Trump supporters as Osgood: “well, nobody’s perfect”
Trump supporters remind me of the Osgood character in “Some Like It Hot.” You remember:
Point out Trump’s manifest and myriad flaws? Trump supporters always have an answer.
All the other candidates who have held public office have a political record to point to and complain about. Governors, senators, they’ve all had to compromise on policies that reflect on what they might have to do as president. Trump has no such baggage. His political record consists of two things: words and donations to candidates.
He’s got a plethora of words that would sink any other Republican candidate. Even at the outset, there was his previous praise for Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, and support for single payer health care. He had made statements that George W. Bush was the worst president ever and should have been impeached, and during one of the debates he spouted the “Bush lied” charge that is popular on the left. He has had enormous praise for unrestrained government power under eminent domain, and previous long-term membership in the Democratic Party.
It would be laughable in any other serious Republican candidate. But in Trump, his supporters shrug it off, like Osgood’s sanguine excuses at the end of that movie.
History of liberal positions? He’s changed; nobody’s perfect.
Present-day liberal positions? Doesn’t matter. He doesn’t really mean it—or, alternatively, he talks tough on illegal immigration, the others don’t, and that’s the only thing that matters. Talk is cheap, of course, and he’s walked back most or all of his talk. Doesn’t matter to his supporters. It’s the bluster that counts.
Polls suggested right along that Trump would do more poorly than the other major candidates against Hillary Clinton. Didn’t matter. His supporters kept asserting that either (a) the polls were lies (b) the polls will change over time and improve for him. Well, first they did (somewhat, that is), and now they’re sinking again. His supporters have disregarded his high disapproval ratings—which are not the function of the public not knowing him, because the public does know him quite well.
Trump’s use of juvenile mockery, and his self-aggrandizing narcissism? Doesn’t matter. Even though they hated it in Obama, and even though Trump makes Obama look like Emily Post and St. Francis of Assisi put together, they excuse him because, don’t you know, it’s all a pose. Or because it shows his boundless self-confidence and alpha-maleness.
Did someone on the right criticize Trump? Accuse that person of being a cuckservative or RINO or GOPe or “elite” or secretly wanting Hillary to win and use that to dismiss what the person is saying.
Trump shows ignorance of something very basic or fails to do his homework—for example, what the nuclear triad is, when he’s been asked the question before and failed to answer it? Doesn’t matter. Never fear. He’ll learn whatever he needs to learn when he needs to learn it. Or he’ll appoint the right people. They’ll figure it all out.
Above all, keep saying Trump can and will win. And, should he be nominated and lose the general election, blame his loss on the fact that the establishment didn’t help him enough. They sabotaged him, stabbed him in the back. Because everyone knows that Trump is actually a winner.
[NOTE: I think I wrote this post mainly so I could put up that clip. I love the movie “Some Like It Hot.”]
And then there are some in the “Alt Right” that use the “((( )))” label on Twitter to identify Jews who are not Trump supporters and then attack them.
What is worse than Trump? …. That the Republican party preferred him to Cruz.
Villify the voters, not the candidate they elected who won the right to nomination (pre-convention) by the rules.
I’ve read enough anti-Trump stuff here to last me more than a lifetime and I’m not going to vote for Hillary or any 3rd-party Born To Lose, nor will I stay at home.
And when Hillary wins, will we kwetsch endlessly here about her SCOTUS nominations, her further destruction/degradation of our military, her wonderful fiscal policies which will add another $8 trillion to our deficit, the ballooning of social justice which will put all of us miserable whites into the back of the bus?
The race between the Clintons and the Obamas is who can cross the finish line with more money? Thatisall.
And more and more of those attack tweets contain images of Auschwitz uniforms and ovens. They’re feeling emboldened. Disgusting.
Frog:
Boy, if you think this post consists of “vilification,” then I don’t think you know much about vilification.
I didn’t think you had such tender sensibilities 🙂 .
