Vote Trump. He’s our Hillary.

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu9/14/16
The Donald’s latest bribe to a particular constituency comes in his “Child Care Plan” which he officially proposed yesterday. Females are his target. The most controversial aspect of this proposal is the federal government guarantee that every new mother receive 6 weeks paid maternity leave. The first question which arises is, “Who will pay for this new perk?’

Trump claims that nobody will have to pay for this as it will be instituted in such a way that it will cost companies no more than their present insurance. If you believe that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

I heard Trump’s daughter promoting this “Plan” today and it sounded like a marketing campaign from the Left. One of the terms she used was “Wage disparity.”

“We must adjust our laws to take into account, ‘the new American family’ . . . The number of single mothers has doubled in the last 30 years”

She liberally avoided the fact that this means that illegitimacy has doubled in this period of time. She went so far as to say Trump’s plan was more complete than Hillary’s.

With almost every announcement he makes, this man proves himself to be a New York Liberal. Does anyone still believe otherwise? Yet one constantly hears that we must vote for Trump in order to beat Hillary. This troupe is shouted from the roof tops every time someone points out some new leftward move by the Donald. The best part of this liberal plan is that it is proposing only half of what Hillary is proposing which is 12 weeks paid leave…but give Donald time. He’ll get there.

I understand Hillary is a very bad candidate, but I truly wonder how many of Trump’s supporters have lost touch with reality. With this in mind, I would like to know, how far they would actually go to beat Hillary. Which of the below mentioned candidates would they vote for were he running against Hillary today?

1. Humphrey
2. Mondale
3. Bloomberg
4. John Kerry
5. Jerry Brown
6. Bernie Sanders
7. Obama

I truly am curious.

Ivanka went on:

The fourth part of my father’s plan will add incentives for employers to provide child care at the workplace. Breakdowns in child-care networks cause employee absences that cost U.S. businesses billions each year. On-site child-care centers help resolve avoidable employee absenteeism, in addition to saving time and helping companies retain valued staff.

Finally, under the Trump plan, the federal government will guarantee, for the first time, six weeks of paid maternity leave. This will be done by amending the existing unemployment insurance that companies are required to carry. The enhancement will triple the average paid leave that new mothers receive, and it will do so without raising taxes.

At the heart of this policy is the belief that every parent should have the freedom to make the best decisions for his or her family. My father is prepared to chart a new course that promotes strong families and celebrates their individual needs; one that honors, respects and empowers both working and stay-at-home mothers and caregivers. Together, we will take a stand and enable the American family and the modern workforce to thrive.

So, if according to Ivanka, Trump’s plan will promote strong families, then why on a Trump-produced fact sheet for Trump’s New Child Care Plan does it state:

An analysis of a similar program in California has shown that unmarried, non-white, and non-college-educated mothers receive the most benefit. The Trump plan for paid maternity leave will advance the interests of disadvantaged mothers without raising taxes.

So…Trump proposes a wall to forward the interests of Americans but internally he’s promoting the same policies which have caused the ballooning of illegitimacy rates across the country and at the same time is expanding the kind of welfare stat that tends to attract the illegal aliens in the first place.

Here’s the wording of Trump’s official proposal from his web site.

PROPOSAL: The Trump plan will guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave by amending the existing unemployment insurance (UI) that companies are required to carry. The benefit would apply only when employers don’t offer paid maternity leave, and would be paid for by offsetting reductions in the program so that taxes are not raised. This enhancement will triple the average paid leave received by new mothers.

Not only is this the expanding of the welfare state but, if history is a guide, it’s only the beginning. What part of “RINO” doesn’t apply to Trump? Where is this stark dichotomy between Trump and Hillary? Would we not simply be voting for our own kind of a Hillary? Isn’t he just Hillary with red hair who can stand up on his feet a little better?

Kung Fu Zu is a conservative prognosticator who has traveled widely and lived outside the United States. • (1045 views)

This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Vote Trump. He’s our Hillary.

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’m amazed, Mr. Kung. I had not heard of that proposal. I’ve been pretty busy the last couple of days and haven’t been listening to any news.

    Even someone merely moderately conversant in traditional American views (let alone reality) understands that families tend to be weakened when the government tries to get intimately involved. But here we have yet another New York liberal proposing to hand out public money to to try to bribe yet another constituency.

    If you want to strengthen the family, get the government out of it. I’ve heard that Trump’s children are extremely liberal. That would appear to be the case.

