By John Kluge March 3, 2016 (Hat tip to Vox Popoli)
Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.
First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.
Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.” The word seems to have become a brand that some people attach to a set of partisan policy preferences, rather than the set of underlying principles about government and society it once was. Conservatism has become a dog’s breakfast of Wilsonian internationalism brought over from the Democratic Party after the New Left took it over, coupled with fanatical libertarian economics and religiously-driven positions on various culture war issues. No one seems to have any idea or concern for how these positions are consistent or reflect anything other than a general hatred for Democrats and the Left.
Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.
All of this seems to have been lost. Conservatives have become some sort of schizophrenic sect of libertarians who love freedom (but hate potheads and abortion) and feel the US should be the policeman of the world. The same people who daily fret over the effects of leaving our society to the mercy of Hollywood and the mass culture have somehow decided leaving it to the mercies of the international markets is required.
Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.
The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?
And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.
Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.
Fourth, I really do not care that Donald Trump is vulgar, combative, and uncivil and I would encourage you not to care as well. I would love to have our political discourse be what it was even thirty years ago and something better than what it is today. But the fact is the Democratic Party is never going to return to that and there isn’t anything anyone can do about it. Over the last 15 years, I have watched the then-chairman of the DNC say the idea that President Bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen was a “serious position held by many people,” watched the vice president tell a black audience that Republicans would return them to slavery if they could, watched Harry Reid say Mitt Romney was a tax cheat without any reason to believe it was true, and seen an endless amount of appalling behavior on the part of the Democrats which is too long to list here and which I am sure you are aware. And now you tell me that I should reject Trump because he is uncivil and mean to his opponents? Is that some kind of a joke? This is not the time for civility or to worry about it in our candidates.
Fifth, I do not care that Donald Trump is in favor of big government. That is certainly not a virtue but it is not a meaningful vice since the same can be said of every single Republican in the race. I am sorry but the “we are just one more Republican victory from small government” card is maxed out. We are not getting small government no matter who wins. So Trump being big government is a wash.
Sixth, Trump offers at least the chance that he might act in the American interest instead of the world’s interest or in the blind pursuit of some fantasy ideological goals. There is more to economic policy than cutting taxes, sham free trade agreements, and hollow appeals to “cutting government” and the free market. Trump may not be good, but he at least understands that. In contrast, the rest of the GOP and everyone in Washington or the media who calls themselves a conservative has no understanding of this.
Rubio would be — as Laura Ingram pointed out this week — nothing but a repeat of the Bush 43 administration with more blood and treasure spent on the fantasy that acting in other people’s interests indirectly helps ours. Cruz might be somewhat better, but it is unclear whether he could resist the temptations of nation building and wouldn’t get bullied into trying it again. And as much as I like Cruz on many areas he, like all of them except Trump, seems totally unwilling to admit that the government has a responsibility to act in the nation’s interests on trade policy and do something besides let every country in the world take advantage of us in the name of “free trade.”
Consider the following. Our country is going broke, half its working-age population isn’t even looking for work, faces the real threat of massive Islamic terrorist attack, and has a government incapable of doing even basic functions. Meanwhile, conservatives act like cutting Planned Parenthood off the government or stopping gays from getting marriage licenses are the great issues of the day and then have the gumption to call Donald Trump a clown. It would be downright funny if it wasn’t so sad and the situation so serious.
It is not that I think Donald Trump is some savior or an ideal candidate. I don’t. It is that I cannot for the life of me — given the sorry nature of our current political class — understand why conservatives are losing their minds over him and are willing to destroy the Republican Party and put Hillary into office to stop him. All of your objections to him either apply to many other candidates you have backed or are absurd.
I don’t expect you to agree with me or start backing Trump. I would, however, encourage you to at least think about what I and others have said and to understand that the people backing Trump are not nihilists or uneducated hillbillies looking for a job. Some of us are pretty serious people and once considered ourselves conservatives. Even if you still hate Trump, you owe it to conservatism to ask yourself how exactly conservatism managed to alienate so many of its supporters such that they are now willing to vote for someone you loath as much as Trump.
I would also encourage you to stop insulting Trump voters. Multiple conservative journalists — Kevin Williamson to name one — have said, in so many words, that Trump supporters are welfare queens, losers, uneducated, and bums. I am a Trump supporter. My father is a Trump supporter. We both went to war for this country. My father spent 40 years in the private sector maintaining this thing we like to call the phone system. I have spent the last 20 years in the Army and toiling away doing national security and law enforcement issues for the federal government. Just what exactly have any of the people saying these things ever done for the country? Where do they feel entitled to say these things? And more importantly, why on earth do they think it is helping their cause?
I am sorry, even if you can convince me Trump is the next Hitler, I don’t want to be associated with that. I don’t want to be associated with a movement that calls other Americans bums and welfare queens because they support the wrong candidate. If I wanted to do that, I would be a leftist.
Perhaps none of this means anything to you and the movement has left me behind. If it has, I think conservatives should understand that it is leaving a lot of people like me behind. I can’t see how that is a good thing.
90 comments:
He explains too much.
