the party and run as an independent. And voters are free to vote for any candidate they wish, as well.
I wrote about this before, here.
Beyond GB, who is a stand up guy and not a die hard Trumpian, no Trumpians have responded to my 4 questions posed upstream. So my questions were stupid, or maybe too close to cutting to the bone? Vile or otherwise, I promise to not be offend by your answers. I am a sticks and stones guy.
Its late in flyover country, so I will look forward to being educated by Trumpians tomorrow.
Neo-neocon,
“As I’ve said before, the term is a “tell” about the person using it.”
Indeed it is. And thank you for the brief tutorial on the nomenclature of “cuckservative”.
But you have me wrong. I don’t care how I come off to others.
I had been engaged with commenter Nick and we were having what I believed to be a sensible back and forth on Trump. The discourse met most any standard of civility extant… excepting, of course, for PC pecksniffs. Along came Matt_SE insinuating himself into the thread. Having either not the ability to string together a few words in rebuttal or the inclination, he objected to the term cuckservative. I responded, again splendidly and with reason, that it was a perfectly apt word.
If anyone objects to the use of the term ‘cuckservative’, that’s fine by me. I have my objections also. I object to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). You know… the conveyance of a contemptuous and oh-so-cutesy/nasty equivalency with Hitler, Mussolini, fascists, tyrants, et al. Yet it had never stopped me from offering a reasonable refutation of the premise without the adolescent tropes of… say… Oldflyer; and the diatribes of oh… say… KLSmith.
You are, of course free to suffer or ban any commenter. If in my case it should ever come to the latter, you’ll hear neither a whimper or curse from me. I’ll go quietly. I’m reasonable that way.
JurassiCon Rex, I haven’t bothered addressing you or any of your bile because it has seemed beside the point. As a Trump supporter blind to or at least willing to overlook his irrationality, why bother? You are a perfect example of why the whole political process, and the country, is going down in flames. Like Trump you can’t make an argument without resorting to schoolyard epithets. Cuckservative, pecksniff, oh how clever, and how juvenile.
The alt-right, and people like you and Trump, have far more in common with the left than the right. You’ve adopted the tactics and style, if not the ideology. Ideology, what’s that? Trump doesn’t have one, only a tear it all down, anger driven, petty nihilism.
Neo is bravely trying to make rational arguments while upholding a little decency. I’ve come to believe it is too late, a waste of time and am proceeding accordingly. But I admire her courage.
JurassiCon –
“To what extent does a promise not allude to a principle?”
They’re not related at all. I can make a promise that goes along with my principles, or conflicts with them, or has nothing to do with them. If I’m looking for someone’s principles, I’ll look to what they’ve said and done in the past as well as the present. When the record doesn’t match the current promises, I’d be concerned that the person’s principles don’t match his promises. When that person makes other promises rashly and breaks them, I’d be even more concerned. When that person makes promises rashly and breaks them AND his prior actions indicate that he has no allegiance to his current promises or current stated principles AND his current defense of those actions indicates a lack of commitment to his current stated principles, why would I assume that he’ll hold to his word on the one particular promise I care about most?
Let’s talk like lawyers.
Parker:
“4 bankruptcies and creditors stiffed.” Bankruptcy is what makes capitalism work. Creditors, i.e., people with money to lend, if they are well-advised, obtain security for their loan, and in a bankruptcy, secured creditors get repaid before the unsecured creditors. That is neither “fair” or “unfair,” it is merely how a free market works. Of further note, most of the investors in ventures of the sort Trump promoted were looking to make a higher return on their money than the Federal Reseve’s 0.0025%. Maybe they were greedy?! They took a risk. So did the East India Company. So did the Pilgrims. So did the Wright Brothers. It’s how western civilization advanced.
Neo: Contracts 101. When the other guy (the Republican establishment) broke the contract, Trump was freed from honoring it. The GOPe demanded that he pledge to support whoever the nominee might be. He did that. Then they turned on him, spending millions to defeat him.
RE: “…despite vows to stop…”
______________________________
Revealing, once again, that vows are just not what they used to be.
The Other Chuck,
You needn’t have bothered addressing me this time either. I had used the term ‘cuckervative’ for its unmistakable precision — a conservative who’d been cuckolded. I used ‘pecksniff’ for the inimitable image it encourages. If you have a problem with my use of language take it up with the lexicographers. They had noticed the viability of the words even if they are beyond your capacity. If you can do no better than to indict an argument by linking its author to Leftist ideologies than you had better cease and desist for your own sake. Those on the Right. Alt or otherwise, would recognize your predicament as “projecting” your wicked political proclivities onto others.
Ahhh, Nick, you are a breath of fresh air and welcome lucidity.
They can indeed be related. If I say I will love, honor, in sickness, in health, good times or bad, flush or broke, I am making of a principle — the marriage vow — a promise.
And you speak of your concerns re rash promises being broken. I have such concerns also — I do, I swear I do. Give me Washington if you can dig him up. Or Coolidge, if you can bring him back to life. Give me a man that everyman would want as president. But they are not that many. Those that exist would not lower themselves to stand for political office; they would not stoop to such indignities and corruptions. So, we, I, am left in a dilemma. I don’t trust anyone proffered by the GOP/Cons. Sanders is not my cup of liberty. Hillary, is a criminal enterprise. That leaves Trump. I want better. Why can’t there at least be someone like Nigel Farage, who can simultaneously think and talk, and make good common sense as though he himself were the well spring of it all. But there isn’t. So Trump.