“Vilify”:
defame, slander
To attack the reputation of (a person or thing) with strong or abusive criticism.
This post is a description of what a great many Trump supporters have said and done. I don’t think I used a single nasty or even negative adjective to refer to them, I merely described what they have in fact done. If that is “vilification,” then I guess it is self-vilification on their part.
I probably am as tired of writing about the Trump phenomenon as you are of reading about it. But it is important to understand, study, analyze, discuss. It is one of the most interesting and potentially transforming (for good OR ill, depending on your position on Trump) events of our time in this country. I find it exceptionally depressing and sobering. I don’t run away from it, except periodically of course, and I give readers many alternative posts to read if they are sick of Trump.
If Hillary wins, of course she will be criticized. Same for Trump. And for each of them, their win becomes history, and the alternative history of what would have happened had the other been elected is just that, an imaginary alternative.
If Hillary is elected, she will do bad things. That doesn’t change the fact that if Trump had been elected, HE would have done bad things. If he is not elected, though, we’ll be able to argue about what those bad things would have been. But whatever bad things Hillary does should not be compared to an imaginary wonderful Trump—although his supporters will of course do just that.
And I realize you were not originally a Trump supporter. As I’ve said, I respect those who decide to vote for him and those who do not. Both usually have good reasons for their decision.
Frog:
And don’t forget, he’s self-financing, and therefore cannot be bought. When Hillary has a billion-dollar war-chest to throw at him, the media gives him a couple billion more in free PR plus a free billion in oppo research, the unions and ten thousand “public-interest”, “non-partisan” 501c(3/4/27) groups get their protest thugs and GOTV drives going, Donald’s going to be willing to liquidate his entire fortune to beat her.
Right?
After all, he can’t take money from billionaire donors, or the Republican establishment, or Wall Street, or corporations w/o selling out. Maybe he can pawn his 5 billion dollar name to the devil for several dollars.
“…the media gives Hilary, not him, a couple billion…”
Neo – funny scene – makes the point well, thanks.
Neo – We all realize that both the Dems and the Republicans have made bad (maybe even horrible) choices for their nominees. What do you suggest we do about it? Vote for Hillary? Stay away? Vote Libertarian? or WHAT???
It is fine and very easy to criticize Trump and his supporters but we are faced with limited choices. Where to go and what to do?
Having closely followed the Clinton Crime Family for the past 25 years or more, there is no way I can force myself to vote for her. I am extremely frustrated by my choices.
Lets all get together and vote for James Comey. From what I have heard, he is the last honest man in Washington.
Any other ideas??
nkbay99:
I share your frustration.
And I share your confusion about what to do, unfortunately.
Commenter “Eric” suggests we become activists. I’m not always sure what that means in terms of actual behavior, right now. As far as voting, I don’t know what I will do (as I think I’ve written before). I am still puzzling it out. I think if there were a viable other candidate I would definitely consider it. So far one has not emerged.
Here is one of many posts I’ve written on the subject as we all mull it over.
Erick Erickson thinks that Scott Walker may well be the Republican nominee in the end. All depends on whether Trump can behave himself during the next two to three weeks.
I saw Trump’s talk today at some religious group meeting. He was back on the teleprompter. Maybe the criticisms by Gingrich, Ryan, McConnell, et al have gotten to him a bit. I always did see the reluctant GOP leaders withholding full support as a negotiating chip to use with Trump. He must know by now that the never Trumpers can keep him from winning in November. We will have to see whether Trump can suppress his off-the-cuff blather.
I am pretty sure that Ryan made it clear to him that he wouldn’t be able to successfully herd the cats in the house for him without a change in tone.
Okay, gang, here comes a hypothesis.
Hypothesis: for a great many Trumpkins, the overriding concern is getting our country back. That means different things to different people, but I contend we all kinda sorta know what that means.
The single payer health care (for example) and other Trumpian liberal fantasies can wait, because (so my hypothesis goes) once the country is irretrievably lost, little else will matter. In other words, first, get our country back, then fix it.
