Maybe we should chug on over to mamby pamby land, where maybe we can find someone more favorable to you.
Posted on 11/20/2015 11:30:00 PM PST by 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."
Maybe we should chug on over to mamby pamby land, where maybe we can find someone more favorable to you.
Your feelings are your feelings, and if you say that that article tees up your feelings well the truth of that statement is between you and your therapist.
The issue is what you do with your feelings and how you act on them. Have you subjected your feelings to careful rational analysis to "validate" them? Or, are you just squishy like all who suffer TDS and fail to interject analysis between tingles and tongue.
What we can say with some certainty, however, is that if your feelings have been teed up, it has not been done nicely, but a bombastic rant of nothingness, e.g. "Will you replace your hair with spaghetti and your fingers with soup spoons?"
That isn't even good Edward Lear nonsense.
The main decision making aspect which Trump has put out is the use of the doctrine that what is best for the common American will guide his decisions. It is admittedly vague and sometimes difficult to determine, but it is a good doctrine.
If you are a legal immigrant arriving on a green card obtained prior to entry through application to INS, you are in the database and stay so forever. If you are undocumented, then I guess you cannot remain undocumented if you become documented, so you cannot be entered or you are no longer undocumented.
Watched her act last night and this is all I have to say on the subject.
The followers of some candidates better pull their heads out, because if this continues this forum, I will never vote for their candidate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3363256/posts?page=46#46
Oh, BS. Everyone in business has to play some games with "the man" or you don't survive the regulatory nightmare that affects even a 10-year old's lemonade stand - speaking of which, do you consider the child who runs an illegal lemonade operation crony capitalist and her mother a hypocrite. What about public health. What about fairness to those who pay their licensing fees.
Under your definition, breathing is hypocrisy, and even worse in your book is the hypocrisy of seeking to reform a corrupt system so that one can breath unhypocritically while continuing to breath, hypocritically.
<< There is a war on CW, I don’t appreciate it. One can make comments without purposely degrading/insulting the other. >>>>
HA! This the whiny one, back on CW’s incitement thread, whining how others are whiny.
This is Pot calling the Kettle black, and looks like *fmj is right— mama poster hits and runs, toys with us for her Saturday fun. LOL!!
Is libbylu baby-whiny out for her day trip, herself? Libby is poster child for GOP, CW, who pokes the front runner and his supporters who put him there.
CW is nervous to show her lace against the Trump machine with such intense regularity.
Cheer up, CW, you can count on the Trump Card, LLS to give Trump trouble and you can give cash or in kind contribution right along with SOROS, but if Trump should be taken out, obviously your guy isn’t going anywhere.
Excellent commentary as always Rita, but I’m actually more inclined to feel sorry for CW, I mean she’s two-for-two, first Perry, now Walker, I’ve been thinking about starting a betting pool on who she might take out next, she won’t tell us who she really supports, which protects that candidate from whatever deadly mojo she generates.
To imagine that kind of mystic power coming out of a low-rent Peggy Noonan, it just boggles the mind.
Is this poster for CRUZ now? Yikes! Cruz doesn’t usually hire on agitators does he?
PRICELESS.
Its called “winning”! By winning in every endeavor like treaties, deals and wars, it will “make America great again.” Not a hard concept to follow.
Poor Old Ted Cruz. Now he has the FR kiss of death pushing his campaign. My worst nightmare is she will start liking Trump. LOL!
....and Barack Obama has done remarkably better in two elections than anyone you’ve ever supported in your life. And those are not polls, those are elections. So are you sure you want to stand by that logic??????
You have made up your mind so convincing you that you are wrong would be a waste of time.
But for the record you are wrong!
Trump is leading hillary solidly at the moment.
(as are several Republicans, I will admit)
However you seem to just be posting to start an argument. So I am responding, with an argument.
If you would like.
:D
Even without your vote Trump wins by yuge margins!!!!
<<< To imagine that kind of mystic power coming out of a low-rent Peggy Noonan, it just boggles the mind. >>>>
ROTFL!!!
It’s a cult around here, when CW pulls the legs of grasshoppers with her threads. I have been shocked. Not even sure it is CW. I think libby took over her computer and pecks out a message pretending to be a grown up.
ABOUT YOUR BETTING POOL, Jessup!
CW is GOP all the way, so I bet 70 she goes in for RUBIO.
Put me down for 70 on CW & Rubio! Now, the kid, libby...I figure she goes for whoever CW tells her to go for, so put me down for 30 on Rubio!
libbylu & Rubio! Yeah, that’s the GOP newest ticket.
Ok! (little pun there) ;)
Got you down for:
70 on CW & Rubio
30 on lil libby & Rubio
Hope Rubio has his Last Political Will & Testament in order, lol
Bump. And it was a position that was 100% vindicated by the release of the Venona materials, which documented and nailed to the floor the truth of McCarthy's allegations about the "253 names" -- except that McCarthy was short a few dozen.
As documented by Ann Coulter in Treason, the people accused by McCarthy were in fact Soviet informants and agents and couriers, including the liberal newspapermen's favorite "poor honest colored lady", a DC resident who was purloining classified message traffic and giving it to the KGB. I'd like to have a dollar for every time "Tail Gunner Joe" was accused by the Usual Suspects of racism in that case; I could probably buy a new car.
Great insight, their GA Girl, coming over to TRUMP!! Dread THAT!
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.