National Review…the Trump Recruiting Office
Unable to stop the phenomenon that has become the Trump movement by attacking its leader, the pretentious princes of the Grand Old Party are now resorting to attacking their own rebellious base, and it is clear that some conservative journalists are too willing to help them do it. The most disturbing of these attacks comes from what has become Trump’s most determined journalistic antagonist, National Review. That NR has now turned its guns on Middle America saddens me, for I have long been a reader and admirer of their many fine writers. I was truly dismayed recently when that conservative publication devoted an entire issue to destroying Trump with almost two dozen leading establishment editors and journalists writing opinion pieces against him. That effort to terminate Trump failed so miserably it is almost laughingly ironic, for not only did it get NR dropped from the next Republican debate, it further established Donald as the anti-establishment leader and broadened his attraction.
Perturbed by their failure to truncate the Trump campaign, National Review is now doubling down in a coming issue with a truly toxic article (behind a pay wall) by roving editor, Kevin D. Williamson. Toxic is the nicest way I can think of to characterize the malevolent tirade that Williamson has produced for a publication apparently hell-bent on reducing its readership to a tiny core of conservative purists. Williamson, who frequently likes to drop into his pieces the downhome bona fide that he’s from West Texas, has probably doomed his chances of ever leading any parades back home with his virulent attack on the blue-collar class, the workers who populate the two largest industries in that region, farming/ranching and the oilfield, in particular, the latter because of the recent collapse of oil prices.
Williamson apparently thinks blue-collar workers whose lives get turned upside down when their jobs disappear due to economic downturns or their manufacturing jobs getting shipped offshore or their mines closing due to new more restrictive government regulation, are all a bunch of worthless bums and crybabies who should just load up the pickup and become the new Okies. What with the absolute collapse of the energy industry in West Texas in the past year and unemployment through the roof, I think Kevin might find it somewhat difficult selling that concept to any of his fellow West Texans any time soon. I’d give up Mexican food for a year to see him stand on one of the dozens of idle drilling platforms and try to read that piece to a crowd of long-unemployed oilfield workers. Here are a few of Kevin’s insulting words (excerpted –and defended– here):
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap, theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.
Did you folks out there in Odessa and all the other oil patch communities get that? This conservative elitist says your town deserves to die. And that’s just a sample of the toxic rot in the lengthy article. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air is shocked, like many other conservative authors who have read Williamson’s diatribe:
This is truly stunning. A broadside attack on America’s middle class is apparently the last recourse of truly lost and desperate souls. Worst of all, it’s a denial of reality. I don’t know how things are in hardscrabble, white West Texas, but I happen to live in one of those hardscrabble, white Upstate New York burgs and Kevin is living in some sort of dream world. Garbutt serves as a useful metaphor in his tale, but it bears little to no relevance to the reality these communities have dealt with nor the government policy failures which let them down.
Well I do know how things are in hardscrabble, white West Texas, and they’re not good at all. Like me, Shaw has lived in stricken areas among the people that Williamson and National Review think just need to load up a U-Haul and move on to better prospects. I wonder if Kevin intends those emigrants to include members of my wife’s pioneering family of cowboys, ranchers, buffalo hunters and Indian fighters who have been on West Texas land for more than 150 years? Or members of my own family who have been working in that oil patch for sixty years? Most of them are suffering in varying degrees from the regional depression caused by the steep drop in oil prices. Those crybabies should simply abandon their homes, their schools, their churches, their old and debilitated, just pick up and go, huh, Kevin?
It is becoming increasingly clear to the American middle class that Donald Trump is exposing the pretension of urban Eastern conservatism and the Republican Party leadership, who think they, and only they, know what’s best for all of us out here in flyover country. But what all those who fancy themselves our betters can’t process is that it is the very fact that they are so out of touch with ordinary folks that is Trump’s greatest attraction. The more the conservative aristocracy attacks Trump the more the people listening to him, those middle class working folks, are inclined to support him.
Many Americans born into Democrat households have said, as Reagan did, that they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the party left them. One has to wonder how many millions of those Americans are beginning to think the same of the Republican Party. I’m not even a Trump follower, having voted for Cruz in my state primary, but I can tell you that with these attacks on the middle class and the blue-collar working class, these GOP elites and their conservative oracles are alienating me. Attack Trump all you want; he’s fair game, but don’t turn your frustrations from that back on mainstream America. You establishment Republicans loved flyover America when its denizens believed all your lies and forgave your endless broken promises to fix their broken country; but now you want to treat these same folks with contempt and disdain since they’ve found a candidate whom you say lies and promises even more convincingly than you.
National Review, how about putting more effort into understanding the reasons for Trump’s appeal and less into bashing his followers, a move guaranteed to make you Trump’s main recruiting office?
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Politics
it’s time for a third party
Bring back the Whigs!
Read your history books folks, when the SHTF, everyone of these liberal/communist media types will bite the dust …..LITERALLY…it has happened in every country thats fallen so far…they sell their souls to the devil and he collects them and they are too stupid, too ignorant of history or too lazy to find out……rest in pieces!
You’re right, Skippy. I don’t share any beliefs with any of the established parties. I thin k I’ll buy 50 acres, secede from the union, declare myself a free and independent nation, and apply for foreign aid.
I’m voting Sanders.
Apparently he’s gonna give me 40 acres and a mule.