(I recognize that a lot of the working-class appeal of Trump is to bring our jobs back, and as a now-retired once-working stiff [or maybe not so stiff], I recognize that my analysis may be overlooking the associated concern, the fear, the economic resentment. That’s why I want to honor that factor here, even if I have blessedly been able to dodge the economic aspect all these years. People are hurting, and hurting very seriously. But it all factors in. Getting our country back necessarily includes getting our jobs back. Even if I don’t know how that can reasonably be accomplished, it’s included in my hypothesis.)
Now . . .
Amidst all of Trump’s flippety flops concerning practically everything, (at least) one major constant remains: Trump wants our country back, too. I have discerned nothing to contradict that: to me, it’s the one overriding Trumpian constant. Again (so my hypothesis goes), once we get our country back, we can go about fixing it — we can argue liberal versus conservative, single payer versus free market, bla bla and bla, later. It won’t matter worth a damn should the country be irretrievably lost.
As far as M J R goes, I take comfort in knowing that as a voter in a true blue state, my vote won’t matter anyway. (Some readers here have argued against that; I’ve read those arguments and I do respect them. I sure wouldn’t want to be a voter in a purple or swing state.) Also, M J R has since November 2012 been of the opinion that the country is *already* irretrievably lost. In 3+1/2 years I have seen nothing to contradict that, but were I a voter in a purple or swing state, I’d be anguishing over what to do in the event that my opinion is wrong.
Rounding these thoughts up now, I humbly suggest that my hypothesis helps explain why so many Trumpkins are so inoculated against reasonable argument. When it’s one’s child — or one’s country — that’s *literally* at stake, reasoned logic will easily give way to unbridled emotion. And very possibly, quite reasonably so.
Perhaps we might look to history for some insight as to what motivates Trump supporters. I refer to a quote attributed to Franklin Roosevelt:
“He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch”.
Neo, to me ‘vilify” means to bad-mouth.
And I think MJR is right about Trump wanting to take our country back. Hillary and her running dogs want to own it, forever.
So The Donald is going to make some mistakes, do some disagreeable things? Gosh, that’s never happened before! I do not care as long as he rebuilds our military, builds the metaphorical wall(s), appoints the people on his SCOTUS list, and challenges Islam as the devilish charade of a religion that it is.
I don’t give a flip about the Illegals, nor the Muslim Americans. Or socialists. Or the sexually deluded and their pervert buddies.
Frog:
“3rd-party Born To Lose”
That’s not a given this time around.
Neo:
“Commenter “Eric” suggests we become activists. I’m not always sure what that means in terms of actual behavior, right now.”
Right now it means, proximately, an all-in 3rd-option presidential campaign that competes head-on versus the Democrat-front Left and Trump-front alt-Right, with the larger purpose of using the campaign to catalyze, crystallize a permanent full-spectrum social activist movement.
Add: … that competes head-on aggressively versus …
1. I think a different approach may be warranted. Don’t write about Trump. Instead, discuss what other people are doing. I base this on something Mark Steyn said the other day, about Trump being a reaction to repeated failures of leadership. Thus, it may be a flaw in thinking to focus too much on what Trump is doing and what Trump is like, instead of the same with other political leaders.
2. As for the probable match-up in November between Hillary and Trump, let us not forget that the former is corrupt, is dishonest, has compromised national security, and will push a radical Leftist agenda. For the greater good of the country, Trump is the better choice.
Eric:
Jay Norlinger wrote a piece at National Review about a third-party candidate and imagined the candidate saying something like this in a three-way debate in the fall:
There’s much more here.
Frog:
But my point is that in this post I didn’t “bad-mouth” Trump supporters.