    • David Ray says:

      Yep. That liberal does indeed have “New York values”. Cruz invokes the obvious and Trump conflates that to attacking first responders during 911.

      I sometime sick and tire of the Trumps & Breitweisers of the world indulging their narcissism over 911.
      That attack happened to ALL of us; not just them. Otherwise so much of middle America wouldn’t have responded to it.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I’ve heard that Trump’s children are extremely liberal. That would appear to be the case.

    Why wouldn’t they be? They are extremely rich New Yorkers who have inherited their fortunes and are able to play the system to their advantage. They can pretend to think about the little guy, but I believe they are more interested in fixing their place in the economy.

    Much like the Kennedy’s who pretended to worry about the little guy, I believe their motto is, “Now, keep the rest of ’em down through socialism, we’ve already got ours.”

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    That’s an interesting question about which Demagogues would be better choices than Slick Hilly. Humphrey actually probably would have been. But one must remember that none of them ever ran as a Republican. Whatever Trump’s merits and demerits, his personnel would be mostly Republicans, at least some of them probably conservative, and that alone makes him less bad than Slick Hilly. He would also be held more accountable than she would be, which can be very important.

    As for his childcare proposal, it depends on how he plans to pay for it. If he reduces the current bloated unemployment terms (it used to be only 6 months), that would actually be quite reasonable.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Whatever Trump’s merits and demerits, his personnel would be mostly Republicans, at least some of them probably conservative, and that alone makes him less bad than Slick Hilly.

      I’ve tried my best to give rhetorical spin to just that idea. And there is some merit to it. But you can expect a “hands-on” Trump presidency (Trump Jr., in particular…who may be the smarter Trump). Given that most “conservatives” are practicing RINO’s, I don’t gain much confidence from the idea that Republican personnel would be manning many of the underling posts. But at least that’s something. But I would expect Trump’s thumbprint to be heavy even here.

      All I ask for is a little honesty from Trumpkins. He’s neither The Anointed by God nor the Next Coming of Ronald Reagan. He’s a progressive-style New York Liberal who will do what every other RINO or liberal has done: Use public money to bribe and buy constituencies by offering “free stuff” in the guise of the liberal spin that it will “reduce poverty” or “make for stronger families,” etc.

      I must remind one and all of Mr. Kung’s other article of late whereby he put forth the cold, hard facts on bastardy: Some Hard Truths or Bye Bye America.

      An honest Trumpkin might have a case to make in saying that Trump wouldn’t move the country as far Left and as fast. But how do you make this case other than the denial of who he is and has been so far?

      An honest Trumpkin might point out that the government getting involved like it has (despite Mr. Kung’s raw statistics) is the way to go. Hey, it could be. But make the case. If you can’t then you’re likely for a Federal government that is smaller and more restricted in what it tries to do (that is, that stays within the Constitution and original purpose). Is there any credible talk or actions from Trump that give any sign that he isn’t just another statist or liberal? I see no signs whatsoever.

      So by all means, Trumpkins, do vote for Trump. But don’t try to baffle me with your baloney that he’s better than Hillary. He’s simply the Republican’s version of Hillary.

  4. David Ray says:

    Another good article by Kung Fu Zu.
    Mark Levin had a meltdown with idiot Trump supports rushing to defend this yet-another-bloated-waste-of-time-program. This prompted small business Employers to call in to state that it’s THEY that pay the unemployment taxes; not employees.
    Trump’s supporters should realize that being rich doesn’t make one clever or smart. Some rich people are; some like Trump are not. (Perhaps some of us confuse intellect for NY values or somethin.)

    As a confessional, I’ll be voting for the sociopath, and that’s only because of his VP pick and list of supreme court nominees.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I recently read an article that pointed out the popularity of rich candidates by noting the song “If I Were a Rich Man” from Fiddler on the Roof, in which Tevye notes that if he were rich everyone would ask his advice even on the toughest questions. It wouldn’t even matter if his answers were right — “when you’re rich they think you really know.” Unfortunately, they don’t always.

      Elizabeth and I also prefer Trump to Slick Hilly (which doesn’t say anything for Trump, really). But since it’s a certainty he’ll win Kentucky (no way coal-hating Hilly has a chance here), we can always vote 3rd party if there’s a decent one on the ballot. (Johnson and Stein really aren’t suitable for that purpose.)

  5. GHG says:

    Well now that the Child Care proposal has been announced, we REALLY know that Trump isn’t a conservative. Course, maybe I’m confused but I thought we already knew Trump wasn’t a conservative, several times over and again. So in my confusion I’m having difficulty in understanding why the elevated level of angst and consternation. Did he do something to make himself less conservative than you already thought he was? Or is this less about Trump, who was already written off as a degenerate NY liberal, and more about the frustration of seeing the unwashed hordes sticking with him even though he doesn’t pass conservative muster?

    So I suppose we may as well just go and vote for Hillary. Right? I mean, there’s basically no difference between them. Right? Trump has proven to be just as much a despicable pathological liar as Hillary. Right? He has sold America for personal gain the same as Hillary, hasn’t he? He has let people die for political gain same as Hillary too, hasn’t he? She won’t really stack SCOTUS with leftist activist justices will she? And if she would, Trump would probably do the same, wouldn’t he? Aren’t they both about the same on gun control too? And freedom of speech?

    It seems there’s not a hairs breadth difference between them so we may as well elect Hillary so we can check “elect a woman president” off the country’s bucket list. Right?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, since Slick Hilly considers all of us “deplorable”, I doubt anyone here would actually vote for her. Those of us in swing states may face that binary choice, but most of us don’t seem to be in such states. We can do as we like, and it won’t make a difference in our state.

      • GHG says:

        I live in Illinois (not something I’m proud of) so my vote for POTUS hasn’t meant anything for a long time. And yet … I’m compelled to do my civic duty and vote anyway. And so I do.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Here’s the bottom line with Trump: The same people who bemoan RINOs and Establishment Republicans have not shown that they can identify them.

      But if the point is that some really want a European-style social democracy, Hillary will probably get you there as well. But the argument over who is the most competent Progressive socialist is a different one.

      • GHG says:

        As is my wont, I seem to have muddled the point I was trying to make, which was that it should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog that Trump is not a conservative. In fact he’s probably not even conservative enough to be called a RINO. He is a NY liberal who has and will continue to champion some big government liberal policies. There’s nothing surprising about his Child Care policy – it’s not like the Child Care policy suddenly opened the curtain and we were all shocked to discover Trump is not conservative. We already knew that.

        The second part of the point I was trying to make was to call attention to the many differences between Hillary and Trump, especially on a personal level since apparently there may not be much difference on a policy level. Even if you don’t believe Trump either (1) truly believes what he says, or (2) probably won’t follow through with his promises – the stark difference between, at worst, a con man and what can only be described as evil incarnate should drive any patriot to vote for Trump if for no better reason than to stop Hillary.

        Now that I’ve gone on the same rant I’ve done several other times, I’ll slither away quietly and hope to control myself from darkening your doorway with more of the same Trump indoctrinated nonsense you’ve already been gracious enough to let me know nicely that it isn’t appreciated. I’m weak and sometimes can’t control my impulses.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          G the Lesser,

          Not so long ago you wrote,

          I hope you decide to keep this site running. One of the things that this site has that most others do not is an active group who are well read and willing to engage in a respectful manner. Politics and religion will bring out the best and worst in people. It’s difficult to be on opposite sides and not get frustrated or worse. But at least there is reasoned dialogue and maybe that’s all we can expect and maybe that’s enough.

          Has something changed?

          • GHG says:

            Yes, I got the distinct impression something did change.

            First, a disclaimer: I have contributed nothing toward the cost and maintenance of this blog, and as such I’m in no position to challenge the wishes of Brad and others who have an investment here. In fact, as I’ve expressed before, I’m appreciative for the hours I’ve enjoyed here and grateful my meager contributions were welcomed.

            That said, I sensed a change in tone about the time Brad spoke of possibly shutting the blog down. Understandably it was taking time and treasure from Brad to continue to offer his blog and many of us, me included, were free loading. I don’t blame Brad in the least for crying out about something that was on his heart and I certainly think he was within his rights to do so. Around that same time there were a few exchanges (not only with me) that seemed to belie Brad’s frustration with having to continue to argue with free loaders – me being a prime example of an argumentative free loader.

            So, I came and read but didn’t comment much after that, if at all. I was following the maxim if I didn’t have something nice to say – say nothing at all, at least until after the election. However, then I read your complaint about Trump’s Child Care proposal and the Lemmings following Trump over the cliff and my impulse to rant got the better of me … and well … here we are.

            I’m hopeful things will get better after Nov. 8.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Last night I heard a radio talk show host give a suggestion as to how Trump could gain a sure 2-3% more of the vote and thereby guarantee himself victory.

    He prefaced his suggestion with the observation that Trump is unique among Republican candidates as regards the things he says and policies he proposes. Only a couple of years ago, any Republican who had proposed 6 weeks maternity leave for women would have been run out of town on a rail. But when Trump says it the Trumpkins swoon.

    His suggestion was that Trump should propose tax deductions up to one or two thousand dollars for veterinary expenses paid out for pet care. And he wasn’t joking.

    The host went on saying how a large percentage of the American electorate are very foolish and are unable to think logically about almost anything. They only think about what touches them, nothing else. Thus those adorable pet lovers, especially those without children would think the “pet deduction” only fair. I mean, parents get deductions for having children don’t they?

    I can’t say that the man’s opinion is wrong. Woof, woof.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The official position of StubbornThings is that both parties have forwarded bad candidates for the presidency. Not just mediocre candidates. It’s as if some trickster was playing a practical joke on us.

    Still, because it’s likely Hillary is worse and that Trump would be surrounded by at least some fragments of a sober Republican Establishment, and because we don’t know that he’s lying about everything, a pro-Trump vote as an anti-Hillary vote is a rational act.

    But what I would never do is declare that sound principles, reasoning, and fidelity to America, as founded, is to be denigrated by placing them all in the moronic title of “Never-Trump.”

    So it was with some surprise that I ran across this blog post by Dr. (must be a doctorate by mail order) Lifson at American Thinker who wrote:

    the NeverTrumps have declined to a stubborn remnant clinging to vague notions of personal superiority and custodianship of “conservative values” that extend to “severe conservative” Mitt Romney but don’t include Donald Trump.

    So if you believe that conservatism is the answer for what ails the country, you are a “stubborn remnant clinging to vague notions of personal superiority.” Has this guy cracked up completely or just pandering to the Trumpbots?

    • GHG says:

      I read AT on a regular basis and I have been somewhat surprised by some of the articles Lifson has written because they seem to be based more on reaches than fact. In my opinion he has jumped in with both feet on some stories that should have merited a more cautious response to the veracity of the “facts” presented in the story. He seems more like a shark with (Hillary’s) blood in the water than I expected him to be.

      As to his assertion that the NeverTrump’ers motivation is to save conservativism from the hordes of sheep following Trump, I think he misses the mark, at least for a large number of NeverTrump’ers. I believe that many of the NeverTrump’ers are NeverTrump’ers because they believe post national globalism is inevitable and they align themselves with the Chamber of Commerce – not because they want to remake America based on conservative values.

  8. Timothy Lane says:

    Hot Air has a link to an article by Charles Sykes filled with good advice, applicable both generally and to this particular election, for conservatives. He points out that one should not adopt the leftist lack of objective ethics, and that we should follow the Biblical admonition to “put not your trust in princes” — ideas are more important. In all, he has 12 recommendations. The link is:

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The next month is going to be horrible. The link is to another embarrassing Trump “unchained” episode.

    While I suspect a fair number of his supporters will admire Trump’s behavior here, I doubt it will win him the hearts of many female voters. Before this election, I would have also included evangelicals, but I don’t think they actually care anymore.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This probably will make it difficult to win over any women who aren’t already with him. On the other than, there’s probably little here that wasn’t already known about Trump — i.e., he’s a gross, vulgar womanizer at heart.

  10. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I did not watch all of the debate last night, but although Trump did reasonably well, he simply missed several slow balls over the plate. If he would only prepare a couple of terse and pointed sound bytes, he would be able to slaughter Clinton. I don’t know why he won’t do it.

    That being said, the link below is to a speech he gave today in Ohio. It is a very good speech. Had he been this good in the debates, he would have creamed Hillary.

    I particularly like the points he starts making about 17 or so minutes into the speech.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, I think you’re a good guy and generally fair-minded. But if I watch any more video of either one of these clowns, I may get queasy. I’ll take your word that he’s reading someone else’s nicely-written speech. Too bad his prepared speeches can run in his place.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        But if I watch any more video of either one of these clowns, I may get queasy.

        I understand the feeling. I watched the first debate, with a little channel changing now and then, but I couldn’t watch the second and third debates in toto.

        The clip which I linked to today is the first full speech I have watched Trump make since sometime during the primaries. Thus, I am able to keep from going off my rocker.

        I feel sure that he is reading someone else’s words. And he sounds quite reasonable and sane. But I find it very strange that he doesn’t take these words with him to a debate. Perhaps I am missing something.

        These days, I am looking at the race from a tactical perspective and I don’t get much of what Trump does.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I have read of this before and it does not surprise me.

      On the one hand, he takes a yearly salary of $1 per year, on the other he wastes millions on government perks. Does he not see the irony? Or does he simply see himself as Louis XIV?

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Someone commented that this is fake news because it came from CNN. I guess he’s been flying down to a fake Mar-a-Lago.

        But wasn’t Trump supposed to be at least the vulgarized version of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”? Wouldn’t it be a great symbolic gesture, at least, to curb his travel or pay for it himself? Or maybe he’s just returning it to its original purpose. From Wiki:

        Mar-a-Lago (English pronunciation: /mɑɹ.ə.lɑ.goʊ/) is an estate and National Historic Landmark in Palm Beach, Florida, built from 1924 to 1927 by heiress and socialite Marjorie Merriweather Post. Post envisioned the house as a future winter retreat for American presidents and foreign dignitaries, and following her death in 1973, it was bequeathed to the nation. However, successive presidents declined to use the mansion and it was returned to Post’s estate in 1980. In 1985, Mar-a-Lago was purchased by businessman Donald Trump.

        Still, at the end of the day, these are the prince and princesses of American royalty living out their lives as our betters.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          How about a quiet weekend at Camp David?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, I gather that he pays the bills of foreign visitors himself, so likely he does the same with his own. Of course, there are still the expenses of travel and (especially) security. Note that after the school year ends, Melania will come to live in the White House. I don’t blame her for not wanting to interrupt this school year for their son.

          Obama didn’t vacation as often as Trump does, but his were a lot longer (though this may change later in the year; we shall see). And he didn’t pay for any of it.

  11. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I never was one who believed all the things Trump promised to do, and am even happy with his judicial appointments. But to those who fawn on Trump, this article lays out a list of the many promises he has not kept.

    Better than Hillary? Yes, but nothing like he promised.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Better than Hillary. Check (unless he starts WWIII). But I said it all when I said: “He’s a demagogue.”

      In his clusterf**k of an administration with no higher principle than “his gut” (which apparently is located even further down), what did anyone expect?

      But because we’ve devolved into reflexive blue-hats vs. red-hats, it’s enough for many that Trump quenches their own dramatic grievances and is “sticking it to them.” As long as CNN doesn’t like him, he must be doing something right, right? That his supporters are the ones getting stuck doesn’t occur to them and is the very definition of useful idiot.

  12. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    As readers of ST might remember, I am not a huge fan of Donald Trump. That being said, I must admit that the man has turned out to be a better president than I hoped for.

    And for those who claim he is stupid, I say they should listen to his press conference today. I was never in doubt as to his intelligence, but his press conference today was particularly impressive. The way he answered the press’ questions and the amount of information he had on the Kavanaugh situation as well as foreign and economic policy was very impressive. Of course he was still Trump, but his answers had real substance to them, unlike those of the Obamanation and even W.

    I am encouraged by his performance and believe he will continue fighting for his policies and the American people who he represents.

    He, like so many successful leaders, has been lucky in his opponents who have massively underestimated him.

    Now push for Kavanaugh’s confirmation and maintaining control of the House and Senate. I personally believe there is a chance of gaining 3 or 4 Senate seats. Ooops. Maybe I shouldn’t have gone on record.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I would have loved to have seen that press conference.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      With all there is to discuss, the newsliars mostly asked him about Kavanaugh. Of course, most leftist newsliars join the Demagogue Senators in pretending that Avenatti’s fantasy is credible. I find myself wishing they could be waterboarded. Not the mild version in use today, but the more rigorous version inflicted on Emma Peel in the Avengers episode “Murdersville”. Trump might even be the sort to do it if provided with a suitable reason.

      There are so many who deserve it — long pig Hirono for her blatant misandry, mother of lies Gillibrand for her misandry and her rejection of the Bill of Rights, viper’s get Blumenthal for being such a detestable creep as well as his rejection of the Bill of Rights, Chucky the Schemer for being irredeemably evil, the Feinswein sow for her gross misbehavior, Richard Hahn for his pathological dishonesty. I wonder which one is demonically possessed by John Hathorne.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        The Dimorats have adopted Hitler’s and Goebbels’ device known as the Big Lie theory.

