Defending Trump
You may have noticed—really, it was hard not to notice—that one of yesterday’s posts got a link that drew a great many pro-Trump commenters here to express in various angry ways the idea that my post was insufficiently Trump-philic.
I kept most of the comments up there because I think they illustrate something. The blogosphere has never been an especially gentle or polite place, nor do I expect it to be. But this election Year of the Trump I’ve noticed an upswing in bitter/angry commenting on many blogs, not just this one but on blogs in general. This anger predated Trump’s candidacy and he didn’t cause it, but he and blogs that support him act as a lightening rods for it, channeling it and augmenting it giving it direction and form.
On yesterday’s thread in question, the comments were mostly ad hominem and/or strawman attacks from commenters who seemed to be uninterested for the most part in countering my substantive points as expressed in the post. Nor did many of them seem to notice that most of the time in that post I was describing general reactions (particularly of moderate voters) to Trump rather than my own personal reactions. Some of the comments had a nasty tone I’ve long gotten used to from commenters on the left—for example, insisting they don’t give a “rat’s ass” about this or that or the other things that I say, or that I’m a “holier-than-thou neocon” who wants a perfect candidate, or “neocons want perpetual war” (ignoring, of course, all of my posts on the subject of “neocons”).
I didn’t start a blog to parrot what other people say or toe a party line. There are plenty of blogs you can go to for that. I didn’t leave the liberal fold (not that I was ever quite in it; I always veered somewhat from the party line) to join some other fold. There are plenty of collective hive minds on both left and right, and though I study the phenomenon I have no interest in becoming part of that phenomenon.
Commenter “Kyndyll G” (not a troll, but a valued regular here) has this to say about it all:
I may vote for [Trump] because I have to, but I will not be happy when I do it, and I will be even less happy when I cast this losing vote because idiots and paid Internet trolls derailed a year in which the GOP should have won so that we can lose with Trump. Why is this in any way difficult to understand?
I don’t know if the trolls are paid by Trump himself, or simply by the many shadowy forces who want Democrats to win, but I have seen their tactics and manner of writing elsewhere, and they are not typical of intelligent people like the conservative regulars on this forum. It was an army of people who helped tip the scale to usher in a hopeless candidate who had no chance to win, at the expense of many who did…
For a while, the media played him up, in part because he was good for ratings and in part because he was the least likely to beat their Democrat candidate, but now the jig is up and the MSM has turned on the court jester. We all told you this would happen, and you treated us the way Democrats treated us when we said that Obamacare was a bad idea that would inevitably fail. Bet you’re going to blame us for Trump’s defeat, too, even though none of here will be responsible for that. Trump is responsible for his future annihilating loss, and it’s because his boorish behavior and the fact that he has no idea what he’s talking about, is sending disaffected Democrats and fence-sitters (who would love to vote for someone other than Hillary) running and screaming. We find that Trump’s horribleness is an ounce better than Hillary’s horribleness, but they see it the other way around. Berating us will not change that.
Long ago I decided that some of these commenters you started seeing nearly everywhere in the blogosphere once the Trump candidacy got launched were paid, either by Trump or by the alt-right or by the left or by all three. I don’t think most are paid, however; I think they are angry people who saw their moment to say “screw you” to those they were angry at, for example the people they see as RINOs and/or GOPe, those who haven’t managed to fulfill their political wishes.
One of these new visitors, “Maggie Gray,” made a remark—“Come out of your circle of grump and be happy and jump on the Trump Train”—that reminds me so very much of this old favorite, speaking of the hive mind:
This marriage is for a long time.
Even if Trump loses or wins or is a one termer, conservatives will have been rebranded for a generation because of Trump’s inability to be articulate or speak on free markets, equal opportunity or national security or whatever the topic.
I’ve come to learn that conservatives by nature do not see things as liberals do and liberals fall into two camps. 1) The camp who are liberals because all they have watched is ABCCBSNBCCNN their whole life and do not care so do not do any deeper diving of the facts 2) THe Alinsky types who absolutely LOVE what Obama/Hillary are doing because they want to see us move to the Venezuela model but truly don’t know how catastrophic that would be.
Conservatives fall into two camps also. 1) Those who in their gut are pro law enforcement, national security, less government, equal opportunity but do not have all of the facts and figures to back up their arguments like Neo does. 2) THe learned conservative.
Group #1 cannot POSSIBLY be the hateful people commenting because they are generally pro family, pro law abiding, etc. They do not push me to vote for Trump but against him and maybe that is what that group of people want.
As Trump insults Heidi Klum and Cruz and every other person who simply disagrees with him – that isn’t the largest problem with Trump.
He is simply bad for this nation in so many ways. I do not want my name or conservatism sullied by this man for 25 years.
I can’t tell my grandchildren I voted for this man.
I would not be surprised to find that many of the paid Trump commenters are also paid Putin commenters. And I have a good idea which came first.
This election is FAR from over. I’m not convinced at all that Trump will lose. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I remain convinced that thousands of Hillary’s deleted emails get leaked and they will be horrible. Even without a massive leak, she could still lose. People are sick of the status quo. It has failed.
Trump may well lose in November, but he has shown the Republican Party how to win a national election, however I suspect they won’t learn the lesson.
I didn’t vote for Trump in the primaries, but it wasn’t idiots or paid internet trolls that won him the nomination. He won the nomination by staking out ground on the right that many D.C. Republicans abandoned, and ground in the center that has been abandoned by both parties. That is the only coalition that is available for victory for the Republican Party. He won by bringing in a lot of people who hadn’t previously been voting, or had been voting for Democrats. Without him, those go back into hibernation, or pull the lever for Clinton. I can’t imagine any of the other Republican candidates holding onto to even half the voters Trump got in the primaries, and that means a loss to me.
