As Trump rises…
…it occurs to me that Democrats are now experiencing what a lot of people on the right experienced during the primary season: the sense that they don’t know how to stop him, that he just might keep coming and coming like some sort of strangely-coiffed Energizer bunny or Terminator (depending on the pop reference you prefer).
As Trump’s poll numbers go up, the fear rises. Here’s another interesting piece on a way that Trump might have a path to victory, but there are plenty of such pieces lately. The shock is palpable, and it’s a shock those of us who preferred a different GOP candidate (and our numbers are legion) have already been through, including some of the stages of grief.
Some have reached acceptance. Some have not. I sometimes think I still may be in the “bargaining” phase. I’ve said many times I’m not a NeverTrumper, but I’m not sure how to characterize myself except to say this has been a rough year politically, and that both prospects (Hillary or Trump) fill me with despair and arouse anxiety for the future. In order to vote, I will have to quantify that despair and anxiety and decide which is a greater burden: voting for Trump and being responsible in part for what he does, or abstaining (or voting third party) and thus helping to enable the election of Hillary (I will not vote for her).
Many Democrats are now probably wishing they had a Hillary replacement. The problem was always that none seemed to surface. It’s no accident that the field was so small; there just wasn’t much new blood there. In the GOP there was plenty of new blood, but Donald Trump managed to beat it with his brand of Geritol.
Many people from BOTH parties are no doubt wishing they could replace their candidate. (Although it seems to me that Trump is, somehow, slowly increasing his appeal and electability, while Hillary is slowly imploding. I dunno, perhaps it doesn’t look that way on the other side of the aisle.)
As for the size of the field, well, Hillary likes a small field — and did her best to make it even smaller. So she finally got what she’s wanted since at least 2000 — the Democratic nomination — and now we’re seeing what she does with it.
In terms of the campaign, I’m still waiting for the long knives to come out. People used to say that Trump wasn’t fighting Hillary hard enough, which might be a sign that he’s secretly on her side. Now I wonder in the opposite direction. We know just how dirty the Clintons can play… as can Hillary’s mentor and former boss President Obama. But we’ve seen relatively few Democrat dirty tricks against Trump so far. What is she waiting for?
trump was always an underdog but given the historically high net negatives on both, the potential for big swings has always been there.
Advantage is still clinton’s but, yes, it is whittling away.
Resigned myself to the idea that many have no limits, and like the OJ Simpson trial, if their guy wins, there will be cheering, even amongst some who claim reluctance (but argue a little too hard), for their Pyrrhic “victory”.
Only, in this case, OJ team blue wins or OJ team red wins. There is no “good” outcome.
The choice is between some crazy level, unquantifiable but certainly volatile, risk down a largely (and, possibly more) leftist path of greater centralization of power, and executive overreach (hardly the change supporters were hoping for) vs four more years down a leftist path of power centralization and executive overreach (not much change at all, except maybe on international front – less “lead from behind” than obama), both of which may leave hard undo damage to our political system, economy, and international stability.
Regarding the assumption of a Democrats’ self-perceived inability to “stop him” (and it is not difficult to have some sympathy for any such disposition), I take the rather facile stance that this can be accounted for by these selfsame Democrats’ inability to stop themselves. Trump, after all is said and done, is just another Democrat politician. And any selfnegation, while remaining possible, is no easy thing.
As for me, I’m taking the third choice and looking at what must be done to reconstitute conservativism as a political force down the road.
I have to admit I’m starting to learn to love The Donald. The Journal of American Greatness and the Flight 93 article have had a lot to do with it. Also, Selena Zito’s article at atlantic.com on the Trump supporters of western Pa. Not literally, but I grew up with those people. Almost everybody I grew up with was like them. Those are my fellow citizens. I don’t understand why Trump appeals to them so much, but I have to try to honor their choice. I suppose to a leftist I’m invoking “Der Volk,” (see next post on Hitler), but “mystic chords of memory,” too, and Jacksonian tradition, and all that.
Perhaps over the years I’ve become too much an intellectual and policy wonk. After the election, a la the Cultural Revolution, I will report to a right-wing re-education camp, and live among the workers and peasants till I learn true political consciousness.
“those of us who preferred a different GOP candidate (and our numbers are legion)”
Perhaps but the defections multiply daily.
It’s over for Hillary unless Trump physically slaps her at a debate.
Next up will be the crying and scapegoating.
Old General Powell is already out front on this. No one likes Hillary, she’s greed, etc.
Expect Mook to be a target for blame.
Watch the New Yorker for a piece on this soon.
There’s a replacement for Hillary: it’s called vice president.
And it would make Obama look like a right winger.
http://www.infowars.com/hillarys-vp-whites-must-become-a-minority-to-atone-for-racism/
Vanderleun:
You can’t defect from a point of view in the past. The point of view in the past remains your point of view in the past.
You can change your mind in the present, but that’s all.
My reference was to the past. Past tense: “those who preferred a different GOP candidate.”
There is no other GOP candidate to vote for in the present. We can still have preferred one, and that doesn’t change. Who we vote for now is a different story. There is no “defection” if a person preferred a different GOP candidate in the past and votes for the only one available at present.
roc scssrs:
You’ve learned to love your new insect overlords 🙂 .
Some day I plan to tackle that Fight 93 article so many are enamored of. It has a lot of errors in it, in my opinion. So much to write I sometimes don’t know where to begin.
roc scssrs — If you really find it difficult to understand why the Morlocks hate the Eloi, I’d suggest you head for the re-education camp soonest.
I realized how desperate the Left has become when I saw this web site:
https://www.makeminecount.org/
At “Make Mine Count,” progressives can engage in online vote swapping with each other. Progressives in swing states get Hillary votes, so she can reach a majority. Progressives in Republican states get Jill Stein votes, so the Green Party goes over 5% of the general vote and qualifies for federal funding in 2020.
Their tag line is “coming together to stop Trump.”
So far the only thing I like about Trump is that he drives progressives crazy.
I have written in these threads before that I was originally a Walker, then a Fiorina, then a Cruz supporter and that I have been a reluctant Trump supporter. That is beginning to change.
