A few more thoughts on last night’s debate
You knew there’d be some, didn’t you?
I listened to maybe the first third of the debate, and then I turned off the audio. I’d planned to turn it back on within a few minutes, but as time went by I realized I’d had it with both of them and never turned the audio back up again, although I kept thinking I should.
So I’m probably not the greatest authority on what happened during this debate.
But from what I did see and hear, and from what I’ve read around the blogosphere, I don’t think the event will have very much effect on the polls one way or the other. Trump merely needed to avoid sounding like a disjointed lunatic, and I think he succeeded. Hillary needed to keep standing and seem to have physical endurance, and she succeeded.
We knew he’d be volatile, and he was. We knew she’d be smug and fake-smiley, and she was. What surprises me, though, is how surprised some people were at any of this. I’ve read comments on other blogs that indicate that quite a few of Trump’s supporters were uncharacteristically disappointed in him. “He didn’t go in for the (metaphorical) kill!” “He didn’t hammer her enough on (fill in the blanks)!” “He wasn’t coherent enough!” He didn’t do his homework!” “He was too defensive!” Have they not ever taken a look at the man they’ve been cheering for over a year? Most of those characteristics have been fully in evidence since the start, and certainly were clear during the Republican debates. The only one that was a bit different from back then was that the failure to insult Hillary quite as viciously as he did his fellow Republicans, and even that is something a lot of people predicted would happen.
I see it as another example of people seeing only the Trump they wanted to see for way too long. Last night some of them were looking at the Trump that is. Nothing in Trump’s previous debate performances should have indicated he’d be good at this particular activity. In fact, I was surprised he did as well as he did, and I think his debating skills have improved since last year.
But his debating skills still stink. However, fortunately for Trump, I don’t think people are going to make a decision about him based on his ability to make a rhetorical point with flair and polish. I think many people are still put off by Hillary Clinton—in part by her personality—and I don’t think she did herself any favors on that score last night. However, anyone who was counting on her falling down or having some other obvious physical difficulty during the debate last night has been dreaming. Anyone who watched the Democratic debates knows that Hillary has enough stamina to stay alert and feisty during a longer debate than this one was.
What a long year it’s been, though. And in November one of these people will have been elected president.
One should also see Mark Finkelstein’s post over at Legalinsurrection and his highlighting of Mika Brzezinski’s “despondency.”
I bring this up because, Like Finkelstein, I think Mika is on to something. I agree that neither Trump nor Hillary will ever win any debating honors. In fact, after the opening statements, I became rather bored with the entire debate although I did force myself to watch the whole thing.
Mika’s point, however, is that Trump was saying certain things that connected with Americans on a visceral level:
I have come to feel that public debates rarely change anyone’s mind, but I have already committed. It would be interesting to see some of the responses from people who are genuinely still on the fence to determine if these Trump sound bites were really as visceral as Brzezinski believes.
For better or worse, I remember what Dick Morris said about undecided voters prior to 2012; that they trend to break for the non-incumbent because they represent people who the incumbency has never yet convinced; and I think we can all agree that Clinton here represents the incumbency, the status quo. Will the current upward trend for Trump continues as we approach the election?
I for one am glad, DAMN GLAD, that in the face of the various crucial issues facing America and Western Civilization, we can count on Lester Holt to fascinate us with his relentless pursuit of Trump’s tax returns.
“. . .and in November one of these people will have been elected president.”
Perhaps not. The best we can hope for now is that neither will win 270 electoral votes.
Partisans are always disappointed in their candidate’s debate performance. They know every zinger response they’d use, they have every policy memorized, and they’re not standing at a podium in the spotlight. Half of the responses they “know” they couldn’t formulate as smoothly as they think, anyway, and most of the zingers if actually used would alienate the undecideds. It’s like listening to radio after the big game: the fans remember every pass that their quarterback didn’t make, and forget all the other team’s missed opportunities.
And further, and interesting take from Dr. Helen Smith FWIW:
The Link:
https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/09/26/why-i-just-donated-to-the-trump-campaign/
“I remember what Dick Morris said about undecided voters prior to 2012; that they trend to break for the non-incumbent because they represent people who the incumbency has never yet convinced; and I think we can all agree that Clinton here represents the incumbency, the status quo.” – T
That would be important if this were not also true…
“Typically, the number of undecided voters shrinks as the election nears. The fact that it has grown since Trump and Clinton won their nominations is a sign of how unappealing many voters find them.” – Milwaukee JS article on the undecideds in 2016
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2016/09/18/large-pool-voters-resistant-trump-clinton/90590544/
Trump is just that bad, that “normal” rules don’t seem to apply.
.
Also, Dick was one of those in 2012 predicting a landslide for Romney. That and his promotion of dubious financial programs convinced me to stop bothering to check out his website anymore.
Dick Morris, Michael Barone, and Karl Rove were all very wrong in 2012, and I won’t read any of them anymore. Barone is the biggest loss, because I always respected his command of detail, but apparently it wasn’t as good as I’d thought it was.
“‘normal’ rules don’t seem to apply.” [Big Maq @ 11:44]
I agree, that’s why I note, but basically ignore, the poll results this cycle. I wasn’t upset when they had Clinton with a big lead and I’m not excited now that they show Trump, in some cases, ahead. I even wonder about the validity of the trending toward Trump; it may be accurate, but based on the accuracy of the polls and pundits this cycle, who knows.
As for Dick Morris, his 2012 predictions aren’t lost on me either; like Big Maq, I stopped frequenting his site a long time ago (BTW haven’t seen him on the air since 2012). There is a grain of truth, however, in his comparison of undecided votes to a marriage. He used to say: “Do you love your spouse?” If you have to think about that, what does that say about the strength of one’s marriage. Likewise, if an “incumbent” has not closed the deal, what does that say about the likelihood of closing the deal with undecided by election day?
Morris’ mistake in 2012 wasn’t that the undecideds voted for Obama rather than for Romney- Morris’ mistake was in not understanding that Obama didn’t need the people who were undecided- that is how incumbents win, after all.
I wasn’t surprised to see her make it through the debate. When everything is working OK, there’s no reason she can’t manage that. However, neurological conditions can be unpredictable; look at the 9/11 incident. Given her meds the odds are in her favor of making it through a debate, but one never can be certain.
Neo, since you watched with sound off, did you notice her eyes? I watched her eyes intensely for the first 10-15 minutes and didn’t really listen. The uncoordinated left eye was obvious at times. Her right eye would be be looking right, but the left eye was centered. It wasn’t as bad as has been shown previously, but I was convinced the symptom was there. She’s not well.