I think the belief that another nominee would have had an easy win is delusional at best, even against Clinton. I think the mistake is in not realizing that the media would have been just as savage, but the candidate under attack would have spent the entire Summer and Fall in full retreat, trying to please everyone, and failing to please anyone. You need a brawler to fight through that, even if the brawler might invite some of it unwisely. Warts and all, I think Trump had the best chance to win this race. Another nominee would have lost one of those two wings I mentioned in the second paragraph to the Democrats. The 2012 election confirmed a lot of things for me- if everything NeverTrumpers think about this election were true, Romney should have won, but he didn’t, and he didn’t even come close.
You have a choice, try to win with Trump, or lose everything- the presidency, the House, and the Senate. By the time 2020 rolls around, Clinton will have assured the reelection through executive amnesty, and the courts will have whittled the Republican edge in the House away by blocking certain redistricting methods that have favored them, some that were legitimate and some that were not, but were pushed by short-sighted Democrats.
Not to worry. Here’s what my crystal ball says:
October 2016.
The Chicago Cubs win first three games of the World Series, then lose the next three. In the final game they go into the ninth inning with an 11 – 3 lead.
Just at that moment, SMOD. Saved by the bell.
Better than Hillary! More popular than Trump!
We await events. Only events can save us now.
@CH – Indeed, the election is FAR from over.
@Yancey – It wasn’t so much “abandoned ground”, it was being bombastic about that same “ground” – thus, with a willing media, effectively downing out any other voices.
I do think if Cruz was nominee, it would be just as bad media bashing-wise. I really did want to see a Carly/Hillary debate.
“I do not want my name or conservatism sullied by this man for 25 years.
I can’t tell my grandchildren I voted for this man.” Baklava
I believe I fully understand that reasoning and fully accept your sincerity. I don’t disagree about Trump’s potential for disaster, it’s certainly a possibility and perhaps even a probability.
Please explain how, a refusal to vote for Trump is NOT also a possible contribution to Hillary’s ascent to the throne?
Is it your position that Hillary and the Left will not do as much damage as might Trump?
BTW, today the LA Times/USC poll shows a less than 1 point difference and Rasmussen is reporting a 2 point difference. Zogby too.
I think the belief that another nominee would have had an easy win is delusional at best, even against Clinton.
Yancey: Given that Trump is on course lose as badly or worse than Romney in 2012 against a far weaker candidate in the year of the third-term-curse working against Democrats in 2016, I fail to see your logic.
Of course, counterfactuals are hard to settle definitively, but I would argue that had Romney run this year instead of 2012, he would have done much better and most likely beaten Hillary.
Rubio polled well against Hillary and would have done well against her in the the general too.
There’s no getting around what a rotten candidate Trump is. His unfavorables have always been 5-10 points worse than Hillary’s which is saying something. He has also run a poor campaign for the general election in terms of organization and his own behavior.
If the intention was to defeat Hillary and thus save the nation, as current Trump defenders tell us is now all-important, voting for Trump in the primaries was suicidal.
Trump did not generally stake out any ideological ground anywhere. His was always a populist, emotional appeal, trial-and-error discovering what it was that tripped the triggers of the disaffected. One example: Planned Parenthood does wonderful things, he said, but now will appoint pro-life judges.
The exception to this was immigration, plus the sense of cultural loss and attack people felt around the subject. Trump was initially not clear whether it was illegals, Muslims, most immigrants, or Mexicans that he was going to “do something” about. The important thing to many people is that he was saying anything at all. The details didn’t matter to them, because they don’t like what’s happening now and concluded that Trumpism would be better on that important subject, if no other.
There have been observers who have been predicting for years that a candidate who went after the “We have an immigration problem” vote would be popular. Most of that came from the right, but there were those on the left who said the same. That was the core of Trump’s initial support, and prior to his arrival on the scene the percentage of people who cared deeply about this was estimated at 30-35% of the population. After that there are many threads, some contradictory, about where the rest of his support comes from. But if the Immigration Do Somethings were at 32% and he’s currently at 45% that’s not a huge jump.
I admit I am totally surprised at the number of people who openly embrace chaos and have blithe confidence that merely shaking up Washington and showing the toffs how angry they are will just sorta work out. Whatever it is, it certainly isn’t conservatism – not neo- or paleo-, and certainly not social or economic conservatism. Perhaps it is cousin to libertarianism. But I think Trumpism is mostly conservative symbology, rallying around some of the traditional American virtues. These have been especially powerful because they have been under attack for decades, and people are sick of it.
Neo…let me see if I understand. According to you, all of the anti-Trump aka pro-HRC folks are cool calm & collected.
Anyone outside that Kumbahyah circle are
“…paid, either by Trump or by the alt-right or by the left or by all three…(OR) they are angry people who saw their moment to say “screw you” to those they were angry at, for example the people they see as RINOs and/or GOPe, those who haven’t managed to fulfill their political wishes.”
Nope…no ad hominem there. Nice to be told where we’re not wanted. Bye.
My take on the race at this moment is that Trump is ahead… not behind.
The polling is plainly politicized. When Trump moved ahead of Hillary immediately after the GOP convention the offended pollsters re-jiggered their numbers.
The purpose of this gambit is to make the hacked results of November 2016 credible to the general public.
I note that many hold to the belief that Mitt Romney lost in 2012 — whereas it’s plain as day that the tabulation was hacked. It’s also obvious that ORCA was harpooned by Google Black Hats.
