Patterico's Pontifications

5/21/2016

“The Dangerous Acceptance of Donald Trump” (Or of Hillary)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:23 am



This piece is flawed in some ways, but these passages are spot on:

One can argue about whether to call [Donald Trump] a fascist or an authoritarian populist or a grotesque joke made in a nightmare shared between Philip K. Dick and Tom Wolfe, but under any label Trump is a declared enemy of the liberal constitutional order of the United States—the order that has made it, in fact, the great and plural country that it already is. He announces his enmity to America by word and action every day. It is articulated in his insistence on the rightness of torture and the acceptable murder of noncombatants. It is self-evident in the threats he makes daily to destroy his political enemies, made only worse by the frivolity and transience of the tone of those threats. He makes his enmity to American values clear when he suggests that the Presidency holds absolute power, through which he will be able to end opposition—whether by questioning the ownership of newspapers or talking about changing libel laws or threatening to take away F.C.C. licenses. To say “Well, he would not really have the power to accomplish that” is to misunderstand the nature of thin-skinned authoritarians in power. They do not arrive in office and discover, as constitutionalists do, that their capabilities are more limited than they imagined. They arrive, and then make their power as large as they can.

Author Adam Gopnik forgot giving illegal orders to the military and expecting them to follow them, but that’s otherwise a pretty good summary of Trump’s illiberal tendencies.

Ted Cruz called Trump a pathological liar, the kind who does not know the difference between lies and truth. Whatever the clinical diagnosis, we do appear to be getting, in place of the once famous Big Lie of the nineteen-thirties, a sordid blizzard of lies. The Big Lie was fit for a time of processionals and nighttime rallies, and films that featured them. The blizzard of lies is made for Twitter and the quick hit of an impulse culture. Trump’s lies arrive with such rapidity that before one can be refuted a new one comes to take its place. It wasn’t his voice on that tape of pitiful self-promotion. O.K., it was—but he never mocked the handicapped reporter, he was merely imitating an obsequious one. The media eventually moves on, shrugging helplessly, to the next lie. Then the next lie, and the next. If the lies are bizarre enough and frequent enough, they provoke little more than a nervous giggle and a cry of “Well, guess he’s changed the rules!”

He’s not Hitler, as his wife recently said? Well, of course he isn’t. But then Hitler wasn’t Hitler—until he was. At each step of the way, the shock was tempered by acceptance. It depended on conservatives pretending he wasn’t so bad, compared with the Communists, while at the same time the militant left decided that their real enemies were the moderate leftists, who were really indistinguishable from the Nazis. The radical progressives decided that there was no difference between the democratic left and the totalitarian right and that an explosion of institutions was exactly the most thrilling thing imaginable.

The writer (a leftist writing for the New Yorker) has a solution: defeat Trump by working for Hillary. I can’t agree. He sees no downside — because, among other things, as he admits further down, he is against the Heller decision that protected our Second Amendment rights. I disagree — obviously. And while the most ardent Never Trumpers maintain that Trump Supreme Court justices would be just as bad as Hillary’s, I continue to maintain that they probably would be much better — because Trump doesn’t understand the Court and doesn’t care so he will leave it to others who do. That’s why I agree with Ed Whelan, who says:

The possibility, whatever weight you assign it, that Trump would make good Supreme Court selections is perhaps the best reason for conservatives to hold their noses and vote for Trump. (Whether it’s a compelling, or even a sufficient, reason to do so is another question.)

To me, it’s not. But it’s a good enough reason to advise against voting for Hillary.

So, as I say, I am a spectator and nothing more. With Trump, we save the Court, our economy goes to hell, and we may end up in nuclear war. And it will be “entertaining.” Until it’s not.

With Hillary, we lose the Court, our economy goes to hell, and we’ll probably end up in some kind of conventional war. Congress will at least fight her to some degree. But we’ll have to hear that shrill laugh.

Neither will respect the Constitutional limits on their power.

There are no good options.

76 Responses to ““The Dangerous Acceptance of Donald Trump” (Or of Hillary)”

  1. Like that other piece,
    The left ignores how theirs have already been there done that and want more

    MD in Philly (64f9f9)

  2. tra la la

    how many times will I write “pee stank” on this blog today?

    also, how much vulgar pickleheadedness?

    its never really a mystery

    speaking of pickles, I love me some Mr. The Donald

    his small hands are just right for me

    trumpyfeet (5f32f5)

  3. No there will be no opposition to red quuen, ask bassoulay, the victims of Sid vicious trawl, the head of true the vote, keep looking for the pony.

    narciso (b863a7)

  4. oh my goodness the New Yorker is all a sudden worried about failmerica’s obama-stained roberts-defiled ersatz constitution

    it’s a serious think piece

    happyfeet (831175)

  5. Why didn’t author Gopnik write this charming sentiment about the Obama Presidency? I fits President Obama to a tee:

    ” To say “Well, he would not really have the power to accomplish that” is to misunderstand the nature of thin-skinned authoritarians in power. They do not arrive in office and discover, as constitutionalists do, that their capabilities are more limited than they imagined. They arrive, and then make their power as large as they can.”

