Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Softens on Immigration, Coulter Follows Suit
My slight edit of Coulter’s book cover.
Talk about bad timing. Wednesday night at the Breitbart Embassy in DC, Ann Coulter held a book signing for In God We Trus… oops, I mean In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome. Earlier that day, Donald Trump told Sean Hannity that he was “softening” his position on immigration, the main issue that made Coulter and a plurality of primary voters select him as the GOP nominee. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at that confab.
Coulter’s book makes the argument that “[T]here’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.” On MSNBC’s “Hardball” she said, “This could be the shortest book tour ever if he’s really softening his position on immigration.” So there’s absolutely no way the passionately anti-immigration author could support her candidate’s flip-flop, right? Sorry, but we’ve got books to move:
Conservative author and Donald Trump supporter Ann Coulter isn’t giving up on her candidate yet, even as he appears to be shifting on an issue most dear to her.
Trump is now open to possibly “softening” his hardline stance on illegal immigration, and the candidate said Wednesday night on Fox News that he would consider letting many illegal immigrants remain in the country, instead of deporting them all.
…In an interview earlier that same day with the Washington Examiner, Coulter, whose own stance on immigration inspired Trump’s controversial views on it, said it’s not worrying her.
“It mostly worries me rhetorically … I mean, what to do with the illegals already here was never really a big part of it,” she said. “We’re getting a wall. We’re definitely getting a wall. That’s the one thing we know about a Trump presidency.”
She said Trump still offers more than any of the other Republicans had.
“I don’t think it is a change in policy,” she said of Trump. “The policy is anyone who’s here illegally is here illegally, does not have the right to be here. We’ll decide whether it’s in our interest to let them stay or not. Perhaps it is in our interest to let some of them stay.“
Yep, “we’re definitely getting a wall.” Trump would never backtrack on a core campaign promise.
Published in General
Wow, and I thought I had a low opinion of politicians.
Please see my reply in #180 . . . you are not describing a fundamentally different personality, just a person less well adapted to the norms of political speech. There’s no argument that The Donald doesn’t conform to the norms of what should be mouthed by Presidential candidates.
Here’s why it’s important for Presidents and candidates for President to watch what they say:
http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a441490.pdf
http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html
Self-control matters.
Yes, I think I am but you refuse to deal with the evidence before your eyes. Good day. I’m done.
@brianwatt, I think this explains a lot about why we seem to be talking past @HVTs. We see Trump’s behavior as deviant, HVTs sees it as just an honest portrayal of what really goes on inside a typical politician’s head. I don’t think there’s any way to square this circle.
Indeed. But your examples are not apt for this discussion. The world of international diplomacy and geo-strategic messaging conducted by senior representatives of a sitting President is rather a different beast from what we are talking about here.
BTW – unrelated to this discussion, but . . . context matters. What Glaspie was referring to was a specific dispute regarding whether a vacant desert border demarcation should be a few kilometers this way or that. It’s become false lore that this somehow sparked Saddam’s invasion. It was and is perfectly reasonable for the U.S. to not formally take sides on disputes between others when we are not significantly impacted. Similarly, the other statements you cite were factually correct. Would you have advised saying we did have a treaty obligation when we did not?
Acheson and Korea . . . at best this is greatly exaggerated as a casus belli. It gained currency within fashionable academic eco-systems as Leftist opposition to the Vietnam War developed. This fashion attributes the Cold War not to Soviet and PRC aggression but to U.S. provocations and/or missteps. It’s Leftist bunk. You really think Kim Il Sung was only waiting for a go-signal from Dean Acheson? It’s ridiculous on its face, but when you want to “prove” the U.S. started the Cold War it’s a convenient talking point. Since the Left commands academia, it’s endlessly trotted out.
Wow, I’m so tired of this meme from the Trumpettes. Let me put it simply: You are wrong. Absurdly, ridiculously wrong. First, I am so past worrying about “opprobrium” that even raising the subject is comical. I have spent my adult life as a outspoken Republican in California. Not just California, but the west side of Los Angeles. I have never experienced anything but opprobrium in my entire political life.
Second, the conservatives and Republicans who I have sought out as friends, whether it be on-line or in life, do not “warmly embrace” supporters of Hillary Clinton. I know you don’t know me (which ought to give you pause when it comes to making pronouncements about my motivations in the first place), but trust me when I tell you that I have not gotten anything resembling a “warm embrace” regarding this election from anyone. And since I’m not voting for Hillary, I can’t imagine that her supporters would ever see me as being on their side.
Finally, you need to get used to the idea that people can disagree with you for good faith reasons, and not jump immediately to attributing venal motives, like craving approval, to people who you don’t even know.
Please check . . . it’s comment #174 . . . you were not addressed in it.
You have made that assertion many times, including in the comment I quoted, about #nevertrumpers generally. That necessarily includes me. But if you think it doesn’t count unless you address me by name, then I would point out that you did exactly that in #151.
