Posted on 06/06/2017 4:34:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Anyone who thinks Hillary would have been better even than Marco Rubio is nuts. She would have been a despotic, corrupt disaster. Even Jeb Bush would have been better. But we have Trump, a man who has worked 24/7 to implement what conservatives have called for for years.
How can they be so blind?
Indeed! Add George Will & David Frum to that list.
Again, I say, where would we have been with McCain, Romney, Jeb, Marco, Ted, or any of the others who ran last cycle? Nowhere...Trump certainly isn’t perfect, but he’s got the moxie to call BS when it needs to be called and he’s looking out for America. Even if all he does is stop the bleeding, with a one or two more SCOTUS picks, protecting the borders, getting us and keeping us out of trade and other deals that have no benefit to the U.S., and protecting our 2A right...it’s a huge victory compared to where we would have been with Hillary.
They don’t like his hair style. And his suit is rumpled unlike Obama’s neat crease.
Of course, weirdly, they adore Boris Johnson who looks like he was dragged backwards through a hedge.
Plus Trump doesn’t read their books.
Well that’s because bill is so insightful and has a great record of being an apostate dbag
You make a good point.
People on the right were concerned when Trump seemed to go soft on (or not adequately address) gay marriage, abortion, religious protection, and other cultural third-rail issues, but it was Hillary Clinton who actually called people "deplorable" and "irredeemable."
When you need large numbers of cross-over voters to win, you cannot attract them by insulting their personal identifications. The left's big recent success in the "culture war" is "weaponizing" self-identification in every aspect of life now. We see it in race relations, gender conflict, bathroom policy, sports participation, and sexualizing children. It is now radicalizing our college campuses.
Trump was wise to avoid most trip-wires in his campaign by sticking to the national issues like border control, immigration roll-backs, repealing Obamacare, VA reform, putting education back to the states, repatriating offshore corporate capital, trade rebalancing, fighting terrorism, energy self-sufficiency, restarting manufacturing, tax cuts, Supreme Court nominations, rebuilding the military, upgrading our transportation infrastructure, etc.
These were the issues that Trump ran on, and they attracted Democrats and Independents who were willing and able to put cultural concerns aside for awhile because they didn't feel personally threatened by a Trump presidency.
-PJ
Dennis Prager indirectly mentioned something that I have said for years. Americans distinguish “ethics” and “morality” as two different things. Here’s the background to this argument.
At the time of the American Revolution, Europe was just emerging from the belief that Kings ruled nations because they were “anointed by Heaven”. And this gave them a “moral” authority that they didn’t have. That is, if you disobeyed the crown, you not only broke the king’s law, but your act was an “affront to heaven”. You were “offending God.”
The founding fathers were extremely contemptuous of this thinking, and didn’t want it in the United States at all.
So they were very clear about “WE, the People of the United States...” And though most of them were quite religious and believed in God, they wanted to be crystal clear that “Heaven DID NOT write our constitution.” People did. And what people write can be changed by other people.
Without offending Heaven.
This is the *real* “separation of church and state”. That while politicians of faith are usually respected, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE IMPRIMATUR OF HEAVEN. Any law they write, no matter how similar to the laws of their faith, is *still* a law written by people, not Heaven.
And this is where the public view of “ethics” and “morality” come into play.
The typical American defined ethics as obeying the law. If you are a moral person on top of that, usually that is just fine. The public believes it can objectively and clearly tell if a politician is ethical.
However, morality is confusing. The morality of a righteous person is obeying the laws of their faith, and their church or other place of worship. And it is seen as being totally *subjective*.
Bill Clinton would be the first politician to claim that he is a “moral” person. Because, to paraphrase him, “It depends on what your definition of morality is.”
Nancy Pelosi regularly spouts that she is “moral”, even though she rejects every important part of her alleged faith of Catholicism, and embraces many things morally repugnant to Catholicism.
So Dennis Prager was very correct that it DOES NOT matter what a politician thinks or even says in private. What matters is what he *does* in public.
We, as Americans can support him, if he is ethical. That his actions reflect what we believe in, and conform to the law.
If he often proclaims his morality, we need to mistrust him, because we have no idea what he means by that. And that he mentions it, instead of his ethics, raises yet another question.
“And yet Jonah was always reluctant to attack Obama, hates Trump, and is not actively opposed to the pro-Hillary people. He might occasionally talk a good game, but he surrendered to the enemy long ago.”
I think it might be as simple as that Jonah has been consumed by the beltway. He likes his cushy speaking gigs and cocktail parties. To continue those he has to NeverTrump. Still!!
Remember when Bush was Hitler? Good times. I wonder if the left would like to reevaluate their estimation of him now.
Second, as a religious Jew, I learned from the Bible that God himself chose morally compromised individuals — like King David, who had a man killed in order to cover up the adultery he committed with the man’s wife; and the prostitute Rahab, who was instrumental in helping the Jews conquer Canaan — to accomplish some greater good. (And, for the record, I am not suggesting that God chose Donald Trump.)
We are in a world-wide Religious War. It’s Islam on one side and Civilization on the other side. We have not started fighting it yet.
“Liberal Fascism” is a fascinating book, but in certain passages he seems apologetic for what he has written.
And many repeated the universal belief among Never-Trumpers that a Hillary Clinton victory would not have been a catastrophe.
You bring up a good point. It’s easier to bash Trump than support him when in fact it should be the opposite. Easily the opposite. Yet it often isn’t.
The money quote: “ If the left wins, America loses. And if America loses, evil will engulf the world.”
Show me examples where you have seen posts or articles on this. Because I have not.
The Islamist rabble have not yet pissed off enough non-Moslems, but they are getting closer to that mark with every passing day.
One is reminded of President Jefferson’s reaction to the Barbary Pirate situation in 1803 - The Moslem pirates finally pissed him off and he sent in the U.S. Marines to take care of business.
I believe (and hope and pray!) that President Trump is about ready to emulate President Jefferson.
Islamic terrorism has got to be terminated with extreme prejudice!
And President Trump is the man to do it!
I was quoting the article, not making the claim.
My claim is this:
Anyone who can honestly believe that President Hillary Clinton would not have been a catastrophe for our nation, our constitution and our people is so far from being a conservative they might as well be working for the student union at evergreen state college.
Same thing happened with Bush. The last person you want in a foxhole with you is an establishment Conservative. Make sure you have your bulletproof vest on backwards.
Bill Kristol is intensley angry that Trump is president. He is being used by many liberal shows. He has admitted to trying to bring down Trump.
Again true, but the point is Trump often makes himself an easy target for people like Goldburg to bash rather than praise. Sometimes that comes with the territory. With Trump some of that does apply. The balance is he too often applies the target on his back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.