Seriously—where did I bad-mouth them? I describe what they did. I don’t say anything like “they’re stupid, they’re bad, they’re this, they’re that.” I don’t even used adjectives for them, bad or good. I merely say what they did and said, and it is pretty much indisputably, unarguably, what they did and said, in order to excuse Trump. How is that “bad-mouthing” (or “vilifying”) them?
In fact, they’ve done more—many of them have come onto blogs (not so much now, but during the heat of the primaries) and actively insulted—REALLY “bad-mouthed”—everyone who didn’t agree with them. Many have lied about Trump, and lied about the other candidates (echoing him), over and over.
That’s not what this post is about, although if it was about that it would still be true. And even describing that would not be “vilifying” or “bad-mouthing” them. It would be telling the simple observational truth about their actions.
Yankee:
No one here is forgetting anything about how bad Hillary is. It’s referred to over and over. If Hillary wasn’t bad, there would be no dilemma—we’d just vote for her.
But “Hillary bad” does not mean “Trump better.” That’s a logical fallacy. “Hillary bad” can go along with “Trump better” or “Trump just as bad but in a different way” or “Trump just as bad and very similar” or “Trump worse.”
Any and all of those positions can be argued. I happen to think that “Trump just as bad and very similar” is the most difficult argument to make. But it still could be made, and the other arguments are relatively easy to make. All of them.
Eric:
Yes, but how do you operationalize that behavior? I mean, the details? I do it by writing, but I assume that’s not what you mean. I don’t even know more than a handful of people on the right, so how does a person organize such a thing? There is no single alternative candidate around whom to coalesce, so the energy gets dissipated. I don’t think we can count on the GOP leadership to get it going, although there are rumblings about that.
Frog:
I have written elsewhere that the one thing I think Trump believes in (other than himself and how great he is) is that he loves this country. But I’m not even sure of that, so much of Trump is con, act, pose, manipulative, strategic, narcissistic.
Does he want to “take our country back”? I think so. Maybe. I don’t trust anything he says, and he has richly earned my distrust.
But even if he does want to “take our country back,” that’s not really enough. What does he mean by that? HOW would he do it? Could he do it? And what does he want to “take it back” for, and turn it into? His own money-making machine? His own revenge-on-his-enemies factory? Etc. etc.
Plus, surely you know that people on the right who hesitate at voting for Trump aren’t doing so because they fear he will “make some mistakes” or “do some disagreeable things.” That’s a strawman you set up to minimize the possibilities they fear.
OK, Neo, I was too fast.
How ’bout “Blame” the Voters, instead?
It’s not about Trump; it is about those who voted him the delegates to achieve (pre-convention) the nomination.
I think Hillary is worse, much worse, thank you very much.
Do you have any reason to believe Trump’s SCOTUS appointments will be worse or as bad as Hillary’s? He gave us a list, didn’t he?
Do you really think Trump will be as bad for our military as Hillary? Hubby Bill used the “Peace Dividend” to downsize it as Prez, after all. Remember his (theirs, probably) flaccidity as C-in-C? You remember Hillarycare, the abomination that makes Obamacare look better, at all?
Do you really think Hillary will differ from B. Hussein about immigration? About “Syrian” refugees? About Iran? In better ways??
Do you really think Hillary will make better macro-economic decisions than Trump? We have another, probably big, recession coming in the next term. You want Warren to help her? Or the other Democratic weasels?
We are not talking in abstract logic whether he could be as bad or worse than she or not. I deem that silly, with all respect. We must ask, “About what”?
Hillary will be our Maduro. Trump will not be.
Frog:
I, and many other people, have addressed the issue of who is worse, Trump or Hillary.
If you’ve read my posts on the subject, and read the links I’ve offered to other people writing on the subject, you would know what I think. I’m in a hurry at the moment (about to step out for a while), but I suggest you try to find them and refresh your memory.
But the summary is that I have not decided who is worse. I sometimes think (and have said) that I would vote for Trump in the end; at least I can imagine it. I have no trouble knowing Hillary’s flaws. They are known, because as a political figure/operator she is known. Trump is unknown as a person in public office; he has never held one.
