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."
If you have actually seen her I will have no choice but to belive this. Have you?
This is the purpose of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, to troll against him, and his supporters, to demoralize and discourage voting at all if not for their candidate.
I am not following Cruz threads. I don’t troll Cruz threads, with media driven anti-Cruz rants or their talking points.
I trolled CW this morning, over to a nice quiet holy thread in order to see what the heck happened to CW, after having posted this free for all here, and then running off. The difference in tone was night and day, from here to there.
These incitement threads are the doing of CW, who never names her candidate, but posts articles, asking us to convince her/him/it, that we can prove a negative! LOL!!
I am just not seeing Trump supporters behave like this, or go after Cruz on personalities, name calling, or with media driven talking points.
Cruz has been criticized for lending a desperately needed vote to McConnell, on the initial TPP procedural vote, over the objections and counsel of Jeff Sessions. The damn thing passed, by one vote, I believe.
I criticized that vote. I have concerns about the Wall Street Cruz donors, and the stupid PAC who gave $500,000.00 to Fiorina, but supposedly supporting Cruz. I have concerns that Cruz could ever hope to win a general election in a now obviously secular America.
I believe Cruz is a wonderful man and senator, who can not win a general election. Trump has not played the religious Right card to the noisy extent Cruz has elected to do, and it’s possible that noise alone will kill Cruz chances at the nomination, outside of the South.
Those are not personal attacks against Cruz, but political choices that are on the record, and I don’t really see Trump supporters posting Cruz threads only to incite a fight against his supporters.
I hope that is taken into account by FReepers.
I appreciate onyx reminding us to ping CW when objecting to her motivations and the incitement caused by CW threads full of false characterizations, snark, and false media interpretations of Trump interactions, especially when they are readily available in their full and unedited, context.
Unfailingly I have pinged CW, with mercy on the volume in his inbox. lol.
Posting and running is unusual for CW, but this morning that is what has happened.
Thanks, *GOPe. Thanks to you, *onyx, for keeping the faith and defending FR manners!
Ooops! ONYX! I meant to ping you in this comment. Where I am writing about PINGING, no less!! LOL!!!
Your Obama/Trump comparisons are uninformed At Best.
Obama is a Malignant Narcissist. He is a sociopath. He is a pathological liar.
Trump isn’t any of those things.
How about you do more than smear Trump with evidence-free comparisons to Obama? I’m sick of seeing this underhanded liberal smear tactic.
No, I just know her online from here for several years.
Unlike several others, I have NOT met her in person.
Smiling - no matter whenever YOU are talking about me beautiful GF!!!
Likely pulling your leg.
She has a sense of humor.
:)
Like this nation "threw the alcohol war under the bus"?
I’m not avidly following Cruz threads either and I can’t recall posting negatively about Cruz.
I cheer for him, in fact.
BTW, thanks for cleaning up the confusion, on the “him vs. her” confusion.
I’ve posted with CW for years now and admired her.
I have private imaginations as a past or present delegate and/or political professional. ( Though, I don’t know, or care.) CW and I have been like minded for years, but I have been shocked by the obvious fodder for food fights, and disappointed, I confess. Today, I let it show.
Glad CW is a “her”, actually, though that doesn’t matter either. LOL!
Very nice and brave post!
God bless, woofie. And thanks for your friendly tone, here.
I really appreciate it, and regardless I do hope you help defend Trump against the COMPLEX circling him, as we speak. 69 days before Iowa caucuses and the vultures are gathering, in desperation.
This is going to be an EPIC battle. God be with him, and you too, btw! :)
Pulling your leg maybe. I have also “known” this person for years and assumed female based on wife. After paying attention though, plus calling them out, I think this person who is constantly telling us Trump is not who he says he is actually is not who they imply they are, female, which is classic lib projection! That, and I just don’t trust them!
Not sure I understand what you mean. Cooke meant allow all drugs to be legal, as NR and the rest of the libertarians want. That is probably what you want.
But he presented this as a compromise, to let the Republicans win, even though, sneakily, he may actually want it for its own sake. Same with gay marriage.
Conservatives are not fooled that easily, and they are not so easily compromised.
You’re the best, d! Thank you so much for your response. I appreciate it a lot.
You are most welcome Rita, I enjoy your insight!
Maybe they are a couple. Like George Burns and Gracie Allen. LOL! Remember them?
Maybe they are a couple. Like George Burns and Gracie Allen. LOL! Remember them?
Weren’t you in support of Rick Perry?
Oh, it’s the National Review, what do you expect. This is the establishment’s mouth piece. Remember the National Review and the establishment wants to keep the borders open because they want their slave labor coming in. Slave labor has really worked out well for this country in the past, hasn’t it?
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.