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."
Well, I’m glad to see you’re coming around, woofie.
I cannot imagine posting “as a Cruz hater” (as I’m not!), but I give you credit for your honesty. Glad you are liking Trump, more and more....hope it gets you away from the hate ;-)
Like this nation "threw the alcohol war under the bus"?
Not sure I understand what you mean.
I mean that the War on Drugs has all the practical and philosophical failings of the War on Alcohol aka Prohibition.
he presented this as a compromise, to let the Republicans win, even though, sneakily, he may actually want it for its own sake.
Very sneaky of him to devote only an entire chapter of his book (which one can read at https://books.google.com/books?id=mI1oBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT109&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4) to principled and policy reasons why the war on drugs should end (with only passing mention in that chapter of the political advantages).
Well, at the very least be sure to courtesy ping them (or anyone you’re mentioning in a post), so they can respond for themselves.
“CW is off to another thread after posting this little bombing thread. Amazing troll work and ducks out to a devout thread kissing the proletariat beneath her/him.”
Why should he stay around? He posted an article, and then lets others debate it. This is not being a “troll.”
Just because someone posts something “negative” about Mr. Trump does not make them a “Troll.” For that matter, being against Mr. Trump does not one a “Troll” either.
There are a great many on this forum that have quite reasonable objections to Mr. Trump and have been beaten into silence for fear of being labelled a “Troll” by zealous supporters of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump’s proclivity to insult opposition is having a very bad influence on some that support him. Please don’t be that way.
“I’m a Cruz guy,but I fail to see how Trump is ruining the GOP primaries. Could you enlighten me please.”
Mr. Trump is keeping a real conservative like Senator Cruz from getting the nomination. Also, in my opinion, he is making many promises he cannot or will not keep.
“Also, as a staunch conservative,did you vote for GW Bush?”
I am primarily a “social/morale” conservative. That defines me best. Yes, I did vote for President G.W. Bush and have no regrets about doing so (he did, of course, make some bad mistakes). I was proud to have served in a military status with him as Commander in Chief.
... I spent much of Friday afternoon rewatching that clip as though it was the Zapruder film and--I can't believe I'm about to say this--I think Trump's technically right: He doesn't explicitly advocate for creating the database. Yes, he seems to go along with the general idea after the reporter asks him about it--but he also doesn't explicitly endorse it either. The reporter is asking about Muslims in America, but Trump appears unable to imagine that group includes U.S. citizens, which is probably why he immediately starts talking about the wall--a telling blind spot for a man campaigning on nativist anger and fear ...Now, let's look at all the transcript excerpted in the article:
The reporter is asking about the database, but Trump is talking about his beloved wall, as his very next answer makes clear.Reporter: What do you think the effect of that would be, how would it work?...
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally.
Reporter: Should there be database that tracks the Muslims that are in this country?...
Trump: There should be a lot of systems, beyond database. We should have a lot of systems and today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what's happening to this country happen any longer.
Reporter: But that's something your White House would like to implement?...
Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
Reporter: What do you think the effect of that would be, how would it work?...
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally.
Reporter: Would they have to legally be in this database?...
Trump: They have to be--, they have to be--, the key is people can come to this country but they have to be here legally.
Swing by post #422. I fixed it.
Now, if you elect to defend incitement, what can I say?
As for me, I don’t appreciate it, and generally tend to give as good as I get, against vacuous threads full of edited and false interpretations of Trump, designed to cause a food fight.
They can courteously take a flying leap!
Wouldn’t Cruz make a great Attorney General?
Trump is assembling his team. I LOVE that he uses Jeff Sessions as his immigration advisor. That tells me that Trump’s compass is set at true north.
No more Bushys and no more Bushy ladies in waiting such as Rubio, Christie, etc.
You're 'feelings' are pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things don't ya' think?
Good question erlayman. Thanks for your post. I’m just now on FR after a long day at work and hanging out with the family for dinner.
You didn’t read what I wrote. Of course he was going to give reasons. My point, which I guess wasn’t explicit enough, was that this is what he wants for personal reasons. Same with gay marriage.
The pro-life issue doesn’t affect him personally that much, so I kind of doubt his pro-life dedication.
I don’t equate drugs and alcohol, either. That is just way too easy an comparison for pro-drug people to make.
It was quite a while ago that I read it but I remember that I didn’t find it convincing.
Borders, language, culture, man. Be well.
no argument....just pointing out that your reliance on the polling opens you up to some intellectual inconsistencies.....that sort of ruin your main point.
Leading a poll is a good thing, but it is not proof of a candidate’s worthiness necessarily. And again, Obama would be a great example.
Reagan won by bigger margins than Barack...though in raw percentage Obama did better than Reagan 08 versus 1980 (there was a third parry candidate in 1980).
What are those personal reasons and how do you know he has them?
I don't equate drugs and alcohol, either.
Nobody "equates" alcohol and any other drug - but alcohol is a drug, and the War on Drugs has all the practical and philosophical failings of the War on Alcohol aka Prohibition.
Convince water it shouldn’t be wet, or something like that.
Well, here’s the HTRN take on it:
Trump has come bringing his version of Let’s Make A Deal to the American political stump.
Of COURSE he’s going to say anything’s possible. You’re uncomfortable with that? Maybe because you’ve forgotten that the body you are part of — the We The People — is oversigned on the Constitution. It fits the American model. And guess what... Trump says, let’s throw the ball to you, what do you want done with it?
Most sane people would call that Opportunity. Some really, secretly, are hankering for The Perfect Dictator. Whatever Trump is, such a thing he isn’t offering. Cruz might come closer to this, given the legacy powers of the presidency as vastly expanded by recent precedent acquiesced to.
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.