A Change in Trump Skepticism?

 

I propose that for all of Trump’s many faults, he isn’t the kind of threat to democracy and democratic norms that the left is. Trump is often vulgar and he has, at times, devalued the office of the Presidency. But he has never broken any serious democratic norms. The left did so when they abandoned the presumption of evidence with Justice Kavanaugh. What’s worse, is that the left did so as a whole. If it was merely Senator Feinstein denying Kavanaugh a proper chance to defend himself, that wouldn’t indicate pervasive corruption on the Left. But a good deal more of the left than I ever would have suspected has abandoned the presumption of innocence for partisan politics.

Trump has often said things that I find abhorrent but his rudeness has not infected the larger American right. Furthermore, as the Nathan Blake, writing at The Federalist so eloquently described, “Trump will say anything, but Democrats will do anything. They and their media allies smeared a universally respected judge with an impeccable record as a serial sexual predator on evidence that would not have justified an indictment.”

Speech has always mattered but actions always matter more.

Blake’s fantastic column uncannily mirrored my own thinking.

I know we all have confirmation bias but I recommend reading the whole thing and dedicating a few thoughts to its implications. I especially like the strong ending.

There is no refuge from this sort of totalizing, destructive politics. The Republican rejection of Merrick Garland was political hardball; the sliming of Kavanaugh was categorically different and much worse. The Democrats crossed the line from policy disagreement to personal destruction, and in doing so they nuked any middle ground between themselves and conservative Trump skeptics. And they put every conservative on notice: You could be next…

I wish this was not so. I would rather be arguing about the Enlightenment than jumping on the Trump train. As a writer and scholar I want to persuade, not to destroy. I do not want American politics to be like this.

But as a voter who recognizes the unfortunate realities of our politics, I believe supporting Trump has become the responsible choice. Things may change, but right now Trump’s policies are better than I expected, he is not the authoritarian some feared, and he does not want to destroy me and mine. It isn’t much, but since Trump stands between me and those who would ruin me, he will have to do.

This is about self-defense. And that is why I’ve gone from “Meh” to “MAGA!”

Has anyone else’s mind been changed by the whole Kavanaugh thing? Mine most certainly has.

Published in General
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 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Henry Castaigne: Has anyone else’s mind been changed by the whole Kavanaugh thing? Mine most certainly has. 

    I think a lot of people not normally into politics saw what was going on and thought, “What if that was me?  My husband?  My son?  Kavanaugh was only applying for a job.”

    In spite of (floundering career) Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Democrats, I believe enthusiam to vote Republican is pretty high.  Why would I say this?

    Enthusiasm as defined by the MSM is visible anger and rage, primarily by leftists.  OTOH, conservatives (and those non-conservatives who plan to vote Republican) don’t show visible enthusiasm.  They remain quiet, waiting for November 6th.

    • #1
  2. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Wait a second, wasn’t everything the Democrats did to Kavanaugh just words? They lied, insinuated, mischaracterized, and bamboozeled? Those aren’t actions those are words. Trump lies about people, mischaracterizes them and bamboozeles people all the time. And apparently words spoken aren’t action done with him, why should they be with Democrats?

    Was Kavanaugh sent to jail? Fined? Assulted? No he was called mean things by people who don’t like him and who reached out and grabbed any rhetorical ammunition at hand. Sounds to me like you just don’t like their style. 

    In the end what were the Democrats actions? Voting No on him? What’s wrong with that? They were going to do that anyway because they didn’t like his judicial philosophy. 

    Now I happen to think word and things you say aren’t just style that they are real actions and what you choose to say and how you choose to say it are all part and parcel of what you do. I just find the hypocracy of the Trump contingent on this to be rather amazing. 

    So no my view isn’t changed. I didn’t much care for the Democrats before this I don’t care for them less now. And I didn’t care for Trump before this and don’t care much for him now. We know that Republicans have done nothing but ignore Trump’s on blatant sexual harassment and misconduct for political gain. So would they really have pulled the plug on Kavanaugh even if they thought he did it if it would have ment losing to the Dems? I doubt it. Republicans are as willing to compromise their so called morals as Democrats were with Clinton. 