Polling in Florida prior to the vote showed that 0bama was so far behind that the state was not even in play. Very late in the campaign, he hopped on down there. His crowds were poor.
On election night, the Republican Florida panhandle kept piling up the votes. It’s on the other side of the time zone. Yet, within seconds of each tabulation, more electronically tabulated votes kept popping up from Democrat Miami. These had to be frauds. Florida had long adopted digital tabulation. ‘Late arriving’ votes — an hour late — just can’t exist.
It’s NOW openly admitted by cyber security experts that the tabulation software used at that time is hopelessly insecure — wide open to hackers — especially fellows with Google’s resources.
Trump fully comprehends this. So he’s addressing it.
Hacking the tabulation is a certainty in November.
It’s what will decide the election.
The fraudulent polling we are witnessing is to establish credibility for the hacked results to come. ( Just like the 2012 election hack.)
The reason why Trump is doing what he’s doing — is because his internal polling shows him that he’s actually doing fine.
I also suspect that he’s long figured out that his kind of True Believers have totally adopted the false narrative WRT Iraq, Bush, etc. So, he’s running with it. Attempting to set the record straight during a presidential campaign is the height of folly.
&&&&
I’ve taken Eric’s suggestion to heart. I’m a keyboard warrior for notHillary at a technical forum not dedicated to politics at all — but which has a rumpus room for politics, nonetheless.
Many electrons get tossed around in that digital sand box. It’s significant that the pro-Hillary faction has collapsed over the last year. They are despondent.
I’ve even shoved pro-Hillary Progressives into not-Hillary status. That’s right, they are going for Jill Stein. Hillary’s corporate connections — now out in the open — Clinton Cash, etc. — plus DWS fixing the nomination against Bernie Sanders — it’s proved too much to swallow.
The fact that the plutocratic class has gone all-in for Hillary is just killing her. Die hard Progressives hate corporations. Her $$$$ connections to Wall Street are just killing her with that crowd.
I’ve moved Trump’s election chances all the way up to 1:1 — quite a ways up from my original 19:1 underdog guess.
Mitt won the election and lost the vote — by not even realizing that 0bama was well and able to hack his way to victory. He failed to heed Stalin’s dictum about vote counting.
https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2016/08/17/the-moral-cowardice-of-the-nevertrumpumpkins/
But that’s irrelevant because Walsh must be paid by Trump or the alt-right or left or all three or aliens or Mrs O’Leary’s cow or…
John Guilfoyle – you actually just illustrated what she’s talking about.
But it’s everyone else’s fault, sure.
GB,
I’ll sincerely answer your question. Hope it makes sense.
Time is a continuum where Hillary getting to the throne is a moment in time.
Getting to the throne does one thing – Helps cement to people the fact that things are getting worse because of her and/or Obama.
No matter how much Hillary and Obama mis-define conservatism the facts on a daily basis are EASY to show. I’d rather have them misdefine conservatism than have an inarticulate bombast mis-define it because it’ll stick to us longer.
I’m not callous to misery and hardship. In Venezuela people just broke into a zoo to kill a horse for meat to eat.
Desperation and misery are horrible things and I don’t have any faith that Trump will make anything better in the short or long term.
When Hillary gets to the throne she’ll have time and events to contend with. As Obama removes his mask daily and Hillary does the same thing I think millenials which have access to more and more information get it better than we know. The debt is theirs to pay. THe collapse is imminent.
Trump’s prescription centers on …. well… depends on what he says from one day to the next.
@Assistant Village Idiot – It’s actually my fault. If only I hadn’t ever doubted His Trumpness. 🙁
A dark ,,,:
So that’s why you don’t post with your actual name! /jk
Now we know who to put first on list of those to be dealt with in the great new land o Trump! /s and sad all the same.
Well lunch is over, time to drive back to work in the manufacturing sector, a step down pay wise from the mining (oil and gas) sector (but then I don’t have to worry about fire. explosions, death and dismemberment in the workplace).
Sure OM, my name is Robert Paulson. Although perhaps I should change it to Legion, for we are many…
My head is a crowded place. 😮
I started to tag this on the end of the other thread, but who would find it down there?
The comments were fascinating. I did not read every comment of course, but by sampling the offerings I learned a lot:
*Trump is better than Hillary.
*Trump says the things I want to hear (even though they are not necessarily consistent with his history)
*Trump says important things that sound like they are new because I wasn’t listening when others said them..
*Trump hates the MSM and so do I
*Trump wants to destroy the GOPe, and so do I.
*Trump >Hillary
*Well, if Trump tries to rule extra-constitutionally, the Congress and MSM will restrain him, as they would not with Hillary.
*Trump might actually do some of the things he says will do.
*Trump is a fighter (Well, at least his lawyers are fighters; and they pummel the hell out of little people who get in his way)
*Anyone who has the least doubt about Trump is
a priori pro Hillary
*Anyone who has doubts about Trump is a #NeverTrumper (whatever the hell that means)
Did I miss anything from the multitude of pro-Trump new comers who suddenly showed up here; or the old faithful who repeat the same arguments?
Hope you don’t abandon this blog, John. Prior to the Trump domination, discourse here was intelligent and lively, but virtually always civil. Alas, like most conservative blogs, it is deteriorating into tribalism. The bitter division between the pro and anti Trumpers throughout conservative circles is almost akin to the Dreyfus Affair.
Every time I start thinking I may be able to vote for Trump…he opens his big mouth, and stops the press on something Hillary did illegally…It seems like he is trying to lose…purposely…He’s a loose cannon…we deserve better.
Also, I’m quite over with this idea that if we don’t vote for Trump, it’s a de facto vote for HRC.
