A Truce, Not a Capitulation

 

All I ask for is a truce, not a capitulation. This is directed at the persons who call themselves Reagan Republicans and who continue to be anti-Trump. 2019 is a consequential year. Pelosi and Schumer are preparing the battleground for 2020. Pelosi will wield the power of investigation far more aggressively and strategically than Paul Ryan did. Ryan was a somewhat closet anti-Trumper, as are far too many (R) politicians. Now is the time to rally to Trump whether he makes it easy to do so or not.

Michael Anton, who authored “The Flight 93 Election” is back with a post at American Greatness entitled “What We Still Have to Lose”:

These are dangerous times. The Left has made them so and insists on increasing the danger. Leftists hold virtually every commanding height in our society—financial, intellectual, educational, cultural, administrative—and yet they affect the posture of an oppressed and besieged “resistance.”

Nonsense. The real resistance is led by President Trump. It is resistance to the Left’s all-consuming drive for absolute power, its hostility to all American and Western norms—constitutional, moral, prudential—and its boundless destructive enmity. If I have been persuaded by any criticism of “The Flight 93 Election,” it is that I was ungenerous to Trump. The president stands clearly and firmly against these virulent attacks on America and firmly for the protection of life and liberty, and the promotion of the good life for the American people. Those are the core responsibilities of any American president. May President Trump continue to fulfill them until the end of his constitutionally won second term.

What the Kavanaugh affair has made clearer to me than ever is that the Left will not stop until all opposition is totally destroyed. The harm they do to people, institutions, mores and traditions is, in their view, not regrettable though unavoidable collateral damage; it is rather an essential element of the project.

Recall the headwinds that Republicans faced in filling federal appointments and getting cooperation from federal agencies. If there is no Deep State, it would be great if agency employees stopped acting as if there were. Everyone needs to act with fidelity to their oaths and not aid abet those that do not. A Fifth Column is not hyperbole: it is manifest just as Anton has described. And conservatives need to hold their fire on Trump and not pile on to the efforts to destroy him over the next two years. If you think someone better than Pence should hold down the “insurance policy” slot for conservatism, put your efforts in that person being on the 2020 ticket, not on primary-ing Trump.

There are 57 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. EODmom Coolidge

    Gosh yes. 

    • #1
    • February 10, 2019, at 10:32 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. OldPhil Coolidge

    The “Flight 93 Election” trope was an abomination. Those people gave up their lives.

    • #2
    • February 10, 2019, at 10:38 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  3. Fake John/Jane Galt Thatcher

    Rodin: Recall the headwinds that Republicans faced in filling federal appointments and getting cooperation from federal agencies. If there is no Deep State, it would be great if agency employees stopped acting as if there were. Everyone needs to act with fidelity to their oaths and not aid abet those that do not. A Fifth Column is not hyperbole: it is manifest just as Anton has described. And conservatives need to hold their fire on Trump and not pile on to the efforts to destroy him over the next two years. If you think someone better than Pence should hold down the “insurance policy” slot for conservatism, put your efforts in that person being on the 2020 ticket, not on primary-ing Trump.

    There is no Deep State. There is only a Federal government that is made up of and ran by Democrats for Democrats and for Democrat purposes. The concept that the government is some sort of neutral player that does what it is told is a useful fiction. It is a group of wholly owned and operated entities for the betterment of the Democrats where laws, rules, regulations are interpreted, enforced or ignored as the Democrats want them to be.

    • #3
    • February 10, 2019, at 10:46 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  4. Jon1979 Lincoln

    I think they question is, if you have serious problems with Trump, is why and how far you go with them.

    The #NeverTrump crowd in itself has fractured from where it was in 2015-16, to where you have those who dislike certain aspects of Trump’s presidency, either due to personality and/or certain policy positions, such as on trade, where he’s at odds with past Republican presidents and other GOP leaders. Then you have the ones for whom Donald Trump owns their ideological positions, in that whatever he’s for they’re against, because the most important thing to them has become proving to the world that they were right in 2015-16 that Trump would be a horrible president.

    I don’t see how you can have a ‘truce’ with the hardcore #NeverTrumpers, because they’ve abandoned much of their previous core beliefs to Trump, and now espouse whatever 180 degrees opposite Trump’s position is. More times than not, that simply makes them align themselves with Democrats. The ‘soft’ #NeverTrump people are different, and you’d at least hope that in the run-up to 2020, if the Democrats do end up going with a strong progressive nominee, a truce would be possible based on the idea that while you might want to get rid of Trump, you do have to consider what Trump would be replaced with over the next four years.

    • #4
    • February 10, 2019, at 10:54 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  5. cdor Member

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Rodin: Recall the headwinds that Republicans faced in filling federal appointments and getting cooperation from federal agencies. If there is no Deep State, it would be great if agency employees stopped acting as if there were. Everyone needs to act with fidelity to their oaths and not aid abet those that do not. A Fifth Column is not hyperbole: it is manifest just as Anton has described. And conservatives need to hold their fire on Trump and not pile on to the efforts to destroy him over the next two years. If you think someone better than Pence should hold down the “insurance policy” slot for conservatism, put your efforts in that person being on the 2020 ticket, not on primary-ing Trump.

    There is not Deep State. There is only a Federal government that is made up of and ran by Democrats for Democrats and for Democrat purposes. The concept that the government is some sort of neutral player that does what it is told is a useful fiction. It is a group of wholly owned and operated entities for the betterment of the Democrats where laws, rules, regulations are interpreted, enforced or ignored as the Democrats want them to be.

    Yes, I agree. However, what you have described is a distinction without a difference.

    • #5
    • February 10, 2019, at 10:55 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  6. cdor Member

    Any “Republican” attempting to primary President Trump in 2020 is a Democrat. But heck, most Republicans are Democrats already.

    • #6
    • February 10, 2019, at 11:00 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  7. Fake John/Jane Galt Thatcher

    cdor (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Rodin: Recall the headwinds that Republicans faced in filling federal appointments and getting cooperation from federal agencies. If there is no Deep State, it would be great if agency employees stopped acting as if there were. Everyone needs to act with fidelity to their oaths and not aid abet those that do not. A Fifth Column is not hyperbole: it is manifest just as Anton has described. And conservatives need to hold their fire on Trump and not pile on to the efforts to destroy him over the next two years. If you think someone better than Pence should hold down the “insurance policy” slot for conservatism, put your efforts in that person being on the 2020 ticket, not on primary-ing Trump.

    There is not Deep State. There is only a Federal government that is made up of and ran by Democrats for Democrats and for Democrat purposes. The concept that the government is some sort of neutral player that does what it is told is a useful fiction. It is a group of wholly owned and operated entities for the betterment of the Democrats where laws, rules, regulations are interpreted, enforced or ignored as the Democrats want them to be.

    Yes, I agree. However, what you have described is a distinction without a difference.

    No, I have described the important distinction, the only distinction that matters. The concept of Deep State implies a malfunction, a corruption of the existing institution. What I am saying is that the government is working the way it is designed and expected to work by all that work in it, run it and use it.

    • #7
    • February 10, 2019, at 12:16 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. Jon1979 Lincoln

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Rodin: Recall the headwinds that Republicans faced in filling federal appointments and getting cooperation from federal agencies. If there is no Deep State, it would be great if agency employees stopped acting as if there were. Everyone needs to act with fidelity to their oaths and not aid abet those that do not. A Fifth Column is not hyperbole: it is manifest just as Anton has described. And conservatives need to hold their fire on Trump and not pile on to the efforts to destroy him over the next two years. If you think someone better than Pence should hold down the “insurance policy” slot for conservatism, put your efforts in that person being on the 2020 ticket, not on primary-ing Trump.

    There is not Deep State. There is only a Federal government that is made up of and ran by Democrats for Democrats and for Democrat purposes. The concept that the government is some sort of neutral player that does what it is told is a useful fiction. It is a group of wholly owned and operated entities for the betterment of the Democrats where laws, rules, regulations are interpreted, enforced or ignored as the Democrats want them to be.

    Yes, I agree. However, what you have described is a distinction without a difference.

    No, I have described the important distinction, the only distinction that matters. The concept of Deep State implies a malfunction, a corruption of the existing institution. What I am saying is that the government is working the way it is designed and expected to work by all that work in it, run it and use it.