Thank you Neo, Parker, Oldflyer, KL, Other Chuck and others I may have left out for your cogent, well reasoned responses. I read them and appreciate them. I wanted to reinforce what you have been saying.
Now that Trump is revealing himself to be complete nut job, even THAT is OK to his backers. It never bothered them that his history is suspect and murky (in terms of who he is representing), or that he routinely changes his position, or that the only way he knows how to handle a social situation is to act like a junkyard dog, or that he has no idea how government (or much of anything else) works, or that he has never done anything other than spout extremes (immigration! birtherism! punish women for abortions!) to even suggest that he is politically right-of-center.
He’s a big-government crony capitalist whose political views are about supporting his own personal interests, and he attaches his wagon accordingly. He doesn’t have a right-of-center shred in his body. His MO all along has been to blabber drivel, run with what sticks and walk back anything that seems to not be getting the kind of attention he wants. And what kind of attention is that? Well, anything that is destructive to the GOP and traditional conservatives and appeals to the mob, that’s what kind of attention he wants.
I doubt there is anyone on this site that likes the GOP, but the rest of us don’t see burn-it-all-down nihilism and anarchy, out of which it is 100% certain that something worse than what we have now will emerge, as an alternative. It could be that we are in a part of history when thinking conservatives who value small government and our Constitution are simply on the losing side – we are outnumbered by the lefty-lefts and the gimmedats and the victim classes and the mewling quims that are Gen Y. But tearing it all down today, likely setting not just the middle east but the entire world on fire, is not going to make anything better for us, for our loved ones, for anything that matters.
You can call me a cuckservative if that makes you happy. I’ve been doing this a long time and while I behave myself here because I respect Neo and her guests, I’ve called – and been called – much worse. If you insult conservative values and the people who hold them, you are as much an enemy as the progressive left. You come into our house and insult us and our values – just like any lefty troll. What makes you different, when your main goal is to destroy our political voice and insult our positions?
JurassiCon Rex Says:
“Why can’t there at least be someone like Nigel Farage, who can simultaneously think and talk, and make good common sense as though he himself were the well spring of it all. But there isn’t. So Trump.”
Sure there is – Cruz.
A couple of posts ago, Geoffrey Brittain factually demolished the specious and few talking points you and Artfldgr have come up with against Cruz. But, contrary to your denials of not being a Trumpbot, obviously nothing can overcome the animus you’ve already built up towards him, just as you can’t come up with a single reasonable reason to ever abandon Trump short of him running over you multiple times in his Trumpmobile or something.
So much for the cool, objective, detached logic you claim to bring.
The United States has cut its warhead stockpiles significantly in recent years. Moscow, however, has increased its numbers of deployed warheads and new weapons.
The State Department revealed in January that Russia currently has exceeded the New START warhead limit by 98 warheads, deploying a total number of 1,648 warheads. The U.S. level currently is below the treaty level at 1,538 warheads.
Officials said that in addition to adding warheads to the new missiles, Russian officials have sought to prevent U.S. weapons inspectors from checking warheads as part of the 2010 treaty.
Disclosure of the doubling of Moscow’s warhead force comes as world leaders gather in Washington this week to discus nuclear security–but without Russian President Vladimir Putin, who skipped the conclave in an apparent snub of the United States.
The Nuclear Security Summit is the latest meeting of world leaders seeking to pursue President Obama’s 2009 declaration of a world without nuclear arms.
[with all the politicians painting a we will never use them, whats now to stop them from building up?? what ya gonna do? everyone already is not willing to use them. besides, if they use half of them they are still within the treaty obama made and then disarmed. there is also the odd fact that all those old missles? they never decommissioned, too poor, and instead used the money we sent to rebuild and build up yamentau mountain… a nuclear bunker that spans 400 sq kilometers]
The Other Chuck:
“The alt-right, and people like you and Trump, have far more in common with the left than the right. You’ve adopted the tactics and style, if not the ideology.”
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. Participatory politics subsume electoral politics.
It’s social competition and they’ve pragmatically chosen to compete by copying a field-tested template.
Calling out the Left mimicry of Trump-front alt-Right activists, if that’s all you do, isn’t enough to defeat their long march. Diagnosis is not enough. Prescription and treatment are needed.
The Other Chuck:
“I’ve come to believe it is too late, a waste of time and am proceeding accordingly.”
It’s only too late if you choose not to compete for real. Competing for real requires collective permanent commitment to activism organized as social movement.
For activists organized as a resilient social movement, eg, a Gramscian march, it’s never too late. The game never ends. In fact, defeat restores activists to activism’s inherent strength, insurgency.
The Left-activist style mimicked by the alt-Right insurgents is not the only to way to do activism, of course. There are more moderate counter-Left activist examples. Nonetheless, to compete for real, you must honor activist principles. The determinative standard is whether you win the game – the only social cultural/political game there is – not how you play it.
On the other hand, for stubbornly non-activist partisans in the activist game who wish for a preferred social condition yet refuse to compete for real, it’s “too late” by their own choice.