He’s gonna give you half of my 40 acres, which half of the mule do you want
Well, ChipNASA – I think the only part of the mule we’ll get if Sanders (or Clinton) gets elected will look kinda like a knockwurst.
the Skippy Clan is getting ready to move to Alaska !!!!!!
I’ve been there…
Take wool socks…
Lots of wool socks…
Yes !!!!!
we are leaving for a little eagle mission up there in September after all the FTs have left
The more the pampered, powdered and preened self-coronated perfumed Princes of the inner GOP “Good ole Boy Country Club” attack Trump, the more popular he gets. They’re what’s WRONG with today’s GOP and now they’re acting like snot-nosed East and West coast limousine/Lear Jet liberals, sneering at everyone outside their gated communities like we’re little more than filthy little peasants that need to be told how to think.
Fuck ’em sideways with a barrel cactus wrapped in asbestos, they’re Sesame Street smart if they think they’ll convince anyone to come to their side. Let’s not forget that they’re the establishment that gave us milquetoast candidates like McCain, Romney, and Dole.
they are pissed they can’t ship anymore of our jobs overseas
They should have done there jobs and stopped Obummer when we hired them to.
so easy even a cave man could do it !!!!!!!
And Jeb, could anyone be more fucking boring than Jeb Bush?
Every comment he makes he looks like some poor bastard who’s so constipated his guts are about to burst.
“could anyone be more fucking boring than Jeb Bush?” Lemme think a minute…
Nope, no one!
My opinion is that Jeb Bush is the one that the inner establishment wanted to get nominated and Trump gracefully derailed that train. I’m beginning to think that they’re going to try to get Kasich now that Jeb has bowed out.
Jeb “boweled” out.
Two words: Al. Gore.
Two more words. Screw. Him.
If Al Gore Jr. tripped and fell while walking alone through a forest, would he make a noise when he hit the ground?
Does a marshmallow make noise when it lands?
are you cereal? ^_^
Holy SHit! I can’t believe Williamson really said that! Raised MY eyebrows! W-T-F!? I guess we really ARE seeing the death throes of the GOPe (emphasis on OLD) RINOs.
Puts me in mind (my mind often makes odd disjointed associations) of the closing scene from the book “Animal Farm”, where the animals at the outside of the farmhouse are looking in through the windows at the pigs and the people, and can’t tell the difference between the two anymore.
Wait – what? Poetrooper, you want these snoty-nosed snobs who put themselves on the same socio-economic plane as shrillary and her ilk to give a flying fart in space about the Common Man?
Hah! You’re such a sweetie.
The reality is that none of those who run in that classless, clueless lane do give a shit, nor will they until or unless they have a hard landing on a gravel road. That includes the clowns on both sides of the political fence who pander to the lowest common denominator to get votes and then quickly abandon their proposals.
The democraps like Bernout and shrillary pretend to despise money, but they want lots of it as long as its yours, because they can buy votes with it. And that money comes from people who work for a living. The old-style GOPers like little Kevin despise anyone who actually has to work for a living. Hell, he probably doesn’t even choose what tie he’s going to wear today, if he even wears ties at all.
He may piss you off with his snotty, toffe-nosed BS, but remember this: I’m quite sure that none of them clean their own commodes, or even wipe their own butts.
Ex, I found a website that claimed Williamson is so rabidly anti-working class because his father reject’s Kevin’s homosexuality. From his prissy behavior and manner of speech, I had suspected his orientation but shied away from mentioning it for fear of liberal trolls at American Thinker hijacking the comments with homophobia charges.
Whatever the reason, his diatribe is pure crap and National Review is truly stupid for publishing it.
I should have said his blue-collar father…
Hmm… I wondered what was behind little Kevin’s angst. Now I know.
Well, both of them need counseling, IMHO. But what do I know?
Well it’s not really all that surprising. We’re watching a movement die, and nothing likes to be dead that believes it still has a shot at life.
More americans are NOT conservative than are…that’s a simple fact. It’s also a simple fact that’s not going to change, in fact more people are socially moderate than conservative another simple fact.
Most Americans don’t much care about two gay people getting married, moderate republicans fall in with most Americans in sharing that belief. Issues that some religious conservative elements of the party seem to want to press in the public forum are issues that most Americans have already determined to be of minor importance or not important at all.
In allowing the evangelicals to dominate the party for a time the republicans have lost touch with center America who view republicans as far too right of center for their tastes.
Trump has changed that….Trump appeals to a wider spectrum of people more moderates along with some religious people who aren’t totally hung up on single issue politics. That’s why he scares the party leadership so much. He is pragmatic, he understands compromise, he understands it’s bad for business to lock out large segments of your customer base because disenfranchised customers go elsewhere.
The republicans won the senate back, but they took the wrong message from that win. They thought the win was reinforcing their platform which is entirely wrong. The win was a simple repudiation of Harry Reid’s nuclear option style of leadership and Obama’s ruling be edict. It was a message to democrats, I’m not certain either party fully understands that message just yet but it will become clearer as time moves on.
^^^ THIS ^^^
I know an awful lot of people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They want better economic policy, and really do not care what consenting adults do, so long as they do it in private. That was the original TEA Party platform. Social conservatives did try to hijack it. I suspect that Mr. Trump’s popularity is some evidence that they were not wholly successful.