And I think a lot of Republicans still don’t understand something important- if there are a lot of voters who are truly undecided, it is because it is Trump in the race, not that it is Clinton. I know a lot of you want to believe that Rubio or Cruz would be far ahead right now, but I doubt it- with them in the race, Clinton would be worrying less about defectors on her left and right, and would be depending far more on the natural advantage that Democrats have built up in the last decade. Trump appeals just enough to the those left of center to undermine the Democratic candidate’s coalition. This also means that Trump would likely have been just as close to any other Democratic candidate who made it through their primaries.
I just visited Powerline and read the comments attached to a critical article posted by Scott Johnson.
I now know that anyone who thinks that Trump did not excel is just an Ivy League elitist. I also know that Trump’s strategy was to appeal to the dumbest 4% of the voters. I think that 4% was on Powerline defending him.
This (non) Ivy League elitist hopes they are right about the effect of Trump’s performance. The thought that the dumbest 4% might decide the election, does trouble me a bit.
Oldflyer,
Presidential debates aren’t about debating points. I continue to be amazed that so many intelligent people still believe they are. I have watched every single presidential debate since the Carter vs. Reagan one, and I have scored all but the first Romney/Obama debate as a win for the Democrat on just debating points as one would judge a college level debate. Democrats are just geared institutionally to prepare for debates that way, and it shows.
However, these presidential debates are judged by the electorate on more and different dimensions, and the single most important one is being likable- that is what gets you elected. Both candidates went into last night with that weakness in likability, and I think even though Trump lost the debate point wise by a yuuuge margin, he is the one who ended up being more likable at the end of the night. He also appeared before 100 million plus and didn’t seem like he belonged to the Nazi Party or the KKK, and he didn’t seem crazy.
T’s reference above to Mika Brzezinski’s reaction this morning is an important one- a good number of Clinton’s supporters do understand her real problem in this election and realize she didn’t help herself with it. Indeed, I think Clinton might have made that problem worse- likability.
As to the reactions of Trump’s supporters- that he didn’t hit her hard enough when he had the chance- I can say two things- 1st it isn’t easy to think of the right thing to say on the spur of the moment, so it is entirely possible that he just doesn’t think fast enough to do this. However, I will also point out something else- analyses from both sides pointed out these missed opportunities. Trump supporters lamented these missed opportunities (like I did), and Clinton’s supporters delighted in them because they think it proves Trump is stupid; but think about it- if even Clinton’s supporters knew the deadly ripostes and recounted them, what do you think undecided voters thought about them? Does Trump gain anything by using them explicitly rather than letting them speak for themselves?
Based on the sheer number of missed opportunities, I think the strategy Trump and his handlers had was to stay above the muck altogether. Trump managed to do this for a while, but eventually got dragged into it, but still didn’t say unseemly things in counter-attack, and I think that is one reason so many of the online polls, even those where the readership is left-leaning showed him as the winner. He was simply the more likable candidate last night.
Having read several blogs and watched a number of news programs it now seems one of the bloggers or news casters should be running for president and have been at the so-called debates as they seem to know so many things and are more glib than the candidates.
Having said that, I weep for our country and the future.
“Hillary needed to keep standing and seem to have physical endurance, and she succeeded.” What a low, low bar.
Trump did fine. He’s an outsider. Not a professional debater and politician. Hillary – and her party – have failed at everything they have touched in the past 30 years.
She just brought up red herring after red herring. We don’t care about a housing case brought against Trump in 1973 or what he said about Rosie O’Donnell.
We have under 2% growth, high taxes, failed Obamacare and the Middle East in meltdown. All of this is on the Dems.
Scott Adams has it right. Trump lost the debate but won the election.
Correction. Hillary made herself very wealth while supposedly in public service. So she has succeeded in making herself and her daughter rich.
“. . . . with [Rubio or Cruz] in the race, Clinton would be worrying less about defectors on her left and right, and would be depending far more on the natural advantage that Democrats have built up . . . .” [Yancey Ward @ 12:31]
I think that is a profound observation.
I, too, have come to the conclusion (and mentioned this in an earlier thread) that I now believe that Trump was the only Republican (“Republican” if you must) who could have withstood the fusillade thrown by the Dem establishment and the MSM. Yancy Ward’s comment, if true, is a natural extension of the idea that no other candidate realistically had a chance of breaking the Dem establishment this election cycle.
Seems like I made a wise decision to not waste an hour and a half of my life watching this. Pats self on back.
There is no certainty that the other 16 candidates would win vs clinton.
However, one thing much more certain – had trump not run, they wouldn’t have been going into this election with nearly so divided a GOP electorate.
trump has yet to overcome that.
.
The reason the undecideds are at a historical high at this point in the election cycle is that trump is just that bad, even in comparison to how bad clinton is.
People want an alternative to clinton, but trump is just not making headway as a positive alternative. Being “not clinton” is not good enough.
Something tells me that were it any of the other 16, they wouldn’t be facing that kind of a headwind. And, despite a “built-in dem advantage”, voters would gladly vote for “change” that the other candidates would represent vs status quo of clinton.
T,
Hardcore Republicans don’t seem to understand, yet, how small their coalition had gotten, along with the corresponding electoral coalition. Bush won states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado handily while losing the national vote in 2000 by 0.5%. He lost New Hampshire in 2004 while winning the national vote by 2.4%, and he under-performed in Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada compared to 2000- a warning sign of what was about to happen, in my opinion. Something had to change to enlarge the tent for Republicans, or they were doomed to defeat.
“Trump did fine. He’s an outsider. Not a professional debater and politician.” – Cornflour
There comes a time where this excuse is worn out.
Maybe trump supporters are okay with this standard, but not sure it works for independents that trump needs to win.
(Not saying clinton did a great job either, btw)
So now we have a far left democrat (HRC) and a less than that democrat (DJT) who is running as a Republican. Great tent making analogy and great work on the part of the RNC.
Monday morning quarterback that I am, I think Trump came off much worse than he could or should have. How to improve? I would suggest two things to Trump.
1. Remember it’s the the economy. Ask, “Are you better off economically today than you were seven years ago? Is your health insurance better? Do you see better economic times ahead? Are you satisfied with a stagnant 1% growth rate? Etc.”
2. Remember it’s the security issues. Ask, “Do you feel safer from Islamic terrorists today than you did seven years ago? Do you think Obama’s policies are making things better in the Middle East? Do you think Obama’s policies vis a vis Russia and China are working? Did Secretary Clinton make things better or worse during her tenure at State? Do open borders make you feel safer? Why do we have sanctuary cities? Etc.”
The electorate is uneasy about those issues. He needs to keep them at the forefront and be ready to outline what he will do in short, pithy sound bites. In short, more preparation for the next go around.