    Fred Beloit (12281a)

  6. my mind is
    a big hunk of irrevocable Trumping which touch and
    taste and smell and hearing and sight keep hitting and
    chipping with sharp fatal tools
    in an agony of sensual chisels i perform squirms of
    chrome and execute strides of cobalt
    nevertheless i
    feel that i cleverly am being altered that i slightly am
    becoming something a little different, in fact
    myself
    Hereupon helpless i utter pee-stank shrieks and Bernie
    bellowings.

    e. e. cummingsfeet (bfd5cd)

  7. Why didn’t author Gopnik write this charming sentiment about the Obama Presidency?

    Because he is a leftist, and also because Obama has not been as authoritarian as Trump promises to be.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  8. But with executive order power grabs, illegal wars, IRS chicanery, and much else, he has been plenty authoritarian.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  9. Yes, your second comment, P
    I think the main difference is that O is upfront only in friendly company,
    Trump says it upfront to the public who wants turnabout.

    MD in Philly (64f9f9)

  10. Ugh. So right and, yet, so wrong. I loathe Trump as much as this author loathes him, but for largely different reasons. Does Trump want an imperial Presidency? Indeed! So does Obama, and so does Hillary, and so do leftists when the Emperor/President is ruling for the acceptable leftist reasons. I’m a nevertrump person, but for many of the same reasons I’m also a neverhillary person. I wish guys like Gopnik could take their blinders off so they could admit the similarities.

    Dave S (e802ef)

  11. The Democratic Party has been the enemy of constitutional order beginning early in my adult life, over which time their opposition has snowballed. The Left’s condemnation of second amendment rights is part and parcel of that opposition. Mr. Gopnik and his ilk may be unhappy that some Donny-come-lately from the Rupublican Party is riffing off one of their trademark themes and threatening liberal institutions with the unfettered exercise of executive power in just the same way liberals have used those powers against their conservative opponents, but it hardly makes liberals like Gopnik the defenders of Lady Liberty. It simply makes them defenders of their own prerogatives.

    As for Shorty’s passing acquaintance with the truth, it is hardly a distinguishing characteristic. What made Nixon stand out is that his own party would not tolerate his dissembling. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, received unflagging support from his party for his equally repellent lying. Our sitting president went so far as to hire a fiction writer to help him craft less transparent lies. And then there is Hillary, a woman who lies with the frequency of her husband, though without the aplomb. If one can surmise anything from recent Democratic electoral behavior, it is that lying is a preferred attribute among both Democratic voters and politicians. Perhaps the saddest aspect of recent political developments, at least for a conservative like me, is that we have become a party that not only tolerates, but embraces liars. As for Gopnik’s critique, he is, once again, the kettle calling the pot black.

    The devolution of American culture has been going on for some time, with the left in the vanguard all along. Why should Gopnik or anyone else be surprised when a “former” Democrat emulates the party of his past affiliation. And, after all, it’s not as if Republicans do not lie. What we all love about Ted Cruz – and virtually every elected member of congress hates – has been his willingness to detail the lies and other ruses employed by Republican elected officials to intentionally mislead Republican voters. My response to Gopnik is simply “What goes around, comes around.”

    Donald Trump is not an idea man. He is not part of the cultural and intellectual vanguard. Donald Trump is doing what entrepreneurs have been doing for the longest time: bringing an old product to a new market. What else would you expect from a businessman? You and I may not like that product, but our dislike needs to be focused more on the market being served and less on the individual serving that market. The problem isn’t Trump; the problem is Trump voters.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  12. Why didn’t author Gopnik write this charming sentiment about the Obama Presidency?

    Good point, but we aren’t choosing Obama again, thank God.

    What I find really scary is that Trump’s intended actions will give cover to Hillary when she does the same things. You know she wants to.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. Yes and look what good that did, Vietnam was list and in short order so were Iran and Nicaragua,and the Russians ventured I to afghanistan, and we know how that turned out.

    narciso (b863a7)

  14. Neither will respect the Constitutional limits on their power.

    Correct. But which will more likely to have their acts checked or limited?

    Trump’s unconstitutional acts will be opposed by the media, by the liberal/left intelligentsia such as the legal academy, by mainstream conservatives, et cetera. And, one hopes, Congress.

    But who will oppose Hillary’s acts? Us and who else? Have they (the above) opposed Obama’s acts?

    Both are dangers to the type of limited government we want and have. One will be checked; the other won’t.

    I’m leaning, if ever so slightly, towards a vote for Trump. It’s slight. It’s a lean. Nothing more.

    SteveMG (54de06)

  15. The problem isn’t Trump; the problem is Trump voters.

    I was with you right up until you had to prove your #NeverTrump credentials and blame the Trump voters for Trump. You stated “The Democratic Party has been the enemy of constitutional order beginning early in my adult life, over which time their opposition has snowballed.” There is part of what created Trump. How about “Our sitting president went so far as to hire a fiction writer to help him craft less transparent lies. And then there is Hillary, a woman who lies with the frequency of her husband, though without the aplomb.” Didn’t they help create Trump?

    Didn’t the McConnell’s and McCain’s and every other squishy libtard RINO in Congress lying to Republicans for their own aggrandizement create Trump? I don’t expect every Republican to be a conservative but I’ve unfortunately come to expect every Republican to become a democrat lite.

    The corrupt democrats destroyed our country beyond repair in my opinion but the corrupted Republicans watched as they di it. They wanted all the bills to pass to see what was in them. And now we know what was in them. Communism.

    Rev. Hoagie ™ (734193)

  16. Correct. But which will more likely to have their acts checked or limited?

    Trump’s unconstitutional acts will be opposed by the media, by the liberal/left intelligentsia such as the legal academy, by mainstream conservatives, et cetera. And, one hopes, Congress.

    But who will oppose Hillary’s acts? Us and who else? Have they (the above) opposed Obama’s acts?

    A GOP Congress. To some degree. And before you howl that they are worthless: is Merrick Garland getting confirmed before Novenber? No. Were there GOP votes for ObamaCare? No.

    The GOP will oppose the worst of Hillary. They will rubber-stamp Trump’s big government policies.

    Patterico (5e9fda)

  17. I was with you right up until you had to prove your #NeverTrump credentials and blame the Trump voters for Trump.

    I blame Trump primary voters. I won’t slam Trump general election voters, though I will never be one.

    Patterico (5e9fda)

  18. A GOP Congress. To some degree

    The pressure on them from the Trump supporters will be enormous. And they haven’t exactly shown much of an opposition to Trump now. Look at how they’re falling in line for him.

    I agree that they haven’t been worthless. These claims by the Trump supporters – and others – that they haven’t done anything is simply not true. But opposing a liberal president is one thing; opposing the leader of your party is another.

    Tally up those checking a Trump presidency versus those opposing a Clinton presidency and the imbalance is obvious.

    SteveMG (54de06)

  19. We’re over 150 members strong at the Facebook group. I don’t want it to replace this comment section, as I would rather have the Facebook group be for discussion of promoting the Constitution. But if you’re interested in such discussions in a troll-free environment, and you’re on the mailing list, what are you waiting for?

    Patterico (5e9fda)

  20. i blame the supremely un-self-aware jeb bush for inflaming anti-establishment fervor

    stupid runs deep in that family

    happyfeet (831175)

  21. The pressure on them from the Trump supporters will be enormous. And they haven’t exactly shown much of an opposition to Trump now. Look at how they’re falling in line for him.

    Correct. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I said a GOP Congress would oppose Hillary to some extent. Not Trump.

    Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Justin Amash, and a small handful of other legislators with principle will oppose Trump when he goes all big government on us. That’s not enough.

    Patterico (5e9fda)

  22. I agree with ThOR, including his last sentence. Trump voters are the reason we have 100% bad choice instead of a 50-50 choice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  23. Primary voters had the same choices. There were 16 (15 for me, because I don’t like Huckabee) acceptable candidates + Trump. That Trump won amid those choices is solely the voters’ decision. If they saw no better alternative, it’s on them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  24. #7, because Obama has not been as authoritarian as Trump promises to be.

    #10, Does Trump want an imperial Presidency? Indeed! So does Obama, and so does Hillary, and so do leftists when the Emperor/President is ruling for the acceptable leftist reasons.

    #12, What I find really scary is that Trump’s intended actions will give cover to Hillary when she does the same things.

    #14, Trump’s unconstitutional acts will be opposed by the media, by the liberal/left intelligentsia such as the legal academy, by mainstream conservatives, et cetera. And, one hopes, Congress.

    It must be reassuring to know what the future holds with such certainty. Or, there are few things as blatantly revealing of dishonest attribution than to ascribe gross sins to others (Trump and his millions of supporters in this case) and then attack the man’s character for your imaginary transgressions.

    ropelight (1bda83)

  25. I don’t know what Trump will do. It would be nice if he would offer more than suggestions. He reminds me of Obama. In the meantime, I can only use his past and his character to decide what he would do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  26. Also, his quotes. He has lots of quotes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  27. ropelight,
    It is very simple,
    unless there is some fundamental change on a deep level,
    a person’s future actions are consistent with their past actions
    which is why I don’t care what people say all that much
    but what they do
    which is why I had most confidence in Cruz and Walker
    in spite of their faults.

    Trump is a salesman
    He can sell a real estate investment even after going bankrupt 3 times.
    Now he has sold the idea he will be a really great president because he is really smart,
    and gets more _______ than most people.

    MD in Philly (64f9f9)

  28. ropelight,

    It’s easy to attack Trump’s character. He has more red flags in his background than any person I’ve ever known. I understand you might decide he is worth voting for anyway but your inability to acknowledge his questionable background, flaws, and contradictions is troubling.

    DRJ (15874d)

  29. I am not without sympathy for Trump voters. We’ve all witnessed how the moral asymmetry of American politics has favored Democrats and victimized the rest of us. Moreover, there are few things I find more sickening than the willingness of the best and the brightest on the left to pimp themselves simply to gain political advantage. Who have we become?