I’m old enough to remember being told that if I didn’t vote for McCain or Romney that it was a vote for Obama. Or if I didn’t vote for GWB, I was voting for Excelsior or for the Vet, John Kerry. Or if I didn’t vote for Dole or GHWB, I was ipso facto voting for WJC.
People who pushed and pushed and pushed Trump… Can you please make an argument in favor of your candidate that does not involve trying to shame me the same way the GOPe has done my entire political life? Please? I’m old enough to remember voting FOR someone/something… not always against. This rationale bores me.
Anyway, Trumples has made it quite clear that he doesn’t want or need my vote to win. So why the hostility if I choose to vote for a Gary Johnson?
Baklava Says:
August 18th, 2016 at 3:50 pm
“When Hillary gets to the throne she’ll have time and events to contend with. As Obama removes his mask daily and Hillary does the same thing I think millenials which have access to more and more information get it better than we know. The debt is theirs to pay. THe collapse is imminent.”
The collapse is most definitely NOT imminent.
What folks can’t wrap their minds around is that our central bankers are retiring the Federal debt. US Treasuries purchased by the Federal Reserve System are removed from the market and become ledger entries — never to circulate ever again.
No less than $3,200,000,000,000 has been retired this way. It’s still tabulated for public consumption as being US Treasury debt — but it’s sitting on the books of an institution that the US Government, de facto, owns. The various stock equity positions held by America’s participating bankers have no meaning.
Additionally, the US debt statistic also includes approximately $4,000,000,000,000 in the custody of the Social Security Trust Fund. These instruments can never circulate. They sit as digital entries in the hands of yet another government entity.
Notionally our government has $19,400,000,000,000 in debt. When you back out the $7,200,000,000,000 you get closer to what’s out in the market, a mere $12,200,000,000,000.
Of that sum, no small amount is held — locked up — by alien governments — to under pin their own fiat currencies. Yes, those debts are as locked up as the stuff on the books of our own Federal Reserve System.
What’s critical to understand: these alien nations have to KEEP ADDING to their pile. They have a debt addition. They HAVE to accumulate our IOUs, trading with us ( okay, Walmart ) to obtain them often at ruinously low prices.
At this time, the nations that are in trouble come in two flavors. Those that have to sell US Treasuries to stay afloat; and those that have to sell to us at ever worse prices and terms. Some nations are in both categories.
Saudi Arabia, OPEC is a dead cartel. KSA’s on a Hell ride to insolvency. One should expect Trump, if president, to slap a tariff on non-NAFTA crude imports. This would un-fund the global jihad right at its source.
Red China, its flight capital is reaching panic levels. Beijing has almost run out of sellable US Treasuries. As mentioned above, Red China has to keep about $2,000,000,000,000 on hand just to keep trading with the rest of the planet. She can’t use her own fiat currency to lubricate trade. That’s the price of Communism and wholly corrupted courts.
At almost any time, Beijing will have to let the Yuan drop in value. This process has been under way for quite some time.
Internally, both nations are seeing their industries going insolvent.
If Putin invades Ukraine, his economy will implode. The Europeans will freak out — and replace his natural gas with OPEC oil. That’ll hurt. Putin personally owns the biggest hunk of Gazprom.
Truly depressing that Trump has jumped headlong into the Alt-Right universe with his hiring of Breitbart’s Steve Bannon to run his campaign.
They been down so long that it looks like up to them…
I did notice the Maggie Gray posts. Abusive, devoid of intellectual content, non-responsive to the issue being discussed. The only thing those posts make clear is that we are now in a situation in which trying to scare and bully the general population into compliance is an acceptable political strategy. Banana republic territory. I don’t scare that easily, but I know plenty of people who do.
Baklava,
That is a coherent, sincere response. It makes some assumptions of which I’m doubtful.
1) “Helps cement to people the fact that things are getting worse because of her and/or Obama.”
Were that true, Obama could never have been reelected in 2012, nor despite an 11% trust level, would Hillary have the support she enjoys today? Mostly, liberals don’t learn.
2) “No matter how much Hillary and Obama mis-define conservatism the facts on a daily basis are EASY to show.”
I’ll remind you of the “liberal reset button”. Even when you convince a liberal and they admit you’re right, a few hours later, or a day or week and it’s like you never had that conversation.
3) “I don’t have any faith that Trump will make anything better in the short or long term.”
While I admit to the possibility, I too have no faith “that Trump will make anything better in the short or long term”. I have complete certainty that the Left that supports Hillary will make things worse in the short run and catastrophic in the long run.
4) “I think millennials which have access to more and more information get it better than we know.”
Perhaps. Did you catch that on Oct 1st, control of the internet passes from US control to an international group of which Russia and China are part?
5) “Trump’s prescription centers on …. well… depends on what he says from one day to the next.”
Granted. Whereas you can depend upon the Left’s consistency…
Note: I’m not suggesting that you support that consistency, rather that our choice is between Trump’s uncertainty or the Left’s consistency.
A dark and lonely nyght,
Evidently you didn’t get the memo. Plenty of specific reasons have been given here as to why voting for Trump is a revolting necessity. Any ‘shame’ you’ve felt is self-imposed.
blert,
Magical retirement of debt? Sure, while there’s road down which to kick the can. You’ve made an excellent argument for why when fiscal collapse comes, it will be global.
And apparently, Putin is so stupid he’s ignoring his coming fiscal collapse, as he amasses 40k troops on Ukraine’s border.
I’ve been perusing Instapundit for as long as I’ve been here, so I can say with assurance that many of the pro-Trumpers are not plants.