J.J.
That might help him but that would not be Trump.
Growth under 2%, 94 million americans out of work, only wall street doing well, our manufacturing and mining sectors devastated, hundreds of companies firing american workers and replacing them with cheap foreign labor, an obscene trade imbalance and over 20 trillion in debt… and you want to double down Hillary, on Obama’s same failed policies.
That’s how he should have responded to Clinton’s economic claims. How hard is that to memorize? Then rinse and repeat as needed.
Do that with each major issue: immigration, terrorism (you have a plan to beat ISIS Hillary?, you and Obama can’t even say “radical Islamic terrorism” how can you beat an enemy you won’t even name?), Clinton Foundation…
“The reason the undecideds are at a historical high at this point in the election cycle is that trump is just that bad, even in comparison to how bad clinton is.”
Maybe, or maybe they just don’t want to admit it. I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Trump, but if anyone asks, “I haven’t decided.”
I know many here are not Trump fans, including neo. But last night was a perfect display of the failure the Dems have given us since Bill was in the WH.
But this time it will be way worse as we have reached the tipping point on debt, immigration and with the Islamists (ISIS and Iran). She can’t handle these issues. Neither can Huma.
It’s past time to start using a new cliche for the state of the country and ther threat posed by (fill in the blank)! “Tipping point” is out! “Plimsoll Line” must now be used!! /SSSS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterline
The bar for Trump just became awfully low. His supporters are saying he just had to show up and prove he wasn’t crazy! Good grief. Suddenly debates are not about actual debating policy but about meeting an expectation that has nothing to do with what a candidate knows or what a candidate proposes. Just show up and smile and you win! Seriously? Why have debates then?
Trump in Council Bluffs tomorrow PM. Surprise visit.
I will report on PL.
He was simply the more likable candidate last night.
No he wasn’t.
One of the jarring things for me during this awful year is that I’m beginning to understand what it’s like to be a man without a party. I always was right along with everyone else on the conservative side in past elections – all the same wishful thinking, all the same demonization of the other, all the same reference to polls being wrong, all of that.
Trump will probably win, because HRC is awful and our electorate has lost its mind, but this election has afforded me the ability to better see clearly all the ways we spin when we think we’re not.
Remember, she was supposed to be frail and keel over? Cough the whole time? Have a seizure? Well, she didn’t, so she must be on amazing meds. OR – maybe she’s not as sick as everyone hopes she is.
All he had to do was not appear crazy? Nice. Remember his response on not paying federal taxes? Just taking advantage of the laws. His response on his obvious racist housing practices in the 1970s? Everyone was doing it, everyone was getting investigated.
I was a GOP-er, very loyal, until they nominated this hot mess of a narcissist with very few conservative principles or even conservative thoughts. He argued against business regulation, yes, while threatening to force business to stay in the country.
Now the spinning is coming hard and fast that he won the debate. Ridiculous – he got his clock cleaned. Especially on foreign policy, where his dangerous, ignorant and non-conservative plans were brought front and center.
But nothing matters anymore . . .
Oh, I almost forgot this
Remember how conservative flipped out at Obama’s “I’ll be more flexible after the election” comment to the Russian diplomat in 2012?
Is anyone troubled by Trump’s continued defense of Russia, his misdirection on who hacked the DNC by claiming it might be a “400 pound hacker sitting on his bed”, etc.
Where are Trump’s loyalties? Well, that’s easy, they are to Trump. Why is he so defensive of the Russians? Has anyone considered this? What’s in it for him? Will he get some “help” in October from mysterious hackers? Will our electronic voting machines be compromised in some key precincts?
I’m just wondering why Trump’s relationship with Russia isn’t a bigger deal. And why conservatives who would have flipped out about it if it were a Democrat cozying up to Putin are OK with it.
Neo: but as time went by I realized I’d had it with both of them and never turned the audio back up again, although I kept thinking I should.
So I’m probably not the greatest authority on what happened during this debate.
Well, you’re not 🙂
Neo – my respect for you is through the roof (truly) but I really wish you would have been able to persevere through it. I was very interested in hearing your views on it, and to find that you weren’t able to stomach more than a few minutes of it and are now having to rely on the after-debate spin for a sense of what happened . . . Well, I’m bummed.
I understand why you didn’t, though. I said in the other thread that I listened more than I watched. I actually wasn’t in the same room for much of the debate, but I could hear it. I just couldn’t commit to sitting in front of the TV, because debates are among my least favorite things to watch. But I did listen to the whole thing.
Bill – I also wish that Neo would traverse the depths of the oceans and report back on what lies at the bottom. But a human can only endure so much.
a human can only endure so much.
True dat.
Sometimes I like to watch debates with the sound off to better absorb the nonverbal communication, though one loses voice shadings.
That may be just as well for last night’s performances. From reading post-debate articles, I get the impression Trump badly blew the facts and reasoning part of the debate — no surprise there — though it didn’t hurt him in the snap-polls afterward.
But hey! Who needs facts and reasoning when you’re President of the United States?
Lawyers are schooled in debate. That is at the root of the oft-heard remark, “X won the case; he had the better lawyer.” Of course there is much more to any trial than mere debate, but my point remains.
Democratic candidates have been lawyers since Jimmah folded:
Mondale
Dukakis
Clintons (2)
Kerry
Gore (did not graduate)
Republican nominees have not been lawyers, none, in the same era, not since Gerald Ford lost in to Carter in 1976. A subtle tipping point, maybe? For 41 years now?
I would prefer that Neo — and everyone else — hadn’t watched any of the “debate”, for reasons I explained in this post.
Some of you will like my suggestion on referees.
(No, I haven’t gotten around to reading the transcript yet, but I expect that will take me less than a half hour, and that I will learn more from the reading than I would have from the watching.)
If it makes you feel better, Monday Night Football was terrible too, though it didn’t destroy as many brain cells if you were’nt on the field.
Looking forward to another chapter of your excellent campaign reportage. Thanks, Cornhead.
Trump appeals just enough to the those left of center to undermine the Democratic candidate’s coalition.
People who wanted Bernie in, are switching to Trum now.
Of course, if you think that can save the country, it’s not something I would bet on.
I’m just wondering why Trump’s relationship with Russia isn’t a bigger deal. And why conservatives who would have flipped out about it if it were a Democrat cozying up to Putin are OK with it.
It goes back to the roots of the Leftist alliance and the Alt Right, plus Yuri Bezmenov’s report about Russian disinformation and subversion. His stuff is on youtube though.
@Ymarsakar – you have a good point.
I remember well obama telling medvedev that he would have more flexibility after the election, and that was a HUGE deal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326
@Jim Miller – nice find on Cruz
“(Cruz’s) first real mistake was believing … That there was a silent and unseen conservative majority waiting for only the right voice to wake it, that the real enemy of all true conservatives was not the leftwing but Republican moderates, and that the road to success and perhaps to the White House lay in exciting this wing by attacking the moderates, which he proceeded to do. … Picture his shock when it turned out that most of talk radio, Fox News and almost all of the social conservatives were going for a New York liberal who had never held office, broken all of the rules and many Commandments, and funded and voted for both of the Clintons instead.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruzipus-rex/article/2602897
It was truly shocking for many of us, though, especially after 2012, I didn’t subscribe to the idea that there was this “silent majority”.
Yancey Ward Says:
Based on the sheer number of missed opportunities, I think the strategy Trump and his handlers had was to stay above the muck altogether.
I hear Trump plays a mean game of n-dimensional chess, but I wouldn’t know anything about that. *sips tea*
T Says:
I, too, have come to the conclusion (and mentioned this in an earlier thread) that I now believe that Trump was the only Republican (“Republican” if you must) who could have withstood the fusillade thrown by the Dem establishment and the MSM.
If Trump is the only one who can beat the Dems, then you’re saying the country is already lost.
I think that you’re dead wrong about Trump, and that he was instead one of the weakest candidates we could’ve put forward. I think that this Savior Complex bullshit is self-serving rationalization for a bunch of people who may regret nominating a clown to do a man’s job.
If Trump loses, these people will conveniently hold themselves blameless because it was an impossible job.
America gets the leaders they deserve. FDR was the proof for that early concept. All 4 terms.
Cruz was probably hoping for a resurrection of the Tea Party. But the Alt Right took that one over too.
One thing similar between the Leftist alliance and the Alternative Right, is the Alt Right propaganda’s ability to subsume and subvert existing institutions. The Left doesn’t make civil rights movements, they just hijack them. And for the Alt Right, this election cycle was the perfect time to do some hijacking, given that the Tea Party were suppressed by the IRS and other Leftist traitors. The IRS, for various reasons, did not suppress the Alt Right.
Trum’s issue really isn’t Trum. I’ve repeated that a few times, but what makes this cycle different is who is backing Trum, his 3 pillars. One third Democrats switching over, one third betrayed Republicans (read Tea Party), and one third the various online sub cultures (White Nationalist, Christian Nationalist, gamergate, etc).
Trum’s character assassination is interesting. While Bush II did some of that against McCain, and McCain “never forgave him” or what not for it, what we see now is that Trum doesn’t even have to get his hands dirty. The Alt Right propaganda network will do much of the job for him, they are eager to slime or isolate or freeze Trum’s enemies.
That’s not going to go away after election season. Politicians like McCain or Bush 2 might slime each other, but that’s because it is politics. Once you get a whole mob of people who are fanatics, it never goes away. Femi Nazis and BLM terrorists ever go away? Not yet.
Welcome to the Alternative Right’s version of annoying SJWs, Leftist agent provocateurs, and BLM activists. As Eric would say, if the GOP and Republicans don’t want to play the game, somebody else will.
Of course, people here and elsewhere were correct that adopting to Leftist tactics would be messy and dirty. But if they didn’t do it, if the Tea Party didn’t do it… somebody else will. People have had enough. They are as desperate as the Germans were during Wehrmacht. Now imagine that.
The living standards are much higher for us, but nothing propaganda can’t adjust for. The great thing about the Art of Propaganda is that it can manipulate and make people think it is worse than it is. After all, HRC will “end us” right.
Seriously, have you ever watched a presidential debate and seen its aftermath? They pretty much have nothing to do with policy or knowledge. They are almost completely about selling the candidate at a purely personal level to people who are not interested enough in politics to give a shit about policy papers or policy statements. You have to stop imagining it is mostly people like yourself watching- it isn’t. People like us are a small minority.
Here is the way it works. The two major parties are the ones that will set the policies- they do this through the cabinet and the legislators in each party. When a major party candidate is selected, it is a safe bet that his party will be defining the policies and putting them into action. Even though I am far better informed than 99% of my fellow voters, I probably care less about what a particular presidential candidate says on the stump, or even how intelligent and knowledgeable they might be. I already know that the party behind him will shape the agenda as a whole far more than the man/woman themselves. The other 99% do the exact same thing, though on an unconscious level. To win the presidency, you have to be the more likable candidate- it really does have almost nothing to do with with the policies or even how they are put forth in a debate.
I wish some other candidate could have run the way Trump did this year, but I can’t quite figure out which of the other candidates could have done this. I keep coming up blank. Trump won the nomination because he pulled a huge number of new primary voters into the process- in my opinion, that fact alone was the minimum requirement for the Republican candidate this year, and likely any year after this. Absent that, the Democrats’ coalition will shut the Republicans out of the White House for the rest of my life, and as a result will break down the hold on the House, which is already tenuous at best.
Without Trump, or a more competent version of him, the Republican Party was headed for rump status at the national level, and would have seen a slow receding in the gains they made at the state levels. The Democrats have made it very clear that they will change the redistricting policies that gave them far too many 75% districts, and all they need to do this is the court system.
I’d be curious to hear from Trump supporters if his debate performance met their expectations.
Trump fans I’ve known were big on the idea that Trump’s debate-fu would blow Hillary off the stage because dad-gummit Trump would fight!
It appears debating Hillary, when there is much more time to fill and Trump still lacks command of facts and argments, will be more difficult. It doesn’t look like he can win on bluster and shocking personal insults as he did in the primaries.
“I think that this Savior Complex bullshit . . . . ” [Mat SE @ 9:45]
Matt,
You completely misread what I wrote. I did not write that Trump is some kind of Obama-like savior.
I said the I have come to the conclusion that Trump was the only candidate who could win. I noted that IMO he was the only candidate who could (and I repeat the word here) withstand the fusillade launched by the Progressive Dem Politico-Media complex. That’s different that calling him some kind of savior.
I believe that any of the other candidates would have been beaten to political death by the Dems. Some have written that it is Trump’s presence that has catalyzed the intensity fo these attacks. That IMO is the bullshit. Trump survived because he stubbornly and blindly proceeded regardless of the attacks; that s what made him less vulnerable to them.
I believe that Rubio, Christie, Fiorina, even Cruz would have eventually succumbed to the defensive and apologetic tone we have seen in Republican front runners like McCain and Romney. This, IMO, is especially true because they were going nose to nose with a woman (Fiorina, perhaps the exception to this particular point) and gentlemen simply don’t treat women like that. Trump, in the battle cage, doesn’t care.