I am now beginning to ask myself how much these Trump swings are luck and chance vs. how much have they been catalyzed by intentional Trump actions?
I’ve written before that Trump had been running against the MSM more so than Hillary; that the MSM was her Siegfried line and that to defeat her that defense had to be neutralized first. Trump acted the buffoon, drew media attention (as he openly admitted to Hugh Hewitt), forced the media to overreact (as he knew they would?) both against him and in favor of Hillary and over time, this eroded their credibility. The public trust in the media was already low, but over the past 8 months it has dropped even another 20% of that to about 32%. IMO, that has been most likely because of Trump first instigating and then absorbing the MSM’s slings and arrows; rope a dope anyone?
Furthermore, with the change from Lewandowski et. al. to Kellyanne Conway, we are now seeing a more “presidential” Trump. Perhaps the choice of Conway herself was luck, but were the change and the timing just luck? Does Trump, perhaps have some talent for hiring just the right people at the right time to do the job? His real estate career might suggest “yes”.
Trump’s Mexico gambit seems to have paid off big time. His response to the Clinton illness was measured and diplomatic. His appeal to the Black community (“What the Hell do you have to lose?”) seems to be generating some results, and in fact, is a fundamentally accurate question.
Even though some other Republican candidates polled well and showed courage early on (most notably, Fiorina and Cruz), I am beginning to believe that even they would not have been able to withstand the extended fusillade which was leveled by the MSM. Granted some will say that the attacks are worse because it was Trump rather than Fiorina or Cruz, and that Trump actually instigated some of the attacks but IMO the attacks would have been no less frequent or intense if Cruz or Fiorina were the nominee (e.g., Romney giving a woman cancer?). WHY? Because the goal of the media was NOT to discredit Trump or Cruz or Fiorina per se; dicrediting the Republican is merely the tactic, the goal is to elect Hillary. I now believe that none of the other candidates would have or could have had the staying power that Trump has shown.
Again, this is all been speculation, but I am still forced to think that this is just too much luck and to view this through the prism of the eminent philosopher Auric Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times . . . is enemy action.”
People seem to have underestimated Trump (see the cautionary article in last year’s <Rolling Stone). I’m beginning to believe that he counts on that all the time and I’m beginning to believe that, if elected, Trump has a greater ability to favorably surprise us than we now think. Of course, that doesn’t mean he will.
Cornflour:
That Trump drives progressives crazy is, I’m afraid, a low bar. Remember 2012? Mitt Romney, Gov. Milquetoast himself, drove progressives crazy.
One eventually comes to the conclusion that just about any Republican (with a shot at winning) will drive them crazy.
“Does Trump, perhaps have some talent for hiring just the right people at the right time to do the job? His real estate career might suggest “yes”.”
You got it! Artful and I have pointed this out several times. You aren’t accidentally the sole owner of a multi-billion dollar enterprise employing 20,000 people. The bombast is a cover and a tool.
For anyone who hasn’t read “The Flight 93 Election” at the Claremont.org site, I urge you to do so. It caused quite a stir among those in the conservative commentariat, and has drawn rather sharp criticisms from some of the GOPe types ( e.g., Jonah Goldberg, here and Robert Tracinski, here).
Two days ago the author (who is writing under the pseudonym “Publius Decius Mus”) responded to these critics with a “Restatement” here.
Agree with him or not, he’s a very good writer, has some good insights and makes some excellent points.
Well, listen to Trump’s remarks at the Economic Club of New York today, and especially the following Q&A.
I am now convinced that Hillary has advanced Parkinson’s. The USSS has been guarding her for 25 years and know all about her freezes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM
Trump is broadening the Republican Party’s appeal and we will see how much he governs from the right. This just might be the election to break the partisan logjam.
Count me in as one who preferred a different GOP candidate. I do wish Romney had run again – I really liked him and thought (and still think) he would have been a great president. Sigh.
While I am (and have always been) in the never Hillary camp; I thought I would have to hold my nose while voting for Trump. But, now count me as one who has come to looking forward to voting for Trump.
Trump is growing on me in a way that I didn’t expect. I am beginning to see a lot of his earlier “bravado” as just that – bravado; nothing more. I think he has changed (actually, I see it now as he was just playing the game to score) and will continue to change to do whatever needs to be done to win.
And, I may regret thinking this; but, I actually am beginning to think that he will make a good president.
The only question I have now is what kind of congress are we going to elect. I don’t mean will it be D or R; but, will they be adults and work with Trump to get things done – or are they going to act like spoiled brats and whine if they don’t get things their way?
The great Manchester Union Leader which is about as conservative a daily newspaper as we’ve ever had has endorsed Gary Johnson out of sheer disgust with Trump. Other traditional Republican newspapers have done the same or endorsed Hillary! They don’t need the ratings that the cable news outlets do, so can feel free to break decades of tradition and not endorse the GOP candidate. Donald brings everyone down to his level which is pretty low.
Oh on those tax returns. I just signed my Corporate tax returns as I’ve done for 30 years. The statement is:
“Under Penalties of Purjury, I declare that I have examined this return and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete.”
So there is no reason not to release the Trump returns even if they are under audit. They are his filings as he interprets them and swears to them. Something to hide in sleazy land?
Obviously, I missed the event of djt’s epiphany where he stopped being an NYC values liberal for more than 60 years and suddenly became credible on issues such as illegal immigration, trade relations, and deep concern for the peasants toiling to til the earth and chop wood.
Trump criticized Romney for his self deportation comment just 4 years ago. Trump has paid fast and loose when it comes to trade. Trump ties are not made in America thus making America ‘less great again’. It is one thing to see djt as marginally less dangerous than hrc; it is something else to believe a word he says.
I happen to agree djt is slightly less of a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; but that does not mean I no longer recognize the smell of BS. A Trump POTUS will not build a beautiful wall, he will not make America great again, he just does not are about anything other than djt and his children.
I was impressed by the first, and just as impressed by the second.
You do not necessarily have to accept his remedy in order to appreciate the accuracy of his diagnosis, and the near inevitability of the prognosis.
As of this moment Trump has reached 39.4% on Nate Silver’s forecast. Of course his rating was once over 50% for fifteen minutes.
