The Trump addiction: madder music and stronger wine
.Victor Davis Hanson on Donald Trump’s appeal:
Trump sees his daily bombast as an injection of outrage for a constituency now hooked on someone who finally voices their pent-up anger. The more reckless Trump’s doses of scattergun outrageousness, the better the fix for his supporters.
For quite a while I’ve thought that was one of the reasons nothing Trump has said has given the slightest indication of turning off his supporters, and nothing is likely to do so. The more “outrageous” he becomes, according to the MSM and the 3 people who are planning to vote for Jeb Bush, the more his supporters enjoy it.
One of the many interesting aspects of the Trump phenomenon is that “regular” politicians seem pallid in comparison to him. Their sober, articulate, seemingly well-thought-out answers (I think some are, anyway) don’t send that thrill up (or is it down?) the leg, that frisson that means something exciting is happening, and something else exciting might be happening in just a moment if you stick with it.
The rest of the field? Well, every now and then there’s a joke, but other than that they sound like Teacher giving a lecture on Stuff. Policy, details—who needs it? Let’s have another shot of that Trump adrenaline. I’m not saying that’s the only reason Trump’s supporters are drawn to him—it’s not—but it’s part of it, and it’s part of what keeps people riveted on him and keeps the publicity coming his way. Trump is well aware of this, and keeps it coming, both from his own predilection for that sort of thing and as a tactic.
Obama had a similar galvanizing effect on his constituency, although his outward style appeared very different: professorial, smooth, cerebral, intellectual (or, as it seemed to me, pseudo-intellectual). I seemed to have been immune to his appeal, and I’m equally immune to Trump’s appeal. But I observe them both.
If you’re as old as I am, you remember when the children’s television show “Sesame Street” first came on the air. Younger people may not realize how very different it was from the kids’ shows that had gone before, which had been somewhat low-key and slow-paced. “Sesame Street” was a children’s program on steroids, fast and irreverent, cutting back and forth quickly, and witty enough to keep parents laughing and entertained. Speculation was that the show would help shorten the attention span of the generation that grew up watching it, and I believe it did.
At any rate, something seems to have made us more impatient, or some combination of things: the internet, video games, the prevalence of action movies, texting? A few years ago, for example, I watched a favorite old film, “The Day of the Jackal,” and was surprised at how slow it seemed now. I still love the movie; I think it’s a masterpiece, actually, and that the remake is an abomination. But many people nowadays find the original hard to watch because of how its more leisurely (although IMHO, still suspenseful) pace compares to what we’ve become used to.
And so I observe that, among all his other qualities, one of Trump’s big appeals is that people find him exciting to listen to and to watch. Whatever will he say next?
[NOTE: The title of this post comes from this poem.
And yes, I’m aware that Trump doesn’t drink. The title is a metaphor.]
[NOTE II: By the way, this post is meant to be a reflection on Trump’s style vs. the style of the other candidates, not on the relative merits of their positions. I’ve certainly discussed the latter, too—ad nauseam, perhaps—but that’s not what I’m trying to talk about here. Like it or not, a lot of what draws people to one candidate vs. another is personal style.]
I watched “Bullitt” for the first time. I was eleven at the time of the release and I could not believe how slow it was.
Could not agree more re Trump. Everyone else seems boring and tame by comparison.
That’s why I wrote Carly needs new material. We have heard her six point platform and it got her from zero to three percent. She either moves up now or she is finished. She has to role it out in January. Maybe the next debate.
The OPEC oil tariff is even more compelling now that WTI is $35. Saudi Arabia is killing the US oil industry. Thousands of jobs lost. We can live with $3.00 gas. It is $4.00 plus that hurts. If the Sauds really damage the US oil industry then oil goes back to $120 in 2017. We have got to stop being whipsawed by these ingrates.
Lots of good policy reasons for this but it also taps into America’s distrust and hate of the Muslim culture. Saudi Arabia is a big source of terrorists and supplies money for them. New round of head chopping by the new King coming up. And, of course, they took zero Syrian refugees.
The Green Freeze and Moratorium attacks a sacred cow of the Left. Paris is a joke. And when Obama said global warming caused terrorism, he opened the door for ridicule.
But I doubt Carly will be bold enough to do so.
Trump has now moved into my top three. He looks like he would tear down the existing order and people want that. His Des Moines appearance was like all of his appearances. There is great appeal in no scripted stump speech.
Trump reminds me of a character out of a Paddy Chayefsky play. Over the top and manic, can’t you see him with face deformed uttering Howard Beale’s famous line I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore?
It seems to me we are living in a Paddy Chayefsky world. Our healthcare system devolves into a nightmare scene out of The Hospital while our politics mimic Network.
Trump make this Chayefsky statement oh so real:
Television is democracy at its ugliest.
I see the donald as a combination of bho, howard dean, and P.T. Barnum. Because I am “steeped in the progressive zeitgeist” I still insist trump is an executive order president wannabe who actually has no conservative values.
Just a comment, Neo….
“The Day of the Jackal” is one of my favorite movies too…certainly in the top three.
…something seems to have made us more impatient…
Could it be that we see Western Civilization, and our country, on the edge of collapse? And no one in power seems to get it?
As a known Trump fan, let me try to explain why Trump appeals to me.
GOP candidates are very good at talking conservative on the campaign trail but turn into DC insiders when they get elected. I used to think they were bought by their big donors, but, as Peter Schweizer documents in his books Throw them all out and Extortion, the relationship between the donors and politicians is more complicated. From an Amazon reviewer of “Extortion”:
Trump knows how the system works. He’s had to donate to both sides to buy access and favors. He doesn’t have to bribe anyone; donating to campaign funds is legal and more effective. He has also railed against the system as being unfair to the little guy. Since he isn’t bought and is self-financing, he is seen as a DC outsider who will change the system. If you read Schweizer, you will understand why the political class despises him – he is a threat to their gravy train.
Trump is the one candidate who raised illegal immigration and promised to do something about it. His rhetoric may be over the top, but he is setting out his starting position for negotiating a solution. If you have been impacted by illegal immigration, and millions have, and you want them out of here, then Trump is the man. See, we don’t trust any establishment politician to do anything about it. They had their chances and they blew it.
Trump is the one candidate to talk about the potential Muslim invasion of America, and express a willingness to control it. David Frum has a surprsingly good artcle about the issue in the Atlantic. Once again, we don’t trust our policians to do anything about it (though Jeb has sort of agreed with Trump, now). They are so PC that it only takes one peep out of CAIR and they back-down.
Trump also talks about our trade imbalances. In econmic theory, free trade means that each country sppecializes in the area where it is most efficient, and trade between nations balances out. In practice, the US always seems to lose. The manufacturing powerhouse that won WW2 has gone. Complete industries have disappeared. Some of this is due to bad econmic policy, and some of it is due to unfair trade practices. Trump promises to fix that. He talks about renogiating trade deals, but the real weapon in his arsenal is his tax plan.