I think they are regular people who have been driven into a frenzy by both the rhetoric coming from the hardcore Trumpkins, and simultaneously frustrated because they can see their chance slipping away.
I assume there are a tiny amount of agitators, but I’m dubious whether even they are paid. More likely they’re hardcore activists taking their orders from sites like conservative treehouse (WHAT HAVE THEY CONSERVED?!?) and Breitbart.
Over the course of the primaries and especially afterwards, you could watch the progression of their rhetoric as it became more strident and apocalyptic. They are now too close to the trees and have lost perspective.
Dark…..:
Not to worry GB will reinforce the “necessity” of voting for Trump, and he will also clarify your incorrect thoughts. It’s a burden he gladly takes upon himself./s
40K Ruskies on the Ukrainian border. Trump’s good with it, why worry. Right? We should be working “with” the Russians. Right?
#$é·£¥â‚¬â‚©! It is tedious and futile to attempt to discuss issues with the trumpians. Its almost as tedious and futile to discuss trump’s weird, fanatical ‘campaign’ with the but hillary people. This election cycle can only grow more strange and insane.
I have stated the conditions under which I would vote for djt, yet my qualifications for such are derided by both the trumpian horde and the but nillary alike. I owe no one my vote. Period!
Please explain how, a refusal to vote for Trump is NOT also a possible contribution to Hillary’s ascent to the throne?
GB: Wow! What “is NOT a possible contribution to Hillary’s ascent to the throne”? I’m curious. What are the boundaries, if any, to the almighty power of the Binary Choice argument?
Is a refusal to promote Trump on neo’s blog NOT also a possible contribution to Hilary’s ascent to the throne?
Is a refusal to send money to Trump NOT also a possible contribution to Hillary’s ascent etc.?
Is a refusal to sabotage Hillary’s campaign NOT also a possible contribution to Hillary’s ascent etc.?
Where does this zero-sum business end?
It seems to me the Binary Choice argument would require that I vote for Charles Manson if he had been pardoned and had his record expunged, made himself wealthy via reality-tv, won the GOP nomination and might be a satisfactory president who might fulfill conservative campaign promises.
Parker has a point: “I owe no one my vote. Period!”
Some people say that Trump is great. Some people like him.
Many people know the alternative is Hillary and, even though they may dislike Trump intensely, don’t want Hillary.
As the poli sci folks have said for as long as I can remember, if a particular issue which concerns the citizenry isn’t addressed by the political establishment, somebody will likely show up who will talk about the issue.
You may not like him. But you should have talked about the issue.
So, whether or not Trump will do, plans on doing, can remember what he said about the issues, what are the issues that boosted him past, say, Cruz?
And why weren’t they addressed? And did they give Trump the nomination? Let me think here……..
Yes, by golly, they did.
Whose fault is that?
RA,
Many other people talked about “the issue” (alien invasion?) long before djt. And some of them actually walked the walk. Yeah, trump talks and tweets. So do a billion other blowhards. So lets pick a random person walking down Main Street tweeting on their cell, obvious to the world around them, and hand he/she/it the keys to the Oval Office. Sounds better than the twins of NYC values that have been offered by the dnc-rnc.
@huxley – good layout of the logic of that kind of argument. For some, there just is no recognized limit in the pursuit of a win against clinton.
@parker – agree – people keep misrepresenting what has actually happened and attribute much to trump, as it it we something new.
as if it were something new.
parker
Problem with that is we always discount politicians’ promises, presuming we believe them in the first place.
So somebody who is measured about illegal immigration is likely to be completely uninterested after being elected.
Somebody who’s going nuts about the thing might back off by half, but that would be better than nothing.
But I would suggest looking at the murder of Kate Steinle.
Every government institution involved, from the Border Patrol to the sanctuary city said they’d done what they’d said they’d do. And they’ll keep doing it. Including the federal agency whose agent lost his gun, the murder weapon.
The BP guys might want to stop more immigrants, but their bosses don’t have the resources and rumors have it that other government institutions actively sabotage the BP’s efforts.
Sanctuary cities are more important than some white chick who was no doubt a racist and privileged and what not.
IOW, it’s not just that, say, Cruz said he was going to change things. It was that things had gotten this bad and none of the people involved had the slightest interest in changing, actively resisting it.
As one writer said, who wouldn’t like to send a human wrecking ball to DC?
Take, for example, the VA. The EPA and the Animas River spill. Seems they’re spending more on office furniture than on fixing the thing.
But, as I say, then there’s Hillary.
So Trump has two things going for him; an astonishing level of exasperation, and Hillary.
Trump had the celebrity and smash-mouth chops to break through and shift the debate. I gave him credit for that at the time.
However, he wasn’t the only one to bring immigration up and his smash-mouth tactics worked in a crowded primary field with an electorate high in likely Trump voters but are now working against him in the general election.
I consider it a pernicious myth of conservative talk show world that Republican candidates haven’t brought these issues up and haven’t fought hard.
We now see what happens to a candidate who fights hard to talk radio’s satisfaction — he becomes toxic to independents, moderates and minorities and the media paints him as a dangerous wacko. Then, barring major surprises, he loses.
Not rocket science. Sad.
If anyone is still interested in a civil (polite and well-argued) analysis of Trump’s appeal, this is a good article.
http://amgreatness.com/2016/08/18/donald-trump-and-the-american-crisis/
AesopFan:
It ought to be a better analysis of Trump than Trump can articulate since it is a high brow fan site, a “thinking man’s Trumpbart.” I’ll stick with Neo. I don’t need boosterism.