Apparently Trump’s near-death experience after the DNC impressed even Trump that he must pivot to presidential as advisors had been telling him since last spring.
I’m not comforted this demonstrates Trump can be a decent president, just that he can, like many destructive people, behave right for a while when he’s got a gun to his head and everyone is watching.
I didn’t follow the Mexico story because of a bad internet connection. Maybe that is a big factor in his rating improvement.
But my overall impression is that Trump’s gains are mostly the result of Hillary’s ongoing bad news cycles.
KBK: “Well, listen to Trump’s remarks at the Economic Club of New York today, and especially the following Q&A.”
I did. I am impressed by his economic advisers (Stephen Moore, David Malpass, Larry Kudlow, and others.) and his proposals. If he is elected President and can accomplish only half of what he proposes, I reckon we have a chance to get the economic pie growing again. And that would be a very good thing.
Hillary will continue the same regressive high regulation, high tax polices now in effect and the economy will continue to stumble along. The Fed is desperately working to prop up the economy now (I believe it is politically motivated even though the Fed is supposed to be apolitical,) and are now talking about going to negative interest rates if necessary. Negative interest rates? You pay the bank to hold your money. It is to weep.
neo-neocon Says:
Some day I plan to tackle that Fight 93 article so many are enamored of. It has a lot of errors in it, in my opinion. So much to write I sometimes don’t know where to begin.
That article was childish vanity. Every little boy’s fantasy of being the hero. The fact that so many are enamored of it should tell you something.
In this election cycle, the only mistake I made was to overestimate the rationality of my fellow citizens.
Cornflour Says:
So far the only thing I like about Trump is that he drives progressives crazy.
That seems to be enough for you.
Revenge is not a serious basis for policy. In fact, it makes you susceptible to manipulation. When your emotions are engaged, you don’t make good decisions.
@ T:
There is no mystery about this turn of events: Hillary is loathsome. She has emerged from her exile and like clockwork, her numbers are falling again.
The only person in the country who could lose to Trump is Hillary, and the only person in the country who could lose to Hillary is Trump.
As other have said, I am coming around to Trump, tentatively and hopefully. Part of it may be that there is really no other choice. But, I do think that he is doing a lot better.
I still question whether he will be a great President, or even an upper tier one; but, I am beginning to hope that he can be an acceptable one.
Obviously, Trump is fortunate to be running against Hillary. That is the conventional wisdom; and I believe it. On the other hand, he faced some very credible opposition in the Primaries. Many of us thought that he won the nomination through pure luck. Maybe not. Maybe he understands politics in the 21st century better than conventional politicians.
I doubt that I will ever really like the guy. But, I have had my preconceptions prove wrong before. If he can turn the country around–or at least change the direction–I can learn to like him.
@ carl in atlanta:
I’ve taken another look at that essay. I was going to Fisk the hell out of it, but that might step on neo-neocon’s toes for her future article. So instead I’ll say: it is hysterical, self-serving nonsense from a hack writer who wants to both condemn conservatives as the source of all our woes, and claim to be one of them at the same time.
The article is full to the brim with straw men, as we’ve come to expect from Trump supporters in general.
It is trash. It is propaganda and virtue-signalling.
As I keep reading that Flight 93 article, I keep being impressed by what a dishonest pile of shit it is. Some highlights:
“The truth is that Trump articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues–immigration, trade, and war–right from the beginning.”
Isn’t this the exact same phrase I swatted down in a recent post by a Trump-humper?
Incompletely? Inconsistently? Those are weasel words to hide the fact that Trump has taken every side of every issue at some point.
“One of the paradoxes–there are so many–of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad.”
Yeah, it’s been nothing but good times since 2010 (and some before). Hence, the Tea Party. Moron.
“But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti…”
I didn’t realize we’d elected Matthew Continetti as the Savior of the Nation. One might think that the author has set him up as a foil instead.
“Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation.”
Having his cake and eating it too.
With conservatives like him in the party, how can we lose?!?
Oh, and BTW: WHAT HAVE YOU CONSERVED, PUBLIUS?
“That sounds a lot like Trumpism.”
The author, like every single Trump supporter has no idea what Trump will actually do. Only what he’s promised to do. And even then, you have to cherry-pick which promise you want to believe.
“Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves,”
Yep, there’s the “Trump’s critics are paid shills” meme we’ve come to expect.
“if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong.”
Yet another straw man. No conservative believes this.
Listening to this fool prattle on is like listening to a self-righteous college freshman lecture an adult on political philosophy.
These are fewer than half my annotations from the first third of that piece of shit article.
GFY, Publius. You no-talent hack.
Mike K Says:
September 15th, 2016 at 4:34 pm
I am now convinced that Hillary has advanced Parkinson’s. The USSS has been guarding her for 25 years and know all about her freezes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM
* * *
Video was too long to listen to right now, but here’s something else from the Secret Service POV:
http://ijr.com/opinion/2016/09/260018-protected-hillary-clinton-secret-service-heres-noticed-fainting-video/
Someone in the ether is still censuring Scott Adams aka Dil*bert, I see.
* * *
T Says:
September 15th, 2016 at 3:38 pm
I have written in these threads before that I was originally a Walker, then a Fiorina, then a Cruz supporter and that I have been a reluctant Trump supporter. That is beginning to change.
I am now beginning to ask myself how much these Trump swings are luck and chance vs. how much have they been catalyzed by intentional Trump actions?
* * *
The claim of intentionality has been strongest at the blog of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Quoted.
Matt_SE Says:
September 15th, 2016 at 10:28 pm
***
I think I’ll wait for neo’s post, which will be longer on rational analysis and shorter on profanity.
Wow Matt, why don’t you tell us what you really think? 😉
AesopFan Says:
***
I think I’ll wait for neo’s post, which will be longer on rational analysis and shorter on profanity.
2 “shits” and 1 “GFY.”
I feel better knowing that the nation is defended by stalwart men like yourself.
Do you need your safe space?
Geoffrey Britain Says:
Wow Matt, why don’t you tell us what you really think?
As I said, 1/2 of my notes from the first 1/3 of the “article.”
Almost every sentence contained some sort of lie, and certainly every paragraph.