Keep Dems out and overturn PC is enough. After that the problems might look a lot different.
I think he lays it out pretty well. For bags and April and all the rest who can not understand how anyone could support Trump. Who can only insult Trumps voters and then turn around and complain that people are all mean to them.
It's silly really.
Cruz seems to be ahead in Kansas at this hour. Good for him. Thats how you do it. Go out and get the votes. But don't try and get a stacked deck and change the rules when it is not working out for you.
There is so much wrong in there it's like a mountain of shit covering a pile of assumptions, and half truths. I don't even want to bother digging into it. It's just another attempt to justify a choice made without any consideration of any of this. If 10%, or 50%, or all of it was shown to be complete bullshit, not a single mind would change. If the man can adopt both sides of every issue,and still be defended like it didn't happen then why even go to all this pretend analysis. Just say "Go Trump" and save your breath.
All the beautiful sophisticates have to get over being ASHAMED of America. And if they can't or they won't....we'll push them out of the way. We. The Trumpets. AMERICA FIRST!
Ok bags. Glad to know you have an open mind. Good to see that you want to know what the other guy thinks. It is refreshing to see that you are not willing to name call and lower the discussion.
This guy puts it very well. "Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem."
That is the crux of the problem. The other candidates don't even pretend to put the interest of the American people first. Maybe Trump is bullshitting. But at least he knows the problem and is not afraid to address it.
Troop, you didn't consider any of this before jumping on the Trump wagon. You fell for him as soon as he threw his first insult and refused to apologize. As for Cruz, he specifically said at CPAC that a brokered convention was a yuge mistake, would cause a rebellion, and that he wanted to win by convincing voters.
"The other candidates don't even pretend to put the interest of the American people first. "
That's complete bullshit. And how is shipping jobs to China, and Mexico and praising Putin, putting America first? He didn't support some policy that hurt jobs. No, he himself took the American jobs there for his own greed - to make a billionaire a few more bucks. America first my ass. Nice saying though. It sells the scam.
I think the term for this is "putting lipstick on a pig."
Bags I did not fall on the Trump bandwagon. I looked at the candidates and what he had to say spoke to me. He speaks my language. Yes it is my New York Values.
I know the Donald for a long time. As I have said I have met him in person a couple of times. He is the typical New York Real Estate Guy. I have dealt with them before. I think any one of them would make a better president than Mittens or Cruz or Rubio. They are tough guys who grew up in a tough school. They know how to deal. To accept what you can get and live to make the next deal where you can cash out. Who have a bunch of blemishes on their record but realize is that the only thing that counts is the deal that is right in front of. Right now. Not yesterday. Not tomorrow.
Cruz wins in Kansas.
Trooper, I thought it was very long, and I read it all. I agree with most of it, but it does have a major flaw. First, the part I agree, and is a point made by Rush Limbaugh several times this week; why has the GOPe reserved this outrage and emotion for Trump? Where was this emotion and intensity for stopping Obama in 2008 or 2012? If only the GOPe had this much contempt and hatred for the left!
But there is a major flaw in the argument. If I wanted to find a clown, who spends his time doing childish name calling, I'd put a microphone in front of Donald Trump. His antics are as silly and unserious as Kevin Williamson.
Still, the article by Trooper is the message the GOPe needs to learn. Until they learn it; we will all be having a tough time. Not just in the primary, but in the next general election and the next 8 years.
Good for him. That is the way to beat Trump. Fair and square in the electorate. Not planning to steal it at the convention the way Mittens wants to do it.
This is sadly too true: "I am sorry but the “we are just one more Republican victory from small government” card is maxed out. We are not getting small government no matter who wins. So Trump being big government is a wash."
Leland they have not learned it. They have done nothing but express contempt for the people who are trying to give them this message. Trump may be a lot of things. But basically he is benign. He won't be Hitler despite what the hysterical pussies say. But soon enough some one will come along who is not so benign.
Cruz is trouncing Trump so far in the primaries today. The good news is that Rubio is getting shlonged -- not that he minds.
If Cruz wins fair and square that is fine with me. He is doing it the right way. Marshalling his forces. Leading them to victory. Not trying to underhandly sit back and let everyone else fight and then jumping in at the end to get the nomination.
Nobody should protest if Cruz gets the nomination. Nobody should refuse to support the ticket if he wins.
The Trump supporter just asks for the same thing.
Of course they won't do that. They will tell you that Trump is just not worthy. They get to decide that. Not you and anyone else who voted for him.
I guess that tells you what they think about you. About how they value your opinion as expressed in your vote. Think about it.
More whining and lies from Trump blind faithers.
Ever stop to think that some of us simply DO NOT LIKE HIM? It has nothing to do with Bush or Romney or McCain or Cruz or Carson or Rubio or Kasich. or your insanely absurd ideas that we are being propagandized and brain-washed by Cruz propaganda.
If that were true, I'd be a Trump supporter by now. I was a Trump supporter - until Trump pissed me off. Trump did that. No one else. Take it up with him.
You know who is in the tank for Trump: Drudge, Rush and Hannity. Some major Trump prooganda going on there.