The economic/social bifurcation is a perceptive observation, and not often mentioned. What tends to muddy the water, at least it seems to me, is that Williamson has spun off into a third split which is the issue of class warfare; it’s apparent from the tone that he sees himself as a sort of wannabe neo-aristocrat who thinks the world would be a better place if the hoi polloi knew their place.
That Williamson is a gay from West Texas might also explain a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with national politics. At a fundamental level, he could well be lashing out and giving payback to all those who didn’t elect him prom queen when he was in high school.
Trump appeals to a wider spectrum of people more moderates along with some religious people who aren’t totally hung up on single issue politics. That’s why he scares the party leadership so much. He is pragmatic, he understands compromise…
That can’t be the reason. If it were, the party leadership would always unite behind conservative “extremists” — say Cruz or Thompson or Gingrich or Gramm. (None of whom is really extreme, but by the standards of elected officials who play at the national level they’ll do.)
This year, the party elites hated Cruz almost as much as Trump, and the heavy endorsements went to Jeb Bush…a much less conservative candidate. (If you read the “endorsement primaries” at fivethirtyeight.com, you’ll see that Jeb came in way ahead of Rubio, and Rubio way ahead of Cruz or Trump, in endorsements from the party establishment. Cruz is ahead now only because Bush and Rubio have dropped, but they led by an order of magnitude before.)
In fact, the main Republican objection to Cruz has been, “We can’t possibly nominate him…he’s too conservative to win.”
There’s no evidence to suggest the Republican establishment is in thrall to “religious conservative elements” — Santorum didn’t get very far, nor back in the day did Pat Robertson — in fact, they seem dominated by out-of-touch moderates. Whose main promise is, “You won’t get very excited about this guy Romney/McCain/Dole, but he’s so moderate he can win, and isn’t that what matters?” And then they lose.
If Republican voters were out for someone to be “pragmatic,” and reach across the aisle to compromise with the other side, Kasich or Jeb Bush would be the front-runner now.
Alberich, haven’t heard from you in a while. I think you’re right for the most part with the exception that it is not necessarily the case that Republican voters are looking for a leader to be pragmatic and reach across the aisle.
In the current political environment, I think you should have stopped at pragmatic. I’m one of those socially moderate conservatives yet I have no desire to compromise on economic issues with the Marxists on the “other side” which we’ve been doing far too long. That’s why we’re 20 trillion in debt. Screw any more of that kind of reaching across the aisle.
I quite agree with you, Poetrooper…it’s VOV that I was arguing with. He seemed to think the GOP leadership wanted a doctrinaire conservative and were scared of Trump because he’s a better compromiser. (I’m basing this on the italicized language I quoted from him.)
I by contrast think the Republican leadership want moderate compromisers like Bush and dislike (more) doctrinaire conservatives like Cruz. (And, for that matter, me.) Which is why they, but not the voters, were so quick to pour endorsements on Bush.
Alberich, you’ve given me food for thought. But, it’s clear that Trump is far more Bush/Romney than he is Cruz/Santorum/Rubio etc… Trump hasn’t been a slash and burn guy and he hasn’t been a stand to the last man and die guy like a Cruz…. I concluded, perhaps incorrectly, that most voters aren’t having those clear republican candidates because those clear republican candidates ideals don’t sit well with the electorate. Trump was a pro-choice guy (quoted several times in support of choice while stating he didn’t like the idea of abortion including on Meet the Press) before deciding to run and become a pro-life guy, pro-gay rights (in addition to supporting expansion of the 1964 civil rights act his book makes the statement no one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation), he’s far less authentic when stating pro-republican platform staples than any other republican on the stage. Trump is the ultimate RINO…that’s not exactly what you’d call a republican platform candidate that makes me think because he’s not a true representative of many of the single issues that republicans live and die by his appeal was to people who don’t share most of those platform planks either but identify as republican rather than democrat. His regular support of democratic party leaders might be explained away right now as good business sense but one could also argue it means he’s not really a man of principle he’s in fact the type of 1%er who’s realized the best way to control the playing field is to buy both sides of the coin. Again not a staunch republican platform guy. So who then are his supporters? Lots of republicans who don’t buy all the party’s platform and lots of independents and centrists who find his passion interesting and his separation from base republican issues far more palatable than the pablum pukers like Bush/Romney without the sneering attitude of a self righteous prick like Cruz. Trump’s more like Clinton than anyone else running, so it was my thought that he represents a more centrist viewpoint. He’s certainly not a fundie evangelical… Read more »
There’s some truth in that, VOV; but I think Trump’s main appeal started with simple anger over immigration. When the two parties seem to be joining forces perpetually on a policy that a great many Republican voters don’t want…they will go a long way out of the way to say “screw you” to the party establishment.
Even TEA Party candidates have the problem that too many of them cooperated too much after being elected. Or at least that’s how a lot of Republicans see it — and maybe one reason they’re holding the line on Supreme Court nominees now, a sense of, “Guys, can’t you stand up to Obama just this once please?”
So I don’t read the Trump support as a referendum on conservative ideas in general. For example, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama endorsed Trump a while ago, and he really is a lifelong conservative from a very red state…but he’s also a longtime immigration restrictionist, and Trump is the one candidate he took seriously on that issue.
