Inside the Mind of a Once Never-Trumper

 

A Monica Crowley article linked at RealClearPolitics Friday captures well my so far inarticulate thoughts toward Trump right now.

I was horrified when he became the Republican nominee. How could our party have pinned its hopes on someone so disreputable, so manifestly unprincipled, so low and gross? Why would anyone believe his promises? What in the world makes pro-lifers imagine he will follow through on anything? What has his whole life been about but self-aggrandizement at the expense of anyone who stands in his way?

Friends and others would point out that we weren’t electing just a president, but an entire administration; there would be good people keeping him in check. All I could think was A) he can’t possibly win, and B) he will ruin them all because that’s what narcissists do. Give them power, and they reward anyone who flatters them; they destroy anyone who won’t. Increasingly, they are surrounded by sleazy yes-men.

I sincerely believed that Trump would wreck what’s left of the Republican Party, the only viable political alternative (lame as it’s been lately) to galloping leftism. So, I couldn’t vote for him. I couldn’t vote for him any more than I could vote for Hilary Clinton. I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin; I stopped going to the Drudge Report and Ricochet. It was too depressing to see so many former guiding lights defending the indefensible and touting the intolerable. The only commentators I could bear to read were people like David French and Jonah Goldberg, who saw it as I did.

Then, when he won, I was unexpectedly elated. Americans had risen up! Clinton, the Democrats, and their media sycophants had gone down! Hurrah! Happy day!

In the weeks and months following, I was glad to be in the position I was — surprised and delighted over every good bit of news and undismayed by the chaos, which is, of course, what you get when you elect someone like Trump. I liked being able to tell distraught friends and neighbors in my upscale part of Pennsylvania that I hadn’t voted for him. I thought their extreme distress was over the top and a bit ridiculous (it’s as if they took the word of his worst media detractors as literally true — as if he really were a white supremacist and a would-be fascist.) But I was glad to be able to offer at least that reassurance, so we could stay friends.

Two major streams of impressions in the time since have composed my current view.

1) Trump has been a far, far better president than I’d thought possible. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh! The embassy in Jerusalem! Roaring economy, actual border enforcement, goodbye to the egregious Iran deal and the asinine Paris accords, hello beefed-up military, movement in North Korea, calling Europe’s bluff — Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, General Mattis, John Bolton, Larry Kudlow — It’s all been much better than expected. There’s hope for American again.

I’ve had to revise practically all my opinions. Maybe the outward civility and personal rectitude of people like George W., Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio actually were a liability. Maybe “principled politicians” like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz really are insufferable and out of touch. Maybe we needed a crude, narcissistic president to make headway in a crude, narcissistic culture. And maybe Trump’s not as bad a person as I’d thought. Maybe he does have some core principles and values down there somewhere, under all the bluster and mess. In any case, he’s getting stuff done, and his media-baiting has served the good purpose of exposing their extreme bias, thank God.

2) His enemies have proven to be far worse than I’d imagined. I knew Obama was a covert narcissist and a leftist ideologue, a Marxist even. I knew he was governed by an evil worldview that saw America as needing to be taken down some pegs, while peoples marginalized by colonialism were given a leg up. I knew he’d set out to be the great un-Reagan and un-Churchill. He had a Saul Alinskite political MO: ends justify whatever means; isolate a target (like marriage) and destroy it. Pose as high-minded, even-keeled, and above the fray, while really being deeply nasty and harboring contempt for American institutions and the rule of law. And oppose all things Judeo-Christian and conservative, except insofar as they provide a handy cover for a leftist social justice agenda. I knew his appointees were bad guys — either ideologues like him, corrupt opportunists, or both.

But even I couldn’t have believed it was this bad — that the Justice Department and the FBI would shamelessly deploy the awesome tools of their trade to destroy Trump and elect Clinton, that the mainstream media would openly abandon even the pretense of objectivity to become flagrant propagandists while demanding the deference due to true reporters, that it would become almost impossible to have a conversation with an anti-Trumper (since to defend him is to be instantly shunned as a racist and a fascist), that so many of our institutions would be so decimated so fast.

Before the election, I thought the best-case scenario was that Trump would be elected and impeached so that we’d have a President Pence. I don’t think that anymore. Now nothing seems more important, more absolutely necessary, than keeping the House, preventing impeachment, and strengthening Trump’s hand. America seems to me on the brink of complete destruction, overwrought as that may sound. Allow the Democrats and the media to get away with this corruption, with Mueller’s search-and-destroy mission, and we’ll be lost for good. It’s weird and ironic, but true: our best hope for national salvation lies in rallying round Trump.