We don't trust him and that makes you mad. Well, Grow up.
Let the chips fall where they may. We all get one vote. The Dems get two. Deal with it.
PS - I still love you.
It doesn't make me mad April. It makes me laugh. Youse guys are hilarious.
If the One True Ted lurches to the nomination then bully for him.
Oh wait. We can't be bullies anymore. Whatever.
Nobody is whining. We are congratulating the One True Ted. It is not often that a Cigar Store Indian wins a primary. Good show.
The Romney insurgency looks like it was all just a bullshit rumor. He stated flat out this week that he did not want to run and would not run.
There sure is a lot of bullshit that gets a good head start on the truth these days.
Excluding Bags and April, most of the Trump haters are phonies. They're really liberals or Republican establishment types who'd be perfectly happy with Hillary in the White House working with Mitch and Ryan to pass Amnesty and trans-sexual marriage.
Just keep the Globalization and good times going for the top 10% and they're happy.
But they can't say or write that. So they freak out about Trump. A guy who's a moderate Republican who wants to enforce the immigration laws and negotiate some good trade deals.
My first choice is Cruz. But if Donald beats him so be it. The great thing is we've been spared Jeb and Rubio.
Over at Insty there was an article by a lefty who preferred Trump to Hillary because she was really just a Republican, and a Trump Presidency would lead to a Fauxcahontas Presidency in 2020. Also the E. Warren as Vice Pres to Hillary is getting its engine running. I think that would lose, although she would bring in all the Bernie voters without getting crazy Bernie's hairballs all over the furniture.
That's what's great about Trump. He spared us from Jeb! Seriously. If Trump hadn't run, Cruz would've been smeared, vilified and ignored. He couldn't have handled 1/10 the crap that the establishment threw at trump.
And Jeb! would've waltzed to victory. Bags and April would've been happy but no one else would be.
Listen I think Cruz is a true Conservative. He is Frank Crosetti. Do you know who Frank Crosetti was bags?
I think I have to do a post about him.
Anyhoo I don't have a problem with Cruz being the nominee. I think he is a sure loser since he won't bring in a single democratic or independent voter but as a conservative Kamikaze pilot he is as good as it gets. Mazel.
...as a conservative Kamikaze pilot he is as good as it gets.
Damn good imagery.
The best thing about tonight will be getting to see another Rubio victory speech.
You are not fooling anybody with your sock puppets Larry. IP addresses tell the tale.
Every time you post on one of my threads I am going to drop in on your mark and scuff you up a little. So why not be smart and stay away.
I'm following the spam in my google email. It does sound like Meade but it could be spicolli.
...as a conservative Kamikaze pilot he is as good as it gets.
I mean, if I could photoshop, I'd be all over that.
"Every time you post on one of my threads I am going to drop in on your mark and scuff you up a little. So why not be smart and stay away."
Good line Troop. Is that from The Untouchables? Cause every time I read it it comes out in Robert Stack's voice.
Trooper York:
If you have a list of sockpuppets, can you post them here? It might be an interesting guide.
Frank Crosetti? The ol' Yankee infielder? I know him...the SS before Rizzuto....well, before Snuffy Sternweiss, actually...On the great late '30s teams....
Excellent piece Trooper. And solid responses on your part as well.
Keluge is EXACTLY right when he says that, ABOVE ALL, the GOP has to get rid of its long romance with Wilsonian
Dudley "I'll save you Nell!" Do-rite idealism. This point spotlighted by Kluge as the source of much (all?) of our mis-contents simply CANNOT be emphasized enough. The PRIME duty of ANY President is to advance the interests of the registered voters of the US, NOT those of ANY other nation. And while I will admit and aver that not every interaction between America and the rest of the world need be a zero-sum game, plenty of them are, yet the GOP all too often seems oblivious to this fact. As Kluge writes, at least Trump recognizes such facts. The rest of the party does not. And, as Troop notes, as able as Cruz is intellectually, he would be a "Kamikaze" pilot in the general election for all the reasons Troop notes. Hence my vote for Trump despite all his flaws. Only he, imho, can win in the general election by carrying the cross-over vote. And least everyone think he is doomed with minorities I say think again. Hispanics here legally despise illegals and blacks are slowly coming to realize the threat illegals pose to their prosperity. People will be amazed by how many votes from these groups Trump will actually get no matter what the "polls" now say..
Trump wins Vermont and Louisiana. If only he'd been alive in 1860.
Think Richard Widmark in "Kiss of Death."
Larry is at the top of the stairs.
"ABOVE ALL, the GOP has to get rid of its long romance with Wilsonian
Dudley "I'll save you Nell!" Do-rite idealism."
Exactly. You'd think after Vietnam people would've learned their lesson. But we are still fighting these "we'll save the world" loonies. 19 $trillion$ in debt, thousand dead in Iraq, and these goofs are still running around wanting us to fight Putin or the Chi-coms, or Iran, or anyone else. Meanwhile, they don't want to defend our borders and want to invite the very people we are fighting in Afghanistan and Syria. Craziness on steroids.