    For many of us in the victim group, payback will be sweet (if we in fact do get payback from Trump). It’s just that I don’t want to be a part of a race to the bottom. One of the hardest things in life is to stick with a moral code that is both out of favor and ineffectual. Of course, I can see why you may view my perspective as a mix of moral preening and foolish consistency.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  30. 23 … If they saw no better alternative, it’s on them.

    No, it is also on the GOP for not offering them better choices. The Republican leaders were out of touch with what many of their voters want.

    James B. Shearer (93f129)

  31. It’s not foolish unless you think your moral code and values will never prevail. If you think you can prevail, even though it may take time and effort, then it’s not foolish at all.

    DRJ (15874d)

  32. How many more choices do you want, James? Or do you think the GOP should have rigged the process as the Democrats have done for Hillary? If so, the nominee would be Jeb.

    DRJ (15874d)

  33. Things happen that no one expects
    and hindsight is at least 20/20

    Hopefully and prayerfully more unexpected things will happen,
    other than Clinton not being the nominee for the dems.
    The Dem nominee will be whoever Obama wants it to be,
    per his DOJ.
    I don’t know who he wants it to be.

    MD in Philly (64f9f9)

  34. Go to 1:19. This is without a doubt the best presidential candidate — if he wins the convention next weekend. I would normally not consider a libertarian, but this is a protege of Andrew Napolitano and former FreedomWorks staffer,

    Interview is at 1:19. Austin Petersen for prez.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3zX9YXB5s

    bitterclinger (a6482e)

  35. 32.How many more choices do you want, James? Or do you think the GOP should have rigged the process as the Democrats have done for Hillary? If so, the nominee would be Jeb.

    I didn’t want more choices, I wanted different choices. Someone willing to deviate from the party line.

    James B. Shearer (93f129)

  36. the threats he makes daily to destroy his political enemies

    Trump threatens to destroy – as an open ended search term came up with Trump threatens to destroy ME oilfields if elected (they left the part out about it being ISIS controlled oil wells funding terrorism by selling to the Turks – in the headline.)

    Besides that no match.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  37. I don’t think Trump has a clue about what he’s doing. He’ll be like an amateur cook giving orders without knowing what happens in the real kitchen. Some work out, some don’t.
    Thus, he might average out better than Hillary who is determined to do horrible things to this country and knows how to do them, with her lefty friends in the media and academia for cover.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  38. If he did not “average out better than Hillary”, he would be the most likely candidate for conviction upon impeachment ever elected. As a practical matter, a vote cast for Johnson in all but battleground states would give the legislature a stronger hand in dealing with an impetuous jerk.

    Rick Ballard (97c612)

  39. Trump is not a gubmint paid hack or lawyer. The last 20 years have proven lawyers and gubmint have only helped themselves.
    I wonder if you Trump haters have ever built a house or a skyscraper? As a builder I know he knows how screwed up the building industry is. Get the effing crimaleins the f outta here. GTFOH. $85,000.00 in new rules and regulations in the last 8 years per new house!! GTFOH

    mg (31009b)

  40. millions of people, turned out under the tea party banner, and they were slandered by the state run press, one of their standard bearers was blood libeled, for daring to defend herself and the honor of the organization, most of those against her were will, gerson, krauthammer and the like, not all by any extent, but there is a certain concordance with the defamation of trump supporters,

    narciso (732bc0)

  41. Obama unconstitutionally expanded the power of the presidency and Gopnik sat silent. The only center-left pundit I saw consistently criticize the many Obama and DOJ abuses was Jonathan Turley. He did so frequently on his blog and with his op-ed columns in WaPo and USA Today. There may have been one off comments by others, but Turley consistently flagged the abuses beginning in the early days of Obama’s presidency. He warned repeatedly that Democrats were not going to like the precedent being set by Obama when/if a Republican became president again. For me, one of the most disgusting and repugnant sights of the Obama presidency was seeing elected Democrats gathered in the people’s House for one of Obama’s State of the Union addresses rise and give Obama a standing ovation when he announced that if Congress did not act on his priorities, then he’d use his “pen and phone” to impose them. It was disgusting and surreal to watch elected Democrats give him a standing ovation for effectively promising to usurp their authority. And the next day, the press was silent. As much as I don’t like the turn Ann Coulter has taken recently, she was right a coupe of years ago when she observed that the only time the media cares about the Constitution is when a Republican is president or when the media’s own rights are getting trampled.

    Scott (31b7e8)

  42. It is articulated in his insistence on the rightness of torture and the acceptable murder of noncombatants. It is self-evident in the threats he makes daily to destroy his political enemies,

    It’s about time we have a Republican President who will seek to destroy leftists. I’ve never understood the point in not destroying them. George Bush inviting Ted Kennedy to the White House to watch movies. That kind of thing for 8 years was just demoralizing.

    jcurtis (9e7baa)

  43. Trump giving money to Hillary, lots of money, and inviting her to his wedding. Bill Clinton appointing Trump’s sister to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. great company you’re keeping (we’ll need o’keefe to actually point out what was going on)

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself?intcid=mod-most-popular

    narciso (732bc0)

  45. he announced that if Congress did not act on his priorities, then he’d use his “pen and phone” to impose them
    Which is a difference between Obama and Trump: O. pays lip service to constitutional niceties, while T. does not do even that much.