        Invent an outlandish lie, repeat it often enough and a large percentage of the public will believe it. This theory works particularly well will the mindless amongst us, who are inclined to being led by their prejudices and noses.

        Even waterboarding ala Changi Prison 1942-45 would be too good for the scum who are doing their best to destroy our country.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I don’t know the details of that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it much resembled what happened to Emma Peel.

          Note that Sleazy Pornstar Lawyer’s client swore out an affidavit on her false accusation. Viper’s get Blumenthal (every time I see him I figure the world would be a much better place if his tongue were ripped out) used that as a basis for believing her as opposed to the unsworn charges so far (which he pretends to believe, of course). She should already be subject to perjury charges (and SPL himself should face disbarment).

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I read that the SPL’s client had a restraining order issued against her by a former boyfriend. He says she threatened him and his later wife and son with violence. He basically said she’s a nut.

            He is a registered Dim and says he has more information against her, but is going to consult a lawyer before speaking further.

            As to waterboarding, I think the Japanese might have been the first to use this on a large scale. They did it to many Allied prisoners in their various prisoner-of-war camps. Changi in Singapore and the one at Sham Shui Po in Hong Kong come to mind.

  13. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link is to an excellent piece which gives a good account of what Trump has and hasn’t done during his two years in office. Most importantly, he has not done a damn thing to fulfill his promises regarding immigration.

    While I like what Trump has done on appointments to the federal judiciary and most of his foreign policy, if he doesn’t follow up with real action on immigration, I believe he will lose in 2020 and deservedly so.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      A couple things occur to me after reading that, Mr. Kung. None of them will be a surprise to you:

      1) The nature of The Daily Drama means that yelling back at and insulting the Democrats and the Left is considered substantive. A fine article, but David Cole seems clueless about this when he writes “they [the neocons] get the fact that tweets don’t equal accomplishments.” Or maybe he’s just too polite to say it outright: You were conned.

      This is what many people spend a good amount of their time on. They sit on Facebook and engage in a purely rhetorical war. Trump’s Tweets are by no means considered separate from accomplishments. They are considered the very game itself.

      2) This is true of nearly all politicians to some extent. But it was readily obvious that Trump was a demagogue and held to various basic liberal social tenets even if not all the economic ones (but many of the economic ones as well). You’re never going to squeeze blood out of this turnip. That he has not been reflexively anti-business and anti-American is a good thing and has certainly produced some welcome economic results. It’s apparent now that he’ll never “lock her up” or “build a wall.” He never meant to. This was just click-bait for the rubes.

      3) He did (apparently….time will tell) choose a couple good Supreme Court Justices as well as fill some slots down the line with good people. This is a plus. I doubt that one in ten Trump supporters thought as you did and were counting the times they didn’t step in cow dung and saw that as good fortune. That is, I know your expectations were low and that anything positive (such as the judiciary) was considered a measured and welcome victory. Him being a demagogue and not building a wall was, as it was to me, hardly a surprise (although I admit, I would have expected at least a better show at an effort).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Part of a modern politician’s job is to keep the public stirred up. Trump does this better than anyone I have ever seen. Of course, modern technology and social media give him a platform never before available to any demagogue.

        I suspect the next two years will be a constant harangue between Trump and the Dims which will keep the tensions high, but do little to get anything done. It will all be about getting the plebs out for the 2020 election.

        I have serious doubts that Trump, or any Republican, will be able to win in 2020. With the new election law in Florida, which allows ex-felons to vote, I suspect Florida has now gone blue. If this is the case, you can kiss America goodbye.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, Trump would have won in 2016 even without Florida, so it is possible — though a lot harder. And ex-felons voting will make it much harder for the GOP to win statewide.

          As I see it, Trump has 3 major accomplishments: judges at all levels (district and circuit court as well as SCOTUS), tax cuts (though they failed to make the individual cuts permanent and will have a MUCH harder time doing it now), and reduced regulation (including on climate alarmism issues). Since the Fire Witch would have done the opposite in all 3 cases, that’s more than enough to justify Trump.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Predicting the mood of the electorate will be tricky. I’m not sure the electorate is even smart enough to have a mood.

          I suspect whoever the Democrats put up will be weak. But we’re now talking about a totally new set of rules. I mean, look at the screwball we have for a president. Who says Beto is too far out there?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *