Why The Donald Doesn’t Scare Me

Trump3by Rosalys5/9/16
First I must state that there is so much muck being flung about, that I sometimes don’t know who or what to believe. The proverbial excrement has truly hit the fan, and the fan is showing no signs of stopping. I find people, whose opinions I value very much, on both sides of the Trump issue. I have spent much time reading and listening to this one and that one, and I find I am left to rely on my own gut – not touchy, feely – feelings, or intuition.

I had said early on that I would vote for Ted Cruz in the primary, and Donald Trump in the general election. I did a little wavering, beginning with all the “let’s have a contested primary” hoopla. Jon N. Hall’s column of April 3, Nullifying the Republican Primaries, pretty much clinched it for me (thank you, Jon, for the clarifying screed), at least for a while.

I went back and forth a few times. I wasn’t pleased with Trump’s statements concerning abortion and the big bathroom debate. But I wonder if those are deeply held beliefs, or just shallow, haven’t-thought-about-it-much reactions. I suspect the latter. I really don’t like his take on eminent domain, and I suspect he holds this position closer to his heart; but I think this is a battle which must be fought another day. (Perhaps the seizure of one of his buildings for public use – though I don’t see it ever happening – would cure that.)

As for Cruz, I’m not convinced he won’t compromise on immigration. I am leery of the Goldman Sachs connection. I’m very uncomfortable with the, “Ted is anointed by God!” rhetoric (though, Ted himself has not said this.) But Ted is a Christian, a conservative, and a Constitutionalist, and Donald seems not to be – though I don’t see him viscerally opposed to them, in the manner of a true leftist. Then Ted announced Carly Fiorina for his running mate, which looked like an act of desperation – very unattractive in a man. In the voting booth I stood, vacillating for a minute, before finally connecting the arrow next to Donald name. Later on that day, I heard about Trump accusing Cruz’s father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. Had I not voted so early in the day, before hearing this, I probably would have voted for Ted.

But at the end of the day, I don’t regret voting for Trump. He’s an enigma, and when push comes to shove, I really don’t know what he’s going to do. What it comes down to, for me, is character.

“What? Trump? Character? Are you crazy? A character maybe; a buffoon, a carnival barker, a huckster, a showman, immoral to the core!”

”… for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  Rom. 3:23

So Donald Trump is a sinner. So am I. So are you. So is Billy Graham. That being said, I think I see in Donald Trump a few fine character traits.

#1 – Let’s start with the obvious. Mr. Trump is pugnacious, a scrapper, a fighter. The very character trait that rankles many I see as a strength. He doesn’t back down from a fight. He meets trouble head on and does battle, with the determination to win. It might get him in some hot water from time to time, but he isn’t a coward, and he doesn’t run and hide. Did you know that cowardice is a sin?

“But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”  Rev. 21:8

Look at that list. Cowardice is first in a lineup that includes murder, sexual sin, and witchcraft! We tend to feel sorry for, and make excuses for, timid souls (myself included – because too often I find myself to be one of them!) but God doesn’t look at it that way! He’s ready to send fire and brimstone your way for unrepentant cowardice! I’m sure that Mr. Trump has many besetting sins, as we all do. It just doesn’t look like cowardice is one of them.

#2 – Mr. Trump is loyal. During that whole Michelle Fields tempest in a teapot, Donald Trump stood by his campaign manager – after reviewing the videos. When all the white knights rushed to the side of the damsel, who was in absolutely no distress whatsoever, other than that of her own intentional making, Donald Trump was defending his friend and colleague. I watched the videos myself, and I agree with Trump. What Michelle Fields was doing was playing the feminist card to destroy a man. Perhaps Mr. Lewandowski is guilty of something heinous, but it isn’t for assaulting Ms. Fields!

How many politicians out there have we seen throw their loyal subjects under the bus, or expected their underlings to fall on their swords for them, because they were just too damned important to the salvation of the world to let their political ambitions crumble? Over seven billion people in the world and it all rests on them!

What Michelle Fields tried to do was despicable, but it revealed a virtue in Trump that we may not have seen otherwise.

#3 – Mr. Trump is generous. We’ve all heard the stories about how he paid off the mortgage of a guy who stopped to change his tire, how he agreed to fly the family of a sick child to New York for treatment, in his private airplane, when the airlines refused. And we also heard the story about his withholding money to pay for his nephew’s medical problems – an all too common family scrap over inheritance. All of these stories took place many years ago. The family feud was resolved. Trump says he learned from it. Sounds to me like at least some repentance.

But how about, from what I’ve heard, the people who work for him – and Trump has lots of employees – really seem to like him. It couldn’t be because he treats them like slaves and peons. I’ve heard he can be tough, that he expects a lot, but he rewards accordingly. He often says that if you treat him well, he’ll treat you well. So it may be more tit for tat than the selfless love, which Christ commands of His followers; but it’s huge step up from the imperious arrogance of, say, Hillary toward the White House staff during the Clinton year’s (if the rumors be true,) or unbelievable cheapness of a multi-millionaire, like AlGore, who wouldn’t fix the plumbing in a tenant’s hovel!

#4 – He seems to have remained independent. Not necessarily or just in the political sense. Face it. A guy with the kind of money he has, is courted by the World Elites, the Ruling Class. They want anyone with any potential for influence – and money does talk! – at least on their side, but preferably in their pocket. I remember Glenn Beck telling us, his audience, how George Soros contacted him, in an attempt to lure him over to the dark side. Trump has hobnobbed with the elites, gone to their parties, probably invited them to a few of his own. But it looks like he hasn’t let anybody own him. I think he truly is an outsider. I’m so sick and tired of all the insiders that, right now, for me, that is a plus.

#5 – He’s smart. This isn’t a character trait, but it’s a plus. For all out there screaming, “He’s a buffoon! He’s a clown! He’s and idiot!” I say, “He is not!” He is smart. He can’t have gotten to where he is by being a dummy. Oh, he had a good start with Daddy’s fortune, but a dumbbell would have squandered it; Trump has built on it. Many people are smart, but there are many different ways to be smart. At least Trump is smart with numbers. He knows finances, the difference between solvency and bankruptcy. An awful lot of politicians – if not most – don’t! So there is potential to start the process of putting the United States back on the right fiscal path.

#6 – He loves America.

To save the nation, you have to first have a nation to save. Donald Trump will not be our savior. That title belongs to the Lord, Jesus Christ alone. But perhaps he can help us regain a nation, which can then be saved. I’m hoping he will stop the flow of unfettered immigration, and stop Muslim immigration altogether, at least until, “…we can figure out what the hell is going on!” Only time will tell.

Our problems go much deeper than demographics, much deeper than money. I believe our problems stem from a wholesale turning away from God. By God I mean the God of the Bible, both old and new testaments, as revealed to mankind in the person of Jesus Christ. In many ways America has become downright satanic, and is getting worse. Don’t ask God for justice. Justice should give us a Sodom and Gomorrah solution! Pray for revival! Plead for mercy!

A Trump presidency doesn’t scare me, because I have a small glimmer of hope that perhaps God can use him. God is long suffering and often merciful. To that end I pray for him, because for good or ill, I believe he will be our next president.

Another reason a Trump presidency doesn’t scare me – I have very low expectations for America and of Americans in general, anyway. I expect the worst, but I hope I’ll be pleasantly surprised!


Rosalys is a special contributor to StubbornThings • (1349 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Why The Donald Doesn’t Scare Me

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’m not convinced, Rosalys. Nor am I persuaded. But seen in the light of low exceptions, he could certainly fulfill them.

    Mr. Kung and I have had a few conversations about Trump, and I’m betraying no secrets when I say that I think he’s just plain dishonest while Kungs sees a master salesman at work with a premeditated plan. I simply see an unprepared, not very thoughtful man, who wings it at press conferences. He sees a guy who knows precisely what he’s doing.

