Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I do not see how the TEA Party Republicans in congress will just roll over for Trump. In fact, standing up to Trump will only burnish their appeal, even with voters who backed Trump in the primaries. Most of those voters did not back Trump because they like his policies, except for border security. They want spending to stagnate (no enthusiasm for real reductions) while better economic policies lead to future improvements to the overall economy. Other than that, they simply supported Trump because he was crashing around and saying things that needed sayin’.
Trump will not re-make the GOP into a party of central planners. That is a worst-case fantasy brought on by Trump hatred. He may be awful, but he is neither that awful nor that influential among Republicans.
Lot of wishful thinking there.
Trump won the nomination running on a platform of central planning. Central planning is what the primary electorate wanted and the GOPers in congress are happy to give it to them.
Trump must be defeated for Conservatives to regain the Republican Party. Conservatives can survive 4 years of Hillary; we cannot survive 4 years of Trump.
Michael’s weakness is that, as a man of ideas, he thinks men with ideas govern the lives of men.
A common criticism of Trump’s campaign is that he still acts as if he is running in the primaries and hasn’t yet realized that he is now in the general election.
This criticism comes almost solely from neverTrumpers.
Know thyself.
@mikerapkoch and @fredhoustan and @jameslileks
In the August 22nd issue of The Weekly Standard, Jeffrey H. Anderson of the Hudson Institute ended an article comparing Trump and Hillary on the issues (immigration, border enforcement, national healthcare, economic growth, energy, taxation, regulation, criminal justice, the budget and abortion) with these words:
Do the issues matter?
This is exactly what makes me furious with the sarcastic, invective-laden neverTrumpers who comment here and who podcast in conservative media: they spend so much time, far too much, making Hillary Clinton’s only argument by focusing on Trump himself, rather than making the Republican candidate’s superiority on the issues the focus of their chattering.
I think it’s because they realize, like the Mainstream Media does, that if they concentrated on an intelligent, civil discussion of the issues rather than on personality, perceived gaffes and presentation, Trump would command their votes. And it appears that as a matter of taste they viscerally cannot abide that.
Plus it’s a lot more fun to entertain one’s friends with your latest putdown of “Cheeto Jesus.”
Thus the leaders of the party of better ideas and of concentrating on the issues kneecaps itself by falling for the cheap, facile thrills of snark and sarcasm.
Congratulations.
Walsh writes:
I’ll add two groups overlapping with these but highlighting some of the acrimony we have observed: (a) RINOs/Chamber of Commerce types/GOPe; and (b) the most cultish/trollish part of the L/libertarian movement.
The relevance of this is several fold:
First, these two groups have not heretofore been really on the same side of battles within the Republican Party and conservative/libertarian movement(s). They now find themselves in alignment based on shared desires for open borders and false “free trade” (meaning any other country can do whatever it wants to us in trade policy and we will not retaliate) – although the Chamber types likely bail a bit on the latter. Whereas the RINOs would previously have regarded the trolls as a malign force to be kept down, they no longer do and all hell has broken loose with the trolls being let off the chain and even legitimized.
Second, the RINOs are trying to learn trolling from their new allies, but they speak troll as a second language. This leads to fairly humorous attempts by the RINOs at trolling disingenuous arguments. It’s hard to say whether this is a symptom or a cause of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Third, one of Trump’s core support groups is the alt-right movement that has its own troll army (who, thankfully, won’t pay for Ricochet memberships). Presumably, this leads to much troll-on-troll crime in other forums.
I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument. As the campaign moves along I reassess again and again. I’m not automatically of the view that Trump would be worse than Mrs. Clinton, but I’m not yet convinced he would be better. As a social conservatives I can see why voting for Trump, who seems to have converted to a pro-life position, would be a better option. I take Trump at his word on this issue, while also recognizing that he could be pandering, something the Republican party has done for years.
However, there is no question in my mind that Trump is all in with the gay rights crowd and that is deeply troubling for reasons that extend out to other issues. More on that at some later time.
I’ve heard Mr. Trump argue that things like the bathroom debate should be resolved by the states, yet I haven’t heard him offer a specific opinion as to how what he thinks the outcome should be. Just “leave it to the states” strikes me as a platitude. I’d like to hear his opinion on Title IX, for example.
I am also inclined toward localism, yet both candidates seem to think that only a centralized government can solve economic problems.
I haven’t much engaged in this debate here on Ricochet because, as of now, I’m doing more listening than arguing. I’m just not quite sold on the “better than Hillary” argument.
There are two major-party candidates running for President and treating politics as celebrity has been around for a while now, and seems to be what the people want. And Trump makes news daily, while Clinton only makes news when scandal details develop.
His superiority on some issues is compromised by his frequent shifting of positions and history of breaking contracts and vows.
Personality is an issue when a candidate’s not temperamentally fit for the office.
An important part of the job description is avoiding gaffes and presenting well.
Assumes what we’re undecided on.
Just as some Trump supporters are uneducated poor rural whites, some #NeverTrumpers are motivated primarily by taste. Just as smearing Trump supporters like I did misses the larger base of support, smearing #NeverTrumpers as you did misses the larger base.