We are not deep in debt from the military, which is at historical lows as a percentage of GDP. We are unsustainably structured in the hole from guaranteeing our own people an easy life whether they contribute anything to the effort or not, and so a significant percentage have chosen to take that easy useless route. Now we can't pay for it, and our children won't be able too, not to mention filling the pot holes or reaching for the stars. We have replaced ambition, vision and freedom with safety and comfort for too many of us. Saving people of the world as well as securing our own security - which are intricately connected - is now only at issue because we blew the bank on sloth and selfishness to buy votes.
Well, other than his apoplexy with the ADA I think he's coming from a pretty sensible place. He talks a lot so I'm only halfway through, but see nothing to disagree with.
Maybe he's one of those taciturn guys who keeps his opinion to himself for so long that when he finally unleashes it, it's a long doozy. But needs to be said. I have a feeling a lot of conservatives are in a position like that.
"We are unsustainably structured in the hole from guaranteeing our own people an easy life whether they contribute anything to the effort or not,"
yeah, that's right Bags. Except open borders guys like you want to keep on importing poor people who don't contribute anything. Or if they do contribute something want to vote for socialism just like they had back in the old country.
And spare me the anecdotes about "hardworking Mexicans who mow my lawn".
Because of Peeps like You and you're 'isn't immigration great' meme, California is now a blue state forever with 2 of the most left-wing Senators and a lock for any POTUS Democrat candidate to the left of Joe Stalin.
When the whole country goes left and raises the top income tax rate, maybe the WSJ editorial board - and peeps like Mitt Romney - will finally realize it was a bad idea. Or maybe not because all those guys will have bailed out and moved to Switzerland.
The one thing I'm totally not getting in this kerfuffle is what it is that makes Bags think he's a "conservative"? What does he want to conserve? A broken government that is leaving too many people pissed to avoid a complete reshuffling? I don't get it. He seems to be a plutocratic imperial interventionist who doesn't want to do any math on the budgeting and believes an unrelenting corporatist agenda and a military massive enough to tempt God into destroying a few continents are virtues of a "small" government. What is with him?
He doesn't seem to indicate any hint that conservatives and liberals are speaking each other's language more and more this year. We have our priorities, sure. But we are getting better and better at understanding and respecting that oftentimes we are getting at the same problems simply from two different vantage points. There is little I hear in the urgency of this man's message and in most of the pragmatic/non-ideological conservative's gripes that I can disagree with, let alone disrespect. I simply think that Bags took the convenient temporary compromises the GOP made for decades simply to gain and hold power (merging conservatives with libertarians), and mistaking that for some type of core principle held to by either.
I think the time has come to move on. We live in a bewildering world, that is becoming more complex every day. People need, first and foremost, to remember who they are. Are they primarily Americans? Or is their agenda more globalist? They have first principles, and this guy's I can understand, respect, and work with. Maybe liberals and conservatives are the merging alliance this election. Libertarians and corporatists and militarists have had their hey-day, but it's time to move on. Freedom is already baked into the American credo, and neither liberals or progressives or conservatives are going to turn this into a gulag state simply by passing on the next intervention, the next corporate tax loophole, or the next opportunity to give a speech about amendments that are not threatened in any perceivable way.
We are not deep in debt from the military..
WTF ANYTHING that's a THIRD of the budget is too big. You are insane. But I'm sure there's a 0.0000003% part of the budget somewhere you can carp on because it funds wildlife research or reproductive health and therefore touches all the meaningless hot-button "wedge" issue emotions that you can play with and distract us.
You have ceased to become a meaningful commenter and have reduced yourself to a human talking point. It's sad. I think you identify with practical concerns in your every day life or professionally, but politically I can't even understand what you're saying any more. Maybe you were always this way... who knows. I keep hearing someone who went to a philosophy or debate class and as soon as they redirect you to what's actually happening, you object on some obscure ideological grounds that demand life, death and identity should be trivial. I have no idea what's important to you. Have you considered that maybe you have things so good that you aren't even capable of understanding what's important to anyone with a net worth that will never touch yours? These people vote. In huge numbers, now. I understand you don't want to or maybe it's not naturally in your person to condescend to them. But at some point ignoring other people's most difficult problems is indistinguishable from contempt.
Where is it getting you, Bags?
We have replaced ambition, vision and freedom with safety and comfort for too many of us.
Yes. Because meaningless never-ending military adventures aren't pulled to make us feel safe and comfortable.
Save the world! Bags is essentially a Wilsonian internationalist.
We are the world. We blow up children.
We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start shelling.
There's a choice we're making, we're saving our own lives.
And those who profit handsomely from contracts - not you and me.
Very good piece.
The doctrinaire, litmus test obsession of the "Conservatives" is so exclusionary it asks how Cruz wins a national election.
And hammering the issue of America's interest is probably the best tack of all in the article.
I have no doubt Donald Trump believes in this country and wants to see it prosper. I'm looking forward to Kluge's article gives impetus to others to rebut the hysteria and propaganda of the One True Ted movement.
Just when you start to makes sense, Balls, you say something stupid.