Read the whole thing if you can stomach it, and see how many fallacies you can spot.
Matt_SE:
Sorry, I can’t make heads or tails out of your comment about my comment. Are you sure you’re talking to me? Maybe you have something else on your mind. Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote. I’m baffled.
@ Cornflour:
So far the only thing I like about Trump is that he drives progressives crazy.
This is a common sentiment expressed by Trump supporters; that they want to stick it to progressives. That isn’t a policy, it is revenge. Maybe you were joking, but I’ve seen a thousand other posts that weren’t.
I’ve seen it expressed in ways that make me wonder if it isn’t the main point of their exercise.
The contempt expressed by elites is reprehensible, as is their abandonment of noblesse oblige (however quaint or misguided you might think that is). I also know that returning the contempt is a natural reaction, and probably the most common one. But it still won’t end well.
The search for emotional validation becomes the purpose, and any reforms tend to get lost. That lasts until the overreach puts the other side in power, and then it’s their turn again.
Matt_SE:
No, I wasn’t joking. I meant it when I said that the only thing that I like about Trump is that he drives progressives crazy. By no measure could that be called support of Trump. Neither am I, more generally, a Trump supporter.
Although I’m very frustrated with progressives, their politics, and their policies, I could have happily done without Trump. I certainly didn’t ask that he appear as a messenger of my revenge.
It’s one thing to go on incoherent rants, but it’s quite another to have them be so misdirected. You need to take a breath before you read, and sober up before you write.
My preferable pop reference is Juggernaut. That what happens when long suppressed wishes and emotions of masses suddenly are expressed by a person of formidable, impressive look and valiant ditching of all stiffening social conventions. I seen this social dynamics myself in Russia when Yeltsin began his crusade against communist nomenclatura. What exactly such person declares and promises is absolutely irrelevant, he can contradict himself every minute, and his charisma and appeal will only grow and eventually became irresistible.
The same comparison makes Richard Fernandes in his last post: the malady which fatally weakened Democratic establishment (and Republican Washington establishment, too) is the same that doomed Soviet nomenclature in its waning days. When all the country was full of jokes about stumbling Brezhnev led by aides to the podium, and two heirs, one after another, were crowned being terminally ill and ruled the country from hospital bed, the fire-made inscription on the wall of Balthassar’s dining hall was hard to ignore.
When dysfunction of the existing political system became undeniable, popular disgust expresses itself in the rise of charismatic rebellious leader to whom hopes of motley crowds converge even in the absence of any coherent program from him. Vagueness and contradictions of his proposals only help him. This social dynamics is mostly subcortical, instinctive, and can’t be hindered by any rational argumentation. This explains meteoritic rise of Napoleon, Mussolini, Lenin and, yes, of Hitler too. This does not mean I compare Trump to any one the listed above: no way they are comparable, but the social dynamics is the same.
DNC now reports that, should Hillary be unable to continue her candidacy, she will be replaced by Bernie Sanders.
Hmm, I’d say Bob’s report means they are pretty sure they won’t do it.
Neo, I can only go back to an observation I’ve made many times, and that has been applicable in many elections (people did the same thing regarding Kerry and W). Much of the opposition to Trump is based on projection what he might do. He might worsen relations with our allies, Russia, or Mexico. He might appoint unqualified or liberal-leaning judges. He might enact poor economic plans. However, in all those cases, we know that Hillary is going to do worse. She is going to appoint explicitly liberal judges. She is going to continue Obama’s disastrous economic policies. She is going to double down on her incompetently executed foreign policy.
Christopher B’s comment demonstrates again the cult-like nature of Trump’s following. Every so often, a meme becomes popularized and is disseminated by the Trump camp. I’m sure many of his followers have no idea they’re repeating propaganda. That’s why it’s so effective.
The “Trump is a gamble, Hillary is a certainty” meme is maybe one month old. Maybe two.
But its appearance was sudden.
(Christopher B, you are not the first person to notice this point. You are not the 50th or 200th.)
Repeat the Big Lie. Repeat it often enough, and people will start believing it.
What’s remarkable is the personal attacks delivered at this guy for his characterization of the situation. Lot’s of talk of logical fallacies (and that is a problematic area in itself) but more vitriolic ad hom. You get commentariat clowns talking as if they themselves are the type who ache to settle matters down at the river at dawn.
In attacking a man who has laid out a scenario which he says is his personal view, and regarding which he admits he is employing striking metaphors for effect, they become unglued and begin flailing at the author as a man, accusing him of personal cowardice; and, in some ways most laughably, for falsely predicting the demise of something other than what he has been arguing needs to be preserved.
What needs to be preserved in his view is a working constitutional polity worth living in, not a bloody administrative state from which we hope one day to recover. This latter is a state which some conservatives seem to have become comfortable with or dependent upon themselves. What actually needs to be preserved is not the “conservative movement” and not the Republican party, but rule of law governance and freedom and the integrity of the polity and those self-governing principles in law which are almost universally rejected by all of the professional governing class. An inconvenience to their administration and management of our lives, don’t you know.
The author used virtually that very language, and used it repeatedly; saying exactly what it was he was really trying to preserve.
And in reply the professional conservative retorts that he is blowing the situation out of proportion. Why? Because what he is not primarily concerned to protect, is predicted to do just fine after the catastrophe which does alarm him is finalized with regard to what he does actually care about.
This is their argument?
Piss on the Republican Party if, that is if, it solidifies as the party of ineffectual mandarins it too often has been in the past: a party of good loser insiders comfortably whiling away the hours in DC as the rule of law collapses, and as they dream, or say they dream, of rising once again to restore lost rights and liberties … someday … in someway … which is never delineated or described or mapped out.
Fortunately some of the newer Republicans are proven better than that. Unfortunately, the drogue-chute-to-hell professional Republicans of the establishment, of the sinecure seeking class, still is not; as Cruz amply demonstrated to us by his exposure of them.
But we are assured by the book-sellers, that while suffering further electoral defeats leading to further structural changes in our system of governance, and while experiencing ever increasing administrative persecutions directed by leftist Chief Executives toward individual citizens and groups, and as legal atrocities like ObamaCare with its life and predicate-of-political-association-altering “individual shared responsibility mandate” march on … all will be well eventually; because the conservative movement will survive!