    • #2
  3. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Henry Castaigne: Has anyone else’s mind been changed by the whole Kavanaugh thing? Mine most certainly has. 

    I keep hearing the same thing from various commentators. The Bible speaks of evil being turned to good purposes, and perhaps that’s what we’ve seen in the defaming of Brett Justice Kavanaugh.

    • #3
  4. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Henry Castaigne: Has anyone else’s mind been changed by the whole Kavanaugh thing?

    My mind had already been changed by the results Trump has achieved.  As far as recognizing that Democrats are nothing more than a force for the destruction of Western Civilization, I reached that conclusion a long time ago. 

    I have to say, though, that I am annoyed by the ongoing assertions (by some Trump supporters) that there is a significant body of “Establishment” Republicans who are Never-Trumpers and who have regularly opposed the President.  It is demonstrably untrue.  Sure, there are a tiny handful of pundits like Max Boot and Jen Rubin who have gone over from being Conservatives to being Democrat lackeys, but that just happens.  People do change parties and change beliefs.  But those people are not “Establishment Republicans.”  They are not Republicans at all; not any more.  Within Congress there is no one who could fairly be called a Never-Trumper.  Even the most outspoken critic of Trump (i.e., Jeff Flake) votes with him at least 90% of the time.  There is no Republican politician who devotes himself (or herself) to obstructing and resisting Trump’s agenda.  The whole idea of a Never-Trump Republican Establishment is a complete myth.

    • #4
  5. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    As far as recognizing that Democrats are nothing more than a force for the destruction of Western Civilization, I reached that conclusion a long time ago. 

    This.

    • #5
  6. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Wait a second, wasn’t everything the Democrats did to Kavanaugh just words? They lied, insinuated, mischaracterized, and bamboozeled? Those aren’t actions those are words. Trump lies about people, mischaracterizes them and bamboozeles people all the time. And apparently words spoken aren’t action done with him, why should they be with Democrats?

    I’m sorry, but that’s simply wrong.  Words that are statements of opinion are free speech protected by the First Amendment.  Making or repeating false and slanderous accusations are not protected and, in fact, violate every recognized code of behavior in civilized history, from American defamation laws to the Ten Commandments.  The idea that words are just words, without regard to content, is incorrect.

    • #6
  7. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    Sure, there are a tiny handful of pundits like Max Boot and Jen Rubin who have gone over from being Conservatives to being Democrat lackeys, but that just happens.

    Don’t forget Kathleen Parker, because . . . OMG . . . she’s older than I am!

    • #7
  8. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    In 2016 I voted for an unknown write-in candidate for president, a real estate agent who lives in Ohio.  This write-in candidate got about 500 votes nationwide.  He might have been only on the ballot in 3 states.    

    At this point in time, I am seriously considering voting for Trump in 2020.  Now, Trump says and tweets a lot of things that I don’t like.  So, maybe my mind will change between now and 2020.  Also, since I live in Indiana, my vote isn’t as critical as it would be if I lived in Pennsylvania.  

    But I never bought in to the George Will argument that conservatives should vote for Democrat members of Congress.  I will vote a straight Republican ticket in less than 4 weeks, as I had planned prior to the Kavanaugh controversy.  

    • #8
  9. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    It was a declaration of war on everyone conservative who opposes the Left, no matter how respected, reasonable, and mainstream.

    Fixed it for him.

    I’m grateful people are coming around, but like Larry said, lots of us recognized the existential threat to (western) civilization by the totalitarian mob Left a long time ago. It didn’t take the Kavanaugh lynching to bring us around. 

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Wait a second, wasn’t everything the Democrats did to Kavanaugh just words? They lied, insinuated, mischaracterized, and bamboozeled? Those aren’t actions those are words.

    They also cornered people in elevators, screamed at people, tried to physically intimidate others. Nice try.