Trump has made illegal immigration, Islam, fair trade and taxes election issues.
Can he do what he says? He’ll make about as much progress as Obama has made on his agenda, which will be significant. Can we take him at his word? We can’t take any establishment politician at their word, so we are willing to take the risk.
PatD
I wrote on Power Line about Hillary’s appearance in Council Bluffs. In it she called for new regulations of big non bank financials. I wrote at the time that insurance companies (like Mutual of Omaha) would donate to her campaign just to get out from under her new regulatory scheme. It is extortion and she and Bill have it down to a science.
She is doing the same thing to Pharma and Biotech.
I think a huge part of Trump’s appeal is that, under the bombast, people understand that he actually knows how to rebuild what our politicians have destroyed. And they trust that. They also trust that he is a proud American. Potent combination.
Good comment by PatD.
When Trump started his run, I said “he pisses off all the right people”.
Now they are frothing at the mouth with rage. Good. The professional political class, and their media mouthpieces, needs to be burned to the ground.
If the only thing he does is curb Muslim immigration, he is better than all the other candidates put together.
Trump has more TV exposure than any other candidate. Thanks to the TV networks’ scrambling after audience share. That alone has to be a huge factor in his popularity.
I ask trump supporters to tell me exactly when did trump become a registered gop voter and when did he become a conservative, by any definition of conservative? Was it this past July? Was it during the 2010 congressional races? Or perhaps the 2012 presidential race? Or how about the 2014 congressional races?
trump jumped in the race in July on the immigration/border issue because he realized this was a nerve point of discontent. Why, given his history, didn’t he jump into the democrat nomination race? Was it simply because he was afraid of hrc and decided he would fare better in the gop race? These are questions worth your examination.
Curiously, there are candidates who actually are real conservatives, with a long, and consistent track record. Yet trump supporters jump on the bandwagon of the recently proclaimed ‘reality conservative’ TV star.
It just occurred to me that because of his very popular and long-running TV show, The Apprentice, many Americans feel comfortable with him; they feel they know him, and so can trust him, no matter that he turns on a dime on just about everything. Somewhat comparable with the way Americans were comfortable with Reagan because of his movies and TV shows.
I like to take a view of things from 20,000 ft and it is helpful to look at Donalds positions in this campaign (many were different last time around).
taxes: trump’s tax plan is looks like many others which is not bad, but shows its a topic he is not interested in.
trade: Some over the top comments about getting work back from China and Mexico (not sure how he would do this, no mention of withdrawing from NAFTA or other international agreements) again seems just for show.
defense; Another we’ll be stronger theme. No details
Foreign policy: No real interest just I’ll be a better negotiator
Social Issues: All over the place (perhaps his newly revived presbyterian faith will put some meat on the bones).
Immigration: Nothing other candidates have proposed before him. His wall is already part of existing law as is all the tools to discourage illegals. Vague comments about deport and readmit worthy parties.
So really not much meat on the bone or more properly nothing original.
@parker
“I ask trump supporters to tell me exactly when did trump become a registered gop voter and when did he become a conservative, by any definition of conservative?”
I don’t think Trump supporters give a hoot about what party he supports or is from or whether he is some sort of conservative. They know him as a builder.
You cannot imagine the joy in NYC when Trump reopened Wollman Rink in Central Park.
“NEW YORK November 1, 1986 –
Score one for the Trumpster.
Back in June, when the city’s bungled, six-year effort to renovate the Wollman Ice-Skating Rink in Central Park was $12 million over budget with no end in sight, real-estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped forward.
Just give the project to me, he said, and I’ll finish the rink by Christmas. This Christmas. And for free.
“I have total confidence that we will be able to do it,” Trump said at the time. “I am going on record as saying that I will not be embarrassed.”
Yesterday morning, in a gala ceremony down in the sunken, tree-shrouded gulch just off Central Park South, Trump unveiled his completed rink – the ”largest man-made skating rink in the world,” glistening with a mirror- perfect sheath of virgin ice.
He was two months ahead of schedule, and $750,000 under budget.”
This is what people remember and what people yearn for again.
parker Says:
December 12th, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Who would that be? Ted Cruz, with his connections to Harvard University and Goldman Sachs?
Other than that, I don’t know who you’re talking about.
I just finished Trump’s book, “Crippled America.”
There’s nothing in it that I disagree strongly about. It’s short on policy details, but long on his can do spirit. He is a man of accomplishment, a hard worker, and super-competitive. There is still braggadocio in it, but less obnoxiously so than in his speeches. It reassured me about Trump.
As one friend e-mailed me: “He’s saying all of the things I agree with. I just wish he said them differently and didn’t attack people in such ugly ways. Calling someone stupid is school yard bully stuff. Pointing out their mistakes and pushing for different policies/actions is what I want to see.” Me too.
He is very good at real estate development and the entertainment business. He knows how to organize complex projects and do difficult negotiations. What he’s not so good at is sharing power. And that is an important part of our three part government. Also, as with E. F. Hutton, when the POTUS speaks, people listen. That’s why the POTUS should not “shoot from the lip.” The Donald likes to say outrageous things because it gets him publicity. The POTUS doesn’t need publicity. He needs to measure his words carefully.
All that said, if it is the Donald versus Hillary, I will vote for Trump.
rickl,
Even Chris Christie as a more conservative track record than the donald.
rickl,
And answer at least one of the fooking questions I asked at 5:14.
And, all trumpsters chime in if you believe the donald has no past or present connections with the wall street banks. No one? I thought not.
Irene,
A skating rink in NYC qualifies trump as a conservative? He has a record of espousing very liberal positions, but suddenly he has divorced himself for those positions and pesto chango he is a conservative? On what issues? Abortion? ‘Gun control’? Limited government? Name one, I double dog dare you.
😉
@Parker
“trump jumped in the race in July on the immigration/border issue because he realized this was a nerve point of discontent. Why, given his history, didn’t he jump into the democrat nomination race? Was it simply because he was afraid of hrc and decided he would fare better in the gop race? These are questions worth your examination.”
I think a step was skipped here. Trump didn’t jump into the race just because of the immigration border issue. He’s running for POTUS because he genuinely thinks Washington DC is almost at a point of no return and that he can help the country out of this mess. Yes, one of the top issues being utterly ignored or pooh poohed by the media was out of control immigration and the danger it presents to our constitutional republic. And so, Trump being Trump, started his POTUS run with a big bang. (And I’m very happy he did.)
As for your question whether Trump was afraid of Hillary, that’s kind of off the mark. The issues that Trump is passionate about are not issues that the Democratic Party agree with, so, why wouldn’t he run as a Republican?