Which means that pundits will continue to draw their salaries, and professional Republicans will still be able to raise funds through direct marketing appeals to elderly ladies who will still send the 10 bucks from their pensions they have been frightened out of, off to Conservative Washington lobbyists.
Yet the conservative movement survives! As the Republic slides into a Garry Wills version of a ‘bondage is love polity’.
This is how we take care of each other as Obama says.
Each other? The very notion. Why, what a joke.
We are obviously talking about preserving very different things here.
The professional Republicans know or intuit this, as do the civic-love-is-unbreakable-bonds types.
And that no doubt, is what has them unhinged by a mere commentary.
“Matt_SE:
No, I wasn’t joking. I meant it when I said that the only thing that I like about Trump is that he drives progressives crazy.” – Cornflour
Was contemplating that, as I’d also wish to say that I like that too, except, as a conservative, he is driving us crazy on nearly the same basis.
trump says some rather scary stuff (to anyone who holds conservative principles) and caters too easily to the worst in / of people, and too many are all okay with it, much of the GOP fell like dominoes behind, and so-called “conservative” pundits fell even faster. They all twist and turn themselves to justify the unjustifiable, and in the process negate much of what they have said they stood for over several years.
If this is not already a huge damage, I don’t know what is.
After this election, whatever the outcome, few will ever look at the GOP and think they actually stand for conservatism any more. They need only look at this election to see the hypocrisy. It was a struggle before (against what we thought were false accusations from the left), but who is going to believe a word any GOP candidate says.
Many amongst us yelled “RINO!!!” not too long ago. That is rendered completely and absolutely meaningless after this election, as most everyone supporting trump must now be a “RINO!!!”.
Because what he is not primarily concerned to protect, is predicted to do just fine after the catastrophe which does alarm him is finalized with regard to what he does actually care about.
This is their argument?
I would bet it’s not their argument, because I can’t tell what you mean in that run-on sentence with about 4 subordinate clauses. Conservatives (especially PROFESSIONAL conservatives!) would be clearer than that.
This is a little bit off the discussion, but I think Trump drove the MSM CRAZY when he did not say outrageous things last Sunday about Hillary’s (cough, cough) pneumonia. No nasty tweets. They were praying he would erupt so the story could become HIM and deflect from her. I attribute this to Kelly Anne Conway (sp?)
Matt,
You have been acting upset for some weeks now.
So, I hereby grant you a dispensation from the duty of reading my comments. This in in part because past exercises in explaining them to you, only seemed to inflame you even more.
If I were writing for your benefit, I would always take care to use short and simple sentences. But I am not commenting for your benefit, so I won’t.
Hope this helps.
“This in in part”
“is in part …”
LOL . Touch a tar baby and …
The alt-right and Publius give me the idea that they’re barking at each other in an echo chamber, full of straw men positions that no conservative actually holds.
They are arguing against what they IMAGINE conservatism is, and they’re wrong.
They have little contact with actual conservatives, and are already predisposed by their propaganda to hold them in contempt, so that no amendment of their misguided views will take hold.
They see the failures of McConnell and company, and pretend these are the failures of conservatism.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think they know who the real conservatives in Congress are. I’ve asked a dozen alt-righters to name them and I’ve never got a response past “Reagan” (who doesn’t even meet all the criteria I laid out).
This is reminiscent of what I’ve noted about many Jew-haters on Zerohedge: they conflate financial mismanagement with Jewishness. It is a type of displacement.
The alt-right are either displacing the failures of the GOP establishment onto conservatives, or they already know this is false and won’t name the conservatives because a list would name people who are obviously blameless.
I challenge any Trump supporter to name the actual conservatives in Congress and how they betrayed you.
DNW @ 10:49,
I fully agree.
IMO, here is the crux of Publius’ argument;
Several here have accused me of hyperbole and vociferously denied that we are almost upon a precipice. Exactly as Publius above asserts.
It all comes down to this; if you believe that America can recover from Hillary because you do not accept that our society is nearly at a precipice, then Trump is a path that leads to ruin.
If you believe that we are nearly at a precipice from which we cannot recover and, that the GOPe will not and does not wish to stop, then Trump is a ‘Hail Mary pass’ because at this point, there’s no other alternative.
Ever heard of “Jay Walking” from the Tonight Show?
A Canadian magazine attempts to give an anecdotal picture of why people support trump. (It was on RCP website today)
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/why-im-voting-for-donald-trump/
Here are a few statements that caught my eye…
.
“The political system must be totally remodelled and redeemed.”
Burn it all down.
.
“I (supported) Sen. Ted Cruz. … (I support) Donald J. Trump. … (because he was) the first candidate I noticed that was pointing out the serious problems that were occurring at the border and with illegal immigration.”
Evidently, it takes a circus act to get this person to pay attention and take notice.
.
“In Donald Trump, and his blatant outbursts of truth and honesty, I see a refreshing change … a change from the lies and illegalities that are rampant and commonplace”
Except for trump’s own mutable flip flop flips – totally refreshing!
.
“With Trump as president no one will mess with us and he will bring jobs back to America including the coal mining jobs that my area desperately needs. … We are going to need coal mined, we are going to need steel mills to process the coal into steel, to build those ships, tanks and make a military so powerful that nobody will mess with us.”
Rube Goldberg would be proud of that logic.
.
“As a gay American, [I feel that] Donald Trump will keep the members of the GLBT communities safe.”
Not sure there is consensus around trump’s supporters about how welcome LGBT community is.
.
“He was not my first choice, but he loves America, he loves people and will stand up against corruption”
Guess he would know better than anyone, given trump’s long history of Dem political donations!
.
“He says the truth without worrying about the feelings of our enemies.”
If only it were merely about hurting people’s feelings. trump goes well beyond that – “truth” = Ted Cruz’s father?
.
“Mr. Trump embodies our distaste for and disgust with an out-of-control government.”
Is the problem really just government mismanagement / in the wrong hands, or is it much too big to begin with?
.