    But perhaps Mr. Kung is right. Another way to understand Trump”s flip-flops and non-specific ramblings is a man who wants to sound like he is saying something but says very little (which isn’t exactly new for a politician). If Mr. Kung is correct, Trump has found a premeditated way to be all things to all people (or at least to enough people in the GOP primary). He may not be a stupid as he looks.

    It should be disqualifying for a presidential aspirant to say something as cuckoo as trying to connect his opponent’s father with JFK’s assassin. Just consider that for a moment. And that’s just one of the many yugely stupid things Trump has said.

    And yet you write this fine article in which you are able to cast Trump as something else. I think that is probably one of Trump’s strengths. He has a certain kind of Reality Distortion Field, the same kind that Steve Jobs of Apple Computer was famous for. In the case of Jobs, it wasn’t that he was trying to bamboozle anyone or misrepresent himself. He was simply very very good at getting people to believe his vision for technology and how to get there. He was a great motivator.

    And we hear all the time that Trump is a different man behind the scenes. I don’t doubt that his employees love him. But as a voter, he is presenting himself as my prospective boss and he’s failing ever step of the way. Politics is a different realm from business, a point Kevin Williamson makes in his recent article.

    So how do you account for the fact that one Limbaugh (Rush) likes Trump and the other (David) does not? How do you account for the fact that Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter see one man and Dennis Prager and Mark Levin see another?

    I think what we have here is a cult of personality whereby we read into these people what we want if only because they have tickled something deep inside us that gives us confidence to say “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” Others, quite rightly in my opinion, see a wooden-hulled boat approaching the rocks.

    As I’ve said, Trump is the GOP’s version of “Hope and change.” Like Obama, he is vague enough, while being inspirational in his own way, to gain adherents without those adherents being assured of what the man will actually do. Obama certainly did not heal racial relations as most white low-information voters thought he would. Nor did he lower the cost of health insurance.

    I think with Trump we have to be brave enough to see that we have the same sort of character.

    Anyway, I am swearing off politics as the center of this site, but I’ve given Rosalys an exemption because I want to encourage her as a writer and because I’ve trashed Trump rather thoroughly myself and would hate this site to be the kind of awful place such as Breitbart where it’s Kool-aid 24/7.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I think he’s just plain dishonest while Kungs sees a master salesman at work with a premeditated plan.

      I do believe Trump is a cynic who knows his market sector. He is articulately inarticulate. This is a trait which takes a certain amount of talent. (Think professor Irwin Corey) Of course, he slips up every now and again, but that is to be expected when one is constantly in the spotlight.

      I think we are already seeing him modify his sales-pitch for the general election. I am curious to see if he is penalized for this.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    There are just so many problems with Trump, but I do agree that there are worse choices — such as any Democrat. I agree that he loves America (unlike liberals), and I would like to see how popular as a candidate he is with his employees. On the other hand, the vets’ groups he was going to give money to out of his Iowa event that he set up to avoid being questioned by Megyn Kelly (so much for his courage) seem not to have gotten their money yet.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I also agree that Trump loves America — or at least doesn’t have a deep-seated grievance against it as Obama and Hillary do. As Dennis Prager notes, Trump is not a hard-bitten Leftist in this regard. But he is certainly a useful idiot in terms of carrying the cultural water for the Left (blaming Bush for 9/11, for example….straight Code Pink stuff). For conservatives who see the game within the game, this is often the most dreadful aspect, the useful idiot.

      Of course, the real chance exists that Trump knows exactly what he is doing, and like any of the RINO Republicans who have so disgusted us, will drift Left simply in order to gain power. If you want power for power’s sake, vote Trump. But you’ll never know where that power will be focused but have every reason to believe it will either tend toward expediency or the Left. If you want focused power, well, that’s what Cruz or any committed conservative is all about.

  3. Anniel says:

    The story I like best about Trump is that he went to Mexico and got Sgt Tameroosi released from the awful prison there, when Obama acted like he had never heard about the railroad job pulled on an ACTIVE DUTY marine. Trump also set Tameroosi up financially and requested that he not speak to anyone about it. Tameroosi said not a word until Trump was taking heat and allowed him to speak.

    Trump is not a coward. Thanks for pointing out the Lord’s word on cowardice.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well, Obama is not a coward either. Hillary is not a coward. The terrorists who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 were not cowards. We have this tendency to call people cowards when the real issue is not sharing their ideology.

      I consider Trump a bit of a coward, if we are going to measure in normal terms, because of his refusal to disavow Planned Parenthood. He was a coward on the issue of men using the ladies room. Regarding refusing to be interviewed by the journalistic tramp, Megyn Kelly, I consider him smart. I’m not sure I’d let her interview me either. She’s not actually a journalist. She’s a gossip-monger pretending to do journalism.

      No one running for president is a coward. That is hard, public work. They take a lot of hits. Their lives are even at risk in this wacky world. But ideologically, many of these guys and gals are complete cowards. They have the balls to run for office. Few of us have thick enough skin to endure that. But many tend to be complete social cowards in that they can’t imagine a mind-space apart from whatever the mob desires. They’re not leaders as much as they simply pander and repeat back to people what they want to hear…and then change their story when it’s a different set of people they need to pander to.

      So, again, although I think they are evil, I take my hat off to those on the Left. They are not cowards in terms of forwarding what they believe in, although they often do use deception, of course. We on the right are too often afraid to stick up for what we believe.

      • Rosalys says:

        It’s easy for the left to “look” courageous, when they have the full weight of the government and the press at their back. Picture Trump and Obama together in a classroom full of elementary school children. Suddenly, in rushes a crazy person, guns blazing, about to commit suicide by massacre. Who can you picture jumping behind the teacher’s desk, or worse, pulling a few kids in front of him as a buffer? Who can you picture running forward, grabbing a chair, a book, anything which could be used as a weapon, and going on the attack?

        My purpose was not to convince anyone that Trump is the best of all persons to be president, but to suggest that, perhaps, neither is he the antichrist. The choice we have is Hillary or Trump. I know what Hillary is going to be. I don’t know what Trump will be. If it turns out that he is just as evil as Hillary, then we are no worse off than we would have been.

        Trump doesn’t scare me. For that matter, Hillary by herself, doesn’t either. What does kinda give me the willies is the diabolical lunacy that is taking over the American populace. The real problem with our country is not political. It’s spiritual.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I read a similar comparison once, the idea being which leader (or “leader”, since many really don’t qualify) would be likelier to dress up as a woman in an emergency like that of the Titanic, and which would accept his fate like a man. Bill Clinton, naturally, was in the former group. (This idea also came up once on a Paul Shanklin parody.)

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It’s easy for the left to “look” courageous, when they have the full weight of the government and the press at their back.

          Oh, I totally agree. And one reason so many Republicans are cowards regarding the issues is because of this factor. Trump gets marks for being willing to take on the press. But that trait alone and a quarter still won’t buy you a cup of coffee. You have to also have a point. Simply badgering the press to score points with the oppressed masses is what demagogues do.

          Regarding your schoolroom scenario, time after time it is shown that conservatives are the ones who are more likely to take effective action when effective action is needed. I can’t parse Trump as the opposite of Obama. But I could parse Cruz, Santorum, or even Rick Perry as the kind of guy who would act and who hadn’t become a dependent and narrowed ninny like Obama who only can talk.

          No, Trump is not the anti-Christ. The closest we have to that right now is Pope Francis. Trump is, to my mind, yet another RINO. If elected, I think we can count on him to move left and keep moving left. It’s interesting that he chose Christie as his head of transition should he win. If memory serves in terms of precedent, this likely puts Christie on a short list for VP. And just like Trump, he is another tough-talking politician whose force of personality is enough in many people’s minds to make his Progressivism seem normal. But not to my mind.