    • #10
  11. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    Henry Castaigne:

     

     

    Therefore, if you’re not charged with a crime you can be presumed guilty.

    Q.E.D.

    • #11
  12. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Wait a second, wasn’t everything the Democrats did to Kavanaugh just words? They lied, insinuated, mischaracterized, and bamboozeled? Those aren’t actions those are words. Trump lies about people, mischaracterizes them and bamboozeles people all the time. And apparently words spoken aren’t action done with him, why should they be with Democrats?

    I’m sorry, but that’s simply wrong. Words that are statements of opinion are free speech protected by the First Amendment. Making or repeating false and slanderous accusations are not protected and, in fact, violate every recognized code of behavior in civilized history, from American defamation laws to the Ten Commandments. The idea that words are just words, without regard to content, is incorrect.

    Yah, I agree words aren’t just words, but Trump is guilty of slander too. And Republicans didn’t mind him doing it. My claim is that sauce for the goose is good for the gander and that Trumpers now are pots calling the Democratic kettles black. 

    • #12
  13. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    Larry3435

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Wait a second, wasn’t everything the Democrats did to Kavanaugh just words? They lied, insinuated, mischaracterized, and bamboozeled? Those aren’t actions those are words. Trump lies about people, mischaracterizes them and bamboozeles people all the time. And apparently words spoken aren’t action done with him, why should they be with Democrats?

    I’m sorry, but that’s simply wrong. Words that are statements of opinion are free speech protected by the First Amendment. Making or repeating false and slanderous accusations are not protected and, in fact, violate every recognized code of behavior in civilized history, from American defamation laws to the Ten Commandments. The idea that words are just words, without regard to content, is incorrect.

    Valiuth makes a very important point about words. But I still can’t see the equality between the words against Kavanaugh and Trump’s… Trumpiness.

    Take for example his birtherism and his accusation that Ted Cruz’s father shot Kennedy. These are utterly ridiculous charges and they are deplorable but they really didn’t have any impact. I recall Peter Robinson comparing Trump’s support to libel laws and the left’s war on hate speech non-leftist speech. If I recall correctly, he said that Trump runs his mouth all the time but the trend of suppressing speech is all on the left.

    The leftist slanders against Kavanaugh were taken seriously by the left as a whole. Lefties often convinced themselves that Kavanaugh was guilty no matter the dearth nonexistence of evidence against him. Trump pretends that his inauguration had the biggest attendance ever while Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi.

    There really isn’t an equivalent between Trump and the left. That’s why I can’t agree with Valiuth’s statement that,

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Republicans are as willing to compromise their so called morals as Democrats were with Clinton.

    I don’t much care for either Trump or the left but one is antithetical to our deepest liberal virtues while the other is merely rude and boastful. Take the cartoon below. The graves were dug by the left.

    • #13
  14. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Wait a second, wasn’t everything the Democrats did to Kavanaugh just words? They lied, insinuated, mischaracterized, and bamboozeled? Those aren’t actions those are words. Trump lies about people, mischaracterizes them and bamboozeles people all the time. And apparently words spoken aren’t action done with him, why should they be with Democrats?

    I’m sorry, but that’s simply wrong. Words that are statements of opinion are free speech protected by the First Amendment. Making or repeating false and slanderous accusations are not protected and, in fact, violate every recognized code of behavior in civilized history, from American defamation laws to the Ten Commandments. The idea that words are just words, without regard to content, is incorrect.

    Also, Trump is speaking individually. Yes, he’s the President, but there has been no evidence that any institutions of government are following any of his more extreme statements. The Left is using their words to mobilize institutions to apply institutional pressure.

    One of the reasons I preferred Trump over Clinton in 2016 even though both demonstrated authoritarian tendencies is that Trump had no organizational operation to implement his authoritarian instincts, while Clinton had the support of large portions of government and other mechanisms with which she actually could implement her authoritarian instincts. Here the left is implementing the authoritarian instincts that Clinton ran on just without Clinton at the head.