    Once JFK allowed civil service government workers to unionize, it became in most of the workers’ economic self-interest to vote for the party that would give them the most perks, pay and retirement benefits. The GOP could make a case you can either have public sector unions or civil service, not both. But most in the party would freak out over that.

    • #8
    • February 10, 2019, at 12:30 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  9. Could Be Anyone Member

    Needs more “this is the most important election in our life time” in the essay to be convincing.

    • #9
    • February 10, 2019, at 1:54 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  10. Al Sparks Thatcher

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    The “Flight 93 Election” trope was an abomination. Those people gave up their lives.

    Well, if you’re offended, then you’re offended.

    But it’s a shallow argument against. Leaving out the title of the essay, what are your arguments against what he said?

    Do you have any? Or is it because you’re offended? The left uses similar “I’m offended” arguments against conservatives.

    • #10
    • February 10, 2019, at 3:12 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  11. Al Sparks Thatcher

    My grudging respect for Trump is he fundamentally doesn’t hide what he is. There’s holes in that argument. He doesn’t release his tax returns probably because he’s hiding how less successful he has been as a businessman than he has been saying. And that is just one of many examples.

    But his lying is so obvious and very unserious, and ultimately less harmful. I even look at the potential damage to the institution of the presidency as a good thing. The office has been due a comeuppance since Eisenhower left office, and maybe before then when FDR was elected to a third term.

    Obama’s lies, along with a media that covered for him, were much more harmful (so were FDR’s).

    Trump’s character flaws are so obvious, but I’m willing to match him against many presidents that simply hid theirs with success but which have been subsequently revealed after they left office.

    • #11
    • February 10, 2019, at 3:25 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  12. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Needs more “this is the most important election in our life time” in the essay to be convincing.

    Well, there is.

    If there weren’t, then it wouldn’t have convinced so many people. Among other things he talks extensively how ruthless the progressives are. And there have been plenty of examples since then to back that assertion up.

    • #12
    • February 10, 2019, at 3:41 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  13. Gary Robbins Reagan

    I am not on the Trump Train. Why not?

    First, the positives about Trump. I love the Judges, and like the reduced taxes and reduced regulations, while I have major objections about Trump with Trade, Russia and North Korea. A net positive.

    Second, the negatives about the Democrats. I am sick to death of intersectionality, and radical trans folks. I loathe Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirino (“Men shut up!). The socialism of AOC would devastate the United States.

    Given those two points, why the heck am I not on the Trump Train?

    Trump is untruthful.

    I am stuck on Trump’s Birtherism. How can someone who appears on Alex Jones not be forever disqualified in American politics? Does anyone believe that Ted Cruz’s father helped Oswald kill JFK? Does anyone believe that more people attended Trump’s Inauguration than Obama’s? The man lies. Has there ever been a more habitual liar as a Republican President than Trump?

    Yes, I hold Republicans to a higher standard than Democrats. I have not voted for a Democrat for President since 1972. It is up to Republicans to police our party, it is not up to us to police the Democratic Party. The Democrats got rid of Communists in the 1930’s and Buckley and Reagan ran out the Birchers, racists and Anti-Semites.

    Trump has poor character.

    I don’t expect politicians to be paragons of virtue. But Trump breaks the mold! Galatians 5 talks about the Works of Flesh that would prevent individuals from inheriting the kingdom of God. “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkeness, orgies and things like these.” I think that Trump qualifies well over half of these. Can anyone name any worse Republican President based upon these characters?

    The seven deadly sins are pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth. I think that Trump qualifies on all seven. Can anyone name any worse Republican President based upon the seven deadly sins?

    Trump is killing the Republican Brand

    Trump is killing the Republican Brand. The Democrats received 53.1% of the vote for members of the House of Representatives and we received only 45.2% of the vote. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-won-house-popular-vote-largest-midterm-margin-watergate-n938996 This is our worst result since the Watergate election of 1974. Democrats won districts that they had absolutely no business winning. FiveThirtyEight did a great series on redistricting. They calculated the likelihood of Republicans and Democrats to win each and every one of the 435 congressional districts. Under the current districts, there were 168 usually Democratic districts, 196 usually Republican districts and 72 Competitive Districts. What happened in 2018? The Democrats won 235 districts, and Republicans won 199 Districts, with one vacancy due to NC-9 not being certified due to a strong possibility of voter fraud. This means that the Democrats basically swept almost every single Competitive Districts. Almost. Every. District. The voters were sending us the strongest possible message, and we are simply ignoring it.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/

