Posted on 11/20/2015 11:30:00 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
As has been made abundantly clear by his incessant mewling and pathetically thin skin, Donald J. Trump is not in fact an unwaveringly resolute tough guy of the type you would hope to find standing next to you in the trenches, but an insecure attention seeker who cannot help but pander to his audiences' prejudices. In the past few days, Trump has been asked variously whether, if elected, he would use his power to close mosques; whether he believes that Muslims should be registered in a special government database; and whether or not it would be a good idea to suspend the Fourth Amendment for anybody who prays to Allah. In all cases he has either demurred completely or eschewed the more traditional "yes" and "no" categories in favor of some choice hedging. "That may have to be done," Trump says. "There's no doubt." "We'll look at that." "We'll consider all the options." "We're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely."
So painful has this tendency become that I have begun to hope his interviewers will get a little surreal, just to see what he says:
"Will you replace your hair with spaghetti and your fingers with soup spoons?"
"Sure. We're going to look at everything."
"As president would you consider taking suspected burglars and parachuting them naked into lava?"
"That's something we'll consider. You can't have all this crime. Terrible."
"Do you think it's fair to say that you are the egg man, that you are the egg man, that you are the Walrus?"
"We're going to examine a range of possibilities."
"GooGooGooJoob?"
"I'll be looking into that."
Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say.
The most common defense of Trump's perpetual acquiescence has been that he did not explicitly say "yes" to the more controversial among the questions, and that he cannot therefore be accused of endorsement. In truth, this isn't quite right; speaking to NBC last night, he did seem to suggest affirmatively that Muslims would be required to sign into his hypothetical database or face consequences. Either way, I'm struggling to see how this defense can be acceptable to his admirers. Trump, recall, is supposed to be courageous. He's supposed to be steadfast. He's supposed to be a no-holds-barred badass who will make great deals and stare down enemies and Make America Great Again. How, one wonders, does a chronic inability to say "no" fit into that mien?
If there is one quality we need in a president, it is the ability decisively to say "no" - especially, I would venture, if that president hopes to advance conservative goals. When a sane person is asked whether he would institute a tracking database for Muslims or force one religious group to carry special ID cards, he says, "Of course I wouldn't." If Trump is unable to manage even this, how would he rein in spending or limit illegal immigration? More to the point, as Trump might ask sneeringly of others, how would he deal with Vladimir Putin?
Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say. Even if we are generous and assume that the man does not actually believe any of the specific proposals to which he has given his tacit consent, the attitude he is exhibiting is positively Wilsonian in character. In Trump's world, America will be restored to glory when his handpicked team of experts is permitted to experiment upon the public outside of the usual constitutional limits. Nowhere in his rhetoric will you find any reference to America's pre-existing cultural and legal traditions, or to the necessary bounds that free men insist be imposed upon the state. There is no talk of "freedom"; no reflexive grounding of ideas in the Declaration and the Federalist Papers; no conceptual explanation or underlying philosophy. There is nothing, except will to power. By his own admission, Trump's are the politics of doing enthusiastically what works in the moment; of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt; of the administrative state and of bureaucratic expertise; of the Prussians and the French and the Singaporeans. Whatever he might claim before his adoring crowds, Trump is not in fact an antidote to Barack Obama. He is his parallel.
Calvin Coolidge said "no" over and over and over again because he understood that the federal government existed for a handful of specific reasons, and that any action it took outside of its carefully delineated tramlines was inherently suspect. Donald Trump's only visible constitutional opinion is that someone strong ought to make sure the trams run on time. There's a word for men like that, and it sure as heck isn't "conservative."
I vote YES!
You are aware that Trump is now trying to claim he didn’t say what he said, right? He agreed with you two days ago but doesn’t agree with you today.
Lucky for you it won't be Bush but will be Rubio...
I agree that immigration is the number one issue. Nothing else matters.
But as I see Trump “rolling” with certain liberal opinions at times (and in the past) it makes me question if he wouldn’t make a deal with a Chuck Schumer at some point down the road.
The fact in the last debate Cruz was the first one to firmly and proactively tie illegal immigration to US worker wages (even Trump doesn’t do that) tells me he now gets it.
Of all the people running, I feel that Cruz is the least likely to sell us out.
But I’m still open to all of it. A few months before we vote.
But I thought Donald Trump didn’t pander. LOL
GOPe...
Yet on the other hand, Trump is the only candidate saying we need to bring back American jobs.
94,000,000 Americans (that is 94 million) are currently out of work.
Only Trump is prepared to do something about that.
Not Cruz. At least I haven’t seen Cruz come out strongly for returning American industry.
He is good on the border, but only Trump is for returning jobs to the states.
I posted the the time info/link on a thread yesterday. Turns out the Cruz supporters didn’t actually want the info. They wanted to attack me.
Now you’re doing the Lucy Charlie Brown routine. Provide the same info again today and you’ll focus on that.
Actually, no you won’t. You’ll attack me too. It’s the only game in the Cruz supporters playbook.
No sale.
Trump was and is talking about that since before he threw his hat into the ring...Long before Cruz...
“Cruz has been the only one to reject the idea outright and he’s been doing it for years.”
You can post that with a straight face?
Just because a politician says they are against ‘amnesty’, doesn’t mean they are against letting them stay, giving them legal status, giving them citizenship over those waiting in line, etc.
Even McCain was never for amnesty, if you trust just him saying it.
Cruz has been deafeningly silent on what he’d do with the illegals here. He even went so far as to admit that he wouldn’t say what his plan yet because ‘Americans didn’t want to have that discussion.’ BS! That obviously didn’t poll well, so he came out with a vague policy paper that sounded good, just like his great rant in the last debate-but he still wasn’t specific in either. He used the ‘d’ word once and only as a possibility.
I think his donors are causing the uncharacteristic silence.
I don't know what he is saying today...I do know the mass media is in full attack mode with lies...I hope Trump does well at defending against those lies...Apparently you are cheering on the media...
The feelings shtick is getting old.
Will you vote for Donald Trump when he is the Presidential nominee in November 2016 ?
******************************************************************
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer to that one.
Walker was my guy too but I got over it and got on with my life as soon as he withdrew.
Also, nice html.
Check your post #11:
“There is a big section of the Republican party which is hostile to Donald Trump.
“The part of the party is all for the Bushes, selling off American businesses, and importing ever more foreign labor.”
So, you say that those hostile to trump are “all for the Bushes. ..”
It is you who first mentioned Bush. It is you who has created the lying false assertion that opposition to trump is being “all for the Bushes...”
Trump can beat anyone the dems put up. Right now he is beating everyone the GOPe has put up. The Dems hate him, the media hates him and the GOPe hates him.
Obviously he is the perfect anti-establishment candidate.
I’d like to see specific cites of Trump speeches where he’s talking about US workers paychecks and wages being hurt by immigration.
He may have said it a ton. I just hear the “we need borders or you don’t have a country” (which I also agree with BTW)
Google it: "Trump says no"
Trump has said many times that he like to be "unpredictable"
Hence his answer..."we will look at that"
without giving specifics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.