Donald TRUMP is a RINO.. you know?..
Posted on 08/31/2015 12:43:37 AM PDT by Behind the Blue Wall
Why Trump?
1. Illegal immigration is the only issue; if it's not stopped soon, America will become like California -- a demographic one-party state.
2. Politics is about name-recognition and none of the other candidates besides Trump has the name recognition to challenge Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.
Therefore, Trump is the only candidate with a chance to win who has promised to do the only thing that matters.
Anything you have to say is worthless. You abandoned reason a long time ago.
Anything you have to say is worthless. You abandoned reason a long time ago.
I love Molly Pitcher... YOU.. the jury is out.. don’t look good..
I think that's a fair description. It seems pretty obvious to me that he is no sort of ideologue. People who want to brand him as a "socialist" or a "liberal" or a "fascist" are very likely barking up the wrong tree. Rather, he seems to gravitate to realism, which the Oxford Dictionary defines as "the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly."
South40 has compiled an impressive litany of all the ways The Donald is a "liberal." Yet my sense is Trump isn't ideological enough to be a liberal, as that term is now understood. Plus implicit in South40's argument is the idea that "past determines future." But if that were true, then learning from life experience would be irrelevant to, even futile, in changing the future course of one's life. Certainly my own personal history disconfirms such an understanding....
But "populist" and "nationalist" do seem to be fair descriptors of the tenor of The Donald's basic disposition and manner of thinking.
The Oxford Dictionary defines "populism" as "support for the concerns of ordinary people"; and "nationalism" as "patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts." It seems to me that The Donald is the genuine article on both measures.
But is he a "conservative?" The Oxford Dictionary defines "conservatism" as: "(1) Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation; (2) the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas."
You suspect not, dear marron. It is dubious to me that The Donald is opposed to change or innovation. Almost certainly he favors free enterprise and private ownership. But "socially conservative ideas?" Trump is a doer, not an intellectual. He may be a work in progress respecting such ideas. For as you observed, WRT Planned Parenthood, "Trump was apparently shocked by what he found out about them but can’t quite bring himself to reject them." As a pragmatist, The Donald will need to recognize that rejection and defunding of PP will be necessary, if he wishes to get the votes of Tea Party voters, and other social conservatives regardless of party affiliation. Hopefully, as a populist, he will recognize that concerns about PP and its hideous mission are very much the concerns of a majority of "ordinary people," and act accordingly.
He said he did not represent the interests of anyone — not party, not lobbyists, not groups or individuals bent on preserving the status quo that benefits them at the expense of the concerns of ordinary Americans — but only the interests of the American people themselves. That is a very tall order, indeed.
I am a tremendous admirer of Ted Cruz for his indisputable commitments to constitutional and social conservatism. As you say, "He isn’t perfect, but he is almost perfect, he is head and shoulders above anyone we’ve seen in a couple of decades." Yet as I recall from an earlier post you wrote, you perceive that he might have a bit of a charisma deficit. Certainly as compared to The Donald, this is true. Notwithstanding, I would LOVE to see him in the Oval Office one day, in four or eight years. Perhaps a good way to do that would be to team up with The Donald: A Trump/Cruz ticket, if successful, could be amazingly beneficial to both men. Plus I note that they seem to admire one another....
Well, just some thoughts, FWTW. I really don't have a clue how all this is going to turn out, there is still so much time to go before America votes. And we seem to be at a very novel juncture in American history, where we simply cannot rely on past experience to tell us how the future will turn out. We are breaking entirely new territory, a new kind of "post-Party," "post-Washington" existential position....
Thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your insightful essay/post!
So you "feel" like he isn't a liberal even though his long history reveals him to be just that? lol! OK.
Plus implicit in South40's argument is the idea that "past determines future."
This isn't just Trumps past. As recently as 2013 (2 years ago) he praised gun grabber Michael Bloomberg as "Brilliant" for "putting his money where his mouth is" in trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens. He has also said the sham known as gay marriage "is the law of the land". He also recently said he would keep the good parts of Planned Parenthood. He also recently said he would allow the "good" ILLEGAL aliens to return to America. His liberalism isn't just in his past, it is also part of who he is now.
As for his past, Trump is not a politician so we do not have a voting record on which to judge. What we do have is his long history of supporting liberal causes and politicians. That should not and can not be ignored. It should be factored in with his current liberal leanings to determine if his is worthy of the Republican nomination. It's called vetting.
vet
verb
investigate (someone) thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.
For what its worth, I believe his refusal to back Kim Davis is important.
I think he needs to re-think this position.
Donald TRUMP is a RINO.. you know?..
Very good thoughtful post, dripping with reality.
I will, thank you!
I can't agree, because (as a "conservative") I continue to hold to the original definition of the word "liberal," and reject the total inversion of its meaning that has occurred over the past 100 years or so. Which has become the commonly-accepted, if mindless, definition nowadays.
[The term "marriage" has recently suffered a similar fate, at the hands of five black robed lawyers who were clearly acting beyond the scope of their Article III constitutional authority.]
John Locke coined the term, "liberal," which refers to the natural (or God-given) liberty interests of individuals — e.g., life, liberty, property — that no State may infringe, but rather must uphold and defend if it is to be regarded as a "legitimate" government.
Classical — Lockean — liberalism holds that only the human individual can be the bearer of inalienable rights.
Socialism, communism, fascism are totally, even willfully blind to the very notion of the human being as an individual. All of these ideologies hold that there are no "individuals"; human beings are only members of abstract groups, or classes. It is the group or the class that is the bearer of "rights," never the individual person.
To my mind, this understanding of "who is the bearer of rights?" goes against the very grain of human nature and human historical experience.
And the political Left in our country, principally the Democrat Party, has moved inexorably to effect this shift in understanding as to the "Who is the bearer of rights?" question. But any understanding that rights inhere in groups, not in persons, is utterly false. Which is why the outcomes achieved by socialist, communist, and fascist ideologies have always resulted in disaster, entailing incalculable human suffering.
But I have to tell you, dear caww, Progressivism on my view is hideously worse than these other ideologies. It is premised in nihilism, anarchism, and the total destruction of anything in the common human experience, notably including the historical institutions on which people rely, to justly organize their experience as human individuals living in community. Wipe out everything that exists, raze it all right down to the ground, because this is what is required for one to build entirely new structures designed to effect the realization of a "brave new world" made in the image of men, or of a man, that concentrates all liberty and power in the hands of the State. People are reduced to the status of herd animals: They have only the "rights" that the State says they have. And these can change on a daily basis.
All of which is to say that Obama is not a socialist. He is a hardcore Progressive. And he has been extraordinarily successful at implementing Progressive policies — which, again, are designed to raze the common American historical experience, reducing it to a policy of fomenting strife between set-up contending groups by divide and conquer tactics. The resulting chaos is such that the State must step in to impose its own notion of "public order."
In short, I note profound differences between Socialism and Progressivism. And that, on the classical view, Liberalism is not just another term for Socialism....
Just some thoughts, FWTW. Thank you so very much for writing, dear caww!
I totally agree. He should have taken a page from Ted Cruz....
[The term “marriage” has recently suffered a similar fate, at the hands of five black robed lawyers who were clearly acting beyond the scope of their Article III constitutional authority.]
“Liberals”.. change their handle(s) frequently to confuse republicans(conservatives)....
AND IT DOES... while blanching about the new “liberal” designation mantra they(liberals) have moved on.....
Conservatives NEED TO learn to talk “ liberaleze “..
OR... they are talking to the Choir.
OR... up an echo chamber..
Ted Cruz = main direction - RESTORE the Constitution..
TRump = main direction- Use Executive orders.. to get things “done”.. like: well you know..
One is FOR the US Constitution.. the Other merely tolerates it.. like; you know..
The choice on WHICH to select.. is ridiculously easy..
Good post.
For what its worth, I avoid the use of the word “liberal” with respect to the Left for all the reasons you cite, because the left is “anything but” liberal.
So I’ll call them leftists, Democrats, socialists, fascists, populists, marxists, utopians, and even “progressives” though again, they are anything but.
American conservatives are generally speaking classic liberals rooted in a judeo-christian world view. We are, generally, constitutionalists, but the constitution is the quintessential classic liberal document.
I’m not all that happy with the word “conservative” simply because it leaves the open question, what are you conserving? Which is why Hayek wasn’t happy with the word. An American conservative isn’t the same thing as a european conservative, for example. He may be a traditionalist, but the traditions again go right back to our founding philosophy, John Locke classic liberalism soaked in the Old and New Testament. In the American context, most people understand it in the way we use it, except when they are trying to confuse an issue.
Indeed, so true, dear brother in Christ. Nowadays, a huge body of immigrants to our nation, illegal and legal, integrate into American society; but they do not assimilate to it.
But we praise them for their "diversity."
My Polish immigrant (legal) grandparents, though it was difficult for them to assimilate, largely because of poor English-language skills, made absolutely SURE that their seven children (including my late mother) WOULD assimilate.
Mom certainly did that, in spades. Seeing that her nation needed her at a time of perilous crisis, she enlisted in the U.S. Navy, and served four years as a Navy Nurse lieutenant jg in the South Pacific, during WWII. She served in MASH units, in POW camps; she lost three nursing colleagues to sniper fire. Her allegiance to her country saw her through it all.
She also availed herself of an excellent American education, and raised her kids up to be thorough-going Americans.
Indeed, to such an extent that I find myself regretting sometimes, that the Polish language became extinct in my family; and nobody now knows anything about how to prepare Polish cuisine....