I have written posts on his propensity towards tyranny and his disrespect for the Constitution. These are the things that bother me. Other people have waxed eloquent on the fact that the GOP and the right would own Trump’s excesses, but would not own Hillary’s.
I have no idea why you feel the need to list the things wrong with Hillary. I have no idea why you would think I or anyone who reads this blog would be ignorant of them, or think that on those particular points Trump would be worse. People on the right who hesitate to vote for Trump feel that he’d be worse on different points, and important ones.
What’s more, they think he has a terrible and unstable character.
To exclusively focus upon Trump’s faults is to make voting for him less likely, which at least in swing states makes Hillary’s election more likely.
If Trump loses, that will be the time to focus upon his faults, as in reaction to his supporter’s distress it will provide a ‘teaching moment’. That would also be the time to attempt to enlist Trump’s supporters in Eric’s conservative social activist movement.
If he wins, he should be given the traditional ‘honeymoon period’ to see how he actually performs. If he goes “off the reservation” that will be the time for criticism, the purpose of which should not be to tear down but to rein in his excesses.
We all know Trump’s flaws, even those who make excuses for him. It does actual harm to dwell upon them because regardless of intent, it assists the Left. Rationalizing that criticism as simply objective observation, changes that assistance not in the least.
Were there an electable 3rd party alternative, that name would have emerged by now.
The conservative social activist movement that Eric recommends takes youth’s idealism, energy and freedom from familial obligations. It also takes funding, which has yet to be found. IMO, the time for the formation of that movement is now but it would be futile and self-defeating for that movement to act as a barrier to Trump’s election.
If Hillary is elected, a “rear guard action” will be all that can be accomplished. If Trump is elected, criticism without constructive suggestions will only alienate Trump and his supporters. Criticism that alienates is remembered and would act to hinder the repairs that are sure to be needed after his time is over.
Neo, I listed those things in order to contrast Hillary with Trump, and to make the point that your “logic” argument is not relevant.
“Other people have waxed eloquent on the fact that the GOP and the right would own Trump’s excesses, but would not own Hillary’s.”
Because Hillary will own those “other [eloquent] people.” Being enslaved by the PC crowd has no appeal to me.
M J R – I don’t know what “take our country back” means. Take it back from the crony capitalists? The Acela corridor big-government liberal elites? They’re the ones I want out of power. Donald Trump is one of them.
Take it back from the immigrant, then? Or, the non-white immigrant? Trump doesn’t seem to have any real commitment to the idea, beyond recognizing a solid applause line about building a wall. It feels too half-hearted.
Also, as a separate observation, I don’t think our country is irretrievably lost. If I may use a sailing analogy, I think that conservatism is facing a strong headwind. If the wind is coming straight at you from the south, you can’t sail due south. But a skilled sailor can sail southwest, then southeast, then southwest, et cetera, zigzagging to get the boat where he wants it to go.
Reagan was a great sailor. He could never get the country pointed in the direction he wanted it to go, but he could get us there anyway. Pacifist liberals loved big defense contracts. Crony capitalists loved tax cuts. He could make a delicious stone soup.
As much as I like the brashness of Ted Cruz, I could never get too angry at the Rubios and Ryans who try to negotiate from principled positions. Not cave in, not make great deals without thinking about what they mean, but work toward a compromise. It’s a lost art. Who would have thought that the Tea Party would come in with fire and conviction, and abandon their conviction for unprincipled pyromania?
Anyway, this county still has potential. All it needs is non-foul leadership.
Oops. That previous comment sounds bad. I mean that Trump’s anti-immigration semi-racism feels too half-hearted to take seriously as a motivating principle.
One more comment, then I’ll finish up. About foul leadership. Can anyone complete this sentence: “I remember the time that Donald Trump / Hillary Clinton appealed to our better natures when he / she said…”
“Any and all of those positions can be argued. I happen to think that “Trump just as bad and very similar” is the most difficult argument to make. But it still could be made, and the other arguments are relatively easy to make. All of them.”
Hewitt, Sen Kirk, Sen Graham, and Erickson’s insight re: Walker (?), etc. seems to indicate a growing realization that Trump may actually be worse, as in scary – not just an election loser.
There was an assumption that he was controllable, that he would change and become “Presidential”, but he cannot and he won’t – not in the way we all expect it should be. At best, he will be on again, off again, and that just does not pass muster.
Erickson says eyes are on Trump for the next two weeks to see if he will “behave himself”, or face losing GOP support.
If so, folks are fooling themselves yet again, if they think Trump will magically be better after they reward him with / renew their support. They will lose their leverage and he will revert to his normal self, as he cannot help himself.
.
Anyway, re: how Clinton vs Trump stack up – a couple of charts showing how each fares on Favorability ratings in the lead up to an election vs every nominee since 1992.
Clinton:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb3rxzPUYAAAXZO.png
Trump:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb3XxqOUsAApk_8.jpg
Both are negative, but it is useful to see the the hole Trump is struggling with (and likely the GOP, by association), relative to past “winners”.
Clinton looks to be trending along the path of prior “losers”, but, (not so) incredibly, Trump is worse than the typical “loser”.
The degree of variation is also not a positive for Trump. One would expect a smoother trajectory as people get to “know” him. His numbers look chaotic.
Note about the charts, they are a bit dated ~3 months old, but given what we are talking about now, do we think they’ve changed in character much?
Nick, 7:49 pm — “M J R — I don’t know what ‘take our country back’ means.”
I had written, “That means different things to different people, but I contend we all kinda sorta know what that means,” and I was hoping to skate by on that [smile]. No such luck.
All I can do, then, is project on Trump what *I*’m taking it to mean. Foremost, I tie it to his frequent attacks on political correctness. To wit, take our country back from the left, from the excesses of the trannie-pushing gay-pushing* dumbing-down educators; from those who would force an evangelical Christian baker to essentially participate in a celebration of gaiety; from the educators who are imposing leftish values on our children; from those who, despite their earnest but disingenuous protestations, are looking forward to preventing people from arming themselves in self-defense; from the apologies for USA, even if they’re not literally apologies any more. And so on and so on.
* -not- trannie-tolerating and gay-tolerating but trannie-pushing and gay-pushing
Using your (Nick’s) list of possibilities, from . . .
– “the crony capitalists” — in a simple word, yes.
– “the Acela corridor big-government liberal elites” — yes. He’s one of them alright, but, for example, unlike Ross Perot, he didn’t get rich off government contracts. I do think he wants to make USA better. He may have a lot of trouble getting out of his own way doing it, but I do detect a sincerity in there.
– “the immigrant” — no. The legal immigrant, who gets what USA is about, is most welcome here. It’s not clear what Trump’s actual position on illegal immigration is, given that he’s already signaled that he’s happy and willing to wheel and deal, which is his forte. We’ll see if that beautiful wall ever gets built.
How’s that? [smile again]
For some reason, to me, the GOP sounds like the battered spouse in an abusive marriage.
If the *only* alternative were, say, Roseanne Barr, I might take Jack Lemmon even though I’m straight.
IMO, Trump is, in one way, like Obama. People can project on him what they most desire.
Labor force participation is the lowest ever. If you are in the unfortunate-large–group which can’t even keep looking, or no someone, “jobs” rings pretty loudly.
If you’re in the military, or were, or know someone, or are interested in national security, the details of the emasculation get your attention and Trump’s promise to fix that is powerful.
Those are two examples which affect potential Trump supporters while, this being important, The Blob refuses to discuss them, making the people concerned even more angry.
There are others; those who favor traditional culture looking at immigrants who have no intention of assimilating and who, in fact, insist we change to suit them…and the acquiescence of education, government rules, political correctness, even policing.