Hw was a Jeb Bush going to withstand such a relentless pounding when he can’t even see his way clear to honor his pledge to support the Republican nominee? And remember, it was the obstinate Trump who was the only candidate who initially refused to initially take such a pledge at the first Republican primary debate.
Trump survives because he is obstinate, arrogant, has a big mouth and he often succeeds at punching back twice as hard. The left is finding out that their Alinsky tactics don’t work against a person who doesn’t give a damn and who refuses to act like a victim when he’s attacked. In short, on the battlefield, he is an equal opportunity abuser.
Having said all of this, I have absolutely no idea what a President Trump will do. I believe that he has the potential to a remarkably effective job; he has shown some good signs in his list of judges fro SCOTUS, in his claim to eliminate the depts. of education, energy and commerce and in his appointment to the transition team of a global warming skeptic to work the EPA. That doesn’t mean he will not disappoint either in whole or in part.
Finally yo write: “If Trump is the only one who can beat the Dems, then you’re saying the country is already lost,” but that’s simply because you, like Progressives calling Trump the new Hitler, can’t see any possibility past your own biases.
Now we have another piece of apocalyptic propaganda, this time from Angelo M. Codevilla:
After the Republic
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/after-the-republic/
Trumpkins sure are gloomy. Also, what is it with CRB? Are they the go-to source for prepper literature now?
T:
“Trump survives because he is obstinate, arrogant, has a big mouth and he often succeeds at punching back twice as hard.”
B.S. The dems know which buttons to push that will get DJT into the blithering idiot mode. Which HRC did at 6:31 PM last night, at least according to the analysis by Ben Shapiro, and others. Specifically, Trump’s inability to stay on message when his ego is attacked. It wasn’t the first time DJT fell off the rails in a debate setting.
But don’t worry, Putin won’t threaten DJT’s ego, nor will members of Congress, or the press, or….. Well, he is the best of the candidates left who are “Republicans” and not Hillary.
T:
The existence of the Tea Party, conservatives in general, etc. after all the years of leftist cultural warfare proves that Trump wasn’t the only one who could’ve done the job.
Any one of his supporters could’ve done it too. There are 320 million people in the country, but you think only Trump could make it.
No.
This is more hysterical nonsense. If the left were an unstoppable juggernaut, Hillary wouldn’t be even with a man more unpopular than she is.
I refuse to believe that Trump is the best we could do.
I see Trump as much more of a fluke.
Trump won the Rep primaries because he was a far greater celebrity than any of the other R candidates, he had a fresh approach that worked in a very crowded field, he gained the support of a really angry slice of the electorate, and his reality-tv insult style guaranteed huge amounts of free media coverage.
Trump supporters love to slag McCain and Romney because they lost, but they lost to a once-in-a-lifetime black phenomenon. Though he’s not given credit for it, Romney gained ground on Obama, even though two-term presidents — includng George W. — are usually re-elected by a larger margin the second time around.
It’s not hard to suppose that a Romney-like candidate would win this time around when Obama is not on the ballot, Obama’s policies are further in retreat, the third-term curse is in effect and the Dem candidate is the unlikeable, scandal-ridden Hillary Clinton.
But instead of a smooth-sailing campaign to victory, we see Trump underwater against Hillary almost the entire time. For a while it looked like Trump would lose in a landslide. And he still might.
No, I don’t buy the idea that Trump was the best Republicans could do. He still looks like the worst.
I would have loved to see Fiorina vs. Hillary debate.
I believe Fiorina would have been prepared to the hilt.
They both can generate an unlikable quality in different ways, so that might cancel out each other.
I think it would have been a bloody battle between the two (figuratively). Worse than the men.
I watched the whole thing and after the first fifteen minutes, she destroyed him. She honed in on his business career, throwing the first punch, which surprised me since I thought he would throw the first punch. She went for his business career and put him on the defensive. Trump was drinking water like crazy throughout the debate and Clinton was cool as a cucumber. She barely showed a moment of concern, even when he went after her very briefly — about her emails. Lester Holt repeated the question about her emails and she apologized for “bad judgment” (or something to that effect) and that was that. He let it go and she was composed and looked utterly sincere. His attacks on her largely fell flat. However, her attacks on him had an effect. There were a few times when Trump would get out a decent answer but then, he would go on and on and on and frankly, there were times I could not follow him – it made no sense. He should have stopped talking, but he was too nervous. Or something… Yes.. At first, he did make some good points about trade and jobs, but again, he lost it from there. She took control and he floundered. I was SHOCKED it was that bad on his part. He also said silly and frankly, stupid things like saying he paid no taxes and that it was “smart” (this won’t play well with undecideds). Also, when handed something that he could have easily turned into a win, a question from Lester Holt about cyber-security, he fumbled and allowed Clinton to take the lead again, making him sound like a buffoon for (supposedly) saying Russia was hacking the DNC or inviting them to. Again he got defensive instead of turning it back on her about her private email server. He let her get his goat. He then said my favorite non-sequitur of the night — (I paraphrase slightly) ‘I didn’t say it was Russia, maybe it was China hacking in (to the DNC), maybe it was China (he repeated himself a lot) or maybe it was a 400 lb. person sitting in their bed.” A 400 lb. person sitting in their bed? Haha OK, that’s funny but it sounded nuts. He sounded just off. Not crazy but just like he had no idea what he was talking about a lot of the time. Like he was reaching for anything at all and had little idea what he was talking about.
At the end he ended up calling out that Sean Hannity knew he was against the Iraq war – when Clinton hammered him on that. Turning his objection to her (she was for the Iraq war) on him (she said he was for it also before he was against it). It was painful to watch. Him going on about Sean Hannity and how he knew… etc. The whole thing was painful to watch. I was shocked it was that bad.
Look, I don’t want to vote for Clinton. I have been planning, with some extreme reservations, to vote for Trump. I don’t see how I can now. He showed himself to be out of his depth. I mean REALLY OUT OF HIS DEPTH. I kept imagining him talking to Putin or Kim Jong-un — and that was not something I wanted to think about. She ran circles around him. She was not only on top of things, she looked great. I honestly don’t see how I can vote for a man that is this ridiculous. I mean it was bad. It was ridiculous, like a parody of Trump’s worst moments.
Maybe he can do better in the next debate. He did not prepare. She did. She is a better debater, I knew that would be true but he was beyond bad. It was horrible.
Any way, too bad you didn’t see it all Neo — I would have been interested in your take. My conclusion: the GOP blew it. This guy is out of his depth. He is talented, he has some good ideas — but he is out of his depth.
Maybe he will improve and change my mind. I have no idea who I will vote for… maybe nobody.