Poetrooper’s earlier article on “Jacksonian” voters gets you closer, I think, to where Trump gets a lot of his support. Leaving aside how good the historical parallel is, voters like that don’t have an across-the-board ideology that determines their positions (or, if they do, it’s not as important to them as it is to someone like me). But they are certainly passionate on individual issues and about the country.
Veritas Omnia Vincit…Thank you once again and here, here. I thought and thought and being rather high on anger this morning could not come with a clear line of thinking to write.
If someone can draw a clear distinction between Williamson’s drivel and Obama’s condescending remarks about disaffected whites clinging to their guns and Bibles, please let me know. It all sounds like the same thing to me: affirmation that the upper political class is part and parcel of the plutocracy which rules the modern-day peasantry – the main difference is none of them have yet said “let them eat cake”. Laws don’t apply to them, but apply to us…. we have the best legal, political, and justice systems than money can buy… one can only wonder when the lessons of 1789 will be resurrected.
Disestablishmentarianism!
Revive the Whigs!
Trump is a dangerous fascist. A narcissistic sociopath and megalomaniac. He is a existential threat to the last threads of our democracy. Anyone supporting him is a moron. Plain and simple.
However, the way BOTH parties are operating is utterly anti-democratic. They are doing everything they can to keep non-establishment candidates out of the white house. Both GoP party officials and DNC officials have been changing the rules of the game mid primary. Have attempted to influence and manipulate voter participation in favor of establishment candidates, have used as much influence as they could muster to shape the media narrative in favor of establishment candidates and even resorted to voter suppression.
The super-delegate game has always been a blight on the DNC and now the GoP is strongly considering adopting that tactic.
Students at ISU were being told they could not vote for Bernie because the polling station did not have enough democratic ballots (this was within three hours of the polls opening) so they were encouraged to vote in the republican primary against Trump instead. Trying to kill two birds with one stone so to speak.
As these reports come out and gain traction in the national consciousness, and as the parties resort to more blatant and undeniably deliberate tactics it will destroy the perception of legitimacy of both parties.
I think the GoP will be first to go if they take any blatant measure to derail Trump but I think the DNC is not far behind.
Here, Taylor – here’s a free and corrected rewrite of that first para you posted above.
My point? Two: (1) gratuitous insults in your first paragraph don’t exactly help if you’re trying to get someone to listen to what you have to say, and (2) others can play that game, too.
Except you just look foolish if you STILL are unable to recognize the difference between communism, socialism, and a social democracy.
Really, it is inexcusable at this point. It is not like you can’t Google it for fucksake.
Here, I will do it for you:
“Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
And here is a good explanation of how what Bernie proposes is not “socialism”. In fact it is generally regarded by economic theorists as a “variety” of capitalism since it preserves the market mechanism for the distribution of the overwhelming majority of goods and services.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/
I wonder what your Bezerkley “elitist” professors would say about you using Teh Wiki to make a point?
While I do agree that it is “name calling” call someone whop support Trump a moron, but this board also frequently calls EQUALLY stupid actions for what they are. And supporting Trump is stupid.
As for him being a narcissistic sociopath? He is. That an actual fact.
As far as being a fascist? That too, but more debatable. He is using fascist rhetoric and political tactics. And the few policy proposals he has mentioned were fascist.
So until his “variety” of fascist ideology is given a new name the most accurate term we currently have is “fascist”.
Your hero B. Hussein 0bama, THAT’S an example of a narcissistic sociopath. Let’s not forget that he went to bed for a good night’s sleep before jetting off to Vegas aboard Air Force One for a campaign rally and fundraiser while four American Citizens were being murdered.
There are three bicycles. One is a capitalist bicycle. Capitalist bicycles come in many different designs and colors and are privately produced for sale. They work great or the maker folds because no one wants to buy a lousy bike. An owner of a capitalist bike may do what he wishes to do with it, including loaning it out to others..
Bike number two is a socialist bicycle. It comes in black or white, with a crossbar or without. It is produced by a private maker under contract to the government. The government decides who may use one of the bikes and for how long. When it loses its chain or gets a flat, the user may not effect any repairs but make arrangements with the Office of the Secretary of the People’s Bicycles for the bike to be fixed. This usually takes three to twelve months.
Bicycle number three is the communist bike. It is not owned by anyone in particular. (Note: There used to be only socialist bicycles here but then came the great bicycle revolution and, afterwards, the people took over the bicycle manufactory.) No one may own a bike and there is no controlling government office. Bikes are produced and just deposited on the streets and countryside for use by whoever wants to use one. No one maintains the bikes and many lie rusted and broken. If a person is found to be maintaining a bike for his exclusive use, he is shot.
The End.
I wish I could “like” this comment.
And on which of these bikes may we be armed?
Decadent Uzbek!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMUCnCUbm-U
About Trump, Lars wrote: “As for him being a narcissistic sociopath? He is. That an actual fact”. (Lars wrote “actual fact”, yet fails to post the proof to support it – as if I’m supposed to take his word on it because he’s Lars, and since he wrote it, it must be true.
I’ve yet to read or even finds the psychological findings that support his statement… and since that sort of information would probably be protected anyway, I’m calling you on your bullshit, Taylor.
You cite Wikipedia to support your definition of what social democracy is? You claim to be working on your master’s degree? Are you fucking kidding us with that lame ass bullshit? You need to spend less time getting indoctrinated at that school you attend and learn what it really means.