Solace for Neo has arrived.
A like at Drudge to Politico story says that John Podesta (of Center for American ‘Progress’) – riding herd on the Dems deepest pocket donors – says Cruz is the most likely to be the Pubbie candidate.
We’ll see. Between Feb in Iowa and mid-March (“Super Tuesday”) we ought to have a good clue.
@parker
“A skating rink in NYC qualifies trump as a conservative?”
Yes, it does. Anybody in construction deals with the real world – not some imaginary construct. Builders aren’t just inherently conservative, they are living conservatism.
Anyway, if you read my post, I specifically said that his supporters couldn’t give two hoots if he was a conservative or not. I posted the Wollman Rink quote to underscore what America is lacking today. Washington couldn’t build a friggin’ website with $2 billion today. Back in ’86 things weren’t so different. That a skating rink was 6 years and $12 million over budget was just unbelievable. And then Trump came in and finished it ahead of schedule and under budget.
You should, perhaps, be a little less concerned about labels like conservative and more concerned about what people have actually done. Trump is not my first pick, but, having been in the construction industry at a very high level, I have enormous (and I mean ENORMOUS) respect for what he’s done.
Trump is attitude. That’s all his supporters are willing to consider right now, so arguments don’t make a dent. We’ll just have to hope that if his invincibility is punctured, as today’s poll from Iowa shows it might be, that he can be derailed.
With Trump as with Obama, it’s misleading to look to the man as the source. Neither initiated nor even lead a movement. They ride it. Look at the movement first, then the man.
The difference between the two is Obama is of the movement. He is avatar, representative, agent. That gives Obama an element of predictability that Trump lacks because it’s murky whether Trump is of the movement in the way that Obama is or merely hooked onto it opportunistically.
@Parker
“And, all trumpsters chime in if you believe the donald has no past or present connections with the wall street banks. No one? I thought not.”
This is so stupid I don’t know where to begin. Of course Trump deals with banks – and not just Wall Street banks, but banks all over the world. He’s in the construction industry, after all.
But there is a huge difference between someone financing their projects using banks and corrupt association with, say, Goldman Sachs a la Obama and Hillary Clintons, neither of whom have contributed one iota to wealth creation in this country.
If you have a link to Trump having been corrupted by Wall Street banks or accepting money from them, please provide a link.
jvermeer: “Trump is attitude.”
Trump is a contrast.
A vote against something is worth the same as a vote for something.
J.J. The attribute you are looking for in a President is the ability to pick the right people and delegate responsibility to them. Trump has proven he can do that in his business dealings.
Its so stupid you don’t know where to begin? You actually believe trump is pure as the driven snow and has no taint of corruption? I will be polite by not calling you stupid, but instead suggect the adjective naive. And, again answer one of the fooking questions. Exactly when did the donald renounce his very liberal past persona?
BTW, I can understand a 13 year old screaming at a Beatle performance in 1965. Supporting trump as the anti-DC establishment candidate is a horse of a different color.
the Other Chuck:
When I wrote that something seems to have made us more impatient, the context was a general discussion of a societal/cultural/psychological change over time, and it has nothing to do with either Trump or politics. It’s something I noticed many years ago, and it’s been gradually increasing..
Ann:
A little detail—Reagan had also served as governor of California. He had lots of real experience in governing, completely unlike Trump. Also, by the time Reagan was running for president, his acting days were long over, and a great many voters had never seen him in that role. In addition, Reagan was a very articulate conservative spokesperson whose conservative bona fides were strong.
Couldn’t be more different than Trump, who not only has no experience in governance, but who has talked out of both sides of his mouth politically for decades. He is known as a showman and a self-aggrandizing blowhard. People are attracted to his anger and (as I wrote in the post) the excitement he brings to what he says. He is sensational, in the sense of engendering intense sensations and emotions. Madder music and stronger wine.
General societal impatience, a kind of NYC atmosphere of people in a hurry spread nationwide? Along with that goes the much commented upon increasingly short attention span. Yes, I see your point that it transcends politics.
@Parker
“Exactly when did the donald renounce his very liberal past persona?”
I never said he did. For the second time, I said his supporters don’t care if he’s conservative or not. They care about his results.
And I didn’t say Trump was as pure as the driven snow, but compared to our politicos, he doesn’t come close.
So where are those links about his collusion or corruption with banks that even comes close to Hillary?
Will one trump supporter answer just one simple question: why should anyone believe the donald has any alligence to core conservative, flyover country principles such as limited government, the 2nd, abortion, etc. And, please do not state he is in favor of “the little guy” on Main Street. Otherwise I will have to conclude you are a 13 year old girl wetting your panties at a Fab 4 performance. Sorry to be crude, but then you support a crude seller of snake oil. Yet, you dare talk in a derogatory manner about the bho zombies.
You are not the ones we have been waiting for. trump has not foresaken his past ultra liberal mindset. To believe otherwise is to pledge your faith that he can turn water into wine as he walks across water.
Irene,
You care about results in the world of mega million real estate deals. I am concerned with the security of my country and my right to keep and bear arms. Pardon me, if based on his position pre 7/15 if I fail to believe trump is suddenly a supporter of my intrinsic rights. Fine, believe what you wish to believe. Yet, you give no assurances, based upon his past, that anyone should believe trump means anything he spouts when it comes to real, core conservative principles. Go ahead, support trump, that is your right, but do not expect others to swallow the bait or regurgitate the bullshit.
And still, you refuse to answer the fooking question. 😉
@Parker
Why would you write such disgusting generalizations about Trump supporters?
Irene,
Look up your own links. And look into the donald’s past positions on a host of conservative issues while you are at it. I am not going to do your due diligence for you. I am not neo. I am far less polite, gentle, or willing to explain what, if your eyes were open, is right in front of your face. Please pardon my microaggressions.
AND, asnwer the fooking question.
@Parker: Saying you are conservative is not the same as implementing conservative policies. The GOP has been great at the former and abysmal at the latter. The “conservative” label is meaningless when applied to most GOP congress critters.
@Neo-neocon: Governing is a branch of management. Most of those governing us are more interested in power and the wealth that gets them reelected rather than governing. Actually solving a problem would reduce their opportunities to extort donations from industries threatened by their deliberate meddling.
Trump has proven himself a superb manager, delegator and negotiator. He has learned a lot about government from the other side, especially how corrupt, inefficient and incompetent most of it is. Of course Trump has talked out of both sides of his mouth when it made business sense to do so. In heavily Democrat NYC, you have to walk like a Democrat, talk like a Democrat…Since he started his run, he has been mostly consistent in his positions.
Reagan was unique and a great President. He made a couple of bad mistakes – the Iran-Contra deal, and amnesty. The latter is what is destroying his legacy in California, as VDH ably documents. There is no match for him on our political horizon, unfortunately.