No way is Trump the best the GOP had. We had Cruz, who could have won that debate with Clinton or at the very least, shaken her up. Or Rubio for that matter… my god – even Jeb Bush! But certainly Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina (she would have been merciless on Cliinton) — any of them… but instead the GOP picks Trump! I still don’t get it.
I understand he is new and fresh and entertaining but last night was so bad… I just kept thinking of what an opportunity was lost against a candidate that so many dislike or don’t trust. But that’s what we chose, and that’s what we’ll get.
At this point, they both scare me. Both these candidates are horrible in different ways. I just am not sure which is worse to be honest… I had a sleepless night after the debate because it just struck me as such an impossible choice. It should be easy, but Trump does not look prepared at all for the presidency.
Bill: I share the misgivings about Trump and Putin, I am not sure what is there — but I am uneasy. Just the fact that he praises Putin makes me uneasy. I agree that the GOP should have looked at this more carefully.
Someone who calls himself (or herself) Publius Decius Mus has written an excellent (if depressing) essay about the predicament in which America finds itself at this time in history. It’s called The Flight 93 Election. It begins:
In the body of the essay, the author elaborates on many of the reasons that America is on a fatal trajectory – “Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege” . The final paragraph is this:
T Says:
“…he has shown some good signs in his list of judges fro SCOTUS…”
All the Trumpistas point to this magical list as his major redeeming factor. Do you for a New York nanosecond really believe he knows anything about the people on it or why they would be good Justices?
Of course he doesn’t; I’ll wager he never heard of any of them until some adviser shoved it under his nose. Has any interviewer ever grilled him about “his” choices? Has he ever stated why any given name is on it?
He probably still thinks his liberal sister would be the best pick, after all, they agree on everything.
snoper:
The Flight 93 article was the subject of at least two posts here in the last week. It did not generate a lot of favorable comments except among those who moved to Trump long ago. They keep trying to persuade the extremely reluctant here that we should vote for Trump, which we’ve all pretty much admitted we’re going to do, despite the fact that we think he is the worst of the original 16.
It sounds more like you’re still trying to convince yourself.
Matt SE,
“There are 320 million people in the country, but you think only Trump could make it.”
An absurd statement. 320 million people weren’t running, only 17 were. One goes to war with the army one has.
“I refuse to believe that Trump is the best we could do.”
Once again your biases lead to presumption and assumption. I never said that Trump was the best we could do. I said that IMO Trump was the only candidate of the 17 who could have withstood the fusillade. I repeat, you argue just like a Progressive taking specific statements and painting them with a general brush; e.g., Those who oppose gun control must, then, clearly support murder.
“I’ll wager he never heard of any of them until some adviser shoved it under his nose.” [geokstr @ 8:32]
which, then is an indication of the type of advisor he might rely on.
All the Trumpistas point to this magical list as his major redeeming factor.” [geokstr @ 8:32]
First, if you meant to indicate that I’m a “Trumpista”, you haven’t been reading my comments (or at least you haven’t understood them). No, it was one of several items in a list. It is no magical talisman. Further the one I failed to mention was the note that his first day in office would be to sign executive orders nullifying about 25 Obama executive orders. And I repeat. this is a list. These are potential indications. There are no guarantees. here.
It’s remarkable that if one writes something negative about Trump the Trumpers are all beside themselves for criticizing him; if one writes something positive, the #NeverTrump crowd are all beside themselves for a recognition of something positive.
Did I miss something here? Just when was it that the conservative-minded right turned into the Progressive Democrat left?
“Did I miss something here? Just when was it that the conservative-minded right turned into the Progressive Democrat left?” Do the conservative-minded right still beat their wives? – the next hypothetical hyperbollc concern- 🙂
OM,
That’s funny! Seriously though, there are a group of pro-Trump people who seem to treat Trump as an iconic figure just the way the left compiled the narrative of “the savior Obama.” Then tere is a group of #Never Trump people for whom Trump only lacks a bifurcated tail and a small moustache.
This kind of polarization has been common on the left, it’s sad to see it in what was a more rational political world on the right.
In fact, IMO, Trump id, of course neither of the above. Does he have shortcomings and flaws? In spades, perhaps more than the other former nominees. Does he have positive qualities? Yes to that, too. I repeat that I’ve come to the conclusion that any of the other candidates would have been decimated by this cycle’s attacks from the left. I may be wrong, but my critics may be wrong as well—no guarantees on either side here.
The fact is that Trump is the Republican nominee, and the most likely reality is that either Trump of Clinton will be elected to the presidency. That, quite simply is the reality one must deal with. The choice may not be binary, but the result will most likely be, and all the kvetching about Trump will not parthenogenically generate a new candidate out of whole cloth. That is our reality.
So I enumerate some indications that a Trump presidency may be salvageable. So what? How dare I? Even if (that is IF) a Trump presidency were to become the stuff of conservative dreams there would still be shortcomings and disappointments because no one’s perfect. For my take, even if (again IF) Trump were to make good on a few of his indications (nullifying many Obama executive orders, reducing if not eliminating Education Energy and Commerce, at least less leftist SCOTUS appointments if not true conservatives) I would still feel as thoug we dodged an very important Hillary bullet. Furthermore there are also effects that we may not be able to predict (see my Dr. Helen Smith citation above @ 11:35 AM yesterday).
Will any of this happen? who knows. Still, IMO (again IMO) I would rather contemplate these alternatives than those of a Hillary Clinton presidency on the heels of Obama.
Rationalization? Probably, but we are a rationalizing more so than a rational species.
I think my favorite part of the debate was where Trump agreed with Hillary that our 2nd amendment rights should be subject to an arbitrary government no-fly list.
You Trump supporters sure know how to pick ’em.
P.S. If Trump does that again, I wouldn’t be surprised if the NRA withdraws its endorsement. They would be right to do so.
Neo gets it: “Trump merely needed to avoid sounding like a disjointed lunatic, and I think he succeeded.”
Did you ever have to put up with the semi-hysterical hostess of a Thanksgiving meal fussing over every little thing? Then the wise neighbor lady arrives and asks: “How is the turkey? Good. Everything will be fine.”
This is a change election and Hillary is toast (to mix my metaphors) unless the media and the DNC can sell the “Trump is Frankenstein” meme. Frankenstein put on his top hat and sang and danced (poorly, but well enough) his way to … acceptable.
To those who are irate and demanding Fred Astaire or nothing…wipe the greasepaint from your eyes and get into the real world.
“You Trump supporters sure know how to pick ’em.
and once again, Progressive style sanctimony makes its appearance.
huxley; Matt_SE:
I am in complete agreement with you. I’m always amazed that anyone ever thought Trump would be the best candidate against Hillary in the field, and I’m even more amazed that anyone still thinks so now.