    (This may of course be a difference with no practical meaning)

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  46. you know when vox has a better handle on things,

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism

    narciso (732bc0)

  47. kishnevi: Obama did not pay lip service to the Constitution. He effectively told Congress he was planning to usurp their authority at the State of the Union address. Elected Democrats responded by giving him a standing ovation. Nobody in the MSM called him out on it. He said over 20 times he did not have the authority to impose DACA. Then he did it anyway. Obama ordered an American citizen and his child killed by drone without due process and the media shrugs.

    Gopnik is pretending that Trump’s rhetoric is beyond the pale when Obama’s rhetoric AND his actual actions are as bad as what Trump has suggested. It’s just that Obama didn’t CAMPAIGN on his unconstitutional rhetoric and actions. Obama waited until he was safely elected to start urinating on the Constitution. Trump is urinating on it as part of his campaign.

    Scott (31b7e8)

  48. The fact that there would be millions of voters who chose Trump should not have surprised anyone given the last two year’s of Republican inaction. To complain about “Trump voters” is to align with the progressive’s unconstrained view of mankind. Those espousing this view presume the underlying cause (of virtually any ill) is ignorance or an environment that lacks some essential material element. They cite the electorates’ colossal ignorance of virtually all things civic and constitutional to buttress their assumption. And of course there are the memorable videos showing Trump supporters beating opponents and Mr. Sunglasses screaming “Lying Ted!” into Senator Cruz’s face to provide further evidence of the marginal humanity of Trump supporters. But it is a fallacy to believe that a functional school system might have prevented this. Trump supporters may be responding to deeply seated, subconscious feelings that are an integration of everything that has gone wrong since Obama was inaugurated, and these may include a complete lack of confidence in the integrity of the Republican opposition. This explanation would accommodate the many Trump supporters whom we know are neither educationally nor experientially handicapped. If this is the case, then the solution isn’t a better education or civics tests to qualify for the franchise.

    I prefer Sowell’s constrained view, the one that holds to the impossibility of perfecting man. Given this starting point, you must assume bad stuff will happen. When the Republicans demonstrated that the notion of checks and balances was no longer in play, and further, they disowned Cruz for exposing their little games to fool the voters, it was predictable that there would be a response.

    If the U. S. Navy was as incompetent in 1942 as the Republican Party is today, we would have lost two aircraft carriers in the Battle of the Coral Sea, and the remaining two would have been sunk at Midway. The consequences of those failures would have changed world history. We should not be surprised that the failures of the Boehner/McConnell/Ryan Republicans have far reaching consequences whose scope is yet to be determined, let alone experienced.

    If we want constructive change based on conservative principles, we should be focused on the Republican Party, or its replacement, and not on the Trump supporters who are simply messengers bearing witness to past failures.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  49. Congress will at least fight her to some degree.” Like they fought obama?
    You know hrc will mean 40 years of a liberal court. At least Trump may nominate conservative justices.
    I don’t see how anyone who cares about our country could sit on the sideline and allow hrc to be elected.

    Jim (016302)

  50. yeah Mr. Jim and these are the same people what got all worked up about them planned parenthood videos just yesterday

    happyfeet (831175)

  51. no no no

    imma not concerned about pee or poop stank or poopers or goldysacks money or failamerica or reality show hoochers and hoochies

    I have no standards at all what are standard

    this is all a bromance I adore

    please not to insult my trumpypop

    I love his teeny tiny hands

    trumpyfeet (65322a)

  52. Trump is urinating on it as part of his campaign.

    Trump’s not urinating on a damn thing, Scott, he holds no office, never has, so you have zero resume in politics to go on. He’s a citizen just like you and me. So stop being another reactionary nut case that tells everybody what someone is doing BEFORE he has the power to do it.

    Rev. Hoagie ™ (734193)

  53. What Trump says indicates he will take an imperial view of the presidency just like Obama,
    it is what he has said in various ways and various times.

    The argument that some of us tolerate is that an imperial Trump presidency will hopefully be better than another imperial Dem presidency.

    Bob, I do not look negatively at some Trump supporters for wanting to protest the status quo
    I do think that they are mistaken in thinking Trump is a good person to change the status quo,
    Boehner and others themselves said that they would rather work with Trump than Cruz
    That is what I think better education and awareness would have helped.

    MD in Philly (f08e8d)

  54. Doc, I’m as disappointed in the outcome of the primary as anyone, and like you I have great reservations over the suitability of Trump as our President. I take it for granted that a demagogue will find success in any democracy. Temporary success at any rate. And this means we often misread others. The Constitutional regime we inherited from the Founders was based on this understanding of human nature. Hence, checks and balances. They wanted to make our government somewhat resistant to mob rule.

