Posted on 08/31/2015 12:43:37 AM PDT by Behind the Blue Wall
Another glaring example of Donald Trump's liberalism, a part that is here and now and not in the past.
If you say so, dear caww. I have nothing more to add.
Again, dear South40, what sense of "liberal" are you applying to Donald Trump — classical, Lockean, rooted-in-Judeo-Christianity liberalism, or the bastardized, socialist interpretation?
I gather you intend the latter.
But I have yet to see substantiating evidence from you if the latter is, indeed, the case in your mind.
In the end, you are, in this conservative forum, defending a liberal candidate and his liberal ideals, many which are shared with the worst in the democRAT party such as Pelosi and Reid.
My point is: What is the "truest" sense of that word?
Truth is not some kind of smorgasbord from which one is free to sample as one chooses, to pick out the stuff one likes, and reject all the rest.
I note you continue to use the present tense WRT The Donald, based on stuff he has said in the past — as if he was ineluctably bound by statements made years ago.
I gather that you, like many people, are frustrated that they can't put The Donald into some kind of convenient box. What such folks end up doing is coming up with explanations that satisfy them. But this wouldn't be the first time that I have encountered anti-Trump arguments that, in the final analysis, tell me more about them, the people making the argument, than they tell me about The Donald.
But clearly, your mind is thoroughly made up, and is hermetically sealed against other views and perspectives that, as systematic analyses, are worthy of respect.
You appear utterly immune from any kind of persuasion that doesn't fall into line with your already thoroughly determined notions.
In a situation like this, there's really nothing for us to talk about.
But thank you so much for sharing your views all the same.
You gather wrongly.
Donald Trump is a liberal in that he supports leftist policies and leftist candidates. You can continue trying to spin that but you can't change it and I will no longer waste any more of my time entertaining your denials. Bye.
Are you finding this as funny as I am?
Now it isn’t enough to peg someone as a liberal on FR. You have to specify what kind, LOL.
Bye! (And good riddance: I do not regard you as a good-faith collaborator on these questions.)
It is insufferable to me that you have a mania for accusing me of perpetrating a "ruse," of being some kind of a sophist, rather than a seeker of the truth of reality, regarding the most critical, existential problems now facing our nation.
Just in case you have never heard of what a sophist is: You have to go back to another root of the American constitutional order, besides Christianity. And that would be classical philosophy.
I am a long-time student of Plato. He detested sophists. They made their living out of promulgating mere opinion, or doxa.
Doxa is the polar opposite of Aletheia logos, which translates as "likely story." The "logos" part here refers to Truth; the "aletheia" part refers to the divine origin of Truth — which we humans never see completely, in full, because the Source of Truth is utterly beyond or outside of the creation and thus outside of human grasp. Which is why it cannot ever be a state of complete knowledge, but only the telling of the "likely story." Truth is divine; doxa is purely human, and usually transgresses against the very idea of the divine because its tendency is ever to "make man the measure."
So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
No. I don't find it "funny" at all. I find it tragic.
Because Trump is so strong on the border, and on trade, I’ve been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is a nationalist and a pragmatist. After 8 years of toxic nutcakery, a pragmatic nationalist would be a breath of fresh air.
Still, I’m aware that he is not a conservative, certainly not a social conservative as we interpret it.
I am concerned about his response to the Planned Parenthood thing, for example. They are decapitating babies and selling the heads, and most of our politicians are content to argue about how much we are going to pay them for doing it. Trump is clearly shocked by them, but is not prepared to make this an issue.
I suspect that, while he may be personally against abortion, he doesn’t want to get bogged down in that issue. Fine. Still, decapitating babies ought to be a fairly straightfoward thing, sort of like the inverse of Mom and Apple Pie.
I get the same vibe on homosexual marriage. Not personally for it, but not personally upset by it either. He is not prepared to go to the mat for Kim Davis. For him this is all a distraction from more important matters. I think it mystifies him that she would be jailed over it, but it mystifies him just as much that she would be willing to be jailed over it.
He has spoken out strongly on Obama’s not-a-treaty with Iran. Thats good. It depends on what day if he is prepared to tear up the not-a-treaty, but he is committed to Cruz’s anti-agreement-rally. So that speaks well.
He has spoken out strongly against ISIS, so thats good. I don’t think everyone realizes that we are headed back into war, and no one really wants to raise that specter in the middle of an election, but people should not kid themselves. War is coming. The next president will be a war president. I think Trump knows that. I know that Cruz knows it. I don’t think any of the others have really thought it through. They are just applying for a job.
Let’s say for the purpose of argument that Donald Trump is this big bombastic billionaire liberal that you have been throwing out on these threads and that he is bamboozling many conservatives with a bunch of doubletalk.
What do you see this big liberal doing in his first 4 years of office that will harm the United States?
Good question. I see him ceding all of the social issues. They aren't important to him.
I see him doing as he said, negotiating trade deals that will bring manufacturing back to the US.
I see him doing as he said, building the military. He'll have to, I think a storm is coming.
I see him trying to strike some kind of deal with Iran if he can. I don't think I will be happy with any deal he strikes. I don't think he will want to fight them, but he may not have a choice. I think he knows that, so he'll try to avoid it. But his appetite for appeasement is pretty short.
I think he will try to strike a deal to cut the legs out from under ISIS. I don't think he'll want open warfare but I don't think he'll be satisfied with the in-between situation we have now.
He will simplify the tax code. Not enough to satisfy me unless he has brought Cruz into his cabinet, but he will simplify it.
He will build a triple fence from El Paso to San Diego. He will deport every foreign felon that falls into the system. He will draw a hard line on illegals already in the country but there won't be any mass deportations.
There will be a lot of loud-mouthery as he mocks and threatens his opponents at home and abroad, and that will get old. But he will win most of the fights he picks.
He will get annoying and Cruz is going to look pretty good.
Thats what my crystal ball says.
Good points but I asked what ***harm*** he will do.
And I am waiting for the Walkettes to chime in a little tune that they like to dance to (but not much anyone else cares for).
I was trying to think that through in my response. I don't like that he will cede all the social issues. Those things do bother me. Thats a harm.
On just about everything having to do with trade, sovereignty, taxes, economics, military, infrastructure, I am inclined to take him at his word.
He would not be perfect, and he will be facing a dangerous world. But he would be a very pro-American president whatever his defects.
> “I don’t like that he will cede all the social issues. Those things do bother me. Thats a harm.”
What social issue in particular do you think he will ‘cede’ and how is it a harm?
Here's a hint...do you trust a liberal to make conservative appointments to the USSC?
I don't.
You’re speculating. It’s good to question Donald Trump what he would look for in nominating a USSC Justice but it’s no guarantee that any selection would be good for the United States even if Donald Trump turned out to everybody’s sweetheart of a conservattve.
Two of Ronald Reagan’s supreme court nominations were Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. How’d that work out for the United States?
Barring speculative responses that are not directly related to the original question, let’s be precise.
If he is as you say he is a liberal, what specifically would this alleged liberal named Donald Trump do that would make the United States ***worse*** than it is now?
It's not speculation to believe a liberal will nominate a liberal. And Donald Trump is a liberal.
If he is as you say he is a liberal, what specifically would this alleged liberal named Donald Trump do that would make the United States ***worse*** than it is now?
I have already answered that question, you just seem hell-bent on ignoring my response. So be it.
I’ll repeat:
Two of Ronald Reagan’s supreme court nominations were Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. How’d that work out for the United States?
What do you see this big liberal doing in his first 4 years of office that will harm the United States?"
All right. For our purposes here, you accept that he is a liberal.
In view of that, why is your question even necessary? It's rather mind-boggling to think a conservative would require an explanation as to why a liberal president would be anything but a disaster.
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.