But in a way I’m really not amazed at all, because in the last ten years or so I’ve grown very accustomed to the many ways in which people can and do fool themselves.
And of course, the people who disagree with me and think Trump was and is the best candidate will say I’m the one fooling myself.
snopercod:
That’s what you get for not reading neoneocon every day 🙂 .
I’ve written at length—some might say ad nauseam—about that Flight 93 article. See this and this, and the 350+ comments to those posts.
They are as desperate as the Germans were during Wehrmacht. Now imagine that.
No they aren’t. Anyone who thinks this country is anywhere near Wehrmacht Germany has no sense of history or perspective.
But saying we’re a third world country now is the Trump way, I guess.
Absent that, the Democrats’ coalition will shut the Republicans out of the White House for the rest of my life, and as a result will break down the hold on the House, which is already tenuous at best.
Democrats thought the same thing in 1984. I wish conservatives could get their backbones back and quit being victims. We have the best vision (not Trump’s vision, I mean the conservative vision). But instead of fighting for it or selling it or living it we’re just whining about being the big losers we are.
Without Trump, or a more competent version of him, the Republican Party was headed for rump status at the national level, and would have seen a slow receding in the gains they made at the state levels.
The Republican party was poised to win this very winnable election without Trump. He still will probably win, because HRC is so bad, but far more doubtful now.
Republicans have the Senate and House. Could have had the Presidency. If they do get it, it won’t be a conservative presidency, it will be a Trumpian presidency. Count me out.
The idea that without Trump conservatives are losers is made up of whole cloth.
I believe that he has the potential to a remarkably effective job;
I believe monkeys might fly out of my behonkus.
Finally yo write: “If Trump is the only one who can beat the Dems, then you’re saying the country is already lost,” but that’s simply because you, like Progressives calling Trump the new Hitler, can’t see any possibility past your own biases.
What?
Did I miss something here? Just when was it that the conservative-minded right turned into the Progressive Democrat left?
Trump and his followers have far more in common with the alinksyite progressives than any true conservative would. I don’t understand this line of attack. Trump is a big government statist, and it’s hard to find a single conservative theme in anything he said at the debate. He believes in more government intervention in business to promote progressive ideas (punitive taxes for relocating, unfunded mandates for child care), believes in single-payer health care, etc.
The idea that Trump is in any way a savior of conservatism is crazy.
Bill:
I could be wrong, but I think what that comment meant was that they have been manipulated and propagandized to feel as desperate as those Germans did, but that the situation actually is by no means as desperate.
At least, that’s the way I read it.
Reading “during Wehrmacht” is at least a little bit confusing, insofar as the potential that Weimar or the fading Weimar period may have been intended? But then, perhaps I’m simply unaware of such a thing as “during Wehrmacht” as such, and therefore stand perpared to be educated about that.
Here in a nutshell (I am fond of cliches) is the what the DNC is selling to low-information voters:
“I am not enamored of Clinton’s stale, liberal, centralized view of politics [this is a lie designed to make non-liberal readers think that he is something he is, examine the record, not], but she is sane and responsible; she’ll do her homework, can grow in the job, and might even work well with Republicans [I have some beach-front property in Iowa…], as she did as a senator.
Trump promises change, but change that comes from someone who thinks people who pay taxes are suckers [lie] and who thinks he can show up before an audience of 100 million without preparation [lie] or real plans [lie] and talk about serious issues with no more sophistication than your crazy uncle – and expect to get away with it – is change the country can’t afford.
Electing such a man would be insanity.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/trump-how-could-we.html?_r=0
Even if one agrees with the NYT (for good reason) that Trump is not a good candidate, doesn’t it make one suspicious of the alternative candidate offered by these liars when such lies and total misrepresentations of what the DNC is about raise one’s hackles? Cannot one smell the snake oil?
Pardon me, but when I see these same points made here it makes me recall the pink-clad mis-guided folks I used to encounter in the airport. I just wish I were as certain about Trump as I am about these DNC charlatans.
Good point – when I read “Wehrmacht” I thought “Weimar” – so I may have completely misrepresented the original comment
I could be wrong, but I think what that comment meant was that they have been manipulated and propagandized to feel as desperate as those Germans did
Neo – great point. I apologize to the original commenter as I think I read the comment uncharitably.
I think the person may have meant “Weimar,” too.
Well I used to read your blog every day, but when it became all-Trump-bashing-all-the-time, I drifted away. I’ll go back and read what you wrote.
For the record, I thought Carly Fiorina would be the best against Hillary. I guess that shows just how small a minority I’m in. LOL!
I’m amazed at all the people on this list who think that glibness is the most desirable quality in a candidate. Didn’t Obama teach us otherwise?
Trump has demonstrated throughout the campaign that he learns and gets better. The second debate will be much more in his favor.
BTW, Matt_SE, Trump said, “”if we develop a procedure whereby law-abiding citizens can get off the no-fly list, I would agree.” Listen up, for God’s sake!
I can’t believe it’s less than 50 days to the election and people are still moaning “We coulda had him, we coulda had her. “I coulda been a contender, Eddie. I coulda been somebody. . ”
Trump is the candidate. Get over it!
“The saddest words of tongue or pen/Are these, “It might have been.”
Richard Saunders:
If Trump was a learning, teachable man his performance on Monday against Hillary wouldn’t have been (I’ve been told) such a disaster when she pushed his ego buttons. Other opponents did it to him in the Republican primary debates.
Keep hoping Trump will evolve into something that he isn’t. There are less than 50 days for that metamorphosis to manifest itself.
“I’ll wager he never heard of any of them (trump’s SCOTUS nominee list) until some adviser shoved it under his nose. Has any interviewer ever grilled him about “his” choices? Has he ever stated why any given name is on it?” – geokstr
Would make a great series of questions at the next debate.
If I were clinton, I would ask him point blank about two or three of them…
What in xxxxx’s background makes you think they’d be a great jurist?
And what specifics about yyyyy’s background?
And zzzzz’s background?
trump would soon sound repetitive and too high level.
Caesar-lite has no clothes (whisper).
“Well I used to read your (Neo’s) blog every day, but when it became all-Trump-bashing-all-the-time, I drifted away.” – snopercod
Wow. If you think this is the case, then, IMHO, you have no reasonable standard for what might objectively be “fair and balanced” (as Fox likes to advertize).
Seems like you are most interested in is confirmation bias – that is dangerous if we all adopted that attitude.
If I was only interested in that, I too would be going elsewhere, being of minority opinion here.