I’m back with Rush and Drudge and Ricochet. I’m practically stalking Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hansen. Now it’s David French and Jonah Goldberg I can hardly stand to read. Forget about Commentary and The Weekly Standard. How can they not see what’s really going on here? Who cares how sleazy and corrupt Trump and his inner circle have been over the years? It’s nothing, just nothing in comparison with the depth and extent of the corrosion at the heart of things in Washington DC. If we care about our country, we’ll make electing Republicans this November our top priority.

That’s how I see it now. I bet I’m not alone.

Published in General

Comments are closed on this post.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 230 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Moderator Note:

    Misrepresenting a fellow member in order to project bad faith onto him.

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

     

    Are you overlooking my query about Sessions or are you just avoiding that topic?

    He wants to remove the duly elected president from office, because he doesn’t like him very much. The DOJ is helping in that noble endeavor, so any of their excesses are not excessive enough. That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say, but he knows it’s not a good argument.

    Looks that way.

    [Redacted.]

    • #211
  2. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

    This is fun. Am I a racist since I am able to accept Trump’s statement?

    We conservatives should not argue that Americans of Mexican ancestry are incapable of being honest judges. Period.

    Only in the Trump era has this become a controversial question. Reagan would never had implied that someone couldn’t do a job based on his ethnic background.

     

    If only we had had this debate before the election, the scales would have fallen from our eyes, and we would have seen the truth.

    Didn’t we? (I’m just trying to be your lackey)

    • #212
  3. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

     

    Are you overlooking my query about Sessions or are you just avoiding that topic?

    He wants to remove the duly elected president from office, because he doesn’t like him very much. The DOJ is helping in that noble endeavor, so any of their excesses are not excessive enough. That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say, but he knows it’s not a good argument.

    Looks that way.

    [Redacted.]

    Including changing the subject entirely?

    • #213
  4. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

    This is fun. Am I a racist since I am able to accept Trump’s statement?

    We conservatives should not argue that Americans of Mexican ancestry are incapable of being honest judges. Period.

    Only in the Trump era has this become a controversial question. Reagan would never had implied that someone couldn’t do a job based on his ethnic background.

    If only we had had this debate before the election, the scales would have fallen from our eyes, and we would have seen the truth.

    Didn’t we? (I’m just trying to be your lackey)

    Oh, thank you, Ed Mcmahon. Carnac the Magnificent predicts:

    No one cares about the outrages of elections past.

     

     

     

     

     

    • #214
  5. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

     

    Are you overlooking my query about Sessions or are you just avoiding that topic?

    He wants to remove the duly elected president from office, because he doesn’t like him very much. The DOJ is helping in that noble endeavor, so any of their excesses are not excessive enough. That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say, but he knows it’s not a good argument.

    Looks that way.

    [Redacted.]

    Including changing the subject entirely?

    Unfortunately, standards have fallen in high school civics education. Sad…

    • #215
  6. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    There is a more serious issue, which I hesitate to state, as I don’t have evidence, and I don’t want to speculate in public.

    I think, but do not know, that Trump has been compromised to some degree by Putin (“kompromat”). It is within the realm of possibilities that Trump might actually be the first Manchurian President, who is literally under the control of a hostile country. While this sounds like crazy talk, it certainly is more likely than the Birthers and Truthers. (Does this make me a “Russier,” a “Russierer,” or a “Putiner”?) This is why it is critical for the Mueller Probe to continue, not just to protect the Rule of Law, but literally to determine if Trump lacks free will. I hope that this isn’t true, but he is the first President where this is, in my mind, an actual possibility.

    If Ricochet can’t flag this crap under the CoC, then what’s the point of having one?

    I was careful to not assert that this is true, but that I have an articulable suspicion and concern.

    The subject of this OP was “Inside the Mind of a Once NeverTrumper.” I was a NeverTrumper in 2016. I now vary between being a NeverTrumper and a severe Trump Skeptic, and I take pains to praise Trump for judges, regulations and taxes.