          Yes, you called it. What scares me the most is indeed the diabolical lunacy that has taken over the American populace. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I find myself somewhat alienated now in my own country. It’s been taken over by pod people. There are very few people I can tell my real thoughts to. Low-information voters are everywhere. And it’s not so much the information, for in this data-rich culture of specialists, we are all ignorant about more things than ever before. It’s that instead of facing this fact, people have become ninny narcissists, taking on slogans and bumper sticker phrases as a replacement for thinking. They just can’t be bothered. Diabolical, yes, but diabolical sheep.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Picture Trump and Obama together in a classroom full of elementary school children. Suddenly, in rushes a crazy person, guns blazing, about to commit suicide by massacre. Who can you picture jumping behind the teacher’s desk, or worse, pulling a few kids in front of him as a buffer?

          It is funny/a coincidence that you use this example Rosalys.

          For the last few days I have been thinking of Trump along these lines. To be specific, I have wondered if he is like the character running for president in the movie, “The Dead Zone”.

          You will recall this man was played by Martin Sheen. When the character played by Christopher Walken tries to shoot Sheen’s character, Sheen’s character grabs a baby from the baby’s mother’s arms and holds it in front of himself in order to block any further bullets.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            And in doing so ends his political career, when the photo of him holding the baby up makes a magazine cover. (The mother was one of the character’s volunteers, and also the hero’s former girlfriend.)

          • Rosalys says:

            Didn’t see that movie.

            I just can’t picture Trump hiding behind children. I just don’t see the thoroughly, evil, soulless creature that many see. I think there is the possibility for redemption in him. It’s very possible that I am wrong. If he truly is a thorough scoundrel, send me your crows, and I’ll eat them! In the meantime I will pray for him and what is left of our country.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I just don’t see the thoroughly, evil, soulless creature that many see. I think there is the possibility for redemption in him.

              He is scoundrel enough. The main problem is that you have taken Trump under your Christian wing and softened your judgment of him because “We are all sinners.” Yes, we are. But some sinners have a better tax plan than others. The devil is in the details. It’s time we quit treating the presidency as a redemptive office and understand that policies and ideas matter. And Trump’s ideas, such as you can pick out anything coherent, are left-of-center, at best.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I do want to say that in terms of courage, Rosalys has shown that in writing a pro-Trump article in environs that are anything but pro-Trump. If she spoke the langue of PC ninnies she might call it a “hostile working environment.”

    There are too many people out there like Rosalys who have something to say but don’t say it. Granted, we all know people (most of them are in the media and politics) who have very little to say and really should keep quiet and perhaps listen. Rosalys is not one of them.

    How could the Left have ever taken over if we spoke up, at work, at school, at the water cooler — whereve? The power of the Left is the power to silence and intimidate.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I know what you mean. My first significant temp job, back in 2000, involved typing with other temp workers. This was late in the year, and the Florida election came up. I didn’t discuss it much, since the other workers took a different view and I didn’t feel too safe expressing my own views.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There is certainly strategic silence. Rush often councils students in college to just shut up and get their grades instead of arguing with their libtard/Marxist professors and being punished for daring to stand up to these ninnies by getting one’s grades marked down. I’m for standing up, within reason, and taking a hit if need be. We have far too many collaborationists as it is.

        But there is a time and a place. Still, what makes this difficult is that most reasoned conservatives are fairly reasonable conservatives. That is, they don’t foam at the mouth. They are therefore at a disadvantage in the face of the true-believing zealots of the Left who are legion. The fact of that matter is that because we know this is a factor, we have to pick our battles. There is not enough time, energy, or bandages to engage in every battle at every water cooler.

        Plus, I think most thoughtful conservatives understand (if only instinctively) the poison factor. Many of those on the Left are extremely hateful and revel in sharing their misery by trying to make others miserable. Therefore, although on the face of it engaging in debate seems a necessary, even heroic, act in order to beat back the barbarians and not cede the space to them, there is a calculation that has to be made in terms of not setting yourself up merely to be someone else’s punching bag — someone who has little or no interest in the actual exchange of ideas. I’ve certainly wandered into that many times, both with Leftists and with libertarians.

      • David Ray says:

        You remind me of one who called into “hate radio” in the aftermath of Lois Lerner.
        He had quit his job in a low-rung IRS position because he simply could no longer endure the severe pro-liberal/pro-Obama environ. (Liberal T-shirts, stickers, posters, pictures, etc were the norm . . . even though they were technically not allowed.)

        • Lucia says:

          Often when I speak honestly to strangers, they get a stricken look on their faces, like they think I’m a crazy person.

          My liberal daughter has begged me not to talk to her about what I think because my ideas offend her.

          The Bible talked about a time when people won’t listen to sound reason and would be attracted to those who “tickle their ears.” Even Jesus didn’t teach in some places because he knew they wouldn’t listen to him.

          We live in a time of censorship when ideas are no longer freely exchanged, when people with unpopular points of view are ostracized or pressured to conform to the group. I think we’re seeing just the beginning when there will be a price to be paid for speaking one’s mind.

          • David Ray says:

            Yep.
            There are times we must be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            My liberal daughter has begged me not to talk to her about what I think because my ideas offend her.

            Those who undergo cult programming are resistant to hearing contrary ideas. It’s a shame we can’t get liberals such as your daughter to write about why this is so from their perspective. I think it’s difficult for those so indoctrinated to know of their indoctrination. Self-awareness is not a feature of the Left.

            But if she could she might tell us that the beliefs she holds are fairly binary. By believing Progressive dogma she becomes the nicest, most tolerant, open-minded, and compassionate person. On the other hand, we on the other side are the judgmental, intolerant, not-nice people by definition because we do not share your daughter’s beliefs.

            It’s also important to know that Leftism is her religion, whether she still goes to church or not. Her beliefs are very deeply held because these beliefs are extremely self-flattering. The Left is about not just a societal utopia but a personal utopia.

            On the right, as Rosalys has correctly noted, we are all sinners. But this recognition does not then try to normalize sin (or at least it’s not supposed to). Recognizing human limits and our need to overcome them, or at least to be wary of them, is a positive. For one thing, it keeps us from trying to justify bad conduct. It gives us important standards to live by. It’s not a corruptive mindset whereby we simply erase standards an an expedient. This outlook requires parsing between right and wrong on a level other than the superficial level of Progressivism which stays at the level of narcissism — my emotions and feelings must always be assuaged, the outer world adjusting itself to me and not the other way around.

            Imagine being a good parent and never correcting or disciplining your children. This is hard work because we all know there are times when it’s just easier to let things slide. And anytime you discipline someone you are playing the adult and thus are distancing yourself in some way. You might even momentarily be disliked. But the adult understands that there is a long-term goal in regards to raising children, and that is to make them self-sufficient, wise, good, and productive.

            You can’t do that if you take the position that anything they do is good. And that’s the therapeutic Progressive position. It is a naive longing for a personal utopia whereby all bad feelings can be erased. And this unstated deal is made between cult members: I don’t judge you and you don’t judge me.

            It’s a very tempting philosophy. In fact, it’s an attempt by children to remain children the rest of their lives, at least emotionally. Basically, they have a whole bunch of dumb ideas and few people, including myself, like having their dumb ideas exposed as such.

            • Lucia says:

              My daughter doesn’t talk to anyone who disagrees with her. The only reason she allows me to visit is because she loves me, but she monitors everything I say to the grandchildren to make sure I don’t influence them, and will counter what I say to make sure they don’t believe me.

              Yes, she does pride herself on being tolerant (excepting Christians or conservatives), enlightened and noble. From the time she was a child she had a soft spot for the underdog and considered all of them as victims. All people with grievances are victims, in her opinion, and deserve our pity, our money, and societal reformation even to the point of legislation.

              My mother was the same way. If liberalism skips a generation, I can only hope my grandchildren become conservatives.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Lucia, I appreciate your open and thoughtful response. Intelligent conversations on the web are rare and every once in a while I have to stop and appreciate that.

                And I was thinking about this situation with your daughter (with everyone’s daughter and son these days, really) and perhaps she made the right choice…to the extent anyone can say they made a choice given the 24/7 immersion in liberalism via schools, the media, and the entertainment industry.

                The Trump phenomenon has once again shocked me into the realization that conservatism is a dying cause. I think Dennis Prager (catching up with me) gets to the heart of the Trump issue: Very few people are conservatives anymore. The Scariest Reason Trump Won.

                I’m not trying to be pessimistic but realistic. No universe that is conservative can have much overlap with the Trumpian one. But neither could a conservative universe have much overlap with a Romney one either.

                Your daughter is right to have a soft spot for people. It’s not an affluence of kindness, manners, and peace that we have in this world. And given that conservatism is a dying movement, every child has to hold onto something in the world. It would be too much of me, as a pontificator, to ask her to alienate herself from the culture at large, even if the culture is full of some really dumb stuff.

                So we have to learn to live with the libtards even while knowing they have no intention of making accommodations for us. That is not an easy proposition. The easier proposition is one that most people choose: Keep the conservative label, if they must, but move left. Adopt the squishy ideas of the Left here and there and identify with conservative ideas, especially in areas where it causes little or no conflict (that is, where it doesn’t matter in any meaningful way).

                The difference between liberals and conservatives isn’t a matter of compassion. Sure, there are different values, but we all love our cats. The difference is self-absorption. This prevents most liberals from strategic thinking. A conservative could care less, in a pragmatic sort of way, if the restaurant he frequents has gender-confused men going to a stall in the women’s bathroom. Oh, he might care if he has his daughter or wife with him at the time and if he’s still held on to the idea of being a man (no sure bet these days).

                But what a conservative is concerned about, or should be concerned about, is where all this leads. And perhaps that is the true definition of a low-information voter. They see as far as their own appetites or pragmatism. A conservative ought to have more of the vision of the adult and see where a fundamental change in values is apt to lead, if only by noting the effect of such values elsewhere (which is why Europe is such a great laboratory for all that is wrong with liberalism).

                For a Progressive, it is enough that they get an immediate feel-good buzz from whatever they are thinking or believing. A conservative, on the other hand, thinks strategically and beyond the mere buzzes.

                But that battle is pretty much over now. I’m seriously thinking of scaling this site back merely to entertainment-based subjects or general essays. I’m not moving Left. I just don’t have it in me to believe such silly stuff with a straight face. But I now consider the cause of conservatism dead, and it would be no pleasure to merely lie about this to myself. Nor do I find it entertaining to speak to so many pseudo-conservatives.

                But we’ll see.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Oh, you’re free to speak your mind — provided your mind is fully in accord with the Kultur. It’s all a matter of increasingly mandatory groupthink.

  5. David Ray says:

    B. Hussein is jetting of to Hiroshima to the nausiating biting of bent fore fingers & holding of holy hands. (The press sure loves to give Monica Lewinski a run for her money.)

    The only question is how much that little shit apologizes and sucks up.
    If my uncle were still alive to hear of that, he’d finally be considering voting Republican (after breaking some stuff).

  6. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    I’ve been at the beach for four days and have happily missed most of this argument about Trump. All I can say, after reading the commentary, is congratulations are due Rosalys for being realistic. At this juncture, rhetoric may be interesting and a tad self congratulatory, but I personally have hope, as she has. What’s the alternative?!!!!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      What’s the alternative?!!!!

      Romney chosen by the House of Representatives. 😀 Actually, I keep waiting for America to wake up as if they’ve been in a bad dream, thump themselves on the forehead, and say “What were we thinking?” There’d then be popular demand for a new set of primaries where Chris Christie (as a Democrat) and Ted Cruz (as the Republican) face off for the presidency.

      But the reality news is that we’ve become the type of nation that will nominate a talk show host and an anti-American Marxist for the presidency…following two terms of an outrageously Marxist nincompoop.

      Just call me the frog that has jumped out of the pot of slowing heating water.

      • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

        I appreciate your despair, Brad. And it is well deserved. But our task at hand is to make lemonade out of lemons. We must begin anew; there is no savior on the horizon.

        Even Reagan the Magnificent got played on immigration, for example. There is only one direction: forward. And that word is certainly not used in the socialist sense.

        The latest by Richard Fernandez, explicating the fine line between malevolence and ignorance, vis-a-vis Satan, is illuminating. Obama is not evil, per se, but just a moral null set, and fundamentally ill-educated. Trump is engaged and possibly positive in his effects, so let’s give him a chance, and even help him. The possibility of Hillary! is madness.

        This is my understanding of Rosalys’ essay.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Tom, I can certainly understand people holding their nose and voting for Trump because they think Hillary would be worse. It is reasonable to believe that Hillary would be worse. Whatever the case may be, no good American can vote for the party that is trying to turn us into Amerika.

          But anyone trying to put the bloom on the rose of Trump I think is in serious ideological error. There is no reason we have to pretend that Trump is anything than he is, a rather uncouth Progressive and yet another liar in the realm of politics. We lose any hope of maintaining our bearings if we vote for yet another RINO (he is indeed a Republican in name only) and somehow expect this will fix things.

          Unless, of course, people really have moved Left, support men in the women’s room, support abortion-on-demand, support all the various things of the Left to varying degrees. And I think that is indeed the case for many people.

          But aside from what I see as bamboozled conservatives, Trump signifies that conservatism as a movement in America is dead. That’s just being realistic. In in the death throes of this movement, a lot of people are pretending this isn’t the case. But I prefer to not act like the Left and use “conservative” dishonestly or inappropriately.

          And if Obama is not evil then that word has no meaning. I am not in despair of the politics as much as I am of the moral framework of Americans that has been eroded away. Obama is a racist, a Marxist, and has a deep and abiding grudge against this country which, unless we forget, is the last, best hope for human freedom on this earth. He may not be the anti-Christ but if some writer can’t call a spade a spade then I think that just shows how eroded our morality has become.

          And that’s what the Left has, in part, done to us. They’ve gotten us used to calling bad good. One could say that is their mission statement.

          As for helping Trump, I do think it’s a bit foolish if anyone thinks any deals they make with Trump in order to move him right will last. Clearly the man has shown he is fungible in terms of his deals.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            One can vote for Trump as the lesser of evils without giving up one’s principles. He does have advantages over the Fire Witch, though he also has disadvantages. Whether he would keep deals is harder to say; does anyone know what his actual business record is in that respect?

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              One can vote for Trump as the lesser of evils without giving up one’s principles.

              Yes, as I noted regarding “holding one’s nose and pulling the lever.” But what is running rampant out there is an ideological fog whereby many conservatives are supposing Trump is some kind of cure when he is actually just more of the same old poison. Granted, he’s in a little different package. But as C. Edmund Wright pointed out recently, the man does not included the words “limited government” or “liberty” in his speeches.

              As cuckoo as much of the libertarian movement is, they do at least include these words.

              Much of the gist of Rosalys’ article is “We’re all sinners….therefor let’s moderate our opinion about Trump in this regard.” Well, please note that I do not think it is to Trump’s credit that he’s had three wives, jokes about the size of his penis on the campaign trail, or makes part of his living with strip joints. I could live with a guy who did all those things — and repented — if he resolutely and believably advocated conservative solutions for today’s problems.

              But he doesn’t. His bad behavior is simply another ingredient for why he is ill-suited for high office.

              And it is quite possible that Trump would be worse than Hillary. These hypotheticals are impossible to prove, but our votes are based (or should be based) on what seems most reasonable that a candidate which actually do in office.

              And even if Trump was as bad as Hillary, it is unconscionable to vote for any Democrat anywhere at any time or any place. They are the party that wishes to destroy America. So all things don’t have to be equal not to vote for Hillary.

              But the plain problem remains that Trump shares the overall Zeitgeist of the Left. He’s as steeped in Progressive culture as Chris Christie. If people want to normalize this shift and further cement another ratchet left, then they need to realize they are doing so instead of fooling themselves.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    It’s one thing to vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. But what is happening is the further corruption of conservative thought. Jeffrey Lord is, at least to me, a surprising example. His latest piece is a mishmash of strawmen and he does not take a look at the central question regarding Trump: his trustworthiness regarding the supposedly conservative things he says.

    Here’s another example of almost a child-like besotting. Every bullet point in this article could be said about Hillary or Obama. The point is not whether or not someone has the skill to shoot an arrow. The points is where they are aiming it.

    And here’s a guy who ate his Wheaties this morning. I normally find Aaron Goldstein to be a marshmallow. But I think this is a good critique of Dennis Prager’s latest column.

  8. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    I read an enlightening piece this morning by Jack Kerwick on Townhall: http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/05/11/the-nevertrumpsters-conservative-dilemma-n2161016.

    Many people bandy about the word conservative as if it’s some kind of totem or charm. Jack does a credible job of taking a realistic look at how recent GOP leadership has been anything but conservative. I haven’t researched his claimed numbers, but they have the smell of truth.

    Lord’s piece I view as a conversation starter, not a full blown thesis or treatise on the subject of Trump vis-a-vis conservatism. Each point he makes would take a full chapter in a book. That it’s not fully developed in his essay doesn’t necessarily make it a straw man, but rather shorthand. Maybe. It is interesting that he’s encouraging people to be a little less binary in their views on this tempestuous topic.

    Goldstein’s piece has the same flaw as many others; they are not realistic. They are aiding and abetting the enemy in the name of their principles. The other choices he lists that Prager and others could opt for in the name of high-minded principle are in fact all losers that would only drain votes away from the GOP.

    Sometimes I make bold comments about how such people are going to foist another Satan on our fragile nation just so they can feel better about themselves. They are selfish and substitute feelings for rational choice, clearly leftist characteristics. On what planet would a Clinton presidency be healthy for our nation and lead to more freedom?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I find Kerwick’s article, which you link to above, highly disingenuous. It starts with his first paragraph.

      The NeverTrumpster is on the horns of a dilemma, for if Trump is the faux conservative that they claims he is, then so too are presidential candidates that they’ve supported the same. On the other hand, if the latter are conservative, then so too is Trump conservative.

      This argument is a straw-man, something used very often by Leftists. And in framing these claims the way he does Kerwick is, let me be generous, being disingenuous.

      1. Kerwick lumps all “NeverTrumpsters” (Henceforth, I will use NT for the sake of time) into one very questionable bag. In fact, not everyone who is an “NT” supported McCain and/or Romney. In case Kerwick doesn’t know it, adjectives are used to modify nouns. A simple word such as some, many or most would improve his writing and increase the veracity thereof.

      2. There may be many “NTs” who did support McCain and/or Romney and even W, who are now fed-up with faux conservatives and liars, thus will not support Trump. For some reason Kerwick does not appear to have the wherewithal to make this mental leap. (W lost me latest 2005 and I could not stand either McCain or Romney)

      3. With the country’s continual move left, candidates and their positions which may have been acceptable some years back may no longer be acceptable.

      4. Kerwick’s points regarding the politics of McCain, Romney, W and Reagan are cherry-picked and superficial. They are close to meaningless, and in the case of Reagan, close to being dishonest. It goes into no detail regarding Reagan’s political development. When he changed, he was faithful to that change. He did not constantly flip-flop the way Trump does. Nothing is said about the defeat of the USSR, which was Reagan’s priority and greatest lasting legacy. This was the most conservative policy result any president had had for decades.

      Note, I have not even gone into the question of Trump’s honesty. Why should the “NTs” or anybody else believe anything he says?

      All in all, I found the article nothing more than second-rate polemics.

      Although I am not necessarily an “NT”, I will not play the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkey when discussing this man.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys#/media/File:Hear_speak_see_no_evil_Toshogu.jpg

      Pointing out Trump’s obvious character flaws does not make one a Clinton supporter. Pointing out his admitting buying off politicians “because it was business” does not make him honest. Pointing out his questionable moral behavior, his screaming opportunism and a blow-hard egotistical personality does not make one a Clinton supporter. If anyone can refute this please let me know.

      This is still America, and I do not have to like the fact that this country can’t do better than vomit up the likes of Hillary and Trump as presidential candidates. I will certainly not pretend the man is good or lie about him in order to help him get elected. I have not yet reached the point where I have to call chicken shit, chicken salad.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That last portion is actually very important At a time when liberals actively seek to eviscerate the Bill of Rights, we don’t want a GOP candidate who seems to be as hostile to opposition as the liberals that he has lived among all his life. Cruz was no threat to our right of dissent, and neither were most of the other GOP candidates (nor Mitt Romney 4 years ago). With Trump, who knows? As usual, that isn’t as bad as the Fire Witch, who is a definite threat, but I’d rather have a safer candidate — one who respects the Constitution.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I think all I can say on the subject are contained in two observations:

        1) We don’t want to become like the Catholics, many of whom have accepted Pope Francis as a legitimate pope. It’s certainly a person’s prerogative to travel the world to spread Marxism. But to do so under that guise of the Bishop of Rome is in bad taste, at the very least.

        2) I just watched a film now streaming on Neftlix called Admiral (Dutch title: Michiel de Ruyter). It’s about the great Dutch naval hero, Michiel de Ruyter, who (if the portrayal by Frank Lammers is at all accurate) looked somewhat like Rumpole of the Bailey.

        I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the history portrayed in the film because I don’t know a lot about Dutch history. But this is apparently at a time when the country flipped (under pressure from an invasion by the combined forces of England and France) from a republic to a monarchy under the apparently girly-man auspices of the faggish Prince of Orange. The “Orangists” (as opposed to the republicans) reminded me a lot of the Trumpists. They did all they could to stir up the mob. Their methods worked so well that the mob eventually murdered the prime minister and his brother, both of whom were portrayed as noble public servants.

        The graphic portrayal of the mob scene in this movie is its high point. It is a chilling reminder of what lurks in “the public’s will” if that will ever gets ignited by demagogues who have no respect for anything but power. And I think that describes Trump. And certainly his support across the web shows the carnivorous ravings of a stoked mob.

        Nor do I prefer the do-nothing, pretend-comity of Paul Ryan who would gladly let this republic burn as well as long as it was done under Marquess of Queensberry rules. We need a firebrand, one willing to take on the establishment, but not one who is the kind of thoughtless demagogue as Donald Trump.

        Our proximate choice is between Donald Trump and Hillary. Our ultimate choice is between being a republic ruled by law and decency or the kind of lowest-common-denominator anarchy we are headed for now. Those who focus only on the proximate choice are fools.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, one branch of the proximate choice (Hillary) leads to the wrong branch of the ultimate choice, and is thus not a choice any of us here could make. The Trump choice probably leads in the same direction, at least in some respects, but probably is recoverable.

          As for the Dutch history, I’m no expert on the era of the Anglo-Dutch wars (which is when De Ruyter and the Tromps gained fame as Dutch admirals). The head of the House of Orange was the stadholder of the Dutch republic, but I’m not sure exactly what powers that entailed. The Netherlands became a monarchy under the House of Orange after the Napoleonic Wars (during which it was ruled by Napoleon’s brother Louis for a few years).

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            The faggy guy in the film may have been a sort of Prince of Orange II. It seems to me they mention his father, The Prince of Orange. But my memory of it is a bit orangy. But it was an okay film, though it suffered from the typical flaws of such film that basically just pick special events through time and you never really get much of a sense of a story. But this was better than most.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I checked in wikipedia, and it seems the mob action was the murder of Johann De Witt, who wanted to weaken the power of the Prince of Orange (William III, later King of England). This happened in 1672, when France (assisted by the Stuarts in England) invaded the Netherlands.

              I doubt William was very “faggy”, or at least effeminate (he fought Louis XIV to a standstill, helped by Dutch terrain), though it’s true that he and Mary were succeeded by a sister of the latter, not by a child of their own. Standards of masculine behavior have varied somewhat in different cultures; for example, when Romania joined World War I in 1916 it limited the use of cosmetics to higher ranks. (Hermann Göring was also a big user of cosmetics, to the disgust of Count Ciano.)

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                It should not be forgotten that 17th century Europe was famous for it’s foppish looking gentlemen. The Cavaliers of Stuart fame, wore long locks, lace collars and colorful silk suits. Look at the picture of Charles I. I think by Van Eyck?

                Nevertheless, they could fight those dour Roundheads who wore black broadcloth and were not so concerned about their looks. In fact, they thought all that finery somewhat sinful.

                Although the Roundheads won, the foppish look continued well into the early 19th century. I think Beau Brummel helped kill it. (Although many would say he was a fop)

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I doubt William was very “faggy”, or at least effeminate

                All throughout this movie, William is with another man who is obviously not just a pal. The suggestion is heavy and constant that they are homosexuals. And this is made crystal clear when William tells him that he is to marry Mary Stuart.

                Whatever the truth was, this film portrayed him as somewhat effeminate and definitely faggy.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The graphic portrayal of the mob scene in this movie is its high point. It is a chilling reminder of what lurks in “the public’s will” if that will ever gets ignited by demagogues who have no respect for anything but power.

          I will never forget Shakespeare’s term for the mob, which I learned studying “Julius Caesar” in eighth grade English: The Vulgar.

          I believe this was used in the famous, “I have come bury Caeser, not to praise him” scene. in which Mark Anthony addresses the mob. And we all know how Anthony’s silver tongue turned the mob in a matter of minutes.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Including the murder of the poet Cinna, because he has the same name as one of the conspirators. This event comes from Plutarch, and is a good reminder of what mob rule can lead to. (Similarly, the execution of the victorious Athenian commanders after the battle of Arginusae is a good example of where rushing to judgment can end up.)

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Is there any basis in truth for the Anthony speech?

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Apparently, Anthony did speak at Caesar’s funeral and the crowd got agitated.

              It is als0 true that Anthony, Octavius and Lepidus (The Second Triumvirate) formed and eventually destroyed Caesar’s assassins, but that took some years.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                You’ve seen HBO’s “Rome,” series, right? If not, run out right now and see if you can rent a copy. It’s also free as part of Amazon Prime.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                No I have never seen the series.

                I have been thinking of joining Amazon Prime, but as money is not exactly growing on the trees in my yard, I will have to wait a while.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I think you’d enjoy it, especially the first season. The guy who plays Anthony is a riot. And I think the guy who plays Caesar is masterful. Great casting throughout…except when they jump the shark a bit and re-cast the older Gaius Octavius. They should have just aged the original actor. Instead they went with a totally different character. Really sucked.

                I can’t help but think you’ll love David Bamber as Marcus Tullius Cicero, or Ian McNeice as the newsreader. Polly Walker can about burn your eyes out with her hot body. She plays Atia of he Julii and she’s fantastic in the part, as is her nemesis, Lindsay Duncan as Servilia of the Junii.

                You gotta see this even if we have to pitch in. It’s got sex. It’s got violence. It’s got barbarians. It’s got the best Caesar I’ve ever seen. And James Purefoy is brilliant as Mark Antony.

                And what I think they’d done brilliantly, which is so rare in these kinds of series, is they give you a definitely feeling for what it was like to live then. Their religion is made real. You see how they think.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                A friend of mine gave plot synopses for the episodes of the first year or two. Of course, we have no way of knowing how accurate some of the personal details are. For example, did Atia really “fellat omnes“, as one poster said? I will note that Matthew Dennison in The Twelve Caesars (I’m currently on Titus) thinks Julius really wasn’t a bisexual, though he did have that one homosexual encounter.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Atia had a thing going with Antony….and lots of other men. I don’t remember the details. One time she ceremoniously walked out of the tub and it burned my retinas out. Can’t remember a thing after that.

  9. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    With all due respect, and there is a lot of it, I must abide with the reality of our situation, like the Dude. We are no longer debating the possibilities of the great or perfect candidate, but rather discussing how we help save our nation by making the best choice possible. Druthers are interesting, but have no power, Timothy.

  10. Timothy Lane says:

    Deroy Murdock has an article in hte New York Post (linked to at Hot Air) providing (from the point of view of someone who preferred several other candidates) the case for Trump over Slick Hilly: Trump will sometimes (and perhaps even often) act like a conservative, whereas with either Demagogue we get Kirchner’s Argentina at best — or Chavez’s Venezuela at worst. The link is:

    http://nypost.com/2016/05/12/why-never-hillary-trumps-never-trump/

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      A cocker spaniel would make a better president than Hillary. Any Trump-vs-Hillary comparisons where Trump comes out better isn’t saying very much. We can hope that Trump isn’t as liberal, vindictive, erratic, and unthoughtful as he appears to be. But I thought “hope and change” was for them other guys.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Unfortunately, that’s all we have. It’s just another example of how similar Trump is to Obama. I will admit that “Make America great again” is a better mantra than the vague “Hope and change”, though I like Sunny Lohmann’s ?Make America free again” even better.

  11. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Below is a link to an excellent article which touches upon the stupid letter from the 50 foreign policy “experts” condemning Donald Trump.

    These ass-holes are typical of an elite which views everything through a theoretical lens. General Hayden’s remarks are what one hears from such beings.

    I agree with Trump that these fools are greatly responsible for the mess the world is in. What isn’t mentioned in the article is these are same people who have pushed for globalization on basis of “free market” theory. They don’t see Americans as humans, just as numbers.

    It appears that Trump has and will have nothing to do with these people. Hillary will. That alone is reason enough to vote for Trump.

    http://atimes.com/2016/08/trump-lacks-experience-but-his-detractors-lack-common-sense/

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      A lot of people have made the mistake of assume because someone they don’t like is in opposition to Trump that therefore Trump is okay. But I think they’re all varying degrees of ignorance and incompetence, the legacy of the Progressive mindset regarding foreign policy.

      That a bunch of morons oppose another moron isn’t heartening to me.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        That a bunch of morons oppose another moron isn’t heartening to me.

        True enough, but the morons who have been in charge of foreign policy since, Bush I, must be swept from power.

        They will stay where they are if Hillary wins. This must not be allowed.

        I am past looking for anything heartening about the national politics of this country.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I have as little faith the Donald Trump will chart a sensible foreign policy course as I do that he’ll pick faithful (to the Constitution) Supreme Court justices. If you’re looking for an excuse to join the Trumpster, Mr. Kung, please find something better! His taste in women. Okay, maybe.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I’m not looking for an excuse for anything. I am simply pointing out the situation as to American foreign policy over the last three decades. It has been horrible and needs to be drastically changed.

            A deaf and blind chimp could formulate a better foreign policy than that which we have had for some time.

            As to his taste in women; too flashy for me. If I had to move in that direction, give me Catherine Deneuve.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Ah, but there’s never a deaf and blind chimp when you need one. And if he were running for the top spot, he would have to be born here and at least 3 35 years old. These requirements could be relaxed for Secretary of State.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I am sure there must be some such chimp whose mother, while pregnant with him, was smuggled into the States to escape the horrors of Mobutu’s Zaire or the Angolan Civil War. Remember old Dr. Savimbi?

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I agree speaking from a purely statistical standpoint. If two legs of the stool are crooked then there’s a possibility that the third leg will be straighter. Let’s throw two of the eggs out of the nest and hope the unhatched one is not a cuckoo (a renowned bird brood parasite). One dart is stuck in the wall far outside the board. The other is in the back of an innocent spectator. Surely the slightly tipsy bar patron who has the next throw can’t do any worse. Have analogy, will travel.

  12. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Now according to Donald Trump, future immigrants to this country will have to swear allegiance to the “Queer Agenda”, more or less. As the article says, he is left of the Dems.

    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/15/republicans-just-overtook-dems-gay-rights/

    Yes sir, Donald Trump is a candidate the Republicans can believe in and support.

    In the not too distant future, the perverts at NAMBLA and their fellow travelers will come out full-bore for pedophilia as a human right. No doubt, the Donald will require an oath of allegiance to this perversion as well.

    I wonder is there anything that this man can do that will cause his supporters to desert him? Better than Hillary! Really?

    Clearly, there is very little “special” about America any longer. A “City on a Hill”? More like a sewer in a ditch.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Trump’s values are rooted in that squishy libtarish soup of pop culture values, including telling people what they want to hear (aka “marketing”). Kiss your conservative ass and your supposed conservative Supreme Court justices away no matter who wins.

  13. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Here is more of the evil which is being foisted upon the American people.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/16/nc-school-to-teachers-dont-call-students-boys-and-girls.html

    While everyone is fixated on ISIS, the Left moves its agenda forward.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Do you want my opinion on that, Mr. Kung? No, you probably don’t.

      The Left has won a major victory by getting people to accept queerness as normal. Remember the cage with a rat in it that was put on Winston Smith’s face so that he would betray his conscience? (Geez….look at how Trump apologists have turned that idea into something supposedly bad.)

      That cage is surely why you objected to the criticism from Leigh a short time back for using the word “queer.” You weren’t going to submit to the cage. But swallowing down every bit of acceptance of the queer agenda — and soon including pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, and more — is the cultural norm now.

      You can resist all you want. But Donald Trump sure hasn’t…even while he is portrayed as some great anti-Leftist force. But in real life, in this culture, the victory is almost total.

      The real gut-busting irony is that the only culture force that has any chance of pushing this stuff back is Islam. And the gut-busting joke is that the Left is letting them in the door like flies in August. But conservatives have surely lost the cause. They are powerless. This is why I view the Trump nomination not as some “act of God” but as the last act of a rational republic.

      What we have now is the playing out of two of the three forces that Dennis Prager notes in his book, “Still the Best Hope.” Those three forces he outlines in the book are Islam, Leftism, and Americanism. Well, Americanism has thoroughly gotten it’s ass kicked — so much so that we’ll take even a charlatan such as Trump in the vague hope that he’ll kick back in some direction that is nominally conservative.

      But I’ve resigned myself to this victory of the Left. What shall we do, howl at the moon forever? There will be benefits. There is a movement to “free the nipple.” And if good-looking, well-endowed chicks gain the “freedom” to walk topless in the mall, all I can say is that I’ll be making frequent visits to the shoe store.

      We’re left to sit on the sidelines and make a wager as to who will win out: the extreme liberalism of the Left or the contrary values of Sharia.

  14. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Trump is willing to consider “softening” immigration laws?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/24/trump-says-hes-open-to-softening-immigration-laws-in-hannity-town-hall.html

    I thought his firm immigration stance was what attracted people to vote for him.

    When was he lying, earlier on or now?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The “I told you so’s” are lining up and waiting to jump into the game.

      If he’s “softening” his views even before getting elected, I think there’s every reason to believe they would “soften” more if elected. This guy needs a new acronym. “RINO” just doesn’t express it all.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Here is another indication that Trump is softening on illegal immigration.

        His latest comment sounds exactly like the position which the RINOs have been supporting. He claims there is no amnesty because, 1) illegals who are allowed to stay in the US will not be able to become citizens and 2) they will have to pay back taxes.

        Both positions give the lie to his claim that it would not be amnesty. Is the right to stay here and work legally after coming here illegally and breaking the law by working not amnesty? As to back taxes, this is a ruse as a large percentage of these illegals wouldn’t be liable to pay income taxes in the first place.

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/25/trump-says-government-can-work-with-illegal-immigrants.html

        Trump is moving far far away from his original position paper on illegal immigration. It was his position on immigration that put him in the position to win the nomination. Now he is playing bait and switch.

        Is there any question that Trump is simply another Democrat and card-carrying member of the establishment? I now wonder if he truly wants to win as I would think many of the fools who have supported him to now, will bail when they see his huge flip flop on immigration.

        As I said before, if Trump is a sign of God’s will, then there is little doubt that God is kissing America goodbye.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      In commenting on this at Town Hall, I’ve suggested putting Ann Coulter on 24-hour watch and wondered if her heirs could sue Trump for wrongful death if she dies of a heart attack because of it. I gather her current argument is that all the politicians say the same thing, the difference is how much of it they do.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        LOL. A most appropriate “LOL.”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Eric Erickson found a lovely parody of Trump’s flip-flop and its effect. Some group uses a film of Hitler’s reaction to the failure of Steiner to attack in April 1945 and adds humorous subtitles. They did one on Hitler learning of Trump’s flip-flop. The link is:

          http://theresurgent.com/the-funniest-thing-youll-see-today/

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            That is a good parody.

            Below the video, Erickson writes he is still laughing. I have another reaction. It makes me cry to think of the damage Trump has done to the conservative cause.

            It is often said that a country gets the government it deserves. Well, I guess America will get what it deserves, but my family, friends and I don’t deserve what is coming.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            It ain’t a political season until you get the Hitler parody.

            “And make sure Christie didn’t eat all the donuts. I need one.” LMAO.

  15. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up.”

    Quoth, Hillary Clinton.

    We often make fun of the Left by stringing such adjectives together. But our irony doesn’t come close to the depth of their madness, perversity and, yes, hate.

    This is one time that Hillary has been open and truthful about her beliefs. I think she made a big mistake and this will come back to haunt her.

    In addition to the above, her health problems are beginning to become blatant. She collapsed at a 9/11 memorial today. Her people came out this evening saying she has pneumonia. Sorry, I don’t buy it. Her problems appear to be much more serious and not curable by a course of anti-biotics.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      This video was posted in a recent article that I read. I forget where and who. She could indeed have Parkinson’s disease. It seems likely that her health issues are severe and those at the top know about it. They’re using the FDR model of the press suppressing this information. After all, a dreaded Republican could win if they didn’t all stay silent on the issue. It’s quite possible Hillary, besides being corrupt, has added another reason that she is not competent to be president.

      I didn’t know that she collapsed at the 9/11 Memorial. She’s a known security risk and now a definite mental-competency risk.

  16. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I watched the debate tonight and the clear winners were Hillary’s make-up artist, hair stylist and dresser. Instead of a corpse, she looked like an elderly porcelain doll.

    Neither Trump nor Hillary were impressive. They said nothing new. I heard nothing from either that would make me change my vote.

    My initial inclination was to see the debate as a draw. But the unanimously over-the-top-negative reaction of the MSM makes me think Trump actually won. They are clearly pulling out all the stops to destroy him.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Neither Trump nor Hillary were impressive. They said nothing new. I heard nothing from either that would make me change my vote.

      I agree, Mr. Kung. Two quotes before I comment. The first is from Jonah Goldberg:

      On the substance, I think most of his answers were wrong on the facts or the principle, but I’m used to that not mattering anymore.

      The other is from Jay Nordlinger:

      One more thing: Trump is a trust-fund New Yorker who lives in something called “Trump Tower.” His life is gold-plated. And those of us who scribble our criticisms of him — we’re the elitists?

      Okay…let’s make it a third…this one also from Jonah:

      Clinton was narrowcasting at the voters she needs. Trump was broadcasting to the voters he already has. Neither put anything away tonight.

      First of all, your analysis shows that you truly watched the debate. Imagine watching two elephant seals rutting and being asked to pick the “winner.” What could you say?

      Jonah’s first comment is more to the point. I’m also getting used to facts and principles not mattering (not that Hillary’s anti-free-market, pro-socialism principle wasn’t clearly on display). But what we saw (heard…25 minutes of it, in my case) was the result of two politicians speaking to an electorate who is illiterate in terms of American political philosophy, sound economic philosophy, and sound any other kind of philosophy you wish to name.

      So to parse this debate is really to ask, “Which set of uninformed voters was moved most by the man pulling strings behind the curtain”?

      At best, this was a buzzword debate where various rhetorical bombs were thrown from an inextinguishable supply. And if one doesn’t go off, you just throw another. I’ve seen food fights in junior high that had more coherence and substance behind them.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I didn’t watch, and don’t plan to watch the other debates. If nothing else, I find listening to a Demagogue for that long sickening.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          My only interest was to see if Clinton would go catatonic for a moment. Apparently she didn’t. That’s a “win” for her.