Trump is a different kettle of fish. He isn’t in it for the money. His ego is driving him to do this because he thinks he can use his skills and experience to “make America Great again”. He has to survive a long campaign and an onslaught of attacks from both sides, and the media. If he gets to the RNC convention, just down the street from us, as it happens, he will have down something unique. If he flames out, at least he will have at least put some important issues up for debate.
Irene,
If you wish to refuse to answer the fooking question, do not expect others to accept your misdirection. And disgusting? What is more disgusting? Bho or djt? You seem to be seeking a savior, much like those who put bho on the throne. I do not seek a savior to sit upon the executive order throne. I seek a rational, well informed person, with a philosophy (yes out in flyover country we have political philosophies) that understands individual liberty, the right to life and the means to defend it, and the pursuit of happiness, and the possibility of failure.
@Parker
For the third time, I am not claiming that Trump is a conservative, and I don’t think his supporters care about that. Why is that such a problem for you to understand or accept?
As for due diligence, I’ve lived in Manhattan since the 70s, and everything about Trump is reported here. He’s a guy that lives larger than most, aims higher than most, and usually succeeds. But he’s also a guy who lost big time and had to rebuild. The fact that he did says a lot too.
And that wasn’t a microaggression, sir. Where I come from, what you wrote was beyond bad manners.
Over and out.
Neo:
I didn’t mean that Reagan and Trump had anything at all in common other than the public’s familiarity with them.
Reagan kept up his TV/acting work until the 1965-1966 season of Death Valley Days. He first ran for the presidential nomination in 1976. So only 10 years away from being in everyone’s living room, which would mean most of the people who voted for him had a fairly recent impression of him, even if they weren’t familiar with his time as Calif. governor.
PatD,
Answer the fooking question. 😉 I think you, and other trump supporters are sincere, but again answer the fooking question. Trump is, like the sun king, in it for himself. Like bho he looks in the mirror and sees god. And if you think trump will rule any differently than the sun king…. well, I think you are mistaken. I am tired and disgusted with imperial presidents. I want the rule of law, not the rule of men/women. Trump, like the sun king, is not so inclined. You are free to believe otherwise as is Irene.
Irene:
Most people outside New York probably aren’t aware of the ice rink thing. In New York, it may be a big part of why Trump’s supporters like Trump, but I don’t think it has much valence outside NY.
Why is that a problem? It is straying from classical liberal (now deemed conservative principles) that has created the dangers we now face. Over and out indeed, you lack the most basic understanding of what are the founding principles and how we got where we are today: a potential race between hrc and djt. A choice between evil or evil. Count me out if that comes to pass.
Ann:
Reagan ran in 1976, but didn’t get very far. We’re really talking about his very successful run in 1980, which was approximately 15 years after he stopped acting. That’s a long time in political years. Nor was everyone in America watching Death Valley Days. The height of his film career was even earlier.
In 1980, I knew Reagan had been an actor but I was hardly familiar with him as an actor. I’m not at all sure I’d ever seen anything he’d done as an actor. I was no child then, either. So, a lot of people knew he had been an actor, and some had seen him. But Trump has been seen on TV by a LOT more people, and a lot more close in time to his presidential run.
parker:
I think that Trump supporters who call themselves conservative are not conservatives. They may be populists on the right, or something like that, but they are not conservatives.
I also remember quite well the election of 1980. Most people of voting age knew Reagan from both his TV and movie career even though it had ended in 1966; they had either witnessed that career first-hand or they saw him on re-runs and in old movies shown on TV. I knew lots of Democrats who voted for him, and it wasn’t because they particularly liked or even really understood well his politics. But they trusted him because they “knew” him.
Ann:
I’m not sure how old you are, but the people I knew who were my contemporaries had only a very vague notion of who he’d been as an actor, although they certainly knew (as I did) that he had been an actor. In general, it was older people of my parents’ generation who remembered him more specifically as an actor. And I also remember that a lot of those people did not have warm feelings from that; in fact, they mocked him as a B-movie-type of actor. Bedtime for Bonzo.
We obviously knew different people.
@Parker, neo-neocon. I don’t care what his “conservative” credentials are. As almost every GOP candidate has demonstrated, in the last few election cycles, such credentials are worthless. Nothing conservative ever gets done.
Trump has staked out conservative positions on a number of issues, such as illegal immigration and Muslim immigration, that are important to this conservative. He has single-handedly put these issues on the table. He gets things done on a grand scale. He shatters all the PC conventions that have hamstrung consideration of the issues that face this nation. Rude, crude and insulting as he may be, he brings passion and patriotism to the race.
Well, neo, I am immune from infection of the populist emotive id disease, I have (unlike you) only so much patience with populists. Be they Irene or PatD. In Iowa the democrat base is largely composed of knee jerk prairie populists; the “this land is your’s idiots”. On the right we have the evangelical populists. Its hard to make a stand in Iowa outside those two close minded stances. I have jumped on the Cruz bandwagon, although he appeals to the evangelicals, because I think he will uphold the rule of law, aka the Constitution. I supported Gringrich in 2012 caucus, I hope I am not supporting another loser this time around.
Pat D,
Once again (sheesh) answer the fooking question! When did trump renounce his previous left wing principles? When did he become a conservative on immigration/border control? Was it 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, or July, 2015? Why can not you and all the trumpsters answer this fundamental question? And, when did your savior change his mind (not even expecting sincerity) on his position on abortion, the 2nd, or out of control DC? When?!?
Ala Irene, where are your links…. you have none. Don’t expect me to do your due diligence. I am not neo. My give a damn is busted. My patience lasts a few moments. Basically, you are a part of the problem, not a solution.
PatD:
Let’s take a few of your points, one by one:
You write: “I don’t care what [Trump’s] ‘conservative’ credentials are. As almost every GOP candidate has demonstrated, in the last few election cycles, such credentials are worthless. Nothing conservative ever gets done.”
My translation of your message: Those who can articulate clear conservative principles have not been able to somehow magically wave a wand and get them done when conservatives don’t control either the presidency or Congress. Therefore it makes perfect sense to elect someone who has for most of his life espoused a combination of conservative and liberal positions, with no rhyme or reason to which he chooses, and who still espouses some liberal positions, because HE will surely get conservative things done if he were elected. He’s much more likely to get conservative things done than someone like Cruz—who has stuck to almost 100% conservative credentials and statements for his entire life—would.
Does that make sense? Not to me.
You write: “Trump has staked out conservative positions on a number of issues, such as illegal immigration and Muslim immigration, that are important to this conservative. He has single-handedly put these issues on the table.”
My comment: I have heard this myth of “only Trump has spoken out against illegal immigration and unchecked Muslim immigration.” It is a myth, as I have said before in comments and in posts, putting up the evidence of what several other candidates said on the subject prior to Trump even getting in the race.