Everyone seeks approval from someone—okay, maybe we can exclude sociopaths and psychopaths; I’ll leave that to those trained in the field. But generally speaking, seeking approval is universal. It’s not venal—that’s something entirely different.
If someone claims to prioritize conservatism yet is voting for Hillary Clinton, one of two explanations is most likely, as explained by Heather Higgins:
To hold the first position and vote for Clinton is so illogical there’s no comment to make about it. Only a tiny fraction of people are that self-contradictory and there’s no reasoning with them anyway.
Which leaves the second type. I think @heatherhiggins nailed it.
I’m not shying away from naming names, if that’s what you are implying. Happy to go Obama on you: “Let me be clear:” (Except he usually follows that with word salad that’s anything but clear.)
If you self-proclaim to prioritize conservatism and are voting for Hillary Clinton, then by all means everything I just posted at #190 applies to you. If I’m wrong in your case, please toss your own word salad to explain how a Clinton White House is likely to be more conducive to conservatism than a Trump White House. We can all judge for ourselves how credible is your explanation.
I would suggest again that you try listening to people who oppose Trump, and let them tell you their reasons. Instead of having Heather Higgins pronounce what those reasons must be. This is known as arguing in good faith. Not only is it far more polite than telling people that they are lying about their reasons, and more effective, it is also a requirement of the Code of Conduct here. I really urge you to give it a try. There is no shortage of explanations from #nevertrumpers around here, and none of them are “I want approval from the lefties.”
Yup, got it. See #191. Happy to listen . . . look forward to reading your explanation of why a Clinton Presidency will be more conducive to conservatism than a Trump Presidency.
I have explained my reasons so many times. You might want to read some of my comments. There are a lot of reasons in addition to “prioritizing conservatism.” Nuclear war, for example. But on that particular issue, I will say this. The political vehicle for getting conservative policies adopted in this country is the Republican Party. It is not always as effective as I would like, but for better or worse, that is the vehicle. Trump is destroying the Republican Party, and not accidentally either. It is my evaluation that the consequences of a Trump Presidency would be so catastrophic that it would be followed by 40 years of Democratic Presidents and Congresses. Like Hoover with the Great Depression.
Although Hillary is especially venal and corrupt, as President she will be just another Democrat. No worse than a third term of Obama. Bad, but not ruinous. The country has survived Democratic Presidents before, and it will have to do so again, sooner or later. (We’ll survive better if we can retain control of at least one House of Congress.) But utterly discrediting the Republican Party and the conservative brand for a generation is not something we can survive.
Okay now I see why we are talking past one another. It’s not ill-motivated for either of us, but it is obvious and shouldn’t have taken this long to draw out.
There’s a reason I kept painstakingly saying “prioritizing conservatism.” You obviated that in the first sentence I’ve clipped-in above. You changed the topic! The remaining clips simply highlight that. You’ve got nuclear war concerns, for instance. But the principal issue for you, it seems, is the GOP and how Trump will impact its electoral prospects in the decades to come.
That’s not the same thing, Larry! GOP does NOT equal conservative NOR conservatism!
Your thesis (‘The political vehicle for getting conservative policies adopted in this country is the Republican Party”) is horse-pucky! Regardless of whether we agree on that, however, it’s clearly not what I was painstakingly articulating vis-a-vis Trump v. Clinton.
ONLY if one ASSUMES that what’s good for the GOP (as it’s currently constituted, BTW!) is good for conservatism, is your Hillary vote logically consistent.
Consistent but wrong! The best thing for the GOP is that it’s surrender-first leadership goes the way of the Dodo bird. But that’s a different topic.
That is one of those comments that sounds like it means something, but really doesn’t.
Anyone who says that they are conservative or liberal or whatever is, by definition, self-proclaimed.
I understand that I appeared obnoxiously didactic, but there was a valid purpose behind it. (That’s my story … sticking to it! {:-)
I’m trying to draw out the point that it’s illogical—entirely self-contradictory—to say you prioritize conservatism AND that you will vote for Hillary instead of Trump. There’s no way to argue that the probability of conservative political outcomes is higher with Hillary in the White House. Trump may not deliver, but based on probabilities we can reasonably assume before he’s in office he’s the better bet. In short, Hillary will with 100% certainty oppose conservative outcomes on every topic, without fail. Trump? We don’t know, but it’s likely we’ll get at least some conservative outcomes from his Presidency.
Now, @larry3435 and I just went 12-rounds on this so let me be clear: there are other logically consistent reasons for center-right Ricochetians to vote HRC (the urge to spit comes with writing that!). For instance, if one conflates “Conservative” with “GOP” and deems Trump a disaster for the latter, it’s sensible to vote for her. I think that’s wrong-headed, but it’s logically consistent.