“People have had enough. They are as desperate as the Germans were during Wehrmacht. Now imagine that.
The living standards are much higher for us, but nothing propaganda can’t adjust for. The great thing about the Art of Propaganda is that it can manipulate and make people think it is worse than it is. After all, HRC will “end us” right.” – Ymarsakar
Agree very much (assuming Wiemar).
.
In fact, said as much here earlier…
“What we have today is no where near that same situation.
If anything is analogous, it is the Weimar, only it was far more desperate times for folks then, and they were far less educated, and had far fewer information sources.
People wanted to have radical change then too. Nationalism ended up the dominant force, propelled partly by blame aimed at “different” cultures, to name three items that have parallel to only one candidate today.”
http://neoneocon.com/2016/08/04/the-shotgun-election/#comment-1499640
.
The US is still, by far, the best country in the world for its citizens, by most any measure (unless one pays attention only to the doom and gloomers on the left or right).
.
None of this is to deny that if we don’t change course over the next several elections, we are headed for serious trouble, just that the foreseen turmoil, and “flight 93 crash” within the next four years is not a given, if clinton wins.
Richard Saunders:
Oh, we can’t complain that Donald Trump can’t seem to learn much for an occasion as important as the first debate, less than two months before the election? This doesn’t bode ill for the election, and it doesn’t tell us much about his character and abilities? And we can’t bemoan the fact that what is practically the most important election of our time was sabotaged by a minority of the voters in the GOP primaries, screwing us all?
As for “get over it” and “what might have been,” apparently you’ve got your memes going. Please see this and this.
No they aren’t. Anyone who thinks this country is anywhere near Wehrmacht Germany has no sense of history or perspective.
The idea that people can only feel the same psychological conditions if their living standards are exactly the same, only makes sense to people born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Reading to the end of the thread now. As for the issue of Weimar vs Wehrmacht.
Weimar Republic (German: Weimarer Republik [ˈvaɪmaÊÉ ÊepuˈbliËk] ( listen)) is an unofficial designation for the German state between 1919 and 1933. The name derives from the city of Weimar, where its constitutional assembly first took place. The official name of the state was Deutsches Reich, continuing the name from the pre-1918 German Empire.
vs
The Wehrmacht (German pronunciation: [ˈveËÉ̯maxt] ( listen), lit. “Defence Force”)[N 2] was the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1946. It consisted of the Heer (army), the Kriegsmarine (navy) and the Luftwaffe (air force).[4] The designation Wehrmacht for Nazi Germany’s military replaced the previously used term, Reichswehr (1919—35), and constituted the Third Reich’s efforts to rearm the nation to a greater extent than the Treaty of Versailles permitted.[5]
If people want to criticize me for having no sense of history or perspective, the least they can do is pretend to know the basics of German historical facts.
Now commonly the way I phrased that claim, people would read “Weimar”, but it’s quite obvious, even to an English speaker, that those two words are not the same and not even the same length. As for why I don’t speak of Weimar yet brought up the topic, probably because other people have, yet I don’t agree with using Weimar as a topic of comparison. To me, we’re way past that stage. Tea Party and GOP E was Weimar, they are pretty much toast. Now we’re in the next stage. Hence Wehrmacht. Even if people think the unified army is BLM terrorists under Hussein’s security force initiative.
Neo is probably correct that I was thinking of making the Weimar comparison when I was writing the phrase, but I changed my mind when I had to choose the German word. So I wrote a term in the same era, but with different connotations and other issues. The important era in question is before, during, and after the rise of the Third Reich. I can settle for 2/3 if it means not having Weimar as a deadweight anchor. Many people with good brains, have noted that Germany deserved a better nationalist leader than Hitler. They might have produced some humanitarian results rather than things like World War II and the Holocaust. In fact, the Holocaust draining German train logistical resources is probably why Hitler had so much trouble with the Eastern Front. Shipping out Jews was higher priority than shipping weapons and food and winter clothes it seemed.
Maybe people think that with America’s tradition, we’ll get a nationalist leader like Andrew Jackson again. That’s a difficult miracle to pray for, when the people in America have broken their contract with God. I compared the people who voted for Andrew Jackson back then as people who admired Jackson for his virtues, but didn’t have any of Jackson’s virtues but all of his vices. It’s impossible to say that about Trum, since his supposed virtues anyone with a twitter account can do. As for American businessmen, that’s also a dime a dozen.
Prior to World War II, the Wehrmacht strove to remain a purely German force; as such, minorities, such as the Czechs in annexed Czechoslovakia, were exempted from military service after Hitler’s takeover in 1938. Foreign volunteers were generally not accepted in the German armed forces prior to 1941. With the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the government’s positions changed. German propagandists wanted to present the war not as a purely German concern, but as a multi-national crusade against the so-called Jewish-Bolshevism. Hence, the Wehrmacht and SS began to seek out recruits from occupied and neutral countries across Europe: the “Germanic” (as the Nazis defined them) population of the Netherlands and Norway were recruited largely into the SS, while “non-Germanic” people were recruited into the Wehrmacht. The “voluntary” nature of such recruitment was often dubious, especially in the later years of the war, when even Poles living in the Polish Corridor were declared “ethnic Germans” and drafted.[35]
It’s also an unconsciously tweak against the White Nationalist/White Nationalist Christian Alternative Right believers. Since they also like to propaganda stuff themselves up as against “Jewish” Bolshevism, although they call it by other names like Globalism or or the New World Order at Jekyll Island. But just as then as it is now, they will find their resources tasked trying to even pretend to take on Islamic Jihad plus the Leftist alliance, and will eventually go around begging for allies. Just as Trum did with Cruz at the RNC.
It’s highly likely that whatever shenanigans the New World Order of Jekyll Island behind the Federal Reserve or the Soros machine, will crash the global markets if Trum becomes President and refuses to “play ball”.
That’s one of the problems of facing evil, and not just say a Wicked Witch of the West like HRC who you could just boil off the face of this earth to be safe. The Leftist alliance was evil before anyone here knew about Hussein Obola. The Leftist alliance was working their secret combinations of darkness and alliances of evil before anyone here ever heard about the Clintons being in political power.
The Leftist alliance is a global power, even if much of its local operations are in the US since crooks go to where the money is.
And that’s also what I mean by people continue to underestimate the Leftist alliance. If you actually show them that they might lose, by fighting back in DC, they will put the hammer down on the US dollar and it’ll collapse the way the Saudis collapsed the price of crude oil per barrel to sink Fracking.
and once again, Progressive style sanctimony makes its appearance.
The Alternative Right coalition has the best claim on Progressive style sanctimony. Nobody else has been able to contest the Left at their own game, namely that their Might Makes them Right.