“If you insult conservative values and the people who hold them, you are as much an enemy as the progressive left.”
Who insulted conservative values? Is it not cuckservatives(read neoconservatives)? Conservatism is NOT spending your posterity’s wealth and future income. Conservatism is NOT allowing aliens to invade the country by the millions. Conservatism is NOT fighting wars all over the world and leaving the wounded to the politically invested Veteran’s hospitals which comprise regionally one scandal after another.
Where the hell are you people getting your ideas of conservatism. Stop absorbing Kristol and Brooks et al and read a book about classical conservatism.
CapnRusty:
Do you not understand what I wrote?
I said I’m not faulting him for breaking this particular contract. I expected him to do so, and I expected him to find an excuse. His word means nothing. He says things and takes them back almost constantly. That’s what I’m faulting him for.
And his attitudes and actions should have consequences. People are free to conclude what they want from his actions and words, and vote accordingly.
What’s more, all the GOP has done so far is nothing but have some people talk about enforcing the rules of their own convention and their own party. Sacre bleu! How dare they seek to do that against King Trump, the Anointed One!
JurassiCon Rex:
No wonder you call yourself “rex.” Another little self-appointed king. King of the definition of “conservative” (oops, excuse me “cuckservative,” otherwise known as “neoconservatives”? What sort of fuzzy thinking is that? Even in Trumpland the two are not the same). No one except you is familiar with books on classical conservatism, of course.
You’ve officially become a troll, snarky and insulting to no purpose whatsoever.
Neo-neocon,
I have done no such nothing. Classical conservatism was the work of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Richard M Weaver, Friedrich Hayek, M. E. Bradford, Josiah Royce, William Graham Sumner, Willmoore Kendall, Eric Voegelin, Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, James Burnham, Richard B Hovey and a dozen, at least, more. Try some of them out and leave the bullshit artists to run the Party corral and neoconservative pig sty, i.e., the GOP.
As far as officially becoming a troll – by your lights and prejudices – not to worry. As you obviously cannot stand the heat of differing opinions – adios.
@Parker. (Way above)
1. Trump will win a general election if the GOP doesn’t knife him in the back. The “he’s not conservative enough” true conservatives will either back him over Hillary or not vote like they always do. The “he is hitler” moderates don’t have numbers and even though they are great fundraisers, Trump doesn’t need their money.
The last time a non incumbent Republican won the popular vote, the campaign manager was Lee Atwater. Trump has some of that in him.
2. Plenty of house members will want appearances by the leading vote getter in the primaries. Plus, they curry favor with the president that way.
3. About the same number of Senate members will want to campaign with a Trump as did McCain or Romney. Ron Johnson seems wants to campaign with Trump and he’s in a really tough fight vs. feingold.
Lots of people now see Trump as a loose cannon – the least desirable thing on the board of ship in rough seas. And storm is gathering. We would be lucky if we could avoid a serious war in the next 5 years.
JurassiCon Rex:
Your disclaimer and your continuing to do what you disclaim come simultaneously, I see.
And your assertion that I don’t tolerate other points of view is absurd on the face of it. First of all, I’ve tolerated you. Second of all, if you actually bother to read the comments here with any consistency, you’ll notice lots and lots of regular commenters with whom I disagree, as well as episodic ones with whom I disagree.
However, I don’t tolerate trolls, except for a little while. Trolling can take many forms, and among those forms are continual goalpost-moving, assertions that are not true, and in particular insults and/or ad hominems towards the blogger or other commenters.
The rules of the blog have been posted many times (see this and this, for example). If you don’t like them, you have many other venues on which to comment.
Trump and his Trumpkins are for more interested in destroying the Republican Party. There is a strong smell of neo-Stalinism in their methods.
Parker — why would the Trumpeters ever respond coherently to your questions? They’re just following their leader.
The only thing that mystifies me about this campaign season is how Trump turned Limbaugh, when for the first time in 30 years we have an authentic conservative in Cruz to vote for.
In years past, Rush felt no reason to pull punches against Republican candidates like Romney or McCain in the primary, but not now with Trump. His pretense of “just explaining” the Trump phenomenon is transparent.
For years, Rush has been telling us that the GOP-E wouldn’t support conservative candidates or values because they didn’t think the general public would vote for those values. Now Rush is playing the same game with his listeners and admitting the GOP-E was right. And if Rush no longer feels conservatism can win, and that we have to try to settle for second-best in a liberal nationalist, I’m not sure where that leaves us.
“I think Trump does that because he really is different compared to most past US politicians.”
he sure is. he’s the only one who MIGHT be an american and MIGHT put america first. the contrast with all the other bought-and-owned candidates is astounding. it’s like having a choice between tofu and tofu-lite all your life, and then one day you get a taste of steak.
“Trump is a narcissist and attention-seeker above all, who is interested in personal domination and power. That statement applies more or less to a lot of politicians, of course, but for Trump it’s even more applicable.”
actually, it’s less applicable. trump is interested in personal domination and power, but NOT OVER US! it’s quite the change. he’s not anyone’s employee working against us, he has no need to rip us off, he has no need to trick us. big difference.
