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."
Come on now.
We are in a discussion about Trump and Cruz.
I mentioned the Bushes about 8 posts back, in passing. It wasn’t the point of my post, and really unimportant.
What we have here is Trump (who has quite a huge amount of support, even among Democrats) currently at 38.8%.
And we have Cruz, who doesn’t have a lot of support in either party, who is currently at 7.1% according to the same measurement.
(please see the Drudgereport, this morning)
I like Cruz. But he’s not strong enough on American industry. He seems to be on the globalist bandwagon.
Trump is not. Trump is for American businesses.
That seems to be the big difference between the two. Only Trump is saying we have gone much to far, in the direction of globalism.
America needs to grow.
Trump seems to be the only one saying this.
I don’t have a favorable impression of Rubio. But I’ll look at him, again. I think he was part of the Gang of 8, so that’s a big negatuve. But I will look at him afresh if he is the nominee, and no matter who the dammocraps put up, he will be advantageously positioned against them in my mind. Almost any Republican is superior to any dammocrap. Only trump and Bush are absolutely unacceptable.
Breaking News? Seriously? This doesnt belong here. Why dont we just post holiday recipes in Breaking News too.
That's true. But you're not addressing the issue of Trump*s pragmatism. How do we know what he*s going to be pragmatic about if we don*t know what his core principles are? He hasn*t articulated them, AFAIK.
Saying that he will choose good advisers is fine as far as it goes, but he has to evaluate the advisers that he chooses. What principles will his choices be based on?
We can*t afford to be on a *trust me* basis with the next Republican presidential nominee. We need someone with principles and a solid track record.
That's true and I'd gladly vote for a Trump/Cruz ticket. But I'd prefer that the order be reversed.
Post #11 is the post of yours to which I responded. You said it, not me. I replied specifically to your assertion that those opposed to trump are for Bush.
That is a lie.
If you now wish to apologize for your lie and retract it, that is up to you. But I was responding to your lie.
Charles C. W. Cooke.
I’m sorry, but he is a RINO/GOPe/Chamber Of Commerce enabler.
This “branch” of the Republican party is diametrically opposed to what I want in government, and, in my opinion, is exactly what is wrong with our party.
So, opinion pieces written by Cooke have the opposite reaction to me. Makes me want to support Trump MORE.
No thanks.
OK look we’re talking Bush, here is what I posted:
—
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.
They are completely on the wrong side. 100%.
—
What I see is that a portion of the people who are criticising Trump are Bush-bots. And a larger portion of people criticising Trump at least on this forum are Cruz supporters.
You are a Cruz supporter.
OK first off, here goes. I apologize for the confusion about my post. I did mention Bush and that seems to be what our disagreement is about. I’m sorry yes I posted about Bush.
There.
But you are advocating for Cruz. Cruz and Bush supporters appear to both be critical of Trump. Though there don’t appear to be a huge number supporting Bush at least here.
(which is not surprising, since they’re all in a competition for the same votes)
What I am saying however is that at the moment anyway, the two candidates Trump, and Cruz, are on the same page. They are not criticising each other.
You are.
That is my point. I don’t think it is entirely appropriate at the moment.
The gloves may come off at some point, but at the moment anyway, I just think you might tone it down just a bit.
Thanks.
All good points, indeed. However, if you follow Trump, read his books, watch his speeches, he’s basically laid out his core values/principles. Is he the ideal Christian conservative in the Ted Cruz, or similar, vein? Probably not, but, who knows what is in someone’s heart? I’m not voting for Pastor in Chief. I’m voting for a Commander in Chief that loves this country and wants to make it great again, safe and secure including financially. Trump does not have to watch what he says and does not have to calculate decisions from a political mindset, like Cruz does. He’s beholden to no one (sorry, Cruz is, as he’ll need $$ to get the nomination,like it or not, and that will influence many of his decisions) and is at a point in his life where he doesn’t care. Cruz is a young man and has a long future ahead of him after Trump straightens out this immediate mess before us. Bottom line is, we really don’t know how someone will be until there there. So many politicians are elected under one premise and do something totally different. Sure, Trump may do that, but there’s no guarantee Cruz won’t, too. At this point, I think Trump has much less to loose and doesn’t have to be so careful and calculating. We will need that in trying to turn this mess around.
“We have always had this in our system” “No.”
It’s been federal law for as long as I can remember (and I’m in my sixties) that hospital emergency rooms could not turn away the indigent.
Do you remember something different? Health care, BTW, is not the same thing as health insurance...
How, one wonders, does a chronic inability to say "no" fit into that mien?
Because Trump has dealt with scumbag media types like yourself many, many times, Chuck?
Also Trump is a Scot, and we're still a wee bit miffed about that stuff you bloody-handed Brits did after Culloden to the helpless women and children in the Highlands. Did I mention that Trump has Highlander roots [his mother was born on the Isle of Lewis]?
FURTHERMORE - what's with the "e" at the end of your name "Cook", Chuck? Is that to let us Merkuns know that you were born in Cambridge, and went to Oxford? Affectations like that have always bothered us peasantry, thouhg you are to be commended for using the word "mien" correctly in your screed. It's a friendless word, and nobody uses it much these days. Huzzah for you, Chuck!
Cooke consistently calls Trump a joke..always bashing bashing him on Kennedy..NOT EVEN A CITIZEN!!
hey Charles, nobody reads NRO anymore(I will never go to that website again) .I woke up to that hack establishment outfit years ago
Breitbart kicks your ass daily so take yourself along your permanent resident card, Rich Lowry and that little stupid bimbo Gutfeld props up all the time on his stupid show and jump in a lake.
That was harsh!
Loved it. :-D
What, specifically, is “a hit piece” about this? Nothing. It’s accurate.
I haven’t seen a single Bush supporter here. Where are they? Point one out. I’ll look.
As for Republicans at large, Bush is currently getting 1 - 3% in the polls! Bush supporters around the country are nearly as rare as here at FR!
Even if your poll of trump at 38% were accurate, that means SIXTY-TWO PERCENT of Republicans ARE NOT SUPPORTING trump! And almost none of those support Bush!
Your thesis is pretty much trashed. Folks oppose trump for all kinds of reasons. A very few support Bush. Almost none.
As to Cruz, I think you initially brought him up. Yes I support him. But that’s not why I oppose trump. The two issues are separate. I previously supported Walker before he dropped out. For me, though, I wasn’t against Cruz because I was for Walker. In fact, I openly posted that Cruz was my second choice. Now that Walker is gone, I will happily vote for Cruz. But if Cruz drops out, then I will not really have a candidate in the nominaton battle.
In the general election, if trump is the Republican nominee, I will not vote for him. My support of Cruz isn’t really related to my rejection of trump.
No one "owns" real estate in the contiguous 48 states. So, what's your problem?
I’m going to ask Trump for a few million. He probably won’t be able resist giving me even more! Yipee!
Well I’m glad, we worked out our disagreement.
:D
Go Trump.
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.