No answer to the fact that the left are dedicated to destroying our nation by encouraging sloth. ... ? changing the subject to "But Bush/military/wars" doesn't cut it.
Especially in light of the fact that Obama has gutted our military.
Mark Steyn hosting Rush on April 29 2011, contrasting Alan West with the vile Trump.
Six minutes Real Audio.
Steyn has reversed position completely, owing to defeating MSM PC editing being the highest priority, over idiotic policy positions.
Presumably some Trump supporter can assist Trump with policy when the time comes. We need the fuck-you answer to the MSM first, a position with huge national support, but people just don't know it. It surprises them.
The soap opera news genre attracts only 40% of women. A minority!
It's big enough to pay the bills, but seems a lot bigger because there are no other outlets for news. They couldn't support themselves and so don't exist.
Voting is another matter, once that truth gets out.
I am solidly convinced Trump will be eviscerated easily in the general.
Heil Trump.
Sure, Cruz is such a likable guy and his fundamentalism will be as respected and revered as much as Pissy's Islam.
AprilApple said...
Especially in light of the fact that Obama has gutted our military.
No, he's done more damage with all of his PC.
Late to this thread, but I came across this Playboy interview from 1990 that's worth a read. I think it dispels any notion that Trump doesn't have a conservative outlook.
I think Spril secretly has a crush on the Donald.
"yeah, that's right Bags. Except open borders guys like you want to keep on importing poor people who don't contribute anything."
Maybe you have me confused with someone else, because I've argued the exact opposite ad nauseam in here, and you probably knew that, but once I refused to get on the Trump bus, I've become, a Cruzzer, anti-American, open borders, pro-China, part of the duopoly, the establishment, and a carrier of Typhoid.
It's a special ability of the Trumper to make someone into something they have never been with no evidence whatsoever.
I know. Look how we turned Trump into Hitler.
Ask any of the smart people. We have the power!
Just when you start to makes sense, Balls, you say something stupid.
No answer to the fact that the left are dedicated to destroying our nation by encouraging sloth. ... ?
There's nothing to say... it's a stupid claim. It's essentially the retort of conservatives who think three jobs on minimum wage is a great way to prove we can be just like China.
Just when we're starting to make progress, you regress to this. I think even the glibertarians aren't that cruel. The glibertarians have this fantasy that everyone's going to become a tycoon, a mogul, a king of their own job creation juggernaut (as if it weren't consumer demand that creates jobs in the first place) and can't accept that societies have people of all different talents and connections and advantages, but that's no excuse for cruelty toward those who lack those things. No one's against productivity, but cons need to answer the question of what to do when computers and AI make even white collar "labor" obsolete, including "entrepreneurs". Machines already do our trades; do you think brokers have to put in anywhere near as much sweat as they used to? Give me a break. The "economy" is supposed to work for and to the benefit of PEOPLE, not the other fucking way around. It's not people who are supposed to become cogs in the economic matrix machine, it's the other way around.
changing the subject to "But Bush/military/wars" doesn't cut it.
That's not a changed subject. These things cost money, they grow government massively, they overextend and cheapen our military quality and the advantages gained by maintaining it, they get us more involved than we need to do and they're a form of WELFARE. For contractors and for Mid-East tyrants all around the world. Security welfare is somehow less corrupting and less of a problem than economic welfare? Give me a break. You are making hellholes all around the world dependent upon us for sorting out their problems. It's never-ending, it's self-justifying, it's bloating, it's a strain and a drain and a way to exacerbate the supposed "need" for intervention. You can remain engaged constructively in the world and helping to keep peace and the global order without making a bunch of security welfare cases out of every hot zone. It's stupid.
Especially in light of the fact that Obama has gutted our military.
As per the Pentagon's wishes and advice.
You're giving welfare to people who don't even want it.
That photo's hard to unsee.
Trump has to recognize his limits no less than anyone else does.
That photo's a fucking disgrace, actually.
By not asking any accountability of him you are repeating the same damn mistakes that the elite made. Worse, even.
When you see stuff like that, you realize that Bags may be right.
I guess no wing of the GOP is better than any other. I'm trying to do the neighborly good citizen thing and let you know what's working and what to avoid during this "coming-of-age", but it's all shot to hell if you're going to pretend that the guy can do no wrong.
Who is saying he can do no wrong? He does a lot of stuff wrong and donor hesitate to point it out.
Trolling the media and the hysterical pussies who claim he is Hitler is not one of those times.
That is why the ratings of the Celebrity Apprentice is fifty times higher than Charlie Rose.
Rhythm and Balls said...
When you see stuff like that, you realize that Bags may be right.
Get freaking real.
People were asked to raise their hands and the pic caught them at just the right (or wrong) instant.
It's astounding how many people need to get themselves a life.
That is why the ratings of the Celebrity Apprentice is fifty times higher than Charlie Rose.
Which common denominator is not too low to sink to? Is popularity going to become the justification for everything, now?
Not everyone with scruples who warns against mob rule is a pussy.