“my contempt for Hillary Clinton rounds out my support and ultimate vote for Donald Trump”
What is the limit in opposing clinton?
.
There are many legitimate concerns voiced amongst the arguments these folks have provided (read the linked article), and perhaps much has been edited out.
IDK what their intention was, but, MacLeans didn’t really do them any service by publishing these poorly thought out and largely incomplete arguments.
Checking the author’s prior articles, he seems to be mocking America, and this would be another attempt, with volunteers (Jerry Springer style), IMHO.
Matt_SE,
Please name the actual conservatives in Congress.
I expect they will be a minority in the House and even fewer in the Senate. Count the ones who frequently vote against McConnell’s and Ryan’s proposals as a relatively accurate litmus test. Those ‘leaders’ favor compromises that unsurprisingly benefit dems far more than conservatives. And the confirmation is in the steady movement to the left and the steady growth of government.
What Publius states about most conservative pundits and most Republican ‘conservatives’, almost all of whom claim to be conservatives is entirely true. As just one example, George Will, long a bastion of conservative thought has strongly weighed in on Hillary’s side…
Your reactive vitriol is an indication that you know it to be true but cannot accept it.
Matt_SE,
“I (supported) Sen. Ted Cruz. … (I support) Donald J. Trump. … (because he was) the first candidate I noticed that was pointing out the serious problems that were occurring at the border and with illegal immigration.”
“Evidently, it takes a circus act to get this person to pay attention and take notice.
Who, besides Cruz among the candidates forcefully spoke out against illegal immigration? Against Muslim migration? Not Walker. Not Fiorina. Not Rubio. Not Kasich.
“With Trump as president no one will mess with us and he will bring jobs back to America including the coal mining jobs that my area desperately needs. … We are going to need coal mined, we are going to need steel mills to process the coal into steel, to build those ships, tanks and make a military so powerful that nobody will mess with us.”
“Rube Goldberg would be proud of that logic.”
There is nothing remotely ‘Rube Goldberg’ about that statement. Increased coal will bring jobs. Coal is needed for the increased steel to rebuild the military, which is needed if a firm President is to convince other nations like China not to mess with us. It is not ‘the logic’ that is erroneous, you simply dislike Trump.
Where among Trump’s supporters is there animus against the LGBT community’s safety against (the implied) Islamic terrorism? Opposition to the LGBT agenda is not proof of an enthusiasm to attack their safety.
So liberal’s contributions to democrats are proof of hate for America?
An “out-of-control government.” inherently combines “government mismanagement / in the wrong hands”, with a “much too big” government. As a small government lacks the resources to become out-of-control.
What is your limit in opposing Trump? What is your limit in effectively supporting Clinton? I’ve stated mine, when will you do the same?
Matt:
So which candidate do you support?
HRC?
Johnson?
Other?
One of the things the anti-Trump hysterics do, is to continually impute motives and contentions to the anti-Clinton Trump supporters, which they do not in fact demonstrate or assert.
As numerous reluctant potential Trump voters have pointed out repeatedly – and as I did myself some weeks ago – the expectation is not that the legal entity known as The United States of America will suddenly cease to exist.
It is that the rule of law, and the principle of constitutional governance, and the very social predicate the United States, will finally succumb to assault.
And given the lessons of past history, in all likelihood it will be irretrievably; outside the prospect of an intense and relatively compact public catastrophe which is similar in magnitude, if not duration, to the generations long legal subversion that preceded it.
The name will certainly remain. It would probably even remain throughout generations of leftist mal-administrations
The traditional raison d’etre of the polity, and the predicate of our general association as ostensible fellows, with what are imagined as convergent life interests, will not.
You could after all install the Chinese Communist Party in Washington, and replace the rest of the population with serf-like migrants from the Yucatan; and, if there were no name change at the U.N., “the country would have survived” you might say.
Hell, you might even keep George Will on as the Party Organ’s official dissenter … bow-tie, and prissy face, and all.
Big —– deal, as they say.
they dont have to stop him, the fracturing of the “NOT LEFT” will do it on its own as it has for decades..
why?
because the left put aside their crazy differences to be sorted out AFTER they win everything…
despite huge disparities between things like women, blacks, gays, criminals, anarchists, socialists, communists, anarcho-communists, fascists, and so on, they ALL work together and dont do what the GOP/Conservatives are doing!!!!!!!!!!!
in fact i have come to this conclusion:
IF the world hands these republicans lemons, they do NOT make lemonade they become sourpuses…
MEANWHILE, i said again, study the open printed tactics they are following and never abandoned.
how many here have read the history of the commiterm and picked up whats going on? in fact its been a long while they do this, and to make fools out of all of you who dont bother, cause its not “entertaining enough or short enough”, even covers the green movements and taking over them, and even the signals that would tell you when the next phase
This is why way back when i said we will all lose
Neo said i was being negative
No, i said, i was not negative, i was positive we will all lose, because we do not study the opposition at all, or read what they read, or anything like that!!!!!
Its like watching a JV football team up against the pros, and the JV has no playbook, and argues on the field with each other, chases away the people with the knowlege and such that could help, alienate their commrades, play purity games, etc. and the pros all watch, and laugh, because they printed their codes and playbooks out in the open and the JV team is too [something] to read it, study it, etc
IF you guys actually lived under communism and have had it affect you and so on, you might have the fear needed to learn… but since you dont, and your raised in “a brave new world” of drugs, sex and entertainment, to the point you cant function unless its fun enough, witty enough, doesnt insult your ego by showing how much you didnt learn, etc…
the free people are going to lose in the long run
they cant find the god or saint that would save them
they cant even see how dirty the people that gave them freedom were and how unperfect they were, and while they carry a lantern to find an honest man, they lose…
United front
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front
Communist International
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International
yes it ended..
but like the ogpu, nkvd, kgb, fsb
it morphed
In September 1947, following the June 1947 Paris Conference on Marshall Aid, Stalin gathered a grouping of key European communist parties and set up the Cominform, or Communist Information Bureau, often seen as a substitute to the Comintern. It was a network made up of the Communist parties of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia (led by Josip Broz Tito, it was expelled in June 1948).