@lazymillennial
Your response makes my point. You cite personality/unfitness for office – Hillary’s single “issue” – without mentioning a single real issue. You are cooperating with the Democratic campaign strategy – to what purpose?
So tell me, on what issue do you prefer the Democratic or Libertarian candidate over the Republican:
Immigration
Border enforcement
National healthcare
Economic growth
Energy
Taxation
Regulation
Criminal justice
The budget
Abortion
And if you claim you don’t know the Republican positions, which Mr. Anderson does and which he spells out clearly in the article that you didn’t read, isn’t that on you?
Ah yes, you get to define what issues are, and what other people are talking about are just Democratic campaign strategy. For the record, I think both Clinton and Trump are unfit for the office. I do find it interesting how Trump supporters are constantly complaining that, “discussion of the R nominee’s faults = cooperating with Democrats”, and also lose their minds anytime someone suggests the R nominee’s campaign reeks of fascism.
On all the issues you list (except as listed below), Trump has shifted several times, and shows no enthusiasm besides telling people what they want to hear. He’s been enthusiastic and consistent on a few issues for decades, and they form the basis of his campaign:
No, my friend, I didn’t decide what the issues are. I quoted Jeffrey Anderson’s breakdown of the issues in the conservative Weekly Standard, and also his contention, with which I agree, that “unfitness for office,” a nebulous term subject to all manner of interpretation, is Hillary Clinton’s sole argument in favor of her election.
As far as “reeks of fascism,” I accuse you again of using the argument/pet hate-word of the Left. Fascist is “the vaguest of major political terms” (Stanley G. Payne) and a word that “has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'” (George Orwell)
I will ask you again, this time about the trio of issues you bullet-pointed: do you prefer the Clinton-Democratic position on trade, foreign policy and law and order to the Trump-Republican position?
I don’t. If you do, please explain why.
In appealing to conservatives, that’s her main argument, though she tried to pitch “not treating NATO alliances like business negotiations.” She’s got plenty of other arguments for non-conservatives.
I’m using a word we’ve accurately used to describe the left for a while now. The fact that the GOP candidate smells of it too is a cause for dismay.
I prefer the Democrat’s acted position (pro free trade) which has traditionally been the conservative position as well. Both candidates are currently anti-TPP and suspicious of trade generally, but Trump’s been consistent on it for decades, while Clinton’s obviously pandering.
If forced to choose between the two I’d rather a slow retreat from Europe and not openly antagonize China a-la Clinton and Obama versus a fast retreat and open antagonism under Trump, though both styles are awful. Neither have a coherent Middle East plan.
On law-and-order I’ll take Trump since the dumber parts of his plans would be blocked by Congress and the courts.
Sorry, try reading the book. My quotes from Payne and Orwell were taken from Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism,” pages 3 and 4. I read it when it came out.
Nordlinger’s ridiculous article shows how nebulous the term has become. Trump likes “good looks.” (Obviously fascist.) He likes to campaign at big rallies (because he’s a fascist, not because he’s a natural entertainer). He puts his name on things (like that fascist Senator Robert Byrd did). He prefers winners to losers. (Americans love losers.) He cares about who is nice to him and who is not. (Heavens!) He invokes national greatness. (Not that!) He made people raise their hands in a pledge once. He is proud of his intelligence and his family’s, and thinks it may be an inherited trait. (IQ is a fiction. Evolution stops at the neck.) He “has the attitude of a king or a dictator.” (Or perhaps just that of the CEO of a multi-billion dollar international corporation.)
But no matter. You like Clinton on most of the issues.
You can have her, “conservative.”
<Scratches head> I just wrote that if he keeps up his performance as he did last week, I’m open to voting for him.
Who’s being difficult now?
Goldberg was right in noticing common intellectual history and aims of fascists in other countries and the American left. Trump embraces many of those same policies and tactics.
While much of Nordlinger’s analysis is ridiculous, much is valid. Some examples: admiring China’s firm hand vs Gorbachev, grievance-stoking, blaming problems on foreigners, claims the solution to solving multiple different problems is just elect him, threatening the press, order the military to break laws, and, most crucially,
back to your comment:
No, I slightly prefer Clinton on two of Trump’s three main issues. I dislike her on far many more issues, which is why I won’t be voting for her and encouraging friends and family to do the same.
My entire point was to look past “performance” and focus on the issues.
As long as you place emphasis on performance, you are making yourself easier to be manipulated by the media and the Clinton campaign, which wants to talk about nothing but “performance” (gaffes, inconsistencies, tweets, six-pointed stars, David Duke, etc.) and wear you down.
Their game is to make Americans embarrassed – of our candidates, our issues and our country – not to discuss where Democrats stand on the issues and where Republicans do. Care to play that game? It may be harder for us this year to refuse to go along with their plan, but I intend to nonetheless.
Join me.
That’s my favorite response line these day. Like — What, me worry? Everything hangs on that “better than” assessment.