Just as an example, Ted Cruz has been working in the Senate and introducing bills there on the subject.
For example, see this (datelined 10/29/2013):
See also this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and there are lots more, too.
Over two years ago, the El Paso Times wrote this about Cruz’s call for—guess what?—a border fence.
Cruz does the work; Trump opens his mouth and gets the credit. And back in 2012, this is what Trump was saying—supporting a path to citizenship, calling Romney and other Republicans “mean-spirited” on immigration.
You write: “[Trump] gets things done on a grand scale. He shatters all the PC conventions that have hamstrung consideration of the issues that face this nation.”
My reaction: That may wash in the world of real estate development, which is a very different world than government, a world in which Trump has no influence or experience except for his experience in buying political influence with his money.
parker:
See this.
Don’t know why Neo is being so unfair to Jeb! The Bush clan is quite large. Im sure there’s a couple of dozen people that would vote for him.
Not to attempt to out neo, neo, but she has done, as is typical, due diligence. Irene, rickl, PatD, and other trump chumps; are you not chastised? No you are not, you are like bho zombies, to the detriment of us all. Skating rinks don’t flyover flyover country. Get outside your coastal safety zones and learn how the people who put food on your table and provide the electricity that turns on the switch. Bottom line, we don’t need you, you need us. One day you will rue the day you saw us as flyover.
Neo,
Already aware of the donald’s efforts to undermine Romney. Too bad the trump chumps have drunk the kool-aid. Again, you are the patient one, willing to do the work that they are unwilling to do. Me, I am old and have very limited patience and do no suffer fools for more than a few minutes (at most).
@neo-neocon: Having fun yet? 🙂
Conservatives have not been able to stem the progressive tide for generations. Reagan halted it for eight glorious years, but the progressive pay-back was eight years of Clinton and eight years of Obama. Clinton at least compromised and didn’t send the nation into a downward death spiral. Obama has mortally wounded us and the GOP stood by. Obama doubled the national debt. The house is supposed to hold the purse-strings of the nation, yet the debt now exceeds $21 trillion dollars. That is $60,000 dollars for every person, not family, in this country.
You should really read “Extortion”. It will open your eyes.
The GOP controlled the house, after the 2010 mid-terms, and the senate as well, after the 2014 mid-terms. They were supposed to be conservative. They were supposed to stop Obama’s progressive agenda. They failed dismally, Ted Cruz included.
Do you think Ted Cruz would be more successful in an executive position? I sorta like him, but I’m weirded out by his evangelical background. This anointed king stuff is really strange. Shakespeare talks about Kings being anointed by God, so his father is hearking back centuries when he anoints his son as a King.
Cruz has been a politician for most of his adult life. He has espoused conservative positions for the duration.
Trump has been a politician for a few months.
He has at least been kind enough to lay out his political principles in “Crippled America”. Before that, he was a businessman based in NYC who contributed to the campaigns of politicians on both sides of the aisle, including losers like McCain and Romney. Of course he doesn’t look like a traditional conservative.
Can Cruz get things done? Maybe.
Can Trump get things done? Yes.
Can Trump get conservative things done, like sealing the border? Yes.
Can Trump get control of immigration? Yes. I’m pretty familiar with the impact of H-1B visas on the IT industry. Trump says raise the minimum wage of H-1B visa entrants a lot. Companies that import cheap labor from overseas will have to look to American STEM graduates instead.
Did Cruz turn illegal immigration into an election issue? Did he go out and say that rapists and murderers and drug dealers were crossing our borders? Did he do it on national television and not back down? He wrote some letters and made some speeches in the Senate. Good for him. When he announced his candidacy, he didn’t even mention Illegal Immigration. There is the usual GOP boilerplate about “secure the border” in the fine print, but nothing in his speech. If Cruz was so hot for a border fence, why wasn’t that front and center when he announced? And he was only for a fence. A wall trumps a fence, don’t you think?
Real estate development across the world is a complex business with huge amounts of government interaction. Mostly, it tells you how government gums up the works with politicians on both sides demanding tribute. He knows how that works. As Peter Schweizer ably demonstrates in “Extortion”, politicians spend an inordinate amount of time extracting tribute from corporations. Trump knows this and doesn’t much like it.
Cruz, today.
Cruz, before.
Talk about a consistent conservative.
“In 1980, I knew Reagan had been an actor but I was hardly familiar with him as an actor. I’m not at all sure I’d ever seen anything he’d done as an actor.”
I’m surprised, neo. I’m very close to your age – within a year or two and I believe I’m actually younger. I can remember when I was a little kid the “win one for the Gipper” scene from “Knute Rockne, All-American” was legendary although it wasn’t shown much on TV. And “Death Valley Days” was a fairly popular show of the time, though Reagan didn’t really act in it but rather hosted. He had previously hosted another popular TV show, “GE Theater”. Reagan of course was not of Gable/Bogart stature but he was something more than an obscure bit player.
I have been wondering why people think Trump is qualified. The comments here are somewhat helpful. I didn’t know the ice-skating rink story, and I can see the appeal there.
However, it doesn’t seem to me that successfully completing a construction project is at all similar to being the president of the country. Apparently Trump and his supporters share a delusion with Obama and his supporters, the notion that the president is in charge of everything and can order everyone around so that things happen. This is not the way it works. The president is called the chief executive, but his role is not the least bit similar to the CEO of a company.
For this reason, I find this very puzzling:
“people understand that he actually knows how to rebuild what our politicians have destroyed”
What is being referred to here? Our politicians have destroyed quite a few things — most notably the economy and our standing as a world power. Bringing the economy back to life is going to take a very serious understanding of economic principle, economic policy, and an ability to patiently explain to a whole lot of people, including the public, why these principles and policies will work and what can and cannot be fixed. Does that sound like Trump? It doesn’t to me. This is a man who is used to being able to ACT whenever he wants to. He does not strike me as the least bit patient. When it comes to foreign policy, which is quickly becoming an even bigger issue than our economic woes, the president must find a way to blend diplomacy and military might in a way that is suitable to the changing nature of warfare. The national security challenge has never been greater. Does Trump know anything at all about such challenges? Does he even understand what the challenges would be? Or does he really imagine that it’s a matter of “making a deal” with other world leaders?
The polling trend is following the prediction I made — right here at neo neocon some months back.
Trump’s problem is getting elected. I’m still of the opinion that HRC has PLENTY of ammo that they figure to unload on Donald Trump.
HRC and crew only became concerned about Donald within the last TEN DAYS.
Suddenly, they realized, too late, that Trump has teflon skin — just like Reagan and 0Bomba.
They have also — decided that Cruz is their nightmare.
They wanted to run against Bush — and that canary has died.
Rubio is NOT ready for prime time. The HRC team sees plenty of reason to discount him.