“In addition, most politicians described that way also have some allegiance to a basic and standard political position (left or right, Democrat or Republican).”
and at this point there is no difference in that basic and standard political position, left or right, democrat or republican. they all are owned by the same effendi and all are working towards the same goal against the citizens.
as for trump’s pledge breaking, why do you care? I’ll tell you why you care. for decades politicans deliberately have made promises to get elected and then routinely ignored or flouted them once in office. “read my hips.” this has always been passed off, insultingly to us, as “maturing in office”. but trump ignores the entire political power structure up front in everyone’s face BEFORE being elected, and you say he’s “pragmatic, temporary, and meaningless”? he’s the exact precise OPPOSITE of what you say.
“and I never took it seriously and am surprised that anyone else did.”
oh we’ve stopped taking any of you seriously. some of us long ago and some of us after the last election. “historic win for republicans! what will they do”? nothing. they did nothing, just carried on with the democrats just as before as if nothing at all had happened at all. because, for them, nothing had happened. a few chairs rearranged, back to the destruction of the united states, by direction of the effendi who actually control them.
we’re done. if trump is forced out or loses (or proves to be a fake) then that’s it.
You guys are crazy if you think Cruz can win a general election.
No way Cruz survives what they did to mother Teresa Romney and now trump.
Trump is feeling this out as he goes along quite obviously. But I trust him 100x more than mere takers and talkers.
Stupid stupid gop still looking for purity when winning is what matters.
Of course Trump repudiated the pledge. Let’s be serious: The GOP establishment broke it first. All this talk about how to steal the convention, about supporting Hillary or running a third party effort if Trump gets the nomination.
You don’t shell somebody’s territory and expect them to keep the truce you just broke yourself.
It’s mindless blaming him for breaking an agreement that the other side had already violated.
Jonathan Kurtz
Let me fix this for you, J’.
(Disclaimer. I’m not “picking on” you in particular J’. Your comment was just the best example I could turn to make my point here. I sincerely apologize in advance if I’ve offended.)
Bonus: the corrections will be factually and historically accurate, rather than prognosticatory.
See. Perfectly and historically accurate, and an exact picture of the GOPe since Reagan, and the brief interlude of Newt’s “Contract with America” period.
Like it?
My point is – and being a Cruz supporter notwithstanding – Trump’s presence in this race allowed Cruz to have even a ghost of a chance.
Neo? – Remember well over a year ago and how I agreed with you that Scott Walker was my first choice too (remarking that you and I don’t always agree), but only because Cruz probably had no chance at all?
The Trump Phenomenon made Cruz’s current position possible.
Trump single-handedly changed the course of the 2016 primaries.
Trump cleared the GOPe deadwood from the tide-line to the water.
No Trump, and we’d be arguing whether we were voting for…
…well, we wouldn’t be arguing at all than, would we?
It would be the Jeb’ster all the way, baby.
And another continuation of the Republic’s Long March to the demise of the American experiment.
Trump, and Trump alone, nullified (at first) the Leftist Media.
And crushed the GOPe field while he was about it.
For which as conservatives we should be boundlessly grateful.
That is an unprecedented political achievement unseen since Reagan (and no: of course that doesn’t mean I’m comparing Trump and whatever he believes with Reagan).
We owe him IF we have ever claimed to have recognized that the GOPe has needed a comeuppance – and a diminution of the base’s sheep-like obeisance with no recognition of their need for us – and want to be consistent with our past arguments and criticism of the GOPe.
No, that don’t mean we have to vote for him (I’m still not, and I’m not counseling anyone to, or arguing anyone should …at least in the primary …and at least “so far”).
Of course not.
But we owe him at least a modicum of some frickin’ respect – with a recognition that he speaks NOT from the perspective as a bought-and-paid-for politician seeking to expand government power for avarice and personal gain, but rather from a businessman perspective outside the technocratic political gestalt – for the hole that he’s made in a GOPe that has been and remains appallingly lacking in respect for the wishes of the conservative base.
———
#NeverTrump
And to the #NeverTrump GOPe: suck it up.
Conservatives have had to suck it up countless times over the past 60 years (yeah: since Goldwater). It’s your turn.
Deal.
And regardless of the problem we’ve had with the Party’s choices, and whether we’ve screamed about it throughout the primaries, we’ve had to. Many times.
AND NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT FEELS!
And you say you can’t take it and so you’re going to pick up all your marbles and go home?
Oh, puh-leeze.
Cry me a river.
You need to man up, babies.
Jeezus.
Allow me to give what should be a glaringly obvious prediction.
If the GOPe …if you …steal a Trump victory by shenanigans and machinations in the convention, the GOPe defeat in November will be a momentous, horrifying, and deep mistake, and will mean the demise of the GOP as a functioning political party.
The Whig Moment will have arrived.
You – the GOPe – will have been responsible. Not Trump. You.
The GOP will never, ever again exercise political power as a cohesive party.
…personally, and barring the formation and rise of an alternative party that I can respect, that will be my last vote, period.
How’s that for a #NeverWhatever declaration of intent.
I will have given up on the American project. Because representative democracy will have failed. My slogan at that point will be “it’s over, let it burn”.
…because I’m just not that able to be quite that blind and willfully complacent.
#FireThemAll
…sorry this was so long, neo.