     

    • #14
  15. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Wait a second, wasn’t everything the Democrats did to Kavanaugh just words? They lied, insinuated, mischaracterized, and bamboozeled? Those aren’t actions those are words. Trump lies about people, mischaracterizes them and bamboozeles people all the time. And apparently words spoken aren’t action done with him, why should they be with Democrats?

    I’m sorry, but that’s simply wrong. Words that are statements of opinion are free speech protected by the First Amendment. Making or repeating false and slanderous accusations are not protected and, in fact, violate every recognized code of behavior in civilized history, from American defamation laws to the Ten Commandments. The idea that words are just words, without regard to content, is incorrect.

    Also, Trump is speaking individually. Yes, he’s the President, but there has been no evidence that any institutions of government are following any of his more extreme statements. The Left is using their words to mobilize institutions to apply institutional pressure.

    One of the reasons I preferred Trump over Clinton in 2016 even though both demonstrated authoritarian tendencies is that Trump had no organizational operation to implement his authoritarian instincts, while Clinton had the support of large portions of government and other mechanisms with which she actually could implement her authoritarian instincts. Here the left is implementing the authoritarian instincts that Clinton ran on just without Clinton at the head.

    What authoritarian tendencies? Please provide examples.

    • #15
  16. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Wait a second, wasn’t everything the Democrats did to Kavanaugh just words? They lied, insinuated, mischaracterized, and bamboozeled? Those aren’t actions those are words. Trump lies about people, mischaracterizes them and bamboozeles people all the time. And apparently words spoken aren’t action done with him, why should they be with Democrats?

    Wait a second, yourself.   There is all the difference in the world between insinuations and mischaracterizations made in the context of a political campaign or press conference, and insinuations and mischaracterizations made under penalty of perjury, in the context of a quasi judicial proceeding,  as part of the Constitutional “advise and consent” duties of the U.S. Senate, that requires the receipt of evidence for the adjudication of the qualifications and character of a real flesh and blood individual, with the whole world looking on. 

    Was Kavanaugh sent to jail? Fined? Assulted? No he was called mean things by people who don’t like him and who reached out and grabbed any rhetorical ammunition at hand. Sounds to me like you just don’t like their style.

    “Called mean things?!?!”  Judge Kavanaugh was accused of serial teenage rape in front of the whole world on no evidence, and then investigated on it by the F.B.I., and the U.S. Senate, with all the networks repeating those charges non-stop, all with his wife and daughters and family and friends looking on.  Style, schmyle.

    In the end what were the Democrats actions? Voting No on him? What’s wrong with that? They were going to do that anyway because they didn’t like his judicial philosophy.

    Have you been asleep?  The Democrats voted no.  Then they fabricated this sickening two-week ambush of a witch trial. Then they voted no again.

    Now I happen to think word and things you say aren’t just style that they are real actions and what you choose to say and how you choose to say it are all part and parcel of what you do. I just find the hypocracy of the Trump contingent on this to be rather amazing.

    Who in the Trump contingent ever advocated making unsubstantiated, 36 year old sexual assault charges against an individual in the midst of the quasi judicial proceeding about that individuals character, and thereafter demanded an FBI investigation of same, and thereafter continued making those charges after the FBI clears him? 

    So no my view isn’t changed…We know that Republicans have done nothing but ignore Trump’s on blatant sexual harassment and misconduct for political gain. So would they really have pulled the plug on Kavanaugh even if they thought he did it if it would have ment losing to the Dems? I doubt it. Republicans are as willing to compromise their so called morals as Democrats were with Clinton.

    It is not a compromise of morals to demand an accused man be afforded a modicum of due process. 

     

    • #16
  17. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    No, my view of American politics hasn’t been changing too much.  Things are going much better since we elected Trump than they would have been if we elected Clinton, as one would have expected, and as the populist wing of the Trump movement promised.

    The Supreme Court has actually improved by absolute measure, and Trump has failed to deliver on most of his progressivist promises.  In both this success and all these fortunate failures, the Trump adminstration has exceeded my expectations.  There has apparently been significant progress, a net numerical reduction at least, in eliminating malignant  regulations, perhaps more than cancelling the new regulatory aggressions against American liberties.