Lars, you dumb poodle, as usual, you have provided no back up for your statement that students at any university were told they could not vote for a specific candidate.
In fact, the only reference I can find to that is a 2007 article linked here:
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/12/31/attack-student-voting-rights
If you’re referring to this primary, no such thing occurred. This is from the Des Moines Register.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/iowas-nightmare-revisited-correct-winner-called-caucus-night/79702010/
Unless you provide a legitimate backup reference for what you said, you are simply lying in your teeth. NO ONE WAS TOLD S/HE COULD NOT VOTE. Just the opposite. In fact, 17-year-olds were allowed to vote in the Ohio primary yesterday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ohio-judge-allows-17-year-olds-to-vote-in-primary/2016/03/11/72009080-e7df-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
And likewise in Illinois:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/03/15/with-illinois-primary-underway-busy-day-expected-at-the-polls/
In addition, people voting in Cook County and Chicago were allowed to register to vote at the polling places, resulting in a higher-than-usual turnout.
What is most disturbing about your comments is that you run your mouth based on gossip and rumor, with no facts to back up your spiel.
There was, IN FACT, NO SUPPRESSION OF VOTING ANYWHERE IN YESTERDAY’S PRIMARIES OR ANY OF THE PREVIOUS PRIMARIES.
You are full of indisputable SHIT. Right now, what you posted makes you the biggest fucking lying sack of shit on this planet.
If you EVER pull your head out of your ass, would let someone know?
Read my lips.
I could have sworn you once said that voter fraud by democrats was non existent. Now you give us a clear cut example.
“Students at ISU were being told they could not vote for Bernie because the polling station did not have enough democratic ballots (this was within three hours of the polls opening) so they were encouraged to vote in the republican primary against Trump instead. Trying to kill two birds with one stone so to speak.”
Looks like the local election officials/Donk Party are in the bag for Shillery if there weren’t enough democrat ballots?
Well, since it is an allegation by Lars the Infallible Poodle, I had my own doubts, as I state quite clearly here: http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=64848&cpage=1#comment-2817404
I could find nothing that confirmed any such statement on his part. As far as I’m concerned, he either got that from a dubious gossip rag or made it up out of whole cloth. But that’s the Poodle for you: no facts, just barking.
Lars subscribes to the “open mouth, insert foot” style of debate.
Trump is a dangerous fascist. A narcissistic sociopath and megalomaniac. He is a existential threat to the last threads of our democracy. Anyone supporting him is a moron. Plain and simple. You and I often agree in principle, if not in verbiage, but on this I guess I must occasionally wear the ‘moron’ title then. The fact is, I don’t know what Trump really supports – he’s a bit of an enigma, and it’s hard to separate out his real positions from the primary games being played. And whether he’ll ultimately get my support or not depends on a lot of factors that aren’t yet known – from his choice of running mate to how he handles himself against (presumably) Mrs. Clinton. But here are two short reasons why I, as someone who leans liberal, may support Trump: 1) I don’t like dynastic politicians. I don’t want a Bush or a Clinton presidency. Not out of dislike for the other Bush or Clinton presidencies, but because on a fundamental level I think dynasties like these are anathema to the very idea of a democratic society. Even if they’re a great candidate, I feel we trade short-term gain for long-term problems, and that’s not something I’m really content with. 2) I, like most other sane Americans, find Congress to be appallingly useless. It needs a shake-up, and an outsider winning an election is definitely a shake-up. Sure, I’d probably prefer Bernie, but if it comes down to insider-Clinton vs. outsider-Trump, I think the latter inspires more outside candidates. It’s a bit like a forest fire – sometimes, in order to contain it, you need to set fires. Trump is a controlled fire. Why controlled? Because he’ll do what he can, but Congress will likely oppose him on anything too outlandish. Again, it comes down to principle – carry on with an unsustainable status quo, or take a calculated risk on a shake-up. I have a third reason, too, which gets down to the probability of Mr. Trump (as an unknown gamble) being better for the country as a whole -not me,… Read more »
Lars, we know that you’ll pull the lever for Shillery in November (Bernie won’t get the nomination unless Shillery is being led into a federal courtroom in handcuffs… and that’s a BIG if…). She’s going to offer you all of the FREE SHIT that you and your collegiate-types want because YOU WANT IT!!! You’ll sell your little dark, pathetic soul to have someone give you a woobie, pay your loans, wipe your ass and cater to your every need.
You know this… we know this… it’s the truth!
Does Anybody Find It Odd How This Story Reads Like Hillarys Speach Last Night Where She Was Talking About Closeing Down The Coal Industry And Screw The People Who Are Employed By Them
Talk About Out Of Touch
Does anybody find it odd that you chose to capitalize the first letter of every word in your sentence?
Me its not my M…… O…… Lol……
The difference between Trump and Sanders is that if the Dem’s “anti establishment” candidate loses the nomination (and it seems he will) the Dems can still be counted on to go out and pull the lever for Hillary because REpublicans ZOMG THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!1!1!
OTOH, if Trump is denied the nom by the Republicans a huge chunk of his support will either stay home or vote 3rd party out of spite.
Unfortunately, on the R side there are registered Republicans who simply cannot vote for a fraud, a liar and a scumbag hack reality star like Trump, and I know that because I’m one of them.