Mob rule is a volatile thing. Do it right, and you have 1776. Do it wrong, and it's anyone's guess - no matter how many knife blades are stabbed into Muammar Qaddafi's asshole after his capture by rebels.
People were asked to raise their hands and the pic caught them at just the right (or wrong) instant.
I guess that must be the reason people aren't asked to make such a move for politicians, then. They must be a little more savvy than the avatar-less know-it-all about photogenic and non-photogenic politics following Victory in Europe. Mass oaths. At some point, it adds up. Who's David Duke? I don't know him. (Yes you did). I'm targeted by the IRS for being a "Christian". Really, how so? Tell me about that. And, oh yeah, don't mind yourself those mass loyalty oaths with right hands raised in a very curious way. You only need to start worrying when we do this around raging bonfires in the countryside while wearing shorts and suspenders.
It's astounding how many people need to get themselves a life.
It's astounding how many people's lives would be better if they just got their wish and transported back to Munich at the most nostalgic moments of the 1930s.
Don't worry ed. You don't sound too bright. I'm sure you would have had your moment of valor and made your way right to the front lines as soon as possible. Or maybe you would have been one of those twelve-year olds he sent out to "defend" Berlin as the reds closed in.
When you see stuff like that, you realize that Bags may be right
Are you serious? It is accusations like this: Trump=Hitler because most people are right handed and raised their hands to say yes to a question.....this over the top pearl clutching hyperbole makes me want to like Trump even more. If it gets everyone's panties in a wad....I'm for it, for no other reason than it makes people go all 'splody headed.
Don't be ridiculous. There are a lot of other things to get critical about. People being right handed isn't one of them.
Next time Trump should say, "Everyone who is going to vote raise your hands.>>>BUT FOR GOD'S sake only raise the left hand because otherwise you are all Nazis according to the media. LEFT HANDS ONLY!!!!!"
/facepalm
Oh Dear Lord, Bunny Queen. Psychology matters. People have screwed you over in the past. TOP. Malcontents. Miscreants. The thing about con men is that they seem to be good at preventing people from realizing their con. Do you think I'm anti-Trump? I'm a typical voter on him. He says and does some good (possibly needed) things, he says and does some horrible things. You think it's all about optics? How unfortunate. There are narcissists in this world, and monsters in sheeps' clothing. If I can't always spot 'em beforehand you'd better be damned certain that you can't. You think every 1932 voter thought Hitler was going to do what he did? You're not getting it. There's always a con going on. I'll bet you a bunch of patriots and decent and concerned people objectively thought that was simply the best way forward. Trooper's even nostalgic about Mussolini. Crying about how incompetent every pol is while assuming that the most passionate voter can never be too self-righteous to see his own blind spots - especially when it comes to an out-and-out narcissist on the stump - is an outrageous folly. This is a serious game. No less serious than when you've been railing at incompetent elites. Trust me, your perception of your "rights"? They can be taken away from you in more ways than one.
It's not just the media who will vomit at that picture.
I ignored all the comparisons for months. It wasn't a "struggle". I knew what he was getting at and didn't find them legitimate. He didn't worry me.
Last week he started getting a bit worse.
That picture though is about as unfortunate as they come.
And I don't mean "unfortunate" as in "unlucky". I mean it's a disgrace that people will have to do mental gymnastics and emotional somersaults to block out.
I guess they are not so lucky as you.
The induction of vomiting in the voting booth is a reaction you want to avoid perpetuating.
Rhythm and Balls said...
It's astounding how many people's lives would be better if they just got their wish and transported back to Munich at the most nostalgic moments of the 1930s.
There's a bit of projection.
Ritmo loves telling everybody how wrong we are and how right he is.
Would have made a great little gauleiter back then.
It's not just the media who will vomit at that picture.
The media doesn't vomit at an opportunity like that. Like Ritmo, they'll take any cheap shot they can get.
Psychology matters
@ R&B
Of course it does. I see the techniques that Trump is using as opposed to the manufactured robots that the parties (Dem and Rep) churn out. Having been in sales most of my life and having had extensive training in how to "sell" to people, I am familiar with Trump's techniques and have used those myself, often, and as such...they don't work on me or anyone who is aware. There isn't necessarily anything evil or Hilterish in it as far as I can see with Trump. This isn't to say that those techniques are not subject to being perverted to evil control. I just don't see that as yet happening and to have the media and others JUMP to that conclusion is just as bad as if it really were happening.
The main difference that I observe in Trump's campaign speeches as compared to the others is that Trump encourages audience participation. Asking questions directly of the audience. Getting them to respond both verbally and physically by raising their hands or clapping. He gets them to feel a part of the process. They get to feel that they are in control and not just passive receptacles. This is opposed to Cruz's technique which has been noted to be preachy, lecturing. Cruz's groups are supposed to listen and receive the wisdom from on high. Passive and receiving.
This photo op, where his audience has raised their hands is another way for him to get his audience to "bond" or feel commonality with him. When the media and the pearl clutching commentators immediately spring to the meme Hands raised = Hilter = Nazi supporters, the audience now feels personally attacked....yet again. The media already calls them rubes, rednecks, ignorant, racist and all sorts of other things. SO....to be attacked now as Nazis because of a photo taken where they were merely raising their hands is only going to cement their feelings.