Rubio has yet to pick up the deep pockets.
Instead, the money is flowing to Ted Cruz, where it can really do some good.
Ted is HRC’s nightmare because there is not a whole lot of damaging sound bites to work with.
He is attractive to female voters.
Indeed, ISIS looks to be backing anybody but Hillary right now.
With every passing day, we’re hearing of the immense strides taken by ISIS to assassinate European politicians and large crowds.
We’re also learning that the San Bernadino jihadis intended to raise a LOT more Hell than they did.
It’s strongly implied that they were off to school to conduct Beslan II. It was for that op that they needed all of the pipe bombs.
&&&&&
We must pray that the FBI stops blabbing every detail across the WWW and airwaves.
We are at war and the authorities are coughing up way too much information.
@Parker: Every time you use the word “fooking”, my opinion of you has gone down by 20%. I suspect I am not alone.
“societal impatience” Well, I guess I’m just out of step with “society”. It took my wife and I thirteen years to build our first house, doing all the work ourselves. We paid for it as we went along. The second one took about the same, – again, doing all the work ourselves. I built my own airplane from a kit, and that took 27 years from start to finish. (Of course building the second house delayed that project a bit.) After the house was finished, I planted an orchard and had to wait 5-7 years before tasting the first fruit. Tonight I pulled the cork on my first bottle of peach wine, which had to age for 18 months. (It was yummy!)
So “society” might be in a hurry, but there are still a few of us “crazies” willing to wait a while for a good thing.
@ blert 1:54PM Excellent.
I see Hilary in Omaha this Wednesday.
Ask her if she’s going to give special tax breaks to Mutual of Omaha.
Ted Cruz’s response to Trump calling him a MANIAC
Funny guy … if the womyn vote for him he has a chance but … he’s short and has a squeeky voice and, that is … a no no.
blert Says:
December 13th, 2015 at 1:54 pm
He [Cruz] is attractive to female voters.
Hmmm… I don’t read it that way.
But he can be a funny guy
Spread the word…
The 19th amendment was a disaster ….
G6loq:
You are repeating your incorrect statements. You wrote almost exactly the same thing re women and their support for Cruz about a week ago, here:
Here’s what you just wrote in the comment right above mine on this thread: “if the womyn vote for [Cruz] he has a chance but … he’s short and has a squeeky voice and, that is … a no no.”
I replied to you a week ago when you wrote the first comment. Apparently you ignored it, or perhaps you just like to say the same thing over and over again without making an effort to substantiate it in any way.
I’ll repeat what I wrote back then in reply to you:
ConceptJunkie,
I entirely agree. Each time I read a long Parker post asserting that those of us favoring Trump are not conservative, I then see that very slightly disguised word.
And I re-decide that a genuine conservative as I have known them (and been) all my life doesn’t employ foul language as a club. In my experience, that is the province of the left.
Neo, I also take exception to your blanket statement that people supporting Trump are not conservatives. While I am sure that is true for some, my conservative bonafides are real. However, as you may recall, I support Trump not because I believe he is conservative (though I hope he may accomplish some good if elected) but because the Republican Party, having given up representing conservative values, must end. And I hope Trump can be the means to that end.
I realize from your several posts on this that you still believe that the Republican Party is a valid conservative option. However having seen them (amongst a number of similar examples) pull funding to subvert Cuccinelli due to his whiff of tea party, I am through with them, and look forward to them joining the Whigs in the history book.
This country needs a *real* Conservative party and option, which cannot exist while the GOPe lives. I value Trump as the wrecking ball.
I should add that if I could elect Cruz all on my own, I would. There are lots of reasons to support him, but he would have my vote on the basis of Heller alone.
But IMO he is not electable. Even without squeaky voice issues (smile), the GOPe would squash him as they rush to support HRC (preferable to them over Cruz) in oh-so-deniable ways. IMO, Trump is electable and the GOPe has shown they can’t lay a glove on him.So bring the wrecking ball.
Here’s the last two paras of today’s NYT piece on Paul Ryan (isn’t he a conservative)?
Note the waffling – “and it’s LIKE the world is on fire.” No Mr. Ryan. The world IS on fire – you’re just pretending it’s not. (I will only mention in passing the numerous lies one must say to oneself to claim that wages are only stagnating.)
And the last quote perfectly encapsulates how the Republicans marginalize people such as Tea Partiers and Trump supporters.
It’s clear with this NYT article Ryan is trying to rehabilitate his standing with liberals. He’ll be another Boehner – or worse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/politics/paul-ryan-says-inclusive-house-agenda-must-counter-polarizing-campaign.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
“There is this real, palpable anxiety in the country” fueled by stagnant wages and slow economic growth, Mr. Ryan said, “and then you turn on the TV and you see ISIS, you see San Bernardino and you see all these security threats, and it’s like the world is on fire.”
At the same time, “we have to make sure populism doesn’t trump individual rights,” he said. “It’s a distraction to prey on fears.”
OriginalFrank:
You may have conservative bona fides, but I repeat that anyone who supports Trump is not a conservative. Conservatives, for example, have long mocked that “electable” argument, and yet here many people who call themselves conservative suddenly abandon it and use it to describe Trump. They don’t generally cite any polls or other evidence to prove it, they merely assert it as a tautology. Those two things—the inconsistency of mocking an argument and then using that argument when it seems convenient, and making a statement such as “Trump is electable” without supporting it with evidence, those are not “conservative” ways of arguing. That’s a feeling-based, shifting weathervane type of approach.
Conservatives are—or they used to be, anyway—about process, not ends justifies the means. They also are/were about backing up statements with facts. I don’t see much of that in Trump’s supporters.
Conservatives also used to talk about character. “If he cheats on his wife, he’ll cheat on his oath of office.” Well, Trump has cheated on wives. He’s a narcissistic braggart, a puffed-up self-obsessed man who thinks he’s better at everything than everyone else, and who uses insults (and juvenile insults at that) to attack his Republican rivals. All of those things used to be anathema to conservatives. But they’re okay when Trump does them. Actual conservatives would not find that to be the case.
I would respect Trump supporters more if they backed up their assertions that Trump is the most electable Republican with some sort of evidence. All the polls I’ve seen show him doing worse against Hillary than most of the other Republicans. Of the major Republican candidates, Trump does worse in polls than the rest of them in a match-up against Clinton, not better. Rubio does the very best against Clinton, and has consistently done best over time. Carson is right behind him, although fading lately. Trump is worst, Cruz is slightly better than Trump, and Christie and Bush are slightly better than Cruz. The clear frontfunner, as I said, is Rubio. So if you’re talking “electable,” Rubio is the only one who consistently leads Hillary Clinton.
If you care about electability, then Rubio’s your man. If you want the most conservative person, it would be Cruz, and Cruz does better against Hillary than Trump.