Which unfortunately means either way, Hillary wins, not on her own merits but on the stupidity of the Stupid party. 🙁
I have little love for Trump, but the GOPe created this Frankenstein Monster through their sheer stupidity, incompetence, malfeasance, and outright betrayal of the trust the working middle class gave them in the mid-terms. So live with it, GOPe turds, you deserve every inch and every bit of the DonZilla you created…
Word ^^^^^^
Wait until they pull there next stunt and put a leftist on the Bench !!!!!!!!
So I just read something on HuffPo (yes, consider the source) that I thought was interesting…Since Trump now seems a near-cinch as the GOP nominee, could this spell the end of the Republican party and see the rise of a more moderate party in the political center? Essentially the article points out that per the 12th Amendment, in order to be elected a candidate needs a majority of the electoral votes (270.) They then posit a scenario where mainstream Republicans are so disgusted and turned off by Trump, yet unwilling to vote for Hillary, that it creates the space for Romney (or a similar republican) to run as a 3rd party candidate. Not to win – which they acknowledge he couldn’t – but to spoil either Trump or Hillary from achieving the 270 votes necessary to be elected. Which then throws the choice to the House of Representatives, led by Paul Ryan who then hand-picks his former running mate Romney as the prez. Now, one thing right away that I see that is wrong with that scenario is that the writer seems to assume that the current House would be the one to choose, essentially a replay of the 1824 election that saw John Quincy Adams elected by the House after Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes (but fell short of winning a majority of them.) But I don’t think that’s correct, I believe that since Congress takes office before the inauguration (I think it’s the first weekday or maybe the first Monday after the new year, isn’t it?) then the House that picks the new president will actually be whichever House is elected in the 2016 general election. And in that case, it COULD be Ryan-led Republicans or it COULD be Pelosi-led Democrats. After all, every seat in the House is up for grabs in November. (another possibility might be a Republican house under someone other than Ryan but I don’t know how “secure” Ryan’s seat is since I don’t know much about Wisconsin politics.) Something to consider. And if the “official” Republican candidate fails then does the… Read more »
One only need go back to examples such as 1992, 1968, or 1948 to see where 3rd party candidates have siphoned off enough votes to give create an EC Victor while falling well short of a popular majority (Clinton and Nixon both won with IIRC 43 percent of the popular vote.)
Even 2000 and Nader kept us from having a President Gore… (shudder)
Right but at least in the 1992 and 2000 examples, while it’s true that the 3rd party candidate siphoned enough popular votes to tip the EC for the one of the major party candidates, this article talks about a 3rd party candidate who actually takes EC votes for himself. I don’t think that’s happened in my memory (though I may be wrong – did John Anderson win any electoral votes in 1980? I didn’t think he did but I can’t remember.)
A 3rd party candidate need only win enough EC votes to prevent one or the other major party candidate from winning a majority and apparently this is a real possibility.
OK just checked. No, Anderson won NO electoral votes in 1980. So the only time in my life that a 3rd party candidate has actually won electoral college votes was in 1968 when Wallace won 46 EC votes running against Humphrey and Nixon.
Trump’s lead at this point in the process speaks volumes of the disgust many conservatives hold for the current regime and those who, notwithstanding an R beside their names, played ball with oBaMa. Rubio got his. Jeb was a joke. Still, the boys’ club doesn’t seem to get it. If they did, they would pack up Romney, McCain, Graham, Bonehead and a slew of others–including Kasich– and ship them off to Palookaville, no return. Many people are justifiably pissed off, sick of handling the Left with kid gloves, sick of the trash that is being force-fed to us by all three branches of government. Trump has tapped into that resentment. Many of us are tired of being dictated to by the centralized monolith known as the Federal government. When NR or others who lay claim to conservatism tell us whom to like and whom to dislike, well, we enjoy the opportunity to tell them to go to hell. We will enjoy it even more in November. Trump is not my idea of a solid conservative or the kind of fellow I’d like to spend five minutes with, that’s for sure, but he’ll do if he’s the nominee. So, call him a fascist, a nazi, a thug, Hiler or whatever. Every such claim pleases many Trump supporters and pushes others into his camp. After all, if he generates so much inane vitriol from the Left, he must be doing something right (pun intended.)
Personally, I’m guessing that if Bill Buckley were still alive, he’d be kicking this little Sally’s ass up and down the halls of NR.
At least that thought gives me comfort.
So readers of TAH, the question that I (and I assume a few others would like to know) if Sanders is not the Democratic Nominee, who does Lars vote for in the General Election in November?
My guess – Clinton
I’m sure he’ll become a Hillarrhoid!
No doubt, Larsie will be, as API said, a Hillarhoid.
If Hillary becomes President, that will be on the top 10 list of the worst things to happen to America.
The democrats are at least loyal to their party. They will line up and vote for whomever gets elected and Bernie Sanders will urge his supporters to join him in voting for Hillary Clinton.
The discord on the republican side could very well mean another 4-8 years of democratic occupancy at 1600 PA Ave.
Just make Marijuana legal, don’t take my guns away, and when American Citizens are threatened by a foreign force or some extremist group do something about it and you know, maybe don’t give them access to nuclear weapons.I’ll vote for you, but maybe I’m asking too much. Good article Poetrooper.
‘Morally, they are indefensible.’