    So the patient is declining much more slowly since the onset of the Trump cancer than it would have been with only the progressivist cancer.  The former is attacking the tissues of the latter with more vigor than it is attacking the body politic itself.

    • #17
  18. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Was Kavanaugh sent to jail? Fined? Assulted? No he was called mean things by people who don’t like him and who reached out and grabbed any rhetorical ammunition at hand.


    Chief Justice Roberts has received 15 ethics complaints against Kavanaugh and has referred them to the 10th Circuit.  Merrick Garland recused himself.  So this isn’t over for Kavanaugh yet.

     

    • #18
  19. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    I didn’t find the Merrick Garland thing to be as political as some did. I think it was perfectly reasonable not to allow a lame duck president to affect the Supreme Court for generations to come.

    • #19
  20. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Was Kavanaugh sent to jail? Fined? Assulted? No he was called mean things by people who don’t like him and who reached out and grabbed any rhetorical ammunition at hand.


    Chief Justice Roberts has received 15 ethics complaints against Kavanaugh and has referred them to the 10th Circuit. Merrick Garland recused himself. So this isn’t over for Kavanaugh yet.

    I suspect that these are complaints from ABA members that were upset that Ms. Ford failed in her mission. Ethics and lawyers in the same sentence is somewhat paradoxical. 

     

     

    • #20
  21. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    I didn’t find the Merrick Garland thing to be as political as some did. I think it was perfectly reasonable not to allow a lame duck president to affect the Supreme Court for generations to come.

    And the nature of Supreme Court justices had already become a major campaign issue, so it made eminent sense to wait for the American voters to have their (our) say, at least a portion of which was a statement on the nature of Supreme Court justices we want. 

    • #21
  22. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    I didn’t find the Merrick Garland thing to be as political as some did. I think it was perfectly reasonable not to allow a lame duck president to affect the Supreme Court for generations to come.

    Yes, and Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had won. Elections have consequences, even if we (they) don’t like them.

    • #22
  23. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    I didn’t find the Merrick Garland thing to be as political as some did. I think it was perfectly reasonable not to allow a lame duck president to affect the Supreme Court for generations to come.

    Yes, and Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had won. Elections have consequences, even if we (they) don’t like them.

    Or someone worse, not to mention that RBG and Breyer may have retired by the end of her term. Kennedy would, presumably, wait for another Republican president. Presumably.

    • #23
  24. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    I didn’t find the Merrick Garland thing to be as political as some did. I think it was perfectly reasonable not to allow a lame duck president to affect the Supreme Court for generations to come.

    Yes, and Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had won. Elections have consequences, even if we (they) don’t like them.

    Or someone worse, not to mention that RBG and Breyer may have retired by the end of her term. Kennedy would, presumably, wait for another Republican president. Presumably.

    Hillary would’ve packed the Court with lesbian Muslims and transgender wiccans, and the Conservative justices would all have been found dead of “mysterious causes.”

    • #24
  25. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    I didn’t find the Merrick Garland thing to be as political as some did. I think it was perfectly reasonable not to allow a lame duck president to affect the Supreme Court for generations to come.

    Yes, and Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had won. Elections have consequences, even if we (they) don’t like them.

    Or someone worse, not to mention that RBG and Breyer may have retired by the end of her term. Kennedy would, presumably, wait for another Republican president. Presumably.

    Hillary would’ve packed the Court with lesbian Muslims and transgender wiccans, and the Conservative justices would all have been found dead of “mysterious causes.”

    Wouldn’t surprise me.

    • #25
  26. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne: Has anyone else’s mind been changed by the whole Kavanaugh thing?

    My mind had already been changed by the results Trump has achieved. As far as recognizing that Democrats are nothing more than a force for the destruction of Western Civilization, I reached that conclusion a long time ago.