    Consider that Democrats won the following districts in 2018 where the Republican was favored by 60% or more:

    AZ-1 67.9/32.1% R/D

    CA-45 72.0/28.0% R/D

    CA-48 77.6/22.4% R/D

    GA-6 91.8/8.2% R/D

    IA-3 60.4/39.6% R/D

    KS-3 75.1/24.9% R/D

    NV-3 62.0/38.0% R/D

    NH-1 61.6/38.4% R/D

    NJ-3 64.6/35.4% R/D

    NJ-5 68.7/31.3% R/D

    NJ-7 70.2/29.8% R/D

    NJ-11 72.8/27.2% R/D

    NM-2 86.6/13.4% R/D

    OK-5 95.2/4.8% R/D

    SC-1 94.9/5.1% R/D

    TX-32 82.0/18.0% R/D

    UT-4 98.3/1.7% R/D

    VA-2 71.6/28.4% R/D

    VA-7 86.3/13.7% R/D

    So, yes, to save the Republican Party, it is essential that we dump Trump. Or do we want to lose the Senate and another six Governships?

    Trump is going to lose in 2020.

    The Cook Political Report has the following breakdown for the 2020 Presidential Election.

    https://www.270towin.com/

    https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/introducing-cook-political-reports-2020-electoral-college

    Democrats: 232 Electoral College Votes

    Republicans: 220 Electoral College Votes

    Toss-Up: 86 Electoral College Votes: (Florida: 29, Pennsylvania: 20, Michigan: 16, Arizona: 11 and Wisconsin: 10)

    Trump won all five of the toss-up states in 2016. He must win three to four of these states to win in 2020. That is not going to happen.

    To save ourselves, we have to dump Trump in 2020.

    • #13
    • February 10, 2019, at 3:43 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Given those two points, why the heck am I not on the Trump Train?

    I take issue with your “killing the Republican brand” argument and “the going to lose” argument.

    First, the Republicans don’t have much of a brand. And plenty of conservatives haven’t been calling themselves Republicans way before Trump came on the scene. A big reason is that the major parties don’t have the power to punish politicians that stray from the reservation. Including Trump when he was running for the nomination. This has been the case since campaign finance reform treated campaign donations to parties the same as candidates (including the limits), and of course unrestricted entry into party primaries. The parties don’t have control of who is allowed to run in their primaries. Like it or love it, it has resulted in the parties not having control of their brand. The political parties in other countries, like Canada and the UK have much more control of who gets to run for office under their aegis.

    Regarding your “going to lose” argument, well we’ve heard predictions like that before, including when Obama ran for his second term (who also faced a similar situation during his previous mid-term). And of course Trump’s 2016 victory was a big surprise for most. I’m not counting him out. I will grant that it looks very iffy, but I’ll give better odds than you seem to. It’s still a long way off.

    • #14
    • February 10, 2019, at 4:01 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  15. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Speaking of which, the newest Powerline Podcast just got released and is interviewing Michael Anton.

    • #15
    • February 10, 2019, at 4:03 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. Flicker Inactive

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    There is no Deep State. There is only a Federal government that is made up of and ran by Democrats for Democrats and for Democrat purposes.

    I beg to differ. The term Deep State has existed for a long time, and is essentially a cold war intervention by the nascent CIA to organize non-elected power structures in post-WWII countries to thwart imposition of new unfriendly governments onto countries that we had cultivated as allies; this included civil servants, industry, businesses, social organizations, and various criminal organizations, including the mafia. Sounds good on the surface.

    My question has always been, How strong is the Deep State?, and now I believe I have my answer. When the CIA and the 5 Eyes, along with the DOJ, FBI, NSA, the judiciary, congress and the co-opted Press and entertainment industries, can operate multiple counter-intelligence operations (actually fairly standard measures to undermine and topple foreign governments) with impunity in the US to remove its elected officials, in effect to topple it and retain its own power and to promote their own interests (such as perhaps, continuing wars in the Middle East and now in South America) we can see it’s scope. The Deep State has not won, but it is very powerful.