    I think we vastly underestimate the difficulty we will have in restoring a Constitutional Republic. The fact that Trump has such appeal to so many people is a symptom of our underlying disease. I think many now regard the Federal Government as completely corrupt and self-serving, and even Cruz was contaminated with the toxic waste based on his position as a Senator. So he never had a chance of getting through to the “Lying Cruz” crowd, despite his many admirable qualities.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  55. Trump is urinating on every damned thing he gets even close to. For anyone to say different is for that person to be an ignoramus of the highest degree. Truck Fump. And every single person who votes for him.

    John Hitchcock (a73914)

  56. It’s the little details that separate Trump from the also rans.

    Remember when Sarah Palin was introduced to America, people were worried she’d fall flat, small town girl from Wasilla.
    Then she takes the stage and shines. Blows all of the critics away. Almost enough energy to drag McCain’s tired butt into the White House.

    But then the next day the newsscum report early and often how offended Ann Wilson is that they used “Baracuda” as Sarah’s theme music. That they have to cease and desist immediately!

    And that was the story pushed. The first cut, which led to practically a professional imperative (you want to eat don’t ya?) that entertainers dis Palin.

    The same type of nonsense is going on in North Carolina as we speak. Maroon 5 refuses to play in Charlotte as a protest – because of course that podunk band without a song anyone would recognise is totally in favor of pervs in the ladies room.

    That first cut by the fat Canadian has been lounge singer was the deepest. Trump noticed.

    So when Lips Jagger pipes up in the usual fashion, to grease the way for the commies, by issuing a cease and desist using his music order, Trump could have told him to get stuffed, he bought the rights to the song.

    But instead he said, “I own the rights to use all of the music you hear at my events.”

    Smartest move I’ve see a Republican make in years. He didn’t just shut down the pipsqueak Rolling Stones, he shut all of the entertainment industry toadies down for good.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  57. I like saying STFU on the internet. Doesn’t everyone?

    Trump did a STFU to the entire music industry. Honestly, it put a tingle up my leg, just like Chris Matthews.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  58. Maroon 5 refuses to play in Charlotte as a protest

    that’s weird

    Charlotte’s the city what lurvs them the dickens out of some tranny schlong

    happyfeet (831175)

  59. Trump’s unconstitutional acts will be opposed by the media, by the liberal/left intelligentsia such as the legal academy, by mainstream conservatives, et cetera. And, one hopes, Congress.

    And by a vastly better SCOTUS. A SCOTUS which will live on past a Trump presidency.

    Reason enough to vote for Trump.

    Mustang51 (b3d50b)

  60. I probably got the city wrong. I was riffing.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  61. Maroon 5 is a band , right?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  62. Yes it is, “alternative”

    Bob- I think the US has already passed into a terminal stage of disease,
    barring a miracle (seriously, not metaphorically)

    But I was hoping Cruz was going to get a chance to do something, or be part of something.

    MD in Philly (f08e8d)

  63. the used to be kara’s flowers

    happyfeet (831175)

  64. *they* used to be kara’s flowers i mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  65. Cruz is a Senator. Pretty popular in Texas. That’s a big part of something.

    And despite our bickering, Trump isn’t shutting him out. There is room on the bus. Plenty of room on the bus for Ted Cruz.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  66. 15. I was with you right up until you had to prove your #NeverTrump credentials and blame the Trump voters for Trump. You stated “The Democratic Party has been the enemy of constitutional order beginning early in my adult life, over which time their opposition has snowballed.” There is part of what created Trump. How about “Our sitting president went so far as to hire a fiction writer to help him craft less transparent lies. And then there is Hillary, a woman who lies with the frequency of her husband, though without the aplomb.” Didn’t they help create Trump?…

    Rev. Hoagie ™ (734193) — 5/21/2016 @ 11:48 am

    And how did King Putt, Hillary!, and Billy Jeff get as far as they did? They got elected by voters who could care less about their lying. And now Trump voters have adopted the same amoral standards that made Billy Jeff and King Putt two term Presidents and Hillary! a New York Senator. Neo-neocon made this point very eloquently the other day:

    http://neoneocon.com/2016/05/19/campaign-funding-hypocrisy-obama-and-trump/#comments

    I clearly remember when I first became truly alarmed during Obama’s 2008 campaign. Originally I didn’t know much about Obama, and slowly but surely began to notice warning signs that he might be worse than the garden-variety liberal Democratic candidate he was trying to present himself as being. But the real red flag occurred in June of 2008 when he abruptly changed his mind about public campaign financing.


    Yesterday Obama channeled Emily Litella and said “never mind,” taking back his earlier promise to accept public financing for his campaign if his opponent would as well…

    Well, so what? Promises, shmomises…

    …as soon as Obama saw that the money flowing his way was far beyond what he could get if he adhered to his agreement, he reneged.