    I have to say, though, that I am annoyed by the ongoing assertions (by some Trump supporters) that there is a significant body of “Establishment” Republicans who are Never-Trumpers and who have regularly opposed the President. It is demonstrably untrue. Sure, there are a tiny handful of pundits like Max Boot and Jen Rubin who have gone over from being Conservatives to being Democrat lackeys, but that just happens. People do change parties and change beliefs. But those people are not “Establishment Republicans.” They are not Republicans at all; not any more. Within Congress there is no one who could fairly be called a Never-Trumper. Even the most outspoken critic of Trump (i.e., Jeff Flake) votes with him at least 90% of the time. There is no Republican politician who devotes himself (or herself) to obstructing and resisting Trump’s agenda. The whole idea of a Never-Trump Republican Establishment is a complete myth.

    Of course there is.

    It seems almost inconceivable that, by the end of President Trump’s second year in office, a Republican-controlled Senate might be unable to provide him with heads for key divisions at the Department of Justice. But unless Mitch McConnell acts soon, that’s what we’re looking at.

    Senate Majority Leader McConnell has presided over 3 day work weeks for the past 21 months, enabling the Democrats to cripple the aggressive campaign promise-keeping drive of President Trump, while maintaining the phony “Russians tricked stupid people in fly over country to elect Trump” witch-hunt to further hamstring and attempt to house-break this President.

    The question this month is whether Senate Democrats will accept a deal to confirm more judges and nominees, which would allow vulnerable Members to return home to campaign. Let’s hope Republicans extract a high price for that privilege: Some  198 nominations are backed up awaiting confirmation, according to the Partnership for Public Service tracking.

    The nominations range from State Department under secretaries to Labor Department spots. Charles Stimson was nominated in June 2017 to be general counsel of the Navy, which needs urgent legal direction to deal with the fallout from recent ship accidents, as well as lawsuits against bases in Guam and Maine. Democrats have also blocked Justin Muzinich for the No. 2 post at Treasury since his nomination in April. Treasury could use the former banker who has taught at Columbia Business School to shore up its financial-crisis management. Three appellate court and some 36 district court nominations are also awaiting a Senate floor vote.

    “Never” in the Swamp became “Neuter,” (as in what Joni Ernst promised to do to special interest “hogs”). Here is the real Neuter-Trump Republican Establishment at work.

    • #26
  27. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    One of the reasons I preferred Trump over Clinton in 2016 even though both demonstrated authoritarian tendencies is that Trump had no organizational operation to implement his authoritarian instincts, while Clinton had the support of large portions of government and other mechanisms with which she actually could implement her authoritarian instincts. Here the left is implementing the authoritarian instincts that Clinton ran on just without Clinton at the head.

    Fascinating observation . . .

    • #27
  28. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Yes, and Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had won.

    Because the Republicans in the Senate would, once again, have respected the President’s prerogative.

     

    • #28
  29. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    You can realize that the democrats are currently the far greater evil, realize that Trump has done several positive things (or not stood in the way of others doing positive things) along with a few bad things (as does every president), and be prepared to vote appropriately, without it being necessary to participate in the current mass hysteria of myside bias.

    • #29
  30. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    I didn’t find the Merrick Garland thing to be as political as some did. I think it was perfectly reasonable not to allow a lame duck president to affect the Supreme Court for generations to come.

    Yes, and Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had won. Elections have consequences, even if we (they) don’t like them.

    I disagree, had Clinton won, I think Obama would’ve pulled the nomination so the next president could make a the nomination. Garland was not radical enough for Clinton’s (or Obama’s) taste.

    Ironically if Obama had selected Garland at any other time, he would’ve sailed through confirmation.

    Another thing, to equate the intemperate name calling that Trump engages in on a daily basis, with what Kavanaugh went through is crazy. Trump is a school yard bully he calls names – maybe even slanders – but (as far as I am aware) never leveled a baseless accusation against anyone. He doesnt engage in full out campaigns of character assassination.

    Garland may have gotten a raw deal from the republican senate, but his reputation and dignity is still intact.

    My problems with Trump boils down to the 3 Ts. Tweets, Temperament and Tariffs.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.