Irene:
Actually, “it’s like the world is on fire” is correct. The world is not literally on fire. It is a metaphor, and “like” or “as if” is the appropriate construction.
If Ryan had said “the world is on fire,” most people would have understand the word “like” to be implied.
Trump just burnished his conservative cred, Saturday in South Carolina:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/12/trump-chief-justice-roberts-a-disgrace/
That’s exactly what I want to hear because both statements are true.
AGAIN, neo, isn’t is more than a little early to worry a lot about Trump’s “likability?” 90% of the US doesn’t even notice the candidates until August and September…NEXT year!
Trump is a TV celeb and can air mail in likeability – not that I can speak from being an “Apprentice” fan, because I’m not one – but we all know from the Reagan era how much the art of persuasion matters, when it matters.
ConceptJunkie,
Okay, but also, answer the _______ question. Every time you fail to answer the _______ question my opinion of you drops 10,000 %. Answer the question or play games. Oh, and ____ ___.
And, you trumpsters, like your one you have been waiting for, have paper thin skins. If you get what you wish and hrc sits on bho’s executive order throne will you admit the error of your ways. No, did not think so.
Orson:
Oh, wow, Trump throws conservatives some rhetorical Roberts meat and suddenly he’s a conservative?
Count me underwhelmed. It’s been sort of a no-brainer to be against Roberts ever since at least the Obamacare decision. Why on earth would any Republican be for him? I’m not aware of even any moderate Republicans having good things to say about Roberts, post-Obamacare.
Trump knows exactly what you want to hear, and he’s going to give it to you, whether he believes it or not. In the case of Justice Roberts, I happen to think Trump believes it—as do most of the candidates.
And what are you talking about, “likability”? What makes you think I’m discussing “likability”? I didn’t use the word, nor did I discuss it or “worry” about it.
Neo,
You seem to revel in ascribing correct motives to Trump not in evidence: “It’s been sort of a no-brainer to be against Roberts,” you casually dismiss.
But this is something that’s eluded half the Pubbie field, at least. And fewer still uphold Clarence Thomas as the true paragon of their lot. (The Left HATES Thomas as much as we love to hate the MSM.)
I’m more likely to find Rubio’s endorsement of the same (if I recall correctly) suspect – because of his ‘Gang of 8’ RINO leadership and constituent betrayal on immigration.
My negative Rubio assessment is rooted in points, as well as the visceral evidence of what does or does not animate him. And is, therefore, a sounder inference, I think – and cannot be dismissed as a questionable attribution.
It’s true that I – like many – admire Trump’s communicative skills and peerless counter MSM agenda-setting acumen. Somehow his narcissistic and egotistical ‘tool’-driven character disqualifies him from counting those skills towards his, whereas I find it simply an admirably useful political asset.
For me, I simply have to be practical and accept that the wonkier and less populist Cruz has tougher sledding ahead – and, yes, accept the uncomfortable fact that Trump’s track record as upholding conservative positions in public is brief and fast evolving on the stump – which is a predictable weakness for any non-politician running for POTUS (cf, Herman Cain in 2012).
However, in the spirit of mutualism, let me point out the current WashPost story (linked via Drudge) on Cruz’ campaign employing of behavioral and narrow psych voter targeting, getting credit for his brand new Iowa polling ascent.
And the “EXCLUSIVE interview” at Breitbart of Cruz, with some long, containing likable extracts from Cruz himself. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/12/exclusive-ted-cruz-lays-out-pathway-to-national-victory-on-grassroots-strength-reassemble-that-old-reagan-coalition/
Back to your reply to me, quoting Neo: “…what are you talking about, ‘likability’? What makes you think I’m discussing ‘likability’?”
True – as you’ve point out, you didn’t baldly use the term ‘likability.’ But I think that’s my fair inference from the objection you raised to Trump, here:
If ‘electable’ and ‘likable’ are not often understood as closely related – and often as synonyms in the great American political handicapping game (based on statistically associated electoral victories) – then I don’t know what they are.
To put my basic objection to your objections of Trump as a ‘not conservative’ differently, I’d say that you insist on upholding a rigid and uniform definition of ‘conservative,’ which is much too severe to be helpful in identifying all political conservatives in general, and in a newly declared pol in particular.
Instead, I favor a traditional, anti-ideological definition of ‘conservative.’ And thus a checklist of currently accepted conservative positions is a valuable place to begin establishing a candidate’s bone fides as one.
To add one or two more to the lot, consider yet another one from Trump’s hourlong Saturday interview with South Carolina Attorney General Wilson:
(SOURCE: Miami Herald)
Again, I’m sure this too is anodyne for you, neo.
I could count down the complete check list of conservative positions Trump takes (others here already have), and find some sketchiness there. But pretty soon we’re in the “if it quacks like a duck” territory, then it’s a duck! – or a conservative.
I find Trump’s ‘quacking’ like a conservative sufficient enough to qualify him as a conservative of recent vintage.
I, too, see merits in older vintage preference – it’s an indicator or some kind of reliability (not that it helped McCain or Romney to actually be one in the clutch). And thus, I see this objection as the best one to disqualify Trump. But it’s still an awfully sweeping and simplistic one to turn out a league-leading newbie with.
“If you care about electability, then Rubio’s your man. If you want the most conservative person, it would be Cruz, and Cruz does better against Hillary than Trump.”
Rubio can never be my man – his support for mass immigration / legalization is anathema, and I see him as a wholly-captured member of GOPe. My view is that if the immigration issue is not fixed pronto, no other issues will matter (soon). So that leaves Trump and Cruz as options, each of whom has recent ‘deathbed conversion’ issues in this area, of course.
Cruz *currently* appears better than Trump against HRC, but that will not last past the primaries. I say ‘appears’ since the polls are poor proxies for actual electability since they are managed – by and large – by the MSM which is a primary control tool of the left. Once the GOPe – as a part of the leftist elite running the show today – turns their fire on him as the nominee, Cruz will sink since he has not shown himself proficient at getting his message out against hostile incoming fire.
Re: providing you with evidence supporting my position re:electability, I am not trying to persuade you or other n-n readers to support Trump. If you wish to believe I am operating from unsupported emotion, so be it – my eye is sufficiently jaundiced when it comes to polls that I assign small credence to them. I am simply telling you what I perceive. Forecasting, if you will. And I am fine with events themselves doing the persuading as either Cruz loses or Trump wins. Let’s revisit this after the general election.