Richard Aubrey:
What issues do you think weren’t talked about here? I have no idea what you’re referring to. For example, illegal immigration (which I see as the big issue that propelled Trump into the lead)? This blog has about 100 posts in that category. Many of them have to do with Trump’s positions. And there are approximately 200 posts on Trump.
Addendum:
The amgreatness.com site was referred to by Powerline.com a few months ago. I don’t remember if Hinderarcher (SIC) or Cornhead posted the link, but I think blog is no longer active.
blert:
“I also suspect that he’s long figured out that his kind of True Believers have totally adopted the false narrative WRT Iraq, Bush, etc.”
Indeed, regarding President Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Trump’s position is based on blatant legal and factual error.
blert:
“So, he’s running with it.”
He’s running in a lane that mortally wounds the GOP yet the GOP has cleared for him.
Trump is enabled by Republican politicians and “right of center” national security ‘experts’ who continually run away from the Russian/Left/alt-Right/Trump false narrative of OIF whenever the opportunity arises to push back against demonstrably false Russian/Left/alt-Right/Trump propaganda on the US-led Iraq intervention.
blert:
“Attempting to set the record straight during a presidential campaign is the height of folly.”
I hold the opposite view from the GOP’s standpoint.
The Iraq intervention since 1990 has defined American leadership in the post-Cold War.
The Operation Iraqi Freedom part of the Iraq intervention has defined American leadership in the current, 9/11 period – specifically defining American leadership under Republican presidency.
Politically, the GOP is chained to OIF. Thus, it has been necessary for the GOP to counter Russian/Left/alt-Right/Trump propaganda, set the record straight in the political discourse, and push to discredit everyone who has promulgated the demonstrably false narrative of OIF.
The choice by Jeb Bush and other Republicans to, instead, skirt the controversy and effectively stipulate the Russian/Left/alt-Right/Trump false narrative of OIF has been no less than a rippling failure by Republicans on a basic leadership fitness test in front of the American public, and the world.
Trump has simply exploited the GOP’s gaping strategic error. The Russian/Left/alt-Right/Trump false narrative of OIF is readily countered with a straightforward law and policy, fact record, yet Republicans continue to incur debilitating political wounds by their refusal to set the record straight whenever the issue arises.
blert:
“I’ve taken Eric’s suggestion to heart. I’m a keyboard warrior for notHillary at a technical forum not dedicated to politics at all – but which has a rumpus room for politics, nonetheless.”
Glad to hear it. The social activist movement must begin some wheres, with some ones, and grow from some things.
Others need to pick up activism, of course. To be sufficient, the movement must be collective, permanent, progressive (in terms of growth and development), and above all, aggressively competitive versus all in the arena.
I would like to suggest a change of pace. Or at least a topic on which there would be less heated debate, but still pertain to the coming election.
And what would that be? I suggest that Neo turn her insightful inquiry and research into the character and record of accomplishment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has provided deep research and analysis into Trump for discussion by the Trumpkins, #NeverTrumkins, and the #MaybeTrumpkins. Now, how about some red meat for #NeverHillary, #MaybeHillary, and #MaybeJohnson/Stein/McMullin fans? Just a break from all Trump all the time. 🙂
neo. When I said “you” should have talked about the issues, I was referring to the political establishment.
Even when they talked about it, little got done. Probably it was impossible to do anything significant, or impressive, in a short enough span to make a difference, or a difference anybody could see without a microscope. So….. Nothing was done and people got madder.
Let’s say a guy is perfectly attuned to the public’s view on a particular issue. Talks about it. Tries to do something about it. Fails.
Means it didn’t get done.
We’ll get somebody who will get it done, or at least pumps enough anger and pushes enough buttons to look as if he will.
Perhaps he’ll run into the same wall. But SOMETHING must be done and sending SOMEBODY to do it is better than sending somebody to do it. Looks like it at the start, anyway.
It does not satisfy a good many people to talk in terms of increased border patrol resources without explaining how the other government entities which are circumventing the BP are going to be shut down.
And if you’re not talking about Kate Steinle every third sentence, you’re not meeting the public’s anger. And those dead and crippled by felons released by ICE have freaking NAMES. Referring to a hearing at which the ICE boss got confused once doesn’t get it.
(I know I should use “one” instead of “you”, but it just seems so forced.)
IMO, Trump has to be seen as carrying the anger as well as the policies–the latter presuming a great deal–which put him ahead of those whose pitch was policy.
Everybody has their particular interest. VA? Waco and Ruby Ridge–nobody lost a job over those massacres. Animas River? The only guy who lost his job over that was on vacation when it happened and who had left strict instructions not to do it. Civil Asset Forfeiture as a line item in law enforcement budgets? IRS?
Unfortunately, it’s not the nutcases–unless you define them retroactively–who have pointed out that there are more deer hunters in any one of a couple of dozen states than there are trigger-pullers in the US military. Plus the Russian military. Plus the Chinese military.
It doesn’t take much more than an observation on the current situation about as mildly as about the weather to get people on to a subject–Obamacare, for example–that makes them really, really angry.
That, I submit, is a difference and it’s one of Trump’s advantages that he seems to be in tune.
The other is Hillary.
J.J Says:
“I suggest that Neo turn her insightful inquiry and research into the character and record of accomplishment of Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
Hillary is a criminal who deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison, but won’t because Democrats care more about winning elections and instituting progressive policy than upholding the rule of law.
That’s been known about her for decades. It’s all you need to know. Everything else is details.