    The CIA was clearly the chief among the columns of this Deep State that Trump was talking about in his first speech at CIA headquarters upon taking office.

    • #16
    • February 10, 2019, at 4:07 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  17. Could Be Anyone Member

    Al Sparks (View Comment):
    If there weren’t, then it wouldn’t have convinced so many people.

    Trump winning an election is not proof that he did it by convincing people that “this is the most important election of their lifetime”. You didn’t cite any evidence but just asserted that he did. I would like to see surveys or polling data that actually suggests that.

    Dan McLaughlin, over at National Review, did an excellent numbers analysis of the election. He not only noted the obvious, that Trump barely won and did worse than Romney on total vote portion (in a year when turnout increased), but that historically speaking Trump performed worse than all but 3 candidates in races when non-incumbent candidates faced each other in the presidential election.

    Trump won with less than 1% of the total vote changing between 2012 and 2016. The average change for those non-incumbent elections is around 4-5%. That being a function of coalitions breaking from frictions. In 2018 Republicans lost a ton of districts, that as Gary noted were competitive and turnout was akin to that of a presidential election, and Trump’s approval rating on the economy has declined to the point where it averages below 50%.

    To make matters worse Republicans have failed to win over millennials, who by margins of 2-1 support Democrats on most issues and generation Z seems to be on the same path, and the Republicans only hold half the vote of older Americans. Republicans are not winning any age demographic. Those darn youth are not becoming more conservative like other generations.

    No truce can save Trump. And I say that as someone who doesn’t care for a primary and realizes that the Republic will long last Trump losing reelection. This moral-equivalent-of-war rhetoric is boring.

    • #17
    • February 10, 2019, at 4:58 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  18. Flicker Inactive

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    Trump winning an election is not proof that he did it by convincing people that “this is the most important election of their lifetime”. You didn’t cite any evidence but just asserted that he did. I would like to see surveys or polling data that actually suggests that.

    I don’t I know about you, but I and every conservative I know voted believing that this was likely a last-chance election. And polls only say what you determine at the outset what you want them to say, give or take an appearance of a “close-enough to the truth to be believed” factor.

    Trump or his equal is the only chance that the next election won’t try to build a train to Hawaii, so to speak.

    • #18
    • February 10, 2019, at 5:05 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  19. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    Trump winning an election is not proof that he did it by convincing people that “this is the most important election of their lifetime”. You didn’t cite any evidence but just asserted that he did. I would like to see surveys or polling data that actually suggests that.

    Actually, I thought you were talking about the Flight 93 essay and maybe its effect. I’m saying that there were more arguments in it than simply, “this is the most important election…”

    Conservatives like Jonah Goldberg still reference it (he disagrees with it). It’s still being talked about for a reason. And there was more substance to it than “this is the most important election…”.

    By all means address all the arguments. I just don’t accept that it’s lacking in any substantive ones.

    • #19
    • February 10, 2019, at 5:15 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  20. Could Be Anyone Member

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I don’t I know about you, but I and every conservative I know voted believing that this was likely a last-chance election.

    Just as they did in 2008 and 2012 I am sure. Heck I bet some Democrats voted thinking the same thing. Yet those darn Presidential Elections continue to occur. If only there were some data that had been mined on this topic. If it was so important and widespread I am certain that someone would conduct a survey on it, as there are surveys for all kinds of things today.

    And polls only say what you determine at the outset what you want them to say, give or take an appearance of a “close-enough to the truth to be believed” factor.

    The trope of polling being myth-making is a terrible attempt to reduce empirical knowledge to subjective whims so that is only “your truth vs my truth”. Sorry but polling has been quite accurate in the USA. A few hiccups here or there but overall quite accurate.

    Trump or his equal is the only chance that the next election won’t try to build a train to Hawaii, so to speak.

    A lot of stupid things get tried. Although “trying” can be quite ill-defined. Many politicians talk about doing things and then rarely do them, because of how impractical they are.

    • #20
    • February 10, 2019, at 5:20 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. Could Be Anyone Member

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Actually, I thought you were talking about the Flight 93 essay and maybe its effect. I’m saying that there were more arguments in it than simply, “this is the most important election…”

    The flight 93 essay was a type of the “most important election of our lifetime”. I find such doomsday arguments to be unconvincing because they ignore most of reality and focus on singular items.