One other point – yes, as conservatives, I will accept that we traditionally have valued process over results, and that is characteristic of the manner in which the founders saw us living in the republic they bequeathed us. However, it is clear to me that TWANLOC (see Wretchard @Belmont Club if this is not a familiar term) have demonstrated that this approach to politics has utterly failed. TWANLOC have seized every political height, and will complete their destruction of this country if another leftist/Marxist is elected. Those of us who see things this way (and though I find many admirable and perceptive writings in your blog from many years of reading it, I do not see you there) must either accept more results-in-our-process or continue to see the end approach with a ‘well, at least I followed the process’ sentiment. I think you can see that, given my take on this, that I am in the former group. As a veteran, I see nothing in my oath that offers a conservative the option of adherence to process over allegiance to the constitution.
AND, the news reports this morning show Our Boy Ted ahead of Trump in Iowa. Mt wife, daughter and daughter-in-law like Cruz, so this large statistical population shows that women do like Ted. We have been Cruz supporters for seven years.
Previous positions on immigration reflect the exigencies of political reality. In private conversations, he expresses complete understanding of the immigration issue, both H1B and unskilled Third World permanent dependents.
A problem with an evangelical background? I seriously doubt that Carter’s Evangelical background impaired his judgement. Evangelicals are about a quarter of the American population. I rather strongly suspect that the Leftist Media’s efforts to defame Evangelicals and Catholics have been amazingly effective.
Here’s a question, nominally related to Mr. Trump insofar as originating in a response to him: Was Sen. Cruz’s Flash Dance “Maniac” riposte primarily a signal communicating “Despite what you may hear regarding my religious faith, I am not a prude.”? All while edging in sideways “Here, b’s and g’s, enjoy an artistic (i.e., tasteful) touch of T&A.” Seems like it, anyhow.
OriginalFrank:
I certainly did not expect my arguments to change your mind.
I merely was pointing out that it’s Rubio who is “electable,” and if THAT is your criterion he should be your man. I had virtually no doubt that he would be unacceptable to you, and I knew why he would be unacceptable to you.
I don’t expect any logic to appeal to Trump supporters, either, who have an answer for everything. If the polls don’t support what they say, then the polls will change. Trump is The One. Hope and Change. I get it.
No doubt that sounds uncharacteristically snarky. I don’t mean it to be. It reflects my deeply-held perception, borne of reading many many many statements by Trump supporters (not just what you wrote, or even primarily what you wrote), and I see the exact same faulty reasoning and emotional cult of personality working with them as was working with Obama supporters. Although Trump’s style and message are different, the attraction is very very similar, and just as irrational and misplaced, IMHO.
Orson:
Most of the Republican field is against Roberts, particularly the major candidates. This is just one discussion about it.
And no, if I cite polls, that is not about “likability.” It is about “electability.” Different things. Likability apparently is one characteristic that people consider when choosing a candidate, but hardly the only one. Trump has very large unfavorables, for example. Is that the same as “likability”? No, but it can be connected.
I’ve noticed that many Trump supporters seem to believe in unsupported myths. He’s electable. He’s likable. Perhaps he will end up being those things, but so far I haven’t seen evidence for it, and I’ve seen evidence against it. So why should I believe it? Then again, I’m not a Trump supporter. But I am interested in facts.
“I see the exact same faulty reasoning and emotional cult of personality working with them as was working with Obama supporters. Although Trump’s style and message are different, the attraction is very very similar, and just as irrational and misplaced, IMHO. ”
Perhaps you are right, and you understand my own motivations and heart better than I do myself. It’s possible though I consider it unlikely. But I will note that I find Trump’s style grating and am also annoyed by his apparently shallow positions (shallow since his changes seem too fast to reflect a reasoned process, as yours did) so it’s not a personality-pull for me. And I am not about to start singing Trump campaign songs, nor line up kindergartners in uniform t-shirts to do the same. To me, Trump is a tool (pun intended) who may serve to accomplish a needed political realignment.
Trying to base my conclusions on externalities (that is, external to myself), my take is that, yes, we DO need a gamechanger. (That, after all, is intended to be the purpose of elections, correct?) Conservatives have been playing safe ball for decades, and losing each time we have the field.
So whether it is Cruz or Trump, we need that hope. And change. See, you were right all along. 😉
OriginalFrank:
Of course, you may not fit that mold. I believe most Trump supporters do, however, in fact the vast majority.
I just don’t see why anyone would trust a person who continually twists the truth, is narcissistic, and has supported so many liberal causes. Or why a person would think that Trump, who polls so poorly against Hillary, would beat her. It seems to be a sort of hysteria to me, a reaction to the trauma of dealing with the GOP “establishment” all these years.
It reminds me of this, sad to say:
I’ll tell you one thing, though. If Trump ends up with the nomination, I hope I’m wrong about him. Because I think he would lose, and Hillary would be a disaster. And if he wins, I hope I’m wrong about him. Because I think he would be a disaster.
g6log,
You insult my conservative wife of 47 years, my daughter of 43 years, my daughter inlaws, my aunts (dead or alive), and my grandmothers who are all dead. You piss on their graves or their living honor with your blather. I take that seriously, beyond your feeble imagination.
Let me know where I can meet you to settle this matter of honor. You choose the weapon or no weapon at all. No bullshit, Let the chips fall where they may. BTW, a rural area in the 48.
Reply or shut up with your insults of conservative women.
“It reminds me of this, sad to say:
My friends wanted Germany purified. They wanted it purified of the politicians, of all the politicians. They wanted a representative leader in place of unrepresentative representatives. And Hitler, the pure man, the antipolitician, was the man, untainted by “politics,” which was only a cloak for corruption…Against “the whole pack,” “the whole kaboodle,” “the whole business,” against all the parliamentary parties, my friends evoked Hitlerism, and Hitlerism overthrew them all…”
I can see why it would remind you of that. However, I see Hitler as an outcome of the long chain of societal dislocations begun after Versailles, as the socialists disrupted traditional values and government, and the right (having their own axes to grind about the outcome of the war/treaty) fought both the socialists and the government they blamed for the failures they saw.
I think we may be closer to those days of increasing societal disruptions than Hitler’s (which was the winner-took-all outcome of the disruptions). As we see increasing terror attacks (almost inevitable with no enforced southern border, etc.) here in the US, I don’t expect people will simply accept it, pervasive media propaganda or not. And support for Trump’s recent positions seems to validate that idea.
Buzz off Parker!
You’re proposing to do a honor killing? How Moooslime!
You wan’t to commit suicide by G6loq? Get your meds!
I read your posts about your martial prowesses. I call BS. I quit grappling at age 55 for one reason:
the youngsters were being nice to me and thus …
I was waisting their precious training time.
As to the womyn, they are the guardians of standards and boundaries. Nature wants it. They raise the boys, they groom them.
As it is at the moment they’ve collectively failed.
Conservative women don’t matter for … they won’t police their own gender.
Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter are exactly right in their assessment of the sisterhood.
The 16th amendment has been a disaster.
The 19th amendment got us further into socialism.
We are now as Athen was. Sparta won.