Cominform / Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers’ Parties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominform
there are a lot of these…
but why bother?
you all know alinsky, and thats enough, right?
good luck…
Geoffrey Britain:
Here are two videos of Fiorina’s views on illegal immigration.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
Matt_SE,
Please name the actual conservatives in Congress.
I expect they will be a minority in the House and even fewer in the Senate. Count the ones who frequently vote against McConnell’s and Ryan’s proposals as a relatively accurate litmus test.
You are on the right track here, but the alt-right never makes this point. If they did, they would come up with a very short list of names. A list so short, it couldn’t possibly pass its agenda without outside help.
In other words, the people they blame are a tiny minority, without the power to pass their agenda. If they have no power, how can anyone hold them responsible?
carl in atlanta Says:
Matt:
So which candidate do you support?
None of the above.
This morning I was surfing the net when I came across two YouTube videos that I had not seen or heard of before. Having been a political junkie for many years and being comfortable with technology I know that the Internet has made many changes in how politics operates. I was unprepared for the “slickness” of these two videos.
I believe that they are designed to go viral among (ahhhh, don’t know whether to say “Trump supporters”, “Republicans”, “Gary Johnson supporters”, “Bernie Sanders supporters”, etc.) Anyone not supporting Hillary, I guess.
Anyway, these were not put together in someone’s mother’s basement. What is up with them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM (I know, Mike K mentioned this video. We even now have a response to it: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_tP2yCzY6A
but here’s something else from the Secret Service POV:
I’ve seen that one, too. Snopes ?
“we mean he is a conspiracy theorist. ”
Snopes is NOT an impartial site any more than the Tampa factchecker site is. Or Kessler at the WaPo.
The only explanation I have found for her quick recovery last Sunday is apomorphine. A collapse from”dehydration” or pneumonia would not be that fast.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27430123
Of 19 patients, 15 (78.9%) achieved a full ON response. All 15 achieved a full ON response within 30 minutes and 6 of the 15 patients (40.0%) achieved a full ON response within 15 minutes.
I think it is the best theory and we will see what happens the next few weeks.
The true logical question is who will hire the best people and let them do their job. The president is only one person. I do fault George Bush for not firing Donald Rumsfeld sooner. Trumps seems to fire people quicker.
There is a high probability that Trump will be against corruption based on how much he disliked Ed Koch, e.g. Corrupt and incompetent.
He is used to New York politics, which is a lot rougher than mid-western politics. Eliot Spitzer is an example of that.
The need for him to have been consistent is our own problem. Bill Clinton’s strength was his waffling. Trump will negotiate deals, based on his writing a book on the subject.
Based on what she has accomplished, nobody should hope for Hillary. She made Al Gore look good. I did not have that much of a problem with Al, the VP, who did what Obama promised and went through the government and made it run better.
conservatives definitely want someone who will insult progressives back. More importantly Trump uses Alinsky tactics back against them. Having the MSM get played with the birther anouncement was just fun.
Sure I would have liked Ted Cruz, but he would have lost in a landslide. The BS about his Dad from Trump was
Mild compared to what he would have had to deal with. At least it is difficult for the media to truly insult Trump for being sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., which is why Hillarry insulted white middle class Christians. He knows how to play the game. The big question is who is he going hire.
“The big question is who is he going hire.” – Robert
No. The question is just what the h*ll is he going to do?
.
“There is a high probability that Trump will be against corruption based on how much he disliked Ed Koch”
This is the problem. He is so mutable, we have to guess based on his past behavior.
But disliking Ed Koch alone doesn’t outweigh all the rest of his behavior that shows he doesn’t disdain corruption.
.
You speculate that Cruz would lose in a landslide.
– The party supporters would at least be united. trump has no where near united party support.
– Cruz would have had a well organized campaign and ground game. trump is nowhere near as organized.
– Cruz would be consistent vs trump all over the map (thus scares many – rightfully so), so in a year where the electorate is looking for a change, Cruz could have made a case as a credible agent of change vs four more years with clinton. .
“Geoffrey Britain:
Here are two videos of Fiorina’s views on illegal immigration.” – Neo
This happens time and again. A meme gets out there (trump is the first to say xxxxx), and the the true beliebers eat it up.
Belief that it was only trump (and maybe only Cruz) who brought this up is a gross cherry picking of facts.
Robert
“Trump will negotiate deals, based on his writing a book on the subject.”
Trump didn’t write the Art of the Deal
I have no doubt that he knows a lot about dealmaking. But all his dealmaking has been in service of, for the benefit of, Trump.
Whether his focus will be to Make America Great Again (it’s already great, imo, but lessening by the day as the likes of HRC and DJT rise) or to make TRUMP Great Again is a matter of opinion. But I think if you watch this guy it’s not hard to tell which matters more.
Finally – we’re entering the phase of the election season where “reluctantly supporting” is giving way, due to cognitive dissonance to enthusiasm for the very things that would have repulsed before.
For examples – a lot of this type of reasoning is starting to be seen:
He’s dishonest as h_ll? That’s GOOD. He’s a negotiator!
He’s a con artist? AWESOME! Look at how he’s jerking the MSM around!
He’s for what we considered 5 minutes ago to be big government socialism? His plan is WAY better than Hillary’s would be, plus he doesn’t mean it (because he’s dishonest as H_ll – it’s just a way to win votes. Which is AWESOME)
He cozies up to dictators – which is AWESOME because Putin is a WAY better leader than Obama! Trump knows who the very best leaders are.
And on and on. For a Trump supporter (“reluctant” or not) the deeper you go, and the further he takes us down, the more you have to shift your thinking to justify it.
As one of his biggest sycophants has said, “Own it”
I always find it curious that guys like Matt_SE who are full of high dudgeon and whose arguments seem mostly motivated by contempt appeal to logic and reason as their guiding principles.
If they were then the arguments employed might be ones seeking to persuade rather than castigate and dismiss.
For instance there are many conservatives in the alt right and a great many who do not for one second conflate the failure of conservatives in congress with the failures of the Republicans. Most of the congressional GOP is not particularly conservative.
However that in itself is a measure of how unsuccessful conservatism as it is currently practiced.