    It’s not just that he reneged, either–it’s how he reneged. Who’s to blame, according to Obama? Why, John McCain and the nasty Republicans, that’s who. James Joyner writes that this charge of Obama’s does take “a bit of gall.” I’d say it takes substantially more than a bit, as well as a heavy dose of the whining, blaming, audacity in which the holier-than-thou Obama tends to specialize…

    The most important thing about it, though, was that his supporters made excuses for what he did, or praised it. I noticed that they did not seem the least bit perturbed…

    …So, why am I going on and on about something that happened all those years ago? As you might imagine, something Donald Trump did recently made me think of it…

    She is of course talking about Donald Trump’s complete hypocrisy on big money donors. When he had competitors in the primary he hated big money donors, and he said the other candidates were all bankrolled by them and therefore owned by them. It was a lie, and an obvious lie if anyone had eyes to see, which clearly does not include the the Trumpsters, but Trump claimed that he wasn’t going to beholden to any special interest group because he was self-funding (again, obvious lie about the self-funding; of course the Trumpsters would never bother to read his campaigns financial reports that show he’s made a couple of million in loans to his campaign, which he can repay from other campaign funds at any time, a few hundred thousand in in-kind contributions, and oh-by-the-way a lot of money off his own campaign because when he uses his own properties to host campaign events he charges his own campaign hefty rents and fees). Now that everyone except that fool Kasich has dropped out, making Trump effectively the GOP nominee, he loves him some big money donors. If you follow the link on neo-neocon’s post it will take you to redstate where they have a collection of Donald Trump’s own tweets that show what a liar he is.

    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/18/perfect-illustration-trump-hypocrisy-one-tweet/#comment-2682137659

    Last October Trump@realDonaldTrump was deriding Marco Rubio because Sheldon Adelson was thinking of putting big money behind him, and Rubio would therefore be Adelson’s “perfect puppet.” And on May 13th and 14th the strangest thing happened. Strange only if you’re not a Trumpster. First Adelson endorsed Trump, and Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump tweeted out how proud he was to get that endorsement. And the next day Donald J. Trumpp @realDonaldTrump proudly tweeted that Adelson had pledged $100M to his campaign. You can’t get more hypocritical than this. You can’t say if Rubio takes Adelson’s money that means Adelson thinks he can mold Rubio into his “perfect puppet” on the other hand claim Adelson doesn’t think the same thing about Trump. And don’t give me any BS about how it’s different because Trump is worth 10 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!

    Because first of all he’s not no matter what BS he says to the FEC. And second he simply doesn’t have the cashflow; his properties simply don’t generate anywhere near the revenue Adelson’s generate. Adelson is worth approximately $26 billion, a little over two and a half times what Trump claims he’s worth. That’s why Adelson has $100M to throw around and Trump doesn’t. Fact is, even if Trump did have 10 BILLION DOLLAR’s!!! there are big money donors like Mitt Romney or the Koch brothers who could buy Trump with pocket change. The bottom line is that even if he were as rich as he claims, now that Trump is actively fundraising both for himself and with the RNC he’s still going to be just as beholden as any other candidate would be to the really big fish who are worth up to 25 times as much as he is. No more, but no less.

    But the Trumpsters won’t mind that Trump has been lying all along about, well everything. But in this recent case about self-funding because if you take money from the big money donors then they own you, which supposedly was one of his big selling points. And Trump knows this about the Trumpsters.

    …I assume I don’t have to point out the parallels to Obama. I would only add to that comment the fact that Trump believes (correctly, it seems) that his supporters will continue to allow it—and even praise it—because they see him as the only alternative to the even-more-hated Hillary, or because they actually applaud the approach itself.

    …In other words, it’s okay because he’s our audaciously lying hypocrite with a sycophantic following. And in this act of Trump’s he’s a hypocrite and/or liar in more ways than Obama was when he broke his finance pledge, such as:…

    …The American people had become cynical enough, hardened enough, uninformed enough, amoral/immoral enough (some or all of the above), that it would praised as a clever move.

    We have reaped what was sowed.

    And even Obama did not create this situation in the electorate. He merely exposed it, and showed those who would come after him how to exploit it.

    Trump has the trumpsters pegged. He really could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and they’d excuse it or even applaud it. He’s running as dishonestly as Obama, and he’ll govern as dishonestly and as autocratically as Obama. Sure, he may do different things than Obama. But he’ll be shredding the Constitution just as much as Obama while he does it.

    That’s why, Hoagie, I blame the voters. The electorate now has a bipartisan attitude toward standards and the Constitution. Screw standards and the Constitution, both sides have clearly demonstrated. Republican voters could have had someone who would undue Obama’s illegal executive orders and his agencies’ illegal overreach and while respecting and working to restore the constitutional order in Cruz. And they rejected that approach for what has long been the Progressive/leftist/socialist/Democratic party way of doing things by going with Trump.

    Steve57 (fa6407)

  67. oh tearful sadness we could’ve had harvardtrash ted the butt-snuffling so-con obsessed with bathroom penises in juxtaposition with little girls

    let’s bow down to pee-stank and embrace the partial birth deliciousness of her supreme court

    JESUS!

    happyfeet (831175)

  68. get your tickets now, goodly so-cons

    the pee-stank express is filling up quick!