What does that even mean? I’m thinking an elitist who has his nose in the clouds.
Just returned from a little trip in the car and I had the radio on, tuned to Mark Levin’s program. Anyway, Levin says that in special primary election for John Bonehead’s seat, a fellow by the name of Warren Davidson prevailed in a 15-person contest! Here’s the kicker: Davidson is a businessman and former Ranger, as in US Army Ranger. Among the 14 the first-time office holder beat were a state representative and a state senator. He’s not in yet. He still has the general—but whoever wins the R primary wins the seat. It’s one of those the-R-who-wins-the-primary-wins-the-general districts. Davidson is a successful businessman who joined the Army out of high school and—get this—went to West Point. I know this will bother a couple of folks here but it strongly appears that Davidson is one of those scary religious conservatives.
True conservatives should be as disgusted with Trump as they are with Sanders and Clinton. Conservatism is incompatible with racism, elitism, and reliance on violence, all of which Trump has supported if not outright incited.
You can pretend all you want, but at its base the Trump movement is capitalizing on the fears of the middle class and the avarice of the rich. He has no actual plan for the country other than to exclude those he has deemed outsiders or unworthy.
Please, all you Trumpsters, explain how Mexico will pay for the wall or our trade partners will suddenly change their minds about tariffs? While you’re at it, fill me in on exactly how he will build the military so ‘no one will mess with us’ while simultaneously cutting taxes and gutting trade.
Finally, please explain how you can be ok with the implied racism, pledges to support him personally, and incitement of violence.
Then again, he will probably ‘evolve’ his positions over time. Let’s just hope it’s not to something even worse.
I just posted a little ways above why I could support Trump, and what it comes down to, really, is that I don’t support Trump – he makes, as you rightly point out, ridiculous statements that are racist, foolish and dangerous. I loathe that aspect of his candidacy.
But for me the big issue is not the enormous problems we’d have with his personal character, but rather the severe problems we have with our democracy itself. If putting someone who is (possibly/probably) a bit of an asshole at the helm for a short while -four years is a short while- helps serve as a wake-up call to the electorate and politicians alike, can it be justified? I think so, at least for the moment. So much for me will depend on when the general election pivoting starts, and choices in running mates.
Put another way, I’m not okay with his implied racism or tacit -or direct- acceptance of violence at rallies. Just as I’m not okay with injecting people with poisons. But there are days when chemotherapy is preferable than the alternative..
Red, you seem to be some sort of absolutist. Last week you were demanding documentation for my opinions and now you make a statement like this:
“Conservatism is incompatible with racism, elitism, and reliance on violence, all of which Trump has supported if not outright incited.”
Good grief, man, EVERY human endeavor, including the spread of the Christian gospel, is compatible with all three given the right circumstances. I suppose you’ll want documentation but sorry, I’m going to bed.
You want proof? Google it for crying out loud…
So, just to be clear, you acknowledge that Trump is racist, elitist, and incites political violence, and you are just fine with him as your candidate?
Trump a racist? You mean like the BLM goobs who openly encourage violence against White people that are in bed with the dhimmirats? How many times have Trump supporters tried to use mobs to shut down other candidates’ rallies like the leftist loons in Chicago?
Red, not only do you appear to be a nitpicking absolutist but your reading comprehension is nothing to brag about either. I said in the piece I voted for Cruz. Did you miss that? Also, there is not a word in my reply that says I support racism, elitism or violence in Trump or any other human being.
I’m simply realistic enough to recognize the universality of those human failures that you think don’t occur within your pure conservative movement.
Know another word for absolutist, Red?
Fanatic…
It isn’t my conservative movement, and it’s not pure.
If you don’t like criticism of your work you shouldn’t post it. I read you other piece, by the way, in which you talk about reading all of the comments on your articles. Please, do me a favor and take it easy on the alarming allocation of alliteration.
Well, gee, you finally get it, Red. It’s not your conservative movement and it’s not pure. Now let’s see if you can handle the next step in that progression which is, if it’s not yours and not pure, then it is not your place to define who is and is not a conservative based on whether or not they meet your standards for inclusion.
And are you really so frickin’ humorless you’re going to complain about my having a little fun with the King’s English when your own writing style is so, well, elementary?
You’re shaping up to be Lars of the Right.
C’mon, now, Poe, first you torture the English language, now you want to torture the concept of humor?
I’m doing the best I can.
I can handle everything you can offer, big guy, but I’m sure you’ve heard that that before. That said, I am not a conservative- I am merely an observer. My point is that your boy Trump (and if he ain’t your boy, then stop giving him a pass on his ethics) is not a conservative, and he is certainly not liberal.
He is, in fact, an abomination, and the fact that we are all looking to Cruz as our salvation is a very sad state of affairs.
During presidential elections I have often joked to friends that I was choosing the least bad candidate; this cycle I am not joking. Donald Trump represents all that is bad with America,
The best I can say about Ted Cruz is that he is honest. I think that he has dangerous ideas, but he isn’t lying about them.
I won’t accuse you of supporting Trump, but those that do are deluding themselves. I will warn you that by tolerating him or even humoring his actions, you are essentially a good man doing nothing.
I’m sure you understand the allusion. That, by the way, is not the same as alliteration.
Cripes, Red. If you aren’t embarrassed, you ought to be. That is just plain–what’s that French word?–retarded.