What is Trump’s current position? He wants a wall, but he has promised touch-back amnesty and now has backed off his promise to deport current illegals, so the difference between the two candidates is shrinking. I prefer his stance, though. That is, as of today.
He has said he’s in favor of health insurance for everyone paid for by the government. He has said that the federal government’s most important roles are providing health care for everyone, education, great neighborhoods, housing, and national security.
His trade ideas are troubling, to say the least. She’s lying about TPP and will sign it if it passes. Otherwise, he talks more about growth and she never does.
He wins hands down.
He’s better, especially on corporate tax, but his idea of allowing 60% of families to pay zero income tax is troubling.
He talks a better game, but offers no specifics. It’s not clear to me that he means it. If he does, he wins on this issue.
Not much the federal government can or should do about it.
Either will spend like drunken sailors, no matter what lip service he gives to the debt.
He claims to be pro-life all of a sudden, but I don’t believe him. He’s been a social liberal all his life.
No, Trump has revealed a hollowed out party that needs to get its act together. Rather than try and understand what Trump represents to their future they just attack him. These are children emotionally. Many intellectuals are childish and immature — this is further proof that they are unfit to lead.
I know this is me projecting onto Trump’s blank screen. I got it. But I imagine Trump putting some smart people together (by telling Pence or someone like him, “hey, put some smart people together.”) and saying, “Tell me how to rip the guts out of this agency, because the people will love it.”
Yawn. Trump is Hillary with better suit, a Y chromosome and in all probability a lower IQ. #NeverTrump is not making him put his foot in his mouth nearly every time he opens it, is not keeping him from setting up local campaign operations, is not keeping him from spending money on campaign ads. The collection of the dimwits, demogogues, demonized dolts, disaffected, disappointed and deranged who handed him the nomination should have to live with the results. I am not compelled to enable them in their unfortunately not unique combination of ignorance and foolishness. You bought this crippled dog with fleas, you win the show with him.
Everything Hartmann said, plus double-yawn because it is so clear that Trump is going down in a landslide.
Listen Trumpettes, I am a Republican. But you have told me over and over that the GOP is awful. That it doesn’t deserve to exist. That the GOPe are all RINO’s, no different from Democrats, and that they fold on every issue. In short, not only are you not of my Party, but you have made it clear that you affirmatively hate my Party. And you are supporting a candidate who is devoted to destroying my Party. So it shouldn’t be hard for you to imagine how funny it is to me when you demand that I vote for your candidate based on “party loyalty.”
He also doesn’t have the education, training, experience, desire and Machine full of fellow travelers to unmake our Republic and rebuild it as Alinsky envisioned.
‘Course, I’m not saying he’d not bumble into it and start that process by accident. Just saying we’ve got a better chance of influencing the outcome, there.
I don’t hate the GOP. I don’t even hate HRC (although she does matriculate a bone-deep loathing). But I would submit that those of us not enamored of the GOP did start there, the GOP worked long and hard to cut the moorings of our loyalty.
And it shouldn’t be hard for you to see the irony we see in your disdain, after we’ve had to choke down Dole, McCain, and severe conservative Romney, and to have someone try to choke us out with JEB!
Don’t wait up for me. Trump has no history of policy decisions. Your “informed” free-of-the-MSM® stance is nevertheless pure hope. I have no interest in the um-teenth rehashing of pro-and-against Trump on the gloriously free of MSM influence that is Ricochet. I could be voting against my best interests voting for such an untested and unworthy candidate. I’m cautiously eyeing the bait that he’s less onerous than Hillary.
Maybe Baby Huey can be reigned in. That’s what I’m waiting for. Boy could I be wrong.
Not really. Much of his arguments have been directed toward free trade and barriers as retribution for non-free trade practices. Overall, Trump’s goals appear closer to pure mutual free trade than most of his nutcase cultish opponents who insist on one way free trade.
I broke this in two. The term “functional” is a Clintonesque copout unless you back it up with details. Alone it says he is not, but you want to say so in such a way as to have wiggle room against perjury charges. Which is more functionally isolationist, a strong US that wants strong allies or a disarmed US that also disarms its allies (see below)?
Actually it was more of a suggestion than a demand. And the “more” is merely what they agreed to. Contrast this with Obama/Clinton/Kerry’s abuse of our allies (Israel, the UK…) and even adversaries who started to behave in the ways we asked (Quadaffi) or others in between (e.g., non-Brotherhood Egyptians).
At least Trump directs his wrath at substantive criminals rather than the innocent. Lawyer Hillary knows the Constitution and laws and ignores them. Again, the choice is clear.
The least the pro-Trump side can be is honest. No, it’s not clear. It’s your hope. My dice roll is the hope that Trump will listen to more sober analysis. There’s no history to Trump as it relates to public policy — just words. We ridiculed the left in 2008 that Dreamy McDreamy would be the Sun God for the unwashed masses for this very reason. Why should we make this our own in 2016?
The choice is clear. The hope only goes to the degree by which Trump is better than Hillary.
The Sun God is dead. Long live the Sun God.