    Conservatives like Jonah Goldberg still reference it (he disagrees with it). It’s still being talked about for a reason. And there was more substance to it than “this is the most important election…”

    Yeah it gets talked about on Hannity or some other shock jocks but that is their job. There are not mass protests about this being the last election possible. As @oldphil noted those people in the real flight 93 died trying to stop their perceived enemy. They took action that was commensurate to their issue. If this was the last election then I should see militias forming and command structures being formed for a Civil War. Yet I don’t see such.

    I should be hearing rumors of a military coup and the like but I don’t. The argument does lack substance. Not only are the Democrats not proposing the end of elections but Republicans are not acting like it is the end of them. So I find the argument unconvincing.

    • #21
    • February 10, 2019, at 5:31 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  22. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    Just as they did in 2008 and 2012 I am sure.

    Not so much in 2008. I think Obama picked up some conservatives that were all agog over the first black president thing. While he doesn’t really identify as conservative (at least not anymore), Christopher Buckley famously voted for Obama, and then retracted his endorsement 3 months into Obama’s term. This was partly because Obama ran as a centrist, the only crack in his facade being the Joe the Plumber incident during his campaign.

    I didn’t vote for him, but I also figured he’d be another Jimmy Carter, so I wasn’t concerned. It was when he was re-elected that I got very concerned and was receptive to a “Flight 93 Election” argument.

    • #22
    • February 10, 2019, at 5:37 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  23. Flicker Inactive

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I don’t I know about you, but I and every conservative I know voted believing that this was likely a last-chance election.

    Just as they did in 2008 and 2012 I am sure. Heck I bet some Democrats votes thinking the same thing. Yet those darn Presidential Elections continue to occur. If only there were some data that had been mined on this topic. If it was so important and widespread I am certain that someone would conduct a survey on it, as there are surveys for all kinds of things today.

    And polls only say what you determine at the outset what you want them to say, give or take an appearance of a “close-enough to the truth to be believed” factor.

    The trope of polling being myth-making is a terrible attempt to reduce empirical knowledge to subjective whims so that is only “your truth vs my truth”. Sorry but polling has been quite accurate in the USA. A few hiccups here or there but overall quite accurate.

    Trump or his equal is the only chance that the next election won’t try to build a train to Hawaii, so to speak.

    A lot of stupid things get tried. Although “trying” can be quite ill-defined. Many politicians talk about doing things and then rarely do them, because of how impractical they are.

    There is no direct empirical knowledge gained from a poll. There is only the response to pre-chosen answer-guiding questions. You want an honest poll? Look at PR firms who have to develop strategies based on actual empirical responses to well-modeled evenly-weighted unbiased questions to achieve and end. Want your candidate or your position to look good? Buy a poll. NO clear-thinking citizen looks to the polls to make a choice or any significant decision, but private polls sure are out there in force, putting forth a spin, even today.

    For example, show me a poll by an Ever-Trumper, and it will look very good for Trump and his administration. The rest of us are left to glean what we can from our principles, believable evidential reports and our experiences, including good-will conversations with those we know even if we don’t agree with them.

    If we all have to apply the thinking and the belief system you employ we don’t need elections. We can just say “whatever”. If you look at statistics to gauge public sentiment and to divine a course you are looking at the wrong thing.

    • #23
    • February 10, 2019, at 5:39 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  24. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    As @oldphil noted those people in the real flight 93 died trying to stop their perceived enemy. They took action that was commensurate to their issue. 

    “Perceived enemy”? “Their issue”? You’re trying to say that this was really serious versus the Flight 93 essay, yet you cut your argument off at the knees.

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    I should be hearing rumors of a military coup and the like but I don’t. The argument does lack substance. Not only are the Democrats not proposing the end of elections but Republicans are not acting like it is the end of them. So I find the argument unconvincing.

    What about the other arguments? That the progressives are getting progressively more vicious? The lengths they will go. More was actually at stake culturally than a Supreme Court seat during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. It was whether weak accusations of sexual impropriety could be successfully leveled against anyone they wanted to block for any office. And recently Cory Booker has continued progressive attempts to impose a religious test on judges during confirmation hearings.