“but the rest of us don’t see burn-it-all-down nihilism and anarchy, out of which it is 100% certain that something worse than what we have now will emerge, as an alternative.”
so it’s the present anti-american anti-citizen system, or bogyman “nihilism and anarchy”? we’ll take our chances with nihilism and anarchy, see how your prediction pans out.
Wow – Hard to believe I stayed away so long.
Trump has traction for exactly one reason, he is willing to speak about goals without nuance or lecturing. His stated goals are clear: end illegal immigration and the abuse of legal immigration (H1-B and L1-B visas), hold the VA accountable for it’s utter failure to appropriately care for our veterans, clean up the ObamaCare mess, and get the economy rolling again so that people forced out of the labor force can get jobs. He may be vague or inconsistent about the details at various points, but he is not vague about the goals.
No other candidate for the Republican nomination has been willing to articulate those same goals without hedging. Had any one of them done so last fall, in a believable way, Trump’s campaign would have evaporated over night.
The establishment of both parties has become completely out of touch with the anger and frustration of a large segment of their rank and file voters. Voters on the left are willing to take a chance on Bernie and those on the right are willing to take a chance on Trump.
A large subset of these are not low information voters, nor are they uneducated, rather they are fed up with the political games as played by both parties over the last 20+ years, and have decided that it’s time to kick over the table.
As a result it doesn’t matter much to them what Trump, or Bernie for that matter, says. They are so used to meaningless political speak, that when either puts their foot wrong it is ignored by their followers.
When Trump says he’s brought large numbers of new voters into the primary process he is quite accurate. Members of the electorate who travel for hours, to stand in line for hours to hear him. People who vote in their first ever primary, because they are fed up. These people will show up in November and they’ll bring their neighbors with them.
For the record, I voted for Cruz in my primary. I’d be okay with him as the nominee, originally i was a far stronger supporter, but his conduct in this campaign has softened my support. I’d be equally okay with Trump, and despite the various polls and some of the legitimate questions about Trump, think he’d be more likely to beat Hilary than Cruz. Assuming her candidacy survives the FBI investigations.
By most measurements Trump is a winner. People like voting for a winner, even a winner they may not personally care for.
…what gman said.
“Because representative democracy will have failed.”
more specifically it has been bought, co-opted, and turned against us.
Ah crap. I meant @UncleFred. Sorry gman.
UncleFred’s comment described my thoughts better than I could lol.
…so much for being observant lol.
UncleFred:
Methinks Trump got your and others’ attention on those things because the media has given him so much coverage, but all of those goals have been articulated more clearly and consistently by other candidates. They just didn’t get much (or any) publicity for them.
And Trump’s not just vague or inconsistent, he’s contradictory and often voices the exact opposite, gives “solutions” that are undoable or that won’t solve a thing, and advocates a host of other big-government goals and methods.
I agree, though, that a perception that he is saying those things and no one else is saying them has fueled his candidacy. It’s not the only thing that has, though—his celebrity status and public persona (“The Apprentice,” etc) has made a lot of people like him already, and that has been part of it, too. He’s riding on that public persona which many people find appealing and likeable.
I agree with a lot of the rest of what you wrote.
Funny thing is, Trump IS America. That’s the good news and the bad.
If that’s an aggression and America can’t handle itself anymore it will surely disappear, everyone already hates USA, so better be careful this time.
Right now a 2 part time teachers run North America, and the hyenas are always hungry. I will go with a tough as nails business guy who makes and lives decisions not flouts pseudo bankrupt theories .
It’s time for “The Music Man” shift, where a people move further right on the Intelligence Bell Curve. Marion the librarian is always concerned about people’s mentalities. It is time for the US to defund Progressive Agenda Education in K-12, university, law and journalism schools… and replace the pedagogy with Western Enlightenment. Further, our leaders need to undergo the following processes…
Fighting Leviathan, With a Puny Wooden Sword!
By Robert Winkler Burke
Book #8 of In That Day Teachings
Copyright 5/25/11 http://www.inthatdayteachings.com
Notes from Nelson’s Quick Reference Bible Dictionary:
“The book of Job is not only one of the most remarkable in the Bible, but in literature. As was said of Goliath’s sword, ‘There is none like it,’ none in ancient or in modern literature.” — Kitto. “A book which will one day, perhaps, be seen towering up alone far above all the poetry of the world.” — J. A. Froude. Nelson’s comments say that the true identity of who wrote Job has remained throughout time: a mystery.
“Do not break the person, break his desire to attack you. Provide the illusion that your opponent still has control, but make sure he does not.” — Mikhail Ryabko, Systema Master
I must not hurt huge Leviathan,
As it swoops down on me!
Dragon’s flame kills and maims,
I’ll soon be history!
Oh, woe is me! Oh, woe is me!
I have but a wooden sword!
From the cross, that victory tree,
Of Christ, my humble Lord!
[ed. for length by n-n]
davisbr:
I disagree with you.
I think Trump has been getting credit for being the first or only one to talk about certain topics (immigration) but that’s not true. Others were most definitely talking about them but not getting the coverage he got (I wrote a post about this months ago but don’t have time to look for it now).
As far as “suck it up” to the GOPe—no, it’s not even remotely the same thing as what happened in the past, as I explained in this post.