          I suppose the proper way to analyze this is to put upon the political pedestal of highest regard the Medvedian all-important “independent” voter. (This is a voter we could best call “the most uninformed and disengaged” because if he or she has no firm opinion about either of these candidates by now, he or she probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote.)

          How did the needle move on those “independents” who found time between watching “The Big Bang Theory” and getting their tattoos enlarged to watch a little more reality TV (called “The First Presidential Debate”)? I honestly don’t know. And if I did know, wouldn’t there be something wrong with my mind and character to be able to think as they do?

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            My only interest was to see if Clinton would go catatonic for a moment. Apparently she didn’t. That’s a “win” for her.

            That was one of the reasons I watched. And as I say, her handlers got her looking pretty good. Besides her makeup and clothing, I wonder if they gave a B-12 shot and some other miracle drugs, read meth-amphetamines, to get her so perky. Her speech patterns were also different, i.e. less monotone, than normal.

            But one thing her handlers couldn’t change was that supercilious smirk on her face. That appears to be a permanent part of her physiognomy. I turned off the sound and asked my wife to come in and give me her impressions and she immediately noticed the good makeup and smirk.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Something I read this morning (and I forget where) noted that Trump (when Hillary was talking) had an honest scowl while Hillary (when Trump was talking) had a dishonest smile.

              This micro feature is in the context of the macro game which is that they’re both yuge liars. But if you’re a little fishy swimming in the cultural pool of lies already, you might notice this little eddy even while being carried along in a torrent. It’s difficult to parse this stuff proportionately.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Trump (when Hillary was talking) had an honest scowl while Hillary (when Trump was talking) had a dishonest smile.

                Bingo!

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        But what we saw (heard…25 minutes of it, in my case)

        You heard/saw the best part of the debate. The remaining hour was worse.

        Interestingly, last night’s and this morning’s polls seem to confirm what I thought last night, i.e. that the MSM’s circling the wagons for Clinton showed that Trump actually won the debate. Trump performance impressed America’s uninformed voters more than Clinton’s did.

        I do think the pundits and those looking for nuanced debating are missing the point. Many, perhaps most, Americans are not looking for political experience or debating finesse in a political leader. They are pissed off and looking for something different. In fact, I believe Trump’s lack of debating skill and polish works to his favor with these people. The People, who are not enamored of high-flying words, are sick of silver-tongued devils.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          The People, who are not enamored of high-flying words, are sick of silver-tongued devils.

          Oh my God. It’s as if you put your mind inside a Trump voter…and survived to tell of your experiences.

          Yes, on the one hand, many voters are just “mad” and are looking for someone who seems to be an “outsider.” Many thus view Trump’s garbage-disposal-mixed hash of political ideas presented in a new-American “homespun” style (that is…trashiness) as a kind of “freshness” instead of just more rhetorical air pollution.

          I think I just sprained something. Analyzing Trump voters is not for the squeamish.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Even in the debates in the primaries, Trump would be rated a loser on points — but he always seemed to win with the voters, which is really what matters. And most likely most of them noticed that Holt was clearly biased for Slick Hilly (as he had been ordered by his colleagues, and no doubt his bosses as well).

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Rush played a soundbyte from some focus-group guy. I’ll paraphrase as well as read between the lines: He’s still waiting for Trump to sound “presidential” (that is, like a rational human being). The moment he does, they can then safely not vote for Hillary who is “wrong within known parameters.”

            My opinion is that Trump’s liberalism goes without saying and is the reason this guy could flip to Trump…as could many others…is his holding of basic liberal tenets (at least social tenets).

            Much like Reagan vs. Carter, they just need reassuring that he is not a nut or a flake (actually…I take that back…flakes are more than welcome for most voters these days).

  17. GHG says:

    From an optics perspective I think Hillary won. She had to be able to stand there for 90 minutes and not look sickly and she did that with flying colors. She still looked plastic and phony, so she still has that negative, but she didn’t hurt herself.

    On the other hand, Trump had to look presidential and I don’t think he managed to pull it off nearly as much as he could have and should have. Whether it’s a feature or bug is debatable, but Trump’s extemporaneous style is not made for looking presidential in a debate setting and that, in my opinion, hurt him last night.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I agree with your optics analysis. That she remained upright for 90 minutes without her one eye going goofing and without a coughing fit was a triumph for her.

      Rush’s analysis is that Trump did nothing to shoot himself in the foot and yet he missed hitting a lot of hanging curve balls from Hillary.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        This link is to a Daily Mail piece which gives the results of numerous snap polls. Although he did not win every poll, Trump won many more polls than Hillary and did so by large numbers.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html

        An article in the Telegraph, U.K.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-to-face-off-in-first-us-preside/

        For many domestic stories, one gets the best news and analysis from foreign newspapers.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Online polls carried out afterwards gave a different outcome – handing the title to Trump.

          One must take into account the “Ron Paul effect.” This guy (or Rand Paul) typically wins the “straw poll” at CPAC, for instance. But what it is a measure of is zealousness because rarely is the winner the front-runner or eventually winner.

          This certainly could be a factor regarding the “self-selecting” polls, as the article puts it. I suspect a sizable number of voters will find the energy to eventually vote for Hillary but who aren’t motivating in flooding online polls. Democratic zealousness is more of the type that loots and burns.

          But who knows? I wasn’t impressed by either. But then I judge by a different standard. It’s not enough for Trump to say “I’ll make better deals.” First, tell me specifically what’s wrong with the current deal and how your deal would address that.

          When pressed on how Trump would address companies who have already fled the U.S., Trump never answered the question. He just kept going on and on about how he would strong-arm companies and not (somehow) allow them to move. At one point he did insert a bit of rare coherence when he noted that the regulatory burden was helping to drive companies away and that he would reduce the burden while Hillary (along with taxes) would increase it.

          But this guy is generally one walking, talking Rorshach inkblot test. You will hear in his words what you want.

  18. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Man, what an unserious bum this guy is. According to this article, Trump did not engage in any mock debates.

    Listen, I never thought this guy was much more than an egomaniac. This further confirms it. He can’t even bother to properly prep himself in what is arguably the most important facet of the campaign? What an amateur jerk…which I’m sure endears him all the more to his supporters.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      And this surprises you because…?

      I wonder how much difference there would have been had he actually prepared for this. This man is so different from the norm that preparing might have caused brain-freeze.

      From a broader perspective, I even wonder how much effect this debate will truly have. While the viewership of about 45 million was large, it was nothing like the 100 million that the networks were throwing around as a probable audience. And I have the feeling that the vast majority of those watching have already made up their minds. So both candidates were preaching to the choir.

      Perhaps more importantly, how many of those 45 million sat throw the whole 90 minutes? I may be wrong, but I doubt there are 45 million masochists in the USA. (Full disclosure: I sat through the whole 90 minutes, but was not glued to the set. I went to the kitchen several times and also channel surfed since the tenor of the debate was clear within the first 10 minutes or so. Boring.)

      Frankly, I think the debate turned out as something of a wet squib. Perhaps I am wrong, and we will see a big change in the polls over the next two or three days.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The latest ratings I saw indicated it had 80.9 million viewers, slightly more than the 1980 Reagan-Carter debate. But, as you say, we don’t know how many saw it all.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The latest ratings I saw indicated it had 80.9 million viewers

          I just heard the same thing. I do find it somewhat strange that the estimated number this morning was about 45 million and it almost doubled by this evening.

          Since I don’t know enough about how they come up with these numbers, I cannot comment one way or the other as to the veracity of this claim.

      • Gibblet says:

        I watched for the entertainment one might anticipate as from a circus, or the self-inflicted horror of a haunted house. But it was just, “same circus, different town”. Except, as has been noted, the clown(s) did have very impressive makeup.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        And this surprises you because…?

        Ha! What was I thinkin’?

Leave a Reply

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