    As for the military coup argument, that would not be in play until elections actually got cancelled. And even then, who knows? Military coups, failed or successful, have not been a part of our history. The closest we came to one was when George Washington was urged by his officers to take control. And that predated our present Constitution, and may have predated the Articles of Confederation.

    The rumors we are hearing are of states seceding (i.e. grass roots movements, not actual secession attempts by state governments), and that the country is tearing itself apart. While it hasn’t yet been taken seriously, there was some talk of secession in California (again at the grass roots level).

    • #24
    • February 10, 2019, at 6:07 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  25. OldPhil Coolidge

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    The “Flight 93 Election” trope was an abomination. Those people gave up their lives.

    Well, if you’re offended, then you’re offended.

    But it’s a shallow argument against. Leaving out the title of the essay, what are your arguments against what he said?

    Do you have any? Or is it because you’re offended? The left uses similar “I’m offended” arguments against conservatives.

    I didn’t say I was offended. I said it’s an abomination. Anytime someone uses the term “Flight 93 Election” I don’t bother to read any more. 

    • #25
    • February 10, 2019, at 6:24 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. rgbact Member

    For the billionth time…the truce on Trump happens when the Trumpers decide to stop trashing every Republican not named Trump. But they can’t. See Lou Dobbs. So, stop demanding loyalty from anti-Trumpers. There will be no more “falling in line” by either side. You love to hate Republicans….we love to hate Trump. Time to just accept this tenuous coalition against the Left.

    • #26
    • February 10, 2019, at 8:12 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  27. Flicker Inactive

    rgbact (View Comment):

    For the billionth time…the truce on Trump happens when the Trumpers decide to stop trashing every Republican not named Trump. But they can’t. See Lou Dobbs. So, stop demanding loyalty from anti-Trumpers. There will be no more “falling in line” by either side. You love to hate Republicans….we love to hate Trump. Time to just accept this tenuous coalition against the Left.

    We don’t hate Republicans. We ARE Republicans. We just can’t get any Republicans to represent us (or to keep their words once in office).

    • #27
    • February 10, 2019, at 8:26 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  28. rgbact Member

    Flicker (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):

    You love to hate Republicans….we love to hate Trump. Time to just accept this tenuous coalition against the Left.

    We don’t hate Republicans. We ARE Republicans. We just can’t get any Republicans to represent us (or to keep their words once in office).

    They do. Legislating and getting everyone to agree is much more difficult than passing national emergency declarations. Incidentally, Trump Shutdown Part 2 coming soon.

    Anyways. both parties have very tenuous coalitions. The Democrats will have their own troubles keeping their new suburban voters in line. See the insults flung at Howard Shultz. Party unity is out the window. Anti-Trumpers will just pick which side they despise least.

    • #28
    • February 10, 2019, at 8:56 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  29. Could Be Anyone Member

    Flicker (View Comment):
    We don’t hate Republicans. We ARE Republicans. We just can’t get any Republicans to represent us (or to keep their words once in office).

    Some introspection on who you are referring to would probably help put your frustration in perspective. There aren’t nearly as many of you as you seem to think.

    • #29
    • February 10, 2019, at 9:05 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  30. Flicker Inactive

    rgbact (View Comment):
    Legislating and getting everyone to agree is much more difficult than passing national emergency declarations.

    That means I still get my national emergency declarations? More seriously, I have no doubt that Howard Schultz is a very smart, very capable guy, and I’ll bet his heart is in the right place. But I really think I saw a dear in the headlights ‘innocence’ when he was interviewed by, I think, Scarborough. Really, really? I really think he’s about as experienced as Trump. And further to the left, at least functionally. And probably just as smart in his own way.

    I have a personal view of compromise. If you are compromising with a thief or a conman, you’ll always lose. There is no middle ground when dealing with a zealot or a psychopath. Judges and mediators who take both sides seriously and who seek to find common ground — when one party is a thief or a psychopath and the other is a victim, such a man who had his pocket picked on the street — the victim person always loses as part of the compromise.

    This is that same tactic as asking for the sun and stars and settling for the moon. If you really want centrist legislation, you really have to start from the far-end right side. As of now I just don’t see Schultz dong that.

    • #30
    • February 10, 2019, at 9:15 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  1. 1
  2. 2