I also disagree—and I wrote this a year before the campaign began—about Jeb Bush. He was never never going anywhere.
There are a lot of myths about Trump, and one is that he destroyed the inevitable Jeb Bush coronation. Bush never had any popular support and was never getting any, and I stated that here.
However, I do agree that Trump initially shook things up, and may have made Cruz more possible (I’m not even sure about that, but I think so).
I believe you’ve missed the mark. This is actually about class warfare. Trump is just the weapon and that is why he has cross over appeal. It’s clear that the GOP establishment hates and despises the folks that live in flyover land. The establishment of both parties live in a bubble, with people that think the same way they do. The only pundit I’ve seen pick this up is Peggy Noonan, as she seems to actually talk to the people she interacts with in the stores. The “conservative” pundits and bloggers seem to live in the same bubble or at least aspire to it.
The folks that have been hardest hit have been the people affected by the bad trade deals and illegal immigration. Most of the new jobs have gone to immigrants, legal and illegal. We now see the use of H1B workers in all sorts of industries. The Dems were willing to screw over the unions to placate the environmentalists. There doesn’t seem to be anyone willing to speak up for them, at least until Trump came along.
If the GOPe tries to steal this nomination and run someone like Paul Ryan, 1968 will look like a children’s picnic. It will get ugly fast because the old silent majority has had enough.
notsothoreau:
I disagree with the class distinction thesis, although it’s certainly part of the story—there is a tendency for those with less education and lower incomes to support Trump somewhat more often than those with more education and higher incomes. But it’s only a tendency, and not even that strong a tendency.
For example, Trump does not get more than half of those with incomes under 50K among GOP voters, although he comes close (he gets 50% of them). But he gets 32% of those with incomes higher than 50K. In addition, he only gets 42% of those with no college degree, and he gets 29% of those with a college degree.
So as I said, it’s a tendency but there’s a lot more going on here than a class thing.
By the way, I live in a blue collar community. I know a few Trump supporters—not many—but the ones I know are well-educated and solidly middle or upper middle class. That certainly also seems to be true of most of the Trump-supporters who are regulars on this blog, as far as I can tell (of course, on the internet nobody knows you’re a dog).
Wow. Just, wow. I think the problem goes back to entertaining belief in even a fraction of this:
“If Trump were to secure the borders, expel the invaders, impose a moratorium on all immigration for a minimum of forty years, regain and retain American sovereignty, and foster fair trade deals …”
If you believe anything like that to begin with, you are so far gone as to be impossible to reason with. There are quite a number in our midst that are so far around the bend that it’s impossible to even have a rational conversation. I’m still debating what percent of that number is sincere, but deluded, and which part is part of the plan of ensuring a Democrat as president in 2016.
There is no reason to believe anything Trump has said. He’s the most obvious con man that most of us will ever have the opportunity to see in action. There is no tangible evidence of sincerity in anything he says; just some are so desperate to believe that they cling onto words as if that belief itself makes them real.
And even if one could reasonably believe he were sincere (which you can’t if your birthday was anytime before 3/31/2016), the US president does not (and SHOULD NOT, according to our system of government) have this kind of magical power.
I am part of the silent majority – the people who respect what our country stands for, who respect the rules by which it has held together this long. We hold our tongues in public because we want to be decent, honorable people and we are tired of the abuse of the far left – which is why I don’t want a GOP nominee which ensures a Democrat president. I, and many others, will be horrified if Trump is the GOP nominee.
There can be no doubt that Trump is the result of machinations that happened at least a year or so ago when the left began to realize that there was a real risk of the Democrat party losing the 2016 election.
Eric, I’ve read many of your comments and think I understand your idea of activism. What I won’t do is stoop to the level of adopting the style, tactics, and methods of the left. What it boils down to is the end justifies the means and I’ll have no part of it. If you can’t achieve your goals by appealing to someones better nature, by upholding time tested principles of constitutional law, and above all in a framework of rational and civil discourse, then you’ve already lost the battle. Unfortunately, I think that is where we are now. Trump is a glaring, in your face example of how far we’ve descended. The battle for the minds and souls of the next generation is being won at the college level and in the barrios and ghettos through an increasingly accepted mindset that personal responsibility, hard work, and morality can be discarded, that justice is theft, and free speech is silencing your opponent. What we are witnessing is the beginning of the breakdown of civil society. You can’t fight disorder and irrationality by being disorderly and irrational.
If Trump is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him because I think the alternative is clearly worse.
That said, …
Republicans and Democrats have had YUUGE differences in political philosophy, going back decades, over the appropriate size and scope of government, taxes, spending, regulation, defense, and so on. Anyone over the age of 30-35 with even the slightest interest in politics has had plenty of time to get familiar with both sides of these issues, and to come to their own opinions.
In debates and other speech during the campaign, Trump has taken very strong positions and then walked them back, has stumbled on red-meat Republican ideas, and has put on a strangely disjointed show overall. (His answer to that absolutely-predictable ambush question on abortion is one glaring example.) The simplest and most obvious explanation is that he’s just never given this stuff any thought at all. In his 60+ years on this planet. That is, he’s been focused on his business, and his only involvement in politics was when he had to grease some palms to get his deals done. Everything else has been off his radar. (That’s his right, but he’s not exactly running for Zoning commission now.)