In todays multicultural and diverse populations the name of the game is nothing is right or wrong...everybody thinks and does his own thing......it’s now really all about about winning or loosing by whatever means is possible.....Therefore it’s very difficult to pigeonhole people under a label as most do seem to operate from a “It’s about me” position, and that where ever the wind blows that might suit them where they are at in the moment.
In a world of shadows and grays, you need your compass more than ever.
....though given food and water many were filmed dumping them as they want to be "victims" and reap the media results they are seeking in order to get the Worlds attention to take care of them...this is standard proceedures in their home countrys as well when they want the Worlds attention ....
The vast majority of immigrants are young men escaping from having to go to war for their country...they are mostly Economic immigrants....80% OF TURKISH MUSLIM SETTLERS IN GERMANY LIVE OFF WELFARE.... 70% of their children have little basic education leaving school before they finished even the basics....... The mindset "believes" Europes benefit programs are intended to keep them for life......some make sufficient off benefits they buy classic cars and great homes as evidenced and spoken by their former landlords........they also willing saying why should they work when they make more on benefits....they believe they are entitled just by going to the host country they choose as their target....
Those from African most of them are also economic migrants and young men escaping having to fight for their country or origin...., who are mostly illiterate, have questionable hygienic habits, and haven't the slightest idea of how to live in a civilized society.....news media are not reporting on the increases of rape and crimes against woman and children by many of the "tribal" populations coming into Europe and America.........both from the Muslim groups and African Groups
Here you have immigrants seeking the benifit lifestyle 'avoid being processed' by escaping camp in Hungry so they can continue to rich countries.......They are migrating for increased wealth transfer in the form of increased benefits and other methods....then they will attempt to install the same loser Islamic cultures that caused them to flee in the first place....
You are overlooking the plight of Christians seeking safety from crucifixion or other hideous forms of death at the hands of Islamist Jihadi radicals, simply because they will not reject our Lord Jesus Christ. They are in existential peril if they remain in their historic homelands.
It seems to me a substantial plurality of these recent "migrants" are not motivated by expected economic improvement of their condition, but by the simple desire to continue to exist.
The plight of these people is heartbreaking to me!
...”In a world of shadows and grays, you need your compass more than ever”....
Most definitely!... Nothing is at it appears to be....it’s framed to be whatever mirage will work for a desired end.
You know the story of the immigrants wife and two children who drowned escaping making the news headlines World Wide?....well I did some deep digging on this man and family....He did not come from Syria, though was born there, had lived ;for years; in Turkey...he was an economic immigrant seeking the benifits many from Turkey are receiving in Germany....but the press and International leaders are running it to attain International Co-operation on placement of these peoples.
Same with the guy who threw his wife and child on the train tracks.....the idea is to attain front page news and thereby public outcry against nation leaders who are not co-operating as demanded in this massive and purposeful redistribution of wealth and populations.
No I'm not overlooking them.....they are precious few compared to the masses....the Christians generally are requesting asylum through the proper authorites who are indeed placing them...but that is not newsworthy.... ...and the fact the Muslims know they can claim they are Christians, without vetting or visa requirements, actually prevents the true Christians from getting out...
Too many forget that the Muslims are liars and cheats and vastly encouraged to do so and perfectly acceptable to gain admittance into a European nation...and they do just that....in fact amongst their own they boast of this very thing. The time to rescue the truly deserving Christians unfortunately has passed to that of all the others overwhelming every system in every country they're running to get into....a price the UN and Other nation leaders are willing to pay .....
Indeed, classical liberalism is rooted in the Judeo-Christian point of view. That is the motive for changing the meaning of the word, "liberal," to make it say something else entirely, something that literally inverts the earlier understanding of that word.
So when people toss out the word "liberal" in conversation, what I want to know is which meaning of the word they are using. Is it the classical (Lockean) meaning, or the currently fashionable socialist perversion of it?
This is of tremendous importance. For the former defines "rights" as inhering in individuals; the latter, in terms of "group rights" — which conceivably may differ from group to group, depending on one's group affiliation.
The former specifies a rule of Law; the latter, a rule of Men.
No possibility of "equal justice" in the latter scenario....
You wrote:
I’m not all that happy with the word “conservative” simply because it leaves the open question, what are you conserving? Which is why Hayek wasn’t happy with the word. An American conservative isn’t the same thing as a european conservative, for example. He may be a traditionalist, but the traditions again go right back to our founding philosophy, John Locke classic liberalism soaked in the Old and New Testament. In the American context, most people understand it in the way we use it, except when they are trying to confuse an issue.Indeed. Of course, the best way to ensure the confusion of any issue is to erode the historical meaning of words. It is impossible to have a successful communication with another person who defines the critical meaning of the terms of debate in "innovative" ways.
What you get instead is a Tower of Babel situation....
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.