And then there’s the VA, the EPA’s nothing-to-see-here-we’ve-covered-it-up Animas River debacle.
There is plenty to make anybody mad even if you don’t count being lied to about Obamacare.
So, in the usual way of a generalized savior, he’s going to take care of what worries ME.
Thing is, whether he does or not, we know with certainty that Hillary intends to make things worse.
“those who favor traditional culture looking at immigrants who have no intention of assimilating and who, in fact, insist we change to suit them”
Hard to discern if it is largely the immigrants thinking this, or a segment of our population pushing this idea.
Immigrants tend to behave as they always have – living in communities that they have ties to. Usually, it is the second generation that assimilates.
More likely it is the SJW crowd that originated and perpetuates the idea that “we have to suit them” – like the argument that standardized tests are inherently “unfair” because they are in English.
Nowadays, of course, one will find folks from any community that have joined the SJW crowd to argue the same for their group – that is how identity politics works.
We ought to assume, short of having specific data to back it up, that the vast majority of immigrants likely come here thinking they will do whatever it takes to be a “good citizen” and stay here.
It is the SJW crowd that indoctrinates them afterwards, IMHO.
Our policy sets a rather low bar for earning US Citizenship. Though one wonders if most US born citizens would be able to even navigate those hurdles. That may be where our problem lies.
M J R –
OK, let’s look at your list.
“trannie-pushing gay-pushing dumbing-down educators” – The first response of his on the issue of transgendered bathrooms in North Carolina (at least that I can find) was on the side of the trannie-pushers.
“Leave it the way it is. North Carolina, what they’re going through with all the business that’s leaving, all of the strife — and this is on both sides. Leave it the way it is….There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate….There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic — I mean, the economic punishment that they’re taking.”
“those who would force an evangelical Christian baker to essentially participate in a celebration of gaiety” – Why doesn’t he support the First Amendment Defense Act? Has he made any clear indication of what legislation he’d accept on this issue? His comments on Islam (and I’m no fan) indicate that he doesn’t understand religious freedom at all.
“the educators who are imposing leftish values on our children” – Other than the above, where? He’s held or still holds most of those leftish values. He’s more supportive of the social justice warrior crowd than he seems by his conduct. He supports liberal restrictions on others, just not on himself.
“from those who, despite their earnest but disingenuous protestations, are looking forward to preventing people from arming themselves in self-defense” – Until recently, he believed the opposite.
“the apologies for USA” – This is the heart of the matter to me. You can’t claim to be pro-USA while opposing its moral and political tradition. A lying, philandering, irresponsible, greedy borderline racist can’t run for president without a basic understanding of our political structure and claim to be defending the USA. He can’t call for our troops to torture enemy combatants and execute civilians. He can’t praise Russian and Chinese strongmen on the basis of their strength, their willingness to ignore the people and kill their enemies. He so grossly mischaracterizes the US that his claim to make something he doesn’t understand great again is offensive.
Big maq
I get it. I’ve worked with SJW who insist we’ll be assimilating these folks like H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N.
That’s on even days. On odd days, they scoff at the idea of assimilating to this racist, violent, misogynist, homophobic, greedy American culture.
They sell the proposition with the first, and they work for the second.
My point is that Trump looks as if he’ll deprive the SJW of more subjects to indoctrinate and shut down various, at least, government entities going along with anti-assimilation moves.
I don’t know what he’ll do, but I suspect those who fear this particular issue project major help from him.
That’s my point.
“We all know Trump’s flaws, even those who make excuses for him. It does actual harm to dwell upon them because regardless of intent, it assists the Left.” – GB
How did I miss this?
I don’t buy that for a New York (in Trump’s honor) minute!
This is just another form of the “if you don’t vote for Trump you are responsible if Hillary wins” argument.
Trump is who he is. It is you (among many) who is arguing that we must vote Trump because Hillary is worse.
You previously said he’d *certainly* rule as an Autocrat, in response to my concern that he may well become an Authoritarian. Hardly comforting.