    And that brings us to the deplorable Kagan clan – Washington’s leading resident family of war-mongering neo-cons. The odds are that, if elected President, Hillary would likely choose one of them – her protégé during her stint in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland – as Secretary of State.

    Yet that would be lights out for any hope of caging Washington’s imperial ambitions and reducing the massive and utterly unnecessary burden of current defense spending. The truth is, there are fewer greater menaces in the Imperial City today than Victoria Nuland.*

    Pro-tip: Jeff Bezos’s bought-and-paid-for butt-minion, Mr. Robert Nuland, says Donald Trump’s a big fat hoobergoober and only losers vote for hoobergoobers.

    do NOT be a hoobergoober

    vote for the aroma of pee!

    it’s who you are

    happyfeet (831175)

  69. 30. …No, it is also on the GOP for not offering them better choices. The Republican leaders were out of touch with what many of their voters want.

    James B. Shearer (93f129) — 5/21/2016 @ 12:45 pm

    Hello!?!? Didn’t you notice that the Republican leadership couldn’t stop people from declaring their candidacy and becoming choices for GOP voters?

    Some of those candidates they couldn’t stop the Republican leadership decidedly did not like. One of those being Ted Cruz. And another being Trump of course. If the Republican leadership could have just offered their own picks in take-it-or-leave-it slate of candidates to the voters they would have. And that slate of candidates would have had Jeb Bush as the party favorite and a couple of designated losers like Lindsey Graham to make it look as if there was a choice.

    We have Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee because ultimately they can’t prevent a Donald Trump if that’s what enough GOP primary voters want. At least not now; this time around the system was not rigged no matter what the Trumpsters heard from the personality their cult is centered upon. They may in the future like the Democrats develop a system with enough superdelegates to give the Republican leadership what they want and give the finger to the voters. The Democratic primary system is what a rigged system really looks like, despite Trump’s whining. So, yeah, they may use the Democratic Party model next time around and then you can blame the GOP leadership for “not offering… better choices” and being “out of touch with what many of their voters want” but not in 2016.

    DRJ was exactly right. This time around the voters got exactly what they wanted, so it is entirely on the voters. And what the voters want, on both sides, is a dictator who will punish their enemies and reward their friends. They just want a dictator with completely different lists of friends and enemies.

    Steve57 (fa6407)

  70. See what I mean?

    So Ted Cruz is a “butt snuffler” when you perceive him as pandering to people. What precisely is Trump doing with all of his flip flops on issues that he calls “making deals”? How is that NOT butt-snuffling?

    Oh, that’s different, of course. Except it isn’t.

    And let’s see: do you have children? No, you don’t. If you had a daughter, would you want there to be coed showers? But as usual, rather than look at the issues from other points of view, you just act like a vulgar ass. It doesn’t matter how many people of faith, for example, on this blog that you have openly insulted. You have to say whatever you want on Patterico’s blog (which he pays for, dude). You just can’t help yourself.

    Anyway, here is the thing: you are presenting Trump as someone who will stand up for various issues, but you have utterly no evidence of that. It’s fine to say, well, he might make decisions I like.

    But because you are such a butt snuffler (see how pleasant that sounds?) toward issues that you think are all coolio, I think you are going to have to find new things to be vulgar about. Because Trump will not live up to the standards that you use to be such a poltroon.

    If HRC was so awful to you, you could have supported anyone as an alternative. But, of course, that doesn’t give you sufficient time to be juvenile and vulgar.

    Seriously, dude: how many times have you used the term “pee stank” on this blog? You know, the blog you don’t pay for, but stink up?

    You see, I would love to see people be just as rude to you as you are to so many other people. It might teach you to be kinder and to listen more. But that does take work, and thought, and a good and decent spirit.

    Next up, you are going to whine that I am giving you a bad time, or are fixated on you. Not so. I am fixated on the fact that many people I enjoyed reading no longer post on the blog. I think you are part of that.

    And it doesn’t need to be that way.

    All you need to do is mix it up and be serious some of the time. You can still be the contemptible hack you are some of the time, of course. But if you are so opinionated and wise, you could act that way once in a while. Not all the time. It would interfere with your personal lotion times.

    Except you aren’t interested in debate or interaction. You just want to use someone else’s blog rather as a noisy parakeet uses newspapers at the bottom of a cage. You could add value, rather than just screw around.

    But you won’t. It’s just not in you.

    Simon Jester (c8da08)

  71. you made some words darker and more wordy than others

    i need to take a beat and absorb this

    happyfeet (831175)

  72. now had this fellow rendered his judgement, we’d have something,

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0142004375/ref=x_gr_w_bb_sout?ie=UTF8&tag=x_gr_w_bb_sout-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0142004375&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2

    but you accept simon, air is water, black is white, up is down, because students have been scorched by mind arson,

    narciso (732bc0)

  73. thucydides was the wesley clark or the admiral sestak of his day,

    http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/donald-kagan-appreciation

    narciso (732bc0)

  74. what a speaker of truth to power, hand me the ipecac:

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/23/president-obama-speaks-his-mind

    narciso (732bc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3381 secs.