That is the great fault that is laid appropriately at their feet; the professional conservative class has won all the intellectual battles but has been unable to even take control of the Republican party, let alone reverse the tide of leftism swamping the country.
First you have to win politically to get anything done and doing things the same old way has resulted in a leftward slide of the country for 100 years.
People are, not surprisingly, fed up with losing the same way for 100 years. If conventional conservative leaders demand we lose in the same old way they shouldn’t be shocked if they eventually turn around and find there’s no one behind them.
“First you have to win politically to get anything done and doing things the same old way has resulted in a leftward slide of the country for 100 years.”
How come no one remembers Reagan and the conservative ascendancy in the 80s?
Why is everything so apocalyptic?
Answer: To justify electing someone who is absolutely not a conservative, though he does have authoritative/statist intentions, because “it’s our last chance/the republic is over/I’d rather have Caesar than Stalin/etc”.
“For instance there are many conservatives in the alt right”
One reason I really don’t want Trump to win is because the alt-right will then win and set back the cause of limited-government for a generation, replaced by a virulent mix of strong-man authoritarianism, stunted ethics, and – in at least many dark corners – white supremacy.
Bill
“How come no one remembers Reagan and the conservative ascendancy in the 80s?”
That indeed is one of those deep imponderable mysteries of the alt-right and their fellow “conservative” travelers. I’m sure they will explain it to the cretins whom they deign to exist with (for now anyway). /s
Neo-neocon lady, let me help you define yourself. You see the problems in the world, but frown at any actual solution, as it might soil your dainty illusions on the nature of human kind. In short, you are Eloi 🙂 No thanks necessary (or expected). Why not sit out the election and let the rest of us sort out hings? M’kay?
Oscar
Be nice to neo. She’s awesome and let’s us have a great forum here. Respect
Also, the counterpart of the Eloi where the Morlocks. And you have fairly correcyly described election 2016
I’m deducing, but not assuming, you are for Trump. Neo actually hasn’t decided how to vote yet. Wouldn’t it be better to try to convince her of your views rather than patronizing her/belittling her as you’re doing?
Oscar:
We know what goes into sausage. Now we know what comes out of it. Otay?
*lets* us have…
Also “were” not “where”. My phone”s auto correct hates me
Oscar Meyer:
I guess you don’t have to wish you were an Oscar Meyer weiner.
“Finally — we’re entering the phase of the election season where “reluctantly supporting” is giving way, due to cognitive dissonance to enthusiasm for the very things that would have repulsed before.“ – Bill
You see that too, huh?
It’s been creeping along at a steady pace, which makes me wonder about the “reluctance” of some arguments for trump around here.
.
Here is one take that seems to make some sense of this…
“Can you really repackage the boasting, bullying, bombastic, insulting, insensitive Trump into a mellow and caring version? With two months to go? In a digital age in which every past outrage is preserved on imperishable video?
Turns out, yes. How? Deflect and deny – and pretend it never happened. Where are they now – the birtherism, the deportation force, the scorn for teleprompters, the mocking of candidates who take outside money? Down the memory hole.
Orwell was wrong. You don’t need repression. You need only the sensory overload of an age of numbingly ephemeral social media. In this surreal election season, there is no past. Clinton ads keep showing actual Trump sound bites meant to shock. Yet her numbers are dropping, his rising.
How? Trump never goes on the defensive. He merely creates new Trumps.“ – Charles Krauthammer
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440080/donald-trump-image-makeover
Worth reading the entire article.
.
We are down to this…
The only “truth” that is relevant is the latest version from trump, because, hey, he’s not clinton, and that is all that matters.
“Oscar Meyer:
I guess you don’t have to wish you were an Oscar Meyer wiener.”
Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.
Read it somewhere that if clinton is having such a disastrous week + and all trump can do is get even or slightly ahead, maybe trump’s campaign is the one really in trouble.
trump only broke 45% (his highest rating, in a clinton head to head) after the gop convention, just before the dem convention.
trump needs more than a 1-2 point lead, if his GOTV effort is as far behind clinton as it seems. At his peak it was barely 1 point.
Still looks like clinton’s to lose. And, losing she has been. But, polls today do not predict polls at election time.
Debates will change this one way or the other.
Probably several more weeks of up and down – polls and emotions.
I’ll probably vote for Trump though I’m not happy about it. Yes, Clinton is beginning to lose ground. I must say, if he does win, not only will it be a spectacular victory over the political families Clinton AND Bush (remember how Jeb had all that money and inevitability also in the beginning) but a truly massive and historic upset. A true changing of the political order. The question is — will it be a good thing? While I don’t want Clinton I wish I could more sure of Trump.
That said… I admit that I’ve gotten a bit more fond of Trump simply because of his stand on the Syrian refugees and on naming Radical Islam as the enemy. Also, his uncompromising stand regarding not pandering to BLM last time I checked. He’s gotten more focused on policy and less on talking crazy. He has focused in many of his speeches and I like that. However, I still have mighty reservations due to his changeability, the fact that he’s never even held the office of dog catcher, and his narcissistic tendency to focus on trivial matters seemingly to get revenge. Also, his bizarre lies about Ted Cruz’s dad and so on… his hostility to the press, his authoritarian tendencies however, he’s what we’ve got and he’s got some good points.
Clinton may still win but yes, it doesn’t look good. She has only herself to blame. Or maybe Trump is a political genius and we have only now found this out.
At any rate, I hope he is not as bad as my worst worries and that he delivers on his best ideas.
The latest polls may change, but it sure looks like trump peaked…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
The debates may change it up.
Should trump win, I too “hope he is not as bad as my worst worries and that he delivers on his best ideas”.
My bet is somewhere in between, where he will brazenly expand the executive powers (then what about the next election of a Dem president?), ratchet up our debt levels yet another magnitude order, cause major economic damage to America by attempting to “renegotiate” trade deals, and embolden our international enemies by similar “renegotiation” of our alliances – all impacts augmented by a level of uncertainty.
“Better” than clinton? Doubtful, if only marginally so, and potentially much worse.
The issue isn’t whether Trump would be a better Prexy than Clinton, but whether there’s a positive CHANCE that he’ll be better. That’s the basis on which I’ll vote for the man.