Their take on it is I am NOT a Nazi or a racist and the more you tell me things about myself that are NOT true (in their opinion) the more I will hate you and cling to my own beliefs and my candidate. In other words, attacking the audience (unfairly to their minds) is a counter productive technique and will boomerang on the GOPe, the media and THIS is what is dangerous.
The GOPe has dissed and kicked these people to the curb and here it is again...or so they feel. The GOPe has turned its own base into powerless outsiders. Trump makes them feel like insiders and like they have some control.
Crowd control, speaking to large groups to persuade....all things that I am quite familiar with and have been trained to do as has Trump. Not that I am comparing myself to Trump, but rather to the training and techniques it takes to be successful in selling.
I'm not disagreeing with you (Ritmo) but rather trying to explain why it works and why it doesn't work to attack either the messenger or his audience.
DBQ: Next time Trump should say, "Everyone who is going to vote raise your hands.>>>BUT FOR GOD'S sake only raise the left hand because otherwise you are all Nazis according to the media. LEFT HANDS ONLY!!!!!"
They would just "invert the negative" and block out any signs that read "PMURT"
I think DBQ is correct. Except I would put it in terms of Television and the techniques to get ratings and popularity. Trump has been doing this for a long time. He is an expert at this.
I totally agree with DBQ's key point. Labeling Trumps crowd as Nazi's is really going to change their mind. Virtue signaling does not work anymore. If everybody is a racist then nobody is a racist. The good thing is we are getting this bullshit out of the way now in the primary. As Dust Bunny says Trump is going to make a joke out of this.
And the media and the pussies will wail and wail.
Of course it does. I see the techniques that Trump is using as opposed to the manufactured robots that the parties (Dem and Rep) churn out.
Yeah, but those aren't the only techniques he's using and some of them are not good. Calling them out won't work on his most die-hard fans? We know that. But the loudest voices aren't always the most numerous and not all of the others are just responsive to or acting on virtue signaling. There's a wide range of perceptions and what people respond to.
Either way, it's good that at least all this can be debated/talked out here. You wouldn't believe the wretched purging that Larry's up to over at Queen Althouse's. Seriously, what a douchebag. I think he's clipping me in weird places where he can just because of how pissed he is with you, Troop. Either way, I think his household must be a worse mess than the country. He's sleeping on the couch, or the back lawn. Something's not right there, not that anything ever was.
And BTW when I said "psychology matters" I meant that Trump's a narcissist. As is EBL.
There isn't necessarily anything evil or Hilterish in it as far as I can see with Trump.
Why does ignoring/"not seeing" David Duke's support make you believe that David Duke's support (and those who think like him) doesn't matter?
Ritmo we can always have a reasonable discussion here as we always have. I look on guys like you and Bags as brothers. We can agree to disagree and talk out our differences. But we don't have to take it personal. That is why sometimes I feel bad when you go after ed so hard. I understand why but we can cut him a little slack. He is very literal so you have to make allowances. We should all be able to spout off our opinions without causing a bruise.
I have been watching the Wyatt Earp TV series from the fifties every night when I go to sleep. I put it on my ipad and have wireless earphones and fall to sleep with the salutary sounds of robbers and Indians being shot. I look at us as the Earp brothers.
Bags is Wyatt. Very moral and upstanding. A dab hand with the ladies but soft hearted and someone who shoots to wound and not to kill.
Ritmo is Morgan. The young devil may care Earp who often is contrary just to shake up his brothers.
Of course I am Virgil. The older one with the experience who has seen stuff and tries to impart some wisdom to his brothers even though they insist on going their own way.
Just remember one thing. In real life all the Earp's were pimps. Just sayn'
Ritmo says Trump's a narcissist as if he originated the idea.
Again, projection.
PS When Ritmo goes after me, all he does is show us his own insecurities. And, yes, it's not hard to rebut him, so nobody need feel badly.
He likes to sound off as the font of all knowledge because that illusion apparently is all that justifies his existence.
I will try to be easier on ed and you're right that we are as close as brothers (Bags I have tremendous respect for - he's always great at keeping things classy and fun while still making a good point). Sometimes I admit I have no idea where ed's coming from or what he would respond positively to or at least trust me enough to be open to responding positively to but I'll keep trying and will always respect whatever requests you have in general and esp. regarding decent behavior at the CH.
Trooper York said...
Just remember one thing. In real life all the Earp's were pimps. Just sayn'
It was legal then.
Also, lawmen weren't paid much and owning a share of a saloon or a house of ill repute was permitted so the guy had a decent income (good lawmen were hard to come by).
Besides, with a male-female ratio of as much as 25 to 1 (if not more) in some places, it was seen as a necessary way of dealing with all the surplus males.
Ok, here goes.
Ritmo says Trump's a narcissist as if he originated the idea.
Who cares whose "idea" it was? It's something I can see and it's true and it matters in a president.
Again, projection.