It’s much more than the typical politician’s game of watering things down to avoid riling one particular audience or another. You can usually dig through a politician’s previous votes, statements, and priorities to get an idea of what they really think. From what I can glean in Trump — which I admit is fuzzy — he just hasn’t thought about _any_ of this stuff, and he’s making it all up as he goes along. This means that we have precious little basis, apart from our own imaginations, for predicting what he might actually do in office.
If he somehow wins, he “might” make a great president. But so “might” 300 million other people. By itself, “might” is not much of a reason to vote for someone, much less to get enthusiastic about it. No one knows what Trump would do, because Trump doesn’t know what Trump would do.
As for imagining that he is somehow the only one who can stop Hillary, polling so far has shown consistently that Trump is the candidate that Hillary will have the _easiest_ time beating. He’s the only candidate whose negative ratings are actually higher than hers. Of course, things “might” change by November. That’s not much of a strategy.
Try some of them out and leave the bullshit artists to run the Party corral and neoconservative pig sty, i.e., the GOP.
You’re actually talking about the neo conservatives on this blog circa 2005, not the GOP.
This is what happens when you get confused by taking too many blue and red pills at once.
Robert Winkler Burke:
Beautiful poem. It really touched me. I have saved it and may try to memorize it.
I keep thinking about all of this, and I think the main reason he intrigues and there has been so much written about him is because many on the right (maybe also on the left?) have been used to doing so much analyzing of Obama for the past eight years that it’s hard to turn it off. Trump is another mystery for the media to solve, and every time they think they have, they haven’t — just like Obama. Just my two cents!
The media in the US has always been brain dead at best, traitors at worst.
But as Deborah brought up, I would think people have grown slightly more used to Questioning Authority in a lot of ways now, instead of swallowing the propaganda spin. Although it isn’t necessarily going to save the country like they think it will.
[quote]If you can’t achieve your goals by appealing to someones better nature, by upholding time tested principles of constitutional law, and above all in a framework of rational and civil discourse, then you’ve already lost the battle.[/quote]
and if the other side already has decided that you are a “bitter clinger”? and their conception of constitutional law is “whatever works for us and contains you”? and their concept of rational and civil discourse is “we legislate whatever we want and you pay and obey”? who view you as irrational and uncivil if you don’t agree and pay up? at that point discussion, civil or not, and persuasion, civil or not, ends. politics ends.
“Republicans and Democrats have had YUUGE differences in political philosophy, going back decades, over the appropriate size and scope of government, taxes, spending, regulation, defense, and so on.”
they did. not anymore.
If you believe anything like that to begin with, you are so far gone as to be impossible to reason with.
“reason” means more than “sharing all my feel-good imaginations as if they were facts on the ground”. we’ve seen what you want, we’ve seen the stacked bodies, what you want doesn’t work, and we’re not about to stand still and be run over by what you would unleash upon us. you don’t want to “reason” with us, fine, just don’t get in our way as we defend ourselves.
JurassiCon Rex Says:
As you obviously cannot stand the heat of differing opinions — adios.
Is our long night finally over?
saltlick Says:
The only thing that mystifies me about this campaign season is how Trump turned Limbaugh…
It’s a lot simpler than that. Rush acknowledges that Trump’s supporters have legitimate grievances. He doesn’t want to alienate them, even if their chosen vessel is flawed. Also, he’s trying not to lose any of his audience, so he straddles the fence.
Kyndyll G:
April 1st, 2016 at 4:16 pm
I agree completely. Trump is a clown.
gman:
You’re seen the stacked bodies????
gman:
I’m not sure who the “we” and the “them” are in your comments. Are you equating conservatives who don’t support Trump with progressives? The Republican party hasn’t been so thoroughly purged of political dissent when compared to the Democrat party, sorry but that is a fact. I don’t claim that the Republicans are effective or consistent or persuasive in political combat with the progressives and worse in the Democratic party, but some are opposing them.
Trump on the other hand is mostly fine with the progressives. Follow his history and how he spends his money/ who he chooses to bankroll. If you don’t care about his past actions don’t expect to be surprised when he betrays you.
Pretty sure Trump got into the race as a lark to troll everyone. Shockingly there was so much pent up hatred among the voters against the establishment politicians in both parties he did really, really well.
Trump was caught off-guard because he never dreamed that he would be a front-runner. That’s why his positions on issues are a mish-mash of off-the-cuff decisions mainly to pander to the ‘fuck you’ vote that so passionately supports him.
I suspect he really doesn’t expect to be elected and is continuing his trolling as long as possible just to see how outrageous he can get before he loses support.
Trump won’t be there at the end and neither will Hillary. Just my guess.
It’ll be Cruz v Hillary.
Hillary will be the Dem nominee because it is the best way to ensure that she isn’t indicted.
Lowry wrote (in part):
Donald Trump never ceases to amaze, but his answer at a CNN town hall about the pledge he had taken to support the Republican Party’s nominee was still jaw-dropping.
Not only did Trump say that the pledge is null and void as far as he’s concerned, …….
Every rational calculation says that Trump should seek to preserve the pledge…….
