Donald Trump Can’t Say 'No' - Is That What We Want in a President?

National Review ^ | November 20, 2015 | Charles C. W. Cooke

[Cincinatus' Wife]

As has been made abundantly clear by his incessant mewling and pathetically thin skin, Donald J. Trump is not in fact an unwaveringly resolute tough guy of the type you would hope to find standing next to you in the trenches, but an insecure attention seeker who cannot help but pander to his audiences' prejudices. In the past few days, Trump has been asked variously whether, if elected, he would use his power to close mosques; whether he believes that Muslims should be registered in a special government database; and whether or not it would be a good idea to suspend the Fourth Amendment for anybody who prays to Allah. In all cases he has either demurred completely or eschewed the more traditional "yes" and "no" categories in favor of some choice hedging. "That may have to be done," Trump says. "There's no doubt." "We'll look at that." "We'll consider all the options." "We're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely."

So painful has this tendency become that I have begun to hope his interviewers will get a little surreal, just to see what he says:

"Will you replace your hair with spaghetti and your fingers with soup spoons?"

"Sure. We're going to look at everything."

"As president would you consider taking suspected burglars and parachuting them naked into lava?"

"That's something we'll consider. You can't have all this crime. Terrible."

"Do you think it's fair to say that you are the egg man, that you are the egg man, that you are the Walrus?"

"We're going to examine a range of possibilities."

"GooGooGooJoob?"

"I'll be looking into that."

Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say.

The most common defense of Trump's perpetual acquiescence has been that he did not explicitly say "yes" to the more controversial among the questions, and that he cannot therefore be accused of endorsement. In truth, this isn't quite right; speaking to NBC last night, he did seem to suggest affirmatively that Muslims would be required to sign into his hypothetical database or face consequences. Either way, I'm struggling to see how this defense can be acceptable to his admirers. Trump, recall, is supposed to be courageous. He's supposed to be steadfast. He's supposed to be a no-holds-barred badass who will make great deals and stare down enemies and Make America Great Again. How, one wonders, does a chronic inability to say "no" fit into that mien?

If there is one quality we need in a president, it is the ability decisively to say "no" - especially, I would venture, if that president hopes to advance conservative goals. When a sane person is asked whether he would institute a tracking database for Muslims or force one religious group to carry special ID cards, he says, "Of course I wouldn't." If Trump is unable to manage even this, how would he rein in spending or limit illegal immigration? More to the point, as Trump might ask sneeringly of others, how would he deal with Vladimir Putin?

Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say. Even if we are generous and assume that the man does not actually believe any of the specific proposals to which he has given his tacit consent, the attitude he is exhibiting is positively Wilsonian in character. In Trump's world, America will be restored to glory when his handpicked team of experts is permitted to experiment upon the public outside of the usual constitutional limits. Nowhere in his rhetoric will you find any reference to America's pre-existing cultural and legal traditions, or to the necessary bounds that free men insist be imposed upon the state. There is no talk of "freedom"; no reflexive grounding of ideas in the Declaration and the Federalist Papers; no conceptual explanation or underlying philosophy. There is nothing, except will to power. By his own admission, Trump's are the politics of doing enthusiastically what works in the moment; of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt; of the administrative state and of bureaucratic expertise; of the Prussians and the French and the Singaporeans. Whatever he might claim before his adoring crowds, Trump is not in fact an antidote to Barack Obama. He is his parallel.

Calvin Coolidge said "no" over and over and over again because he understood that the federal government existed for a handful of specific reasons, and that any action it took outside of its carefully delineated tramlines was inherently suspect. Donald Trump's only visible constitutional opinion is that someone strong ought to make sure the trams run on time. There's a word for men like that, and it sure as heck isn't "conservative."

[HiTech RedNeck]

We don’t have a drug problem or an alcohol problem. We have a God problem, or rather a “we don’t want God” problem.

[D-fendr]

I’m really not into flame wars, so the whole attributing motives and ‘you’re lying’ bit is wasted on me. We disagree.

I think your interpretation of Trumps interview is tortured and dissembling of Trump’s statements and positions, though his thinking is so scattered it’s often time consuming to pin him down on just what his plans - if any coherent one exist.

It is quite clear that Trump’s solution is very similar to Obamacare, and that he supports universal government-paid-for heathcare.

>>> “Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say..”

Yean, because it is universal healthcare with an individual mandate.

>>Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it.

Government-paid-for universal healthcare. He claims it will be different and private and work because we’ll be so rich. Poorly thought out sloganeering.

But when you get down to the basics of what he supports, it’s still Government-paid-for universal healthcare.

[D-fendr]

Under your definition, breathing is hypocrisy

No I was quite clear in my response to the post that said Trump decried what he himself did. That's hypocrisy, not breathing.

Everyone in business has to play some games with "the man" or you don't survive the regulatory nightmare

You have to follow the law. You don't have to be a major contributor to extremely corrupt politicians; you don't have to support Harry Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, et al.

He supported these folks at the time they were ramming Obamacare through. Either he really supported what they were doing or he has a gross lack of integrity: supporting people for his own benefit to the detriment of his country.

[D-fendr]

No one "owns" real estate in the contiguous 48 states. So, what's your problem?

My problem is a presidential candidate being considered a limited government/individual rights/Constitution "conservative" who supports the Kelo decision.

I don't see what your post has to do with that at all.

[D-fendr]

It's been federal law for as long as I can remember (and I'm in my sixties) that hospital emergency rooms could not turn away the indigent.

Yes, but I took your use of "covering" to mean insurance coverage.

Health care, BTW, is not the same thing as health insurance...

Exactly, and Trump is talking about health insurance. So, when you said: "He believes in covering those who cannot do for themselves.... We have always had this in our system.." I think it's obvious he's talking about universal healthcare (whether you are or not) - which we have not "always had this in our system."

[D-fendr]

Jimmy Carter had a lot of integrity...

I think we're gonna disagree on that also.. :)

[DoughtyOne]

I’m really not into flame wars, so the whole attributing motives and ‘you’re lying’ bit is wasted on me. We disagree.

Of course it's wasted on you.  You're lying.

I think your interpretation of Trumps interview is tortured and dissembling of Trump’s statements and positions, though his thinking is so scattered it’s often time consuming to pin him down on just what his plans - if any coherent one exist.

Hundreds of thousands of people aren't having any problem understanding Trump.  I'm sorry to hear you have some sore of a problem which prevents you from doing it.

It is quite clear that Trump’s solution is very similar to Obamacare, and that he supports universal government-paid-for heathcare.

Obamacare is denoted by several key points.  One, it's devised to wind up with single payer eventually.  Is Trump's plan like that?  No.  Trump advocates lowering state restrictions so insurance companies can compete nation-wide.

Note that health care insurance companies have been withdrawing from Obamacare.  That will continue to happen until the governemnt is the sole provider.  That is universal health care.  Under Trump's plan you actually get more providers competing in individual markets.

Obamacare is forcing up rates for everyone.  Many businesses are dropping thier employee plans because they are too expensive.  Is Trump's plan lik that?  No.  HIs plan will bring rates down through private sector competition.

>>> “Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say..”

Yean, because it is universal healthcare with an individual mandate.

Universal Health Care is a government health care plan that covers everyone.  This is not a universal government program.  It is a return to the private sector.

Uninsured indigent individuals have been getting their bills paid for by the government since at least the late 70s or early 80s, perhaps considerably before that.

Any person that shows up at an E. R. requesting service cannot by law be turned away.  If they can't pay, the government does.

Sadly we have people addressing this issue on the forum that don't know up from down.

Trump is not arbitrarily going to implement health care coverage for those who can't pay for it.  That has been happening for decades.

What he is going to try to do is lower the cost of them getting that care, and improve on the types of services they get.

>>Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it.

By beating this point to death, you are merely telling everyone on the forum you don't know anything about how the indigents have been getting government funded health care for decades.

Government-paid-for universal healthcare. He claims it will be different and private and work because we’ll be so rich. Poorly thought out sloganeering.

Here's a question for you.  If he claims the government is going to pay for this, how is that a private plan?  It's not.  When he talked about  private insurance, he was referencing the people who could afford their own health care insurance premiums.

A universal health care plan, is one that comes from the government only.  You are trying to state that he envisions a plan like Canada and Scotland.  He is not proposing that type of plan, so this is not a universal health care plan.

No matter how many times you state he is implementing a universal health care plan, it's still a lie.

But when you get down to the basics of what he supports, it’s still Government-paid-for universal healthcare.

No, that is not true, and you really don't understand this issue at all.

The govrnment is not going to be providing insurance coverage to the majority of our citizens.  He is going to be trying to find a less expensive way to cover indigents.  That is all.

The coverage for indigents is nothing new.  It predated Obama by decades.

If you received Medicare funding at your hospital, you were required by law to provide certain services.  One of the requirements was that you could never refuse service to a person who presented themselves to your institution, if you operated an E. R.

This has all been explained to you.  You yourself provided a link that provided this information.  Here you are still lying about Trump's plan.

[D-fendr]

By your standard..

I think it's fair to say you think my standard for integrity is too high in this case.

You have a candidate X for president who was a major supporter of Rep. Charlie Rangel. Supported Senate democrats, Harry Reid included. Supported House democrats, Nancy Pelosi, etc. (this is during the time Obamacare was being rammed through). Supported Hillary Clinton.

Now IF candidate X was a liberal, this would all be in accordance with his principles. However, if candidate X claimed he was a conservative and did this contrary to his own principles but did so for his own personal gain - to the detriment of his country...

You think I have too high a standard for a conservative candidate for president, candidate X's integrity is good enough.

I disagree. It's only a very low standard that candidate X could measure up to.

[KC_for_Freedom]

It makes sense to me

[D-fendr]

You're lying.

Sorry, still not taking the flame bait. Just too old for it.

[woofie]

Your argument looks good to me.

[DoughtyOne]

No problem at all.

Your false statements have been shot down using your own link.

Others who happen along now will be able to look at that and my explanations.

Thank you for raising the visibility of this issue.

The more Cruz supporters lie on the forum, but better for my candidate.

[DoughtyOne]

Me too, but I will tell you...

Watching what Cruz’s supporters are doing on the forum lying about Trump’s policies, I’m not sure if I’m going to continue to support Ted for V.P.

I had hoped it would work out, but if his team is this devious, perhaps it’s best if he not be included.

[D-fendr]

Thank you, woofie; I appreciate you saying so on here.

[D-fendr]

We do agree that it would be good for all to read/view the interview.

I’m fine with passionate disagreement - we’re here and have been here because we are passionate about our country and our views and opinions on issues and candidates.

Heated debate is fine; disagreement is fine - more than fine, it’s essential to getting to the truth. Name calling, lack of respect and courtesy, calling those who disagree liars..

I think it is counter-productive, not helpful for coherent debate or the forum in general. I just don’t do it, don’t continue in those discussions.

Thanks for your reply and I hope we can argue our positions and disagreements in the future.

[DoughtyOne]

It is never my intention to give an older person a hard time.

I want you to be here, and I do not enjoy taking someone to task.

When someone says something inaccurate about my candidate, I try to explain why they are wrong.

This isn’t personal between you and I. I just don’t think it’s right to bear false witness against Trump.

I try not to do it against Ted. I made a non-factual comment today about his policy, and was made aware I was wrong. I apologized and discontinued repeating the inaccurate comment.

It is disturbing to conduct myself that way to try to be fair to Ted, and then see his supporters just blatantly saying falsehoods for months on end. And yes, that is happening right now on the forum.

So if I run into you on another thread, perhaps we’ll be able to agree. I am sorry to have felt like I needed to confront you on this issue.

Take care.

[DoughtyOne]

I guess what disturbs me is when you say Trump advocates universal health care.

He doesn’t. When I took the trouble to explain to you that he didn’t, and even explained what universal health care is so you would understand that he didn’t, you went right ahead and called it universal health care.

Once you know, and you repeat it anyway, isn’t that an untruth?

We’ve got a guy on the forum that posts a chart that gives Trump a bad mark on the Second Amendment.

Trump has put out a position paper on the Second Amendment which has been widely applauded. I and others explained that to him. He continues to post that dishonest chart.

Trump the other day said he wished all conceal carry permit holders would carry.

None the less, this guy still posts the chart that depicts Trump weak on the Second Amendment.

That is dishonest.

I don’t see Trump people being dishonest about the other candidates.

I do see Cruz people being dishonest about Trump daily.

[D-fendr]

Thank you.

I really believe what I’m saying.

Tell me I’m grossly mistaken and missing the point and don’t know what the real issue is, etc.. But I’m not lying. I really believe what I say. And I certainly can be wrong and always hope I can admit it when I realize it.

>>”When someone says something inaccurate about my candidate, I try to explain why they are wrong.”

I appreciate that. It’s really what I like about FR: knowledgeable people, passionate about their beliefs, debating important matters. We will get called on our facts and sources and have to be able to support our arguments. I would not want it otherwise.

>>” I am sorry to have felt like I needed to confront you on this issue.”

And I am sorry that I sparked that response. I can do better in my tone and demeanor -and respect - while stating my views and positions. I’m going to improve on this from here on.

My sincere thanks and FReegards..

[D-fendr]

I’ll reply to this post as soon as I can; hopefully tomorrow.

God bless and good night...

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Just to clear things up (I had the family over for an early Thanksgiving dinner yesterday), I do not work for anyone, and I guess the silliness about if I’m a guy or a gal has been raised (for several days now) - I’m what used to be considered an old woman (so no monthly issues - another worry mentioned on the forum).

Thank you onyx for standing up for sanity on my behalf.