Projection of what? If you're saying I'm a narcissist that's obviously BS. Further, how does it change the fact that Trump is one? Distraction is as bad a habit as projection.
PS When Ritmo goes after me, all he does is show us his own insecurities.
Or maybe I just want to stay on the point and resent when you try to distract from it.
And, yes, it's not hard to rebut him, so nobody need feel badly.
I'm glad you feel you're having such an easy time with this. Maybe someday you can do a poll on how much agreement you get on the effectiveness of your rebuttals.
He likes to sound off as the font of all knowledge...
Liking or appreciating knowledge is not the same as liking to "sound off as the fount of ALL knowledge."
...because that illusion apparently is all that justifies his existence.
Well, I'll be fucked! You caught me! I like knowledge and think it serves an important role in sorting out our problems. Damn it, I knew I was wrong! But if you don't, you're not exactly making a convincing case for why others should see it that way.
And ed, I meant that in the most loving way possible. Especially the last part.
No, I won't call you "sweetie". But I'll give a winkie emoticon. ;-)
And BTW when I said "psychology matters" I meant that Trump's a narcissist
To which I respond ....Duuuh. 99.9% of people in public office are to some extent or another narcissists. They wouldn't run for office if they didn't have that component in their egos. Carson may be the exception to that rule. It is a very high percentage of CEOs who are not only narcissists but also have elements of psychopathy in their makeup. This is what MAKES them successful CEO's and not priests. Actors, singers, media talking heads....all narcissistic personalities.
The question remains, is Trump a malignant narcissist. Obama, I believe can be classified as such. I don't see those tendencies in Trump....as of yet. Maybe never. Maybe sooner than later. But not as yet.
I wishing that MamaM would weigh in on the narcissist question regarding Trump. I think she wrote something very enlightening a few weeks (months?) ago.
I just want us to all get along more or less Ed.
Except for Larry of course.
I hope he gets ball cancer. And dies screaming.
To which I respond ....Duuuh. 99.9% of people in public office are to some extent or another narcissists. They wouldn't run for office if they didn't have that component in their egos.
There is more to psychology than what you're saying. Almost everyone has the "healthy" dose of narcissism in their personalities in order to propel them to admire approval. And politicians probably have more of that motivation/drive in them than others. But that is not the same thing as clinical narcissists.
Clinical narcissists either lack every other drive/motivation or promote that as the most important consideration no matter what. They will bend more moral boundaries than you would expect in order to achieve it. They split themselves between the requisite image that lacks the capacity for such evil and their own true selves, true selves which WILL break those limits and rape you in order to achieve the greater "good" of MORE approval.
It makes a very dangerous difference.
Ritmo is textbook.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
And BTW when I said "psychology matters" I meant that Trump's a narcissist
To which I respond ....Duuuh. 99.9% of people in public office are to some extent or another narcissists. They wouldn't run for office if they didn't have that component in their egos. Carson may be the exception to that rule.
Apparently, Carson had a lot of staff problems because he was.
Given how good he would have to be to do his job, I guess it would go with the territory.
The question remains, is Trump a malignant narcissist. Obama, I believe can be classified as such. I don't see those tendencies in Trump....as of yet. Maybe never. Maybe sooner than later. But not as yet.
Never watched his show, but I saw plenty of interviews on Fox, especially with Cavuto.
With Pissy or Willie, another sociopath, they didn't like to be taped except from the side and you could see them go into schmooze mode as they took the breath to answer the first question.
Trump looked the camera in the eye and spoke directly and specifically, so I think you're right.
Trooper York said...
I just want us to all get along more or less Ed.
As do I, but you might want to pick another set of brothers.
Ed Masterson was a good man and Bat had a lot more cattle than hat. Jim, I don't know that well.
The question remains, is Trump a malignant narcissist. Obama, I believe can be classified as such. I don't see those tendencies in Trump....as of yet. Maybe never. Maybe sooner than later. But not as yet.
You're not at least suspicious of a man who builds an empire on nothing other than making his own name into a brand that he puts on everything, while having had at least a few very shady practices backfire on him miserably?
Good grief. If he could require anyone who ever writes or types his name to make it glitter in gold he would.
People don't get to pick their brothers, ed. Don't be petty.
I hope we can keep it civil amongst ourselves ed. (Except for the miserable cunt Meade).
I recommend you check out those old episodes on Youtube. You can get every episode in its entirety. I know you are a Western fan and a student of Western History. So when you see historical characters like John Wesley Hardin or Buckskin Frank Leslie portrayed inaccurately you will be as pissed as I am. Or maybe you might just laugh. It is great to see actors like James Coburn at the start of their career as he played Buckskin Frank. It was a simpler time but the stories are still fun.
The portrayal of Bat Masterson in the series is much along the lines as ed suggests. He is pretty much a dofous. Of course that was before the spin off with Gene Barry.
Troop I saw all those episodes first run, "Bat" and "Wyatt".
Bat was a secondary character in "Wyatt".
I know Ed. But they are better than most of the crap on TV today. I would just like to retaliate to about all the historical inaccuracies.
Post a Comment