Meanwhile, there’s a great deal of controversy over what Trump stands for, if anything. That’s why we talk about him and not Hillary.
parker Says:
August 18th, 2016 at 9:04 pm
RA,
Many other people talked about “the issue” (alien invasion?) long before djt. And some of them actually walked the walk. Yeah, trump talks and tweets. So do a billion other blowhards. So lets pick a random person walking down Main Street tweeting on their cell, obvious to the world around them, and hand he/she/it the keys to the Oval Office.
Pamella Geller was on the front lines, literally one time, against Islamic invasion of the West.
Trump, however, thought she was a wacko right winger that should have been put in her place.
Trum likes to talk about fighting Islam, but most of Trum’s allies and employees, are allies of Islam. That’s a problem his clan is trying to resolve by restaffing key positions, however.
Mitt won the election and lost the vote – by not even realizing that 0bama was well and able to hack his way to victory. He failed to heed Stalin’s dictum about vote counting.
Republicans still don’t want to talk about the solution to the Left’s 3+ million fake votes in the US.
“It is possible that the Trump phenomenon cannot be understood merely by trying to make sense of Trump himself. Rather it is the seriousness of the need for Trump that must be understood in order to make sense of his candidacy…Those who oppose him deny the seriousness of the crisis and see Trump himself as the greatest danger.” – John Marini – Aesop’s link
This is in this guy’s concluding paragraphs.
His premise is wrong. This is essentially a “not clinton” argument, blaming those who are concerned with trump as just not understanding how awful (“deny the seriousness”) clinton and the direction she will take us is.
.
“Trump’s success will likely depend upon his ability to articulate the ground of a common good that is still rooted in the past–a common good established by a government that protects the rights of its citizens in a constitutional manner and establishes limits on the authority of government by demanding that the rule of law replace that of bureaucratic privilege and status.” – same guy, further on
Think about this for a bit. How much of trump’s speech over the last 12+ months has given lip service to protection of rights, constitutionality, limits to authority?
It would be true that many of us would vote for trump in a heartbeat if we thought he was credibly and consistently pushing that message. But he is not.
trump has been well far from that message.
It is far enough, that one has to wonder if John Marini is intentionally attempting to misrepresent trump by implication, or is he only signalling a “hope” that trump would pivot this way. Hard to tell.
Big Maq: Yes, I too am weary of Trump defenders lecturing me on how I don’t understand Trump’s appeal or the seriousness of the current crisis.
I do indeed and that’s why I find it utterly tragic that just about the worst candidate in terms of electability, conservative principles, and fitness for office is on the ballot.
Otherwise, good focused fisking!
Richard Aubrey Says:
“…what are the issues that boosted him past, say, Cruz?”
Here’s the “issues” Trump and the Trumpettes used to beat Cruz. From at least Sep ’15 on, they banged a loud and constant drumbeat, Trump every time he opened his mouth, his cult members every time they touched their keyboards, and all dutifully amplified by the media.
– “Lyin’ Ted” – emphasized by Trump by actually spelling out “lyin'” at his rallies. Not once can I recall he or they giving examples of what he lied about, because they had none.
– months of the sickening “birther” charge, only a few months after Trump said there wasn’t a problem
– his wife’s employer from which she was on leave of absence
– her part in writing a trade paper at the CFR, which point current Trumper G Britain destroyed long ago
– her looks, with Donald himself tweeting an unflattering picture of her (he really is a vindictive little man, the size of anything else notwithstanding)
– ridiculously lying about his support for the NWO
– lies and half-truths about his positions on trade and immigration
– two loans for his Senate campaign, both secured by his own assets and long since repaid
– Trump’s good friend “breaking” slanderous BS “news” stories about his “affairs” and his father helping assassinate JFK, pumped by Trump
These are the primary “substantive” “issues” Trump used to boost himself past Cruz, a slimy compendium of lies, distortions, and smears. He tried to ruin a good man’s reputation and his marriage and now still threatens to set up a PAC to primary him in 2018.
He hasn’t attacked his good friend Hillary with anywhere near the ferocity and vileness he used against Cruz, who took the high road the entire campaign.
And let’s not forget his “issues” he used against others, like calling Carson a pathological, homicidal maniac, a below average doctor with a questionable faith, and mocking Fiorina’s face.
He really does have a problem with women’s looks, doesn’t he? Not everyone can buy top models like he can.
geokstr: Thanks for the work of pulling those items together.
Trump has said so many terrible things they tend to run together in my mind.
Trump defenders seem to dismiss this stuff with a “No one is perfect/Politics ain’t beanbag” shrug. I think it’s much more serious than that.
My opinion of Carson dropped like it a rock when he rolled over for Trump like a beaten dog after such abuse.
huxley
I sort of agree that we have Trump as the anti-Hillary. And it’s too bad we couldn’t have done better.
The issue is that, say, Cruz talking earnestly about immigration, to take one case, doesn’t satisfy the people who want to take the smug, unaccountable sonsabees who run the sanctuary cities out and stake them to fire ant nests.
The same, metaphorically speaking, could be said about other issues.
The problem is that the situation–or any particular issue–has descended to a point where the fire-ant fans are a larger proportion of the voters than ever before.
And much of it has to do with the smug and unaccountable nature of the sonsabees and the entities they run, and the demonstrated impossibility of fixing things the usual way.
The irrational but entirely understandable need for a human wrecking ball–results not guaranteed or even predictable–as opposed to a buttoned-down guy who’s going to set things right by doing the usual thing the usual way is, imo, insufficiently understood.
Then there’s Hillary.
“Otherwise, good focused fisking!” – huxley
Ah, new word! Thanks on both counts!
“doesn’t satisfy the people who want to take the smug, unaccountable sonsabees who run the sanctuary cities out and stake them” – Richard A
The problem with playing to the crowd like that is what underlies much of the disappointment with the “GOPe”.