Autocrat/Authoritarian, in my books is worse than Obama has been, as it means nearly completely disregarding the Constitution and the limitations of Presidential powers, placing us in the subjective whims of a Dear Leader.
Both are poor choices, but arguing that a certain-to-be Authoritarian is better than what looks to many of us be a continuation of the last four years just doesn’t pass the reasonableness test.
IMHO, just the reasonable possibility that Trump may turn Authoritarian, is alone a disqualifier. But, that is not the only issue with him that makes him the worse candidate of the two.
There are consequences with having Trump at the top of the ticket. Asking us to essentially “be quiet” on Trump and focus on Hillary because it might cause us to lose the opportunity to either beat Clinton or position ourselves after Trump for some kind of reconciliation back to conservative principles just doesn’t support itself from cause to effect.
Nick, 10:50 am —
This started as follows:
M J R, 5:32 pm — “Hypothesis: for a great many Trumpkins, the overriding concern is getting our country back. That means different things to different people, but I contend we all kinda sorta know what that means.”
Sure looks like we did *not* kinda sorta know what that means.
Pressed, I punted as follows:
M J R, 11:21 pm — “All I can do, then, is project on Trump what *I*’m taking it to mean. Foremost, I tie it to his frequent attacks on political correctness.”
— — — — — —
I did manage to mention at 5:32 pm “all of Trump’s flippety flops.” You (Nick) have served to remind me that it’s even worse than I’d been thinking, in spite of my assiduously reading neo’s and others’ contributions to the Trumpian flippety flop catalogue.
Heck, even if there’s been a true change of Trumpian heart, there’s precious little reason to fancy that his Trumpian heart won’t change again.
I absolutely will *not* vote for Hillary!, and I suppose I’ve been looking for ways to feel better about Trump, even though (as I stated at 5:32 pm) “I take comfort in knowing that as a voter in a true blue state, my vote won’t matter anyway.”
But you (Nick) are jolting me back to reality with a very well-thought-out response. My quest to feel better about Trump — even though I had not planned on voting for him — has failed big-time.
And it sure looks like I *was*, after all, “project[ing] on Trump what *I*’m taking it [“getting our country back”] to mean.”
Major sigh.
Thanks for the effort!
BUT: I myself had gotten sidetracked by the effort to be “looking for ways to feel better about Trump.” I had written in that initial 5:32 pm post, “I humbly suggest that my hypothesis helps explain why so many Trumpkins are so inoculated against reasonable argument.” I continue to think that maybe that hypothesis does hold up to some extent. Whaddaya say? . . .
“My point is that Trump looks as if he’ll deprive the SJW of more subjects to indoctrinate and shut down various, at least, government entities going along with anti-assimilation moves.” – R Aubrey
Thanks.
IMHO, Trump looks to be inflaming both the SJW and his supporters, as, often as not, his “non-PC responses” look more like smoke screen or misdirection than a critique of the left.
Had he been consistent and clear in his argumentation (and maybe even, horrors, philosophically conservative), then (a more selective) non-PC talk might carry some weight beyond a core set of supporters.
.
“I don’t know what he’ll do, but I suspect those who fear this particular issue project major help from him.”
I’m at the same place.
The man is too unpredictable to know what he would do. Thus, I, too, can only conclude that his supporters are projecting their wishes.
Trump strikes me as a “revenge” candidate rather than a “Make America Great” candidate, based on what many of his supporters emphasize about Trump, IMHO.
There’s a lot to revenge. Fixing doesn’t seem to be in the cards no matter who’s elected.
A lot of collateral damage can happen with “revenge” on that level.
Maq. True. But if the revenge-minded person does a quick assessment and decides that the collateral damage of the present course is worse….
The problem for Monday mornings (QB) is that whatever wasn’t done would have worked perfectly.
Pingback:anti-Semitism | internet | alt-right | white supremicist