I would say all of you all miss it by miles. Trump took the pledge fully knowing the eGoP would betray the trust sooner or later. Notice his words are careful ….. “I just wanted fairness from the Republican Party,” … and they have been working behind the scenes to broker the convention and steal the nomination from Trump. So much for “fairness”. He knew because he has bought and sold all of the Uniparty oligarchs in the past.
This whole 2016 ‘Insurgency of the GoP’ and the posturing of the Left/Socialists of the Coasts is nothing but kabuki for the proles. You are being played. And you all fall for it hook-line-and-sinker.
For the record, I am a Far Right Wacko-Bird constitutional conservative.
Trump is a Master Persuader. See http://blog.dilbert.com/
I said a year ago that the eGoP multitude of candidates would form their circular firing squad and do the Demonrats work for them. What happened, eh?
Here are some predictions:
1. Hitlery email scandal possibles
– She will not be indicted
– If indicted DoJ will decline to charge (insert some argument about “harm done”)
– Some minion will take the fall and serve a short sentence, if any, to then gain a sinecure at the Clinton Global Initiative
2. eGoP will rig the convention and install either a Cruz/Kasich ticket and lose horribly or a TBD/TBD ticket and lose horribly (Why? They would rather play second fiddle at the money trough than have to govern)
3. Should 2 happen Trump will run 3rd party and then the eGoP can blame Trump for their loss and that of his unwashed followers. IOW, the pecksniffs of the eGoP will have their scapegoats.
4. If Hitlery makes it to The WH the Constitutional Republic is truly dead. America becomes a 3rd world sh–hole but the oligarchs still rule.
5. Cruz is not an ‘outsider’. He is a creature of Goldman-Sachs and The Bush Cartel. See:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/09/a-disconcerting-tripwire-what-carly-fiorina-endorsing-ted-cruz-really-means/
I mean, you all, what makes you think that your masters are going to let you have any real say in your futures? Stop thinking like slaves and you may figure it out.
R Daneel:
Trump supporters are very fond of making the claim that the GOP enforcing its own rules, or making its own decisions about a candidate who fails to secure the nomination according to those rules, is somehow “stealing” the nomination.
It is not.
And Scott Adams’ “master persuader” theory does not persuade me that Trump is any such thing, nor do Trump’s minions at conservative treehouse. Anyone who has spent time on the right side of the blogosphere these past few months—which includes most of the people who comment here—is extremely familiar with the arguments mounted at both sites. I find them singularly unconvincing.
And it’s almost humorous that those who argue for Trump have also decided to argue that Cruz, whose career as an outsider is one that any well-informed person has been able to follow long before Trump entered the scene, is some sort of “creature of Goldman-Sachs and The Bush Cartel.”
Another thing I’ve noticed during Trump’s candidacy is the tendency of his supporters to regard themselves as the cognoscenti, possessed of the true knowledge that all the other ignorant rubes are ignoring, and to be condescending and to reek of disdain for those who cannot see the Trump light. That’s not an especially persuasive position, either, but you don’t come here to persuade. It’s one of the reasons this April Fools spoof at the Daily Wire is so funny, however:
Casper, if the Convention nominates a Republican, I will vote for him. If they don’t, then I feel no obligation.
Like most, neoneocon, you miss the point. Trump is not my perfect ‘conservative’. He may not be conservative at all. Only God can know a man’s heart.
I am a Texan by choice and attitude – God, guns and Liberty. A vet who served in the 70’s. I have an interesting history, at least I think it is. I have worked all over the world. I am a student of Mathematics and Physics who works with industrial robots.
I came to the right side of the aisle late, like you. I started as a far lefty. That is part of the interesting.
Here is my point, the eGoP and it’s members have sold the conservative base out repeatedly. Here Cornyn campaigned in ’14 as being in favor of Obamacare repeal and strong border security (a major issue here in Texas). He immediately pivoted once elected, funded all of Obama’s agenda. Then he and the others, McCain, McConnell etc called the base names.
Nope, time to try something else. That may be Trump or maybe Cruz but it sure ain’t Sanders (open commie) or Hillary.
neo….
I’m convinced that we are witnessing a Mass Movement — Eric Hoffer style.
I’d swear that Trump has a copy at his bed table.
The problem with running a Huey Long style movement is that America has traditionally DEFEATED such campaigns.
We are not as systemically insane as the Europeans.
As for insanity, look at the present hijrah.
Merkel is as rigid — fixed — as Adolf ever was.
She must figure that she’s superior to Maggie Thatcher.
But, she isn’t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9V8POmuxg
I will agree with Trump — that he can effect INSTANT improvement.
He need only reverse EVERY 0bama EO and executive memorandum.
Spitting out the poison will save the patient.
If you don’t care about his past actions don’t expect to be surprised when he betrays you.
we wouldn’t be. just more of the same if he does. but he’s the only one who might not.
The Republican party hasn’t been so thoroughly purged of political dissent when compared to the Democrat party, sorry but that is a fact.
when republican leaders say they’d rather vote for hillary than trump, then there is no “republican party”, it’s just one wing of the mono-party that has infiltrated and co-opted american politics to harness the plowhorses in their own country. this enthusiasm for trump is like a stroke victim struggling to make his body work like it used to. if it fails then what comes next will be no fun, at all, but is preferable what the owners of the republican/democrat party have in mind for us. we’re ready.