Many in “conservative” media, and some candidates played up “promises” that couldn’t be kept. They told folks what they wanted to hear.
Now, many of those same folks who ate that up and got p*ssed, are the same ones eating up trump’s cr*p.
Big Maq: Back in the 2000s I had a cafe buddy I would argue politics with. One morning he showed up with the massive tome, “The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East” by Robert Fisk. He gestured reverently towards the book and described it as the Bible for understanding the Middle East.
He was less than pleased when I informed him that Fisk’s name had become a neologism for the point-by-point refutation of shoddy reporting.
geokstr: “He hasn’t attacked his good friend Hillary with anywhere near the ferocity and vileness he used against Cruz, who took the high road the entire campaign.”
Cruz’s first mistake was temporarily allying himself with DJT, early on. Big mistake. I know a former Cruz campaign worker who, at the time, when I asked him about this, spoke of “Mr. Trump” in respectful tones. Little did he know Trump was going to shamelessly shift into 8th grade playground bully mode with Cruz. It was almost like watching the repeated “why are you hitting yourself?” game being played.
Trump’s treatment of Cruz was beyond the pale, even for politics (in my opinion). Especially the National Enquirer story (pure Pulitzer, baby!) about his “affairs”. To this day, one of the women implicated in that “news” story still receives disgusting, vile, taunting and p0rnographic tweets from Trumpsters about this.
They are the worst people on earth.
There seem to be very few genuine Trump fans here, as has been true all along.
The posters seem divided between 1) those that see Hillary as a Great Evil, an Evil as great as Obama has been, another creator of irreversible, permanent harm, rending the Constitutional fabric further;
and 2) those who believe the country can recover after Hillary, that she is bad, yes, but Ah well, the USA always recovers and gets better and better. The shoulder-shruggers and third party types with the long view, the thirty to sixty year view.
Those in group (1) grudgingly support Trump, see the necessity of doing so. Those in group (2) are just flat wrong. They are Mr Magoos, foolish in their myopia which they confuse with distant vision. Look back to the early days of W J Clinton’s first term and HillaryCare, which was developed in secret. Has anything changed for the better?
Successive Lucifers in the WH. Alinsky is smiling in hell.
Frog,
You forgot 3) Those who think Hillary will be awful, and that Trump will be worse than Hillary, and that therefore we’re basically screwed, but if we the conservative movement can somehow survive (it won’t if Trump is it’s poster-boy) and mount an opposition we might be OK. But that someone as dishonest, narcissistic, non-conservative, vengeful, cruel, petty, ignorant, and self-absorbed as DJT should never be given his own military, state police, and nuclear arsenal.
You forgot that one.
Queue the seers who tell me that the chances of Trump being worse than Hillary are “empirically” zero, that I am “willfully blind”, etc.
I wouldn’t hire him to walk my dog. The Stupid Party should have nominated someone else.
Should be “Cue” the seers. I also made the old “it’s” versus “its {possessive}” mistake. D’oh.
Bill:
See Walter Hudson’s purely egoistic piece on this theme in today’s PJ Media:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/18/impotent-rage-now-best-argument-for-trump/
Self-centeredness tinged with sanctimony does not an opposition make. It enables instead.
@Frog – read this (don’t just see it)…
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/18/you-dont-need-to-vote-for-the-lesser-evil/
Read it, as there a lot packed into it that cannot be captured in this summary statement from the author…
“adopting the lesser evil principle of voting is to reject principle and the idea that actions, apart from outcomes, matter”
As in Bill’s #3 category (how you missed that, IDK), you completely ignore that there are legitimate concerns based on principle.
It is a fundamental question, asked repeatedly by yours truly.
You, evidently, find trump “acceptable”, so just what is the limiting principle in pursuit of stopping clinton from getting elected? What is a step too far?
Those in group (2) are just flat wrong. They are Mr Magoos, foolish in their myopia which they confuse with distant vision.
Frog: I have long been touched by the open-minded graciousness of Trump and his defenders.
“Cruz’s first mistake was temporarily allying himself with DJT, early on. Big mistake. I know a former Cruz campaign worker who, at the time, when I asked him about this, spoke of “Mr. Trump” in respectful tones.” – Bill
Yep. Back in Sep/Oct, on Disqus, was “shouted down” by several trump or Cruz supporters (IDK which) for suggesting that Cruz was making this mistake, and that he needed to differentiate himself vs ride trump’s wake.
It would have risked becoming a target of trump’s ire, but Cruz still had the most credibility in all the candidates to make the case that trump was not conservative, nor had the attributes to make a good POTUS.
The door was open through to his Iowa win, but he never moved completely until it was too late.
He, like many, had the mistaken assumption that trump would electorally burn himself out by his own inflammatory rhetoric and behavior.
He, like many, had the mistaken assumption that trump would electorally burn himself out by his own inflammatory rhetoric and behavior.
Actually, Cruz is pretty radical as a Tea Party, and in fact shut down DC so badly Hussein got pissed enough to send the park rangers to slam down on veterans and close areas to veterans and citizens.
That, to me, means Cruz didn’t want to object to Trum because Cruz agreed with Trum. Also Cruz didn’t want to show his cards too soon, so if Trum wasn’t attacking Cruz, Cruz wouldn’t attack Trum.
Trum, however due to his deal with the Clintons, seemed to be attacking whichever Republican looked the most dangerous to Democrats in the general.
Oh the Trumpers are so gracious to sew their wisdom and insight upon we poor wretches, “Pearls before swine.”. Oh thank You Frog Prince!
Give it up.