Well said, Cav. You really outlined your position. Thanks for the counseling
“So, just to be clear, you acknowledge that Trump is racist, elitist, and incites political violence, and you are just fine with him as your candidate?”
So, just to be clear, Poetrooper acknowledged nothing of the sort. By saying he did, you purposely attribute to him that which is not his. That’s not clever. That’s infantile. I imagine you wrote that with your lips pursed and your free hand on your hip. If you didn’t, the image pleases me nonetheless, Red.
Cav, this guy apparently has a badly bothersome burr up his butt (like that alliteration, Red?) and as I said above, he’s quickly becoming the Lars of the Right.
Poe, that was a very good bad use of alliteration. Your joke tells me that you took my comment in the vein in which it was given, which was hateful but somehow forgiving.
Cav, your comments about my hips and lips (that is rhyming, not alliteration) only confirm my suspicions about you Cav guys; you all have an unhealthy jealousy about us Airborne guys.
It’s ok, it’s hard for me not to touch myself when I see those pics of me in my beret.
My point is that those that roll your eyes and wryly smile about Trump’s latest statement or antic are good men doing nothing.
“It’s ok, it’s hard for me not to touch myself when I see those pics of me in my beret.”
Hey, I’ll send you a pic of me in my steel pot in Nam in 1966 with the 101st, likely before you were born, Sonny.
That oughta really get your dick up…
If Trump was an actual racist, it’s doubtful he would have gotten an endorsement from Ben Carson. It seems to me the people playing the race card tend to be those like Jorge Ramos preaching the open-border gospel to his Univision viewers. Open borders are not a racial issue, they’re one of economics and sovereignty.
It’s also hard to see how Trump is guilty of inciting violence. If somebody shows up at a Trump rally, and starts a fight because they don’t agree with him, it seems absurd to say it’s all Trumps fault because he made some nitwit throw the first punch. In order for Trump to really incite violence, his supporters would need to show up at a Clinton rally and start punching people, which hasn’t happened.
You mean that his “trust me” and “take my word on it” policies aren’t enough for you?
Last night, after the polls closed and the results began to show up on the news, Trump toned down his rhetoric. If he is not making grandiose speeches about what he plans to do, perhaps his strategy is smarter than that of his opponents. Shrillary started her campaign with the statement that she would put solar panels on every home across the country, a nonsensical statement that ignores facts such as lack of suitability (my house is not suitable to it) and the extreme expense of it (who is going to pay for that crap? NOT ME). Now she’s saying she’ll shut down the coal industry? And replace power generation with what? Moonbeams and fairy dust? Solar and wind power are not proving to be as practical or cost-effective as was promised, but if she doesn’t have to pay for it, so what? Does anyone know the cost of replacing a completely burned-out wind turbine that was destroyed by the hurricane-force winds of a derecho? I have pictures from last year! It ain’t pretty. She’s made other grandiose and rather ludicrous statements with no regard to the cost or consequences. If somehow she manages to get that seat, do you think for one moment she’d do any of that without foisting the entire cost on you, the voting public? Trump has not said anything quite so exaggerated, other than tapping into the curbed anger felt by most of us. On the other hand, he hasn’t said how he will solve the very problems he’s addressed. He has NOT made any promises that were impractical. No, I don’t like the constant personal attacks. That is childish grade school crap, but all of them did it and continue to do it, and frankly, during the 2012 campaign season, it was worse. Only ONE person said during the debates “Can we discuss the issues now?” And he was ignored. There are still several months ahead in this campaign season. There are 2 Democrat candidates, and if shrillary gets the majority, she will probably pull ol’ Bernout into the mix for veep. Why not… Read more »
AMEN, Sister!
Maybe the magazine didn’t try to understand trump because he is an asshat that is only in this for himself and his BS “brand” (I.e. trump). That guy wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and kicked him in the jimmy – HARD. There is a lot of talk about hillary being a liar, but trump is no better. As a matter of fact, his hold on actual reality might be worse that hillary. Mattis 2016.
That sounds like most Republicans and Democrats I’ve ever seen its all about themselves
Trump is in it for himself, there’s never been a doubt.
The difference between Trump and other office seekers is that Trump isn’t shy about letting you know he’s in it for himself.
exactly ^^^^^^
You Hit it on the head….
“Hire me some conservatives, people who have a thorough knowledge of American history, world history, economics. I want constitutional scholars, military retirees who did not work at the Pentagon or appear as a military analyst on TV. I want scientists who are open minded about global warming, and I want some personnel people who can advise on how best to rid the country of the dead weight in government. I want the bathrooms gutted and the Oval Office fumigated. Oh, and contact the Brits and ask for that bust of Churchill back. Tell the gardener to tear up that damn pumpkin patch or whatever it is and replace that hacker’s putting green. That idiot put more divots in that green than there are on some of my fairways. That’s it for now. Itemize this stuff and update me every three days until you get it done. If it’s not done in three weeks, resign.”
I dare say many of us expect Trump to retain the best people if he is the nominee and is elected. He need not pronounce Pakistan as Pock-e-stan and he need not win the Nobel Peace Prize for his good intentions. He need not threaten to bypass the legislative branch even though he, too, will have a pen and a phone. Nor must he declare laws he does not like to be unconstitutional or, for that matter, refuse to enforce laws he disagree with.