    Specifically, as the OP was “Inside the Mind of” I was saying merely that my concern about Trump goes beyond personality, and even past character. to a concern over kompromat. This is a widely held view on the left, and I would suggest that more than a few conservatives wonder if Putin has kompromat on Trump. This is more than a wild conspiracy theory like Birtherism or Trutherism. Given that Trump was a Brither and Roy Moore still is a Birther, I think that concern over kompromat is legitimate. Are all of us who are concerned about kompromat to be banned under the CoC? I think not.

    It would sound less crazy if you’d just stop saying “Kompromat” and say “compromising information” or “blackmail”.

    Point taken.  Thanks.

    • #216
  7. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    It is within the realm of possibilities that Trump might actually be the first Manchurian President, who is literally under the control of a hostile country. 

    Protip: If Putin were controlling Trump, then the latter would be doing everything within his power to kill the fracking industry, among other things crucial to Russian aggrandizement.  Your theory is objectively less credible than the ‘Obama is a secret Muslim’ theory.

     

    • #217
  8. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

    Are you overlooking my query about Sessions or are you just avoiding that topic?

    He wants to remove the duly elected president from office, because he doesn’t like him very much. The DOJ is helping in that noble endeavor, so any of their excesses are not excessive enough. That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say, but he knows it’s not a good argument.

    The Founders put impeachment in the Constitution as a check on members of the Executive and Judicial branches.

    If Trump were impeached it would be under the provisions of the Constitution.  Please recall that Nixon was the duly elected President in 1968 and 1972, and he was rightfully forced to resign.

    I hasten to say that as of today this is not sufficient evidence in the public sphere to support impeachment.  The Mueller Probe needs to continue.

    • #218
  9. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

     

    Are you overlooking my query about Sessions or are you just avoiding that topic?

    He wants to remove the duly elected president from office, because he doesn’t like him very much. The DOJ is helping in that noble endeavor, so any of their excesses are not excessive enough. That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say, but he knows it’s not a good argument.

    The Founders put impeachment in the Constitution as a check on members of the Executive and Judicial branches.

    If Trump were impeached it would be under the provisions of the Constitution.

    I hasten to say that as of today this is not sufficient evidence in the public sphere to support impeachment. The Mueller Probe needs to continue.

    Thank you for being honest about the lack of evidence. So let the President govern.

    • #219
  10. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

    This is fun. Am I a racist since I am able to accept Trump’s statement?

    We conservatives should not argue that Americans of Mexican ancestry are incapable of being honest judges. Period.

    Only in the Trump era has this become a controversial question. Reagan would never had implied that someone couldn’t do a job based on his ethnic background.

    If only we had had this debate before the election, the scales would have fallen from our eyes, and we would have seen the truth.

    If memory serves, Trump refused to debate other Republicans as soon as the field was down to 3 candidates after the Florida/Ohio primaries.

     

    • #220
  11. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

    This is fun. Am I a racist since I am able to accept Trump’s statement?

    We conservatives should not argue that Americans of Mexican ancestry are incapable of being honest judges. Period.

    Only in the Trump era has this become a controversial question. Reagan would never had implied that someone couldn’t do a job based on his ethnic background.

    If only we had had this debate before the election, the scales would have fallen from our eyes, and we would have seen the truth.

    If memory serves, Trump refused to debate other Republicans as soon as the field was down to 3 candidates after the Florida/Ohio primaries.

     

    The whole Mexican judge imbroglio happened the first week of June, 2016, which was long after Trump’s last primary opponent dropped out. Should he have debated candidates who had already dropped out?

    • #221
  12. Amy Schley Coolidge
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    Moderator Note:

    As of around 12:30pm PT, comments have been temporarily closed for folks to cool off. Please take Amy's advice.

    Would everyone please chill? It’s a beautiful Sunday afternoon. Go read a book, take a walk, do some house cleaning, watch some football. I’ll help you get started if you want to play World of Warcraft. 

    Anything but have a nasty mud fight where not a single one of you is going to change his mind in response to anything anyone says.

    • #222
  13. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

     

    Are you overlooking my query about Sessions or are you just avoiding that topic?

    He wants to remove the duly elected president from office, because he doesn’t like him very much. The DOJ is helping in that noble endeavor, so any of their excesses are not excessive enough. That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say, but he knows it’s not a good argument.

    The Founders put impeachment in the Constitution as a check on members of the Executive and Judicial branches.

    If Trump were impeached it would be under the provisions of the Constitution.

    I hasten to say that as of today this is not sufficient evidence in the public sphere to support impeachment. The Mueller Probe needs to continue.

    Thank you for being honest about the lack of evidence. So let the President govern.

    Yes, he should continue to govern.  However, the Mueller Probe must continue.

    • #223
  14. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Yes, he should continue to govern. However, the Mueller Probe must continue.

    I guess they can finally shut it down when Trump leaves office; not before.  It’s too useful.

    • #224
  15. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    He wants to remove the duly elected president from office, because he doesn’t like him very much. The DOJ is helping in that noble endeavor, so any of their excesses are not excessive enough. That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say, but he knows it’s not a good argument.

    What I have said very clearly is that if Trump were to resign from office for any reason, I would be happy to see Mike Pence ascend to the Presidency.  

    That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say and he has said it.  

    • #225
  16. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    We conservatives should not argue that Americans of Mexican ancestry are incapable of being honest judges. Period.

    Only in the Trump era has this become a controversial question. Reagan would never had implied that someone couldn’t do a job based on his ethnic background.

    I’d have questioned the judge’s fairness on the grounds that he wasn’t a wise Latina.

    • #226
  17. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

     

    Are you overlooking my query about Sessions or are you just avoiding that topic?

    He wants to remove the duly elected president from office, because he doesn’t like him very much. The DOJ is helping in that noble endeavor, so any of their excesses are not excessive enough. That’s what @HeavyWater wants to say, but he knows it’s not a good argument.

    The Founders put impeachment in the Constitution as a check on members of the Executive and Judicial branches.

    If Trump were impeached it would be under the provisions of the Constitution.

    I hasten to say that as of today this is not sufficient evidence in the public sphere to support impeachment. The Mueller Probe needs to continue.

    Thank you for being honest about the lack of evidence. So let the President govern.

    Yes, he should continue to govern. However, the Mueller Probe must continue.

    And the purpose would be to keep things going until we get a resignation? Not going to happen.

    • #227
  18. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    If he doesn’t like your argument, he amends it to something that is indefensible, and then he attacks that. I guess that’s what they taught him in high school civics class.

    I wasn’t trying to amend anyone’s argument.  I misinterpreted the argument.  

    It happens.  

     

    • #228
  19. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):
    . If supporters of Trump tell people like me that they aren’t wanted because they don’t like Trump enough, then it’s reasonable to conclude that this party, as long as it is headed by Trump, doesn’t want or need our votes

    As far as I am concerned, @painterjean, I certainly want you and anyone else to support Trump and all the other Republican candidates, for any reason, policy or personality, or because you understand how bad the opposition has become. But I do not understand why you would expect me to support you or others like you if you absolutely will not, if I understand you correctly, support Trump and or any Republican candidates that do. If you won’t vote for Trump but will vote for candidates who support Trump, I am OK with that…as long as you do not vote for his opposition, which would absolutely make you my political adversary. I expect you would understand that.

    What does “supporting me” look like? I’m not running for office. I used to be involved in GOP political processes, going to caucuses, attending conventions as a delegate or alternate (as far up as state), volunteering for campaigns (putting up lawn signs, dropping lit, phone banks). No more. Trump supporters only seem to want party members who will never criticize their man, and those of us for whom character, ideas, and intelligent discourse matters, aren’t welcome and are told that we aren’t needed either.

    I have better things to do @painterjean than argue with you. I wish you well. And am sorry you feel unwelcome.

    • #229
  20. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Let’s say someone resented Trump for his rhetoric implying that a judge with a Mexican background presiding over Trump University lawsuits can’t be fair to him.

    The explanation for that ‘rhetoric’ is simple. Trump recalled his own announcement speech and the media response regarding his remarks about Mexico, illegal immigration and the character of some of the people Mexico was sending to America. So he made that remark about the judge of Mexican extraction in his case.

    Paul Ryan said that Trump’s comments regarding the judge represented the “textbook definition of racism.”

    I agree.

    In Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, US Senate candidate Ron Johnson received more votes than Trump did. And Mitt Romney received more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

    So, clearly, there are lots of people willing to vote Republican, but were unwilling to vote for someone like Trump, who offers racist comments to the public.

    Can Trump still win reelection in 2020? Sure. He has a good economy to run on and he can claim some of the credit for the economy’s performance. But he might have an even better chance had he never dabbled in racist rhetoric.

    Are you overlooking my query about Sessions or are you just avoiding that topic?

    What about Sessions?  Sessions is another Republican that I would be happy to see as President instead of Trump.

    